RoR: Forum

Post 0

Sunday, February 10 - 12:11pm

Link

Edit

Here is a definition that effectively differentiates Neo-Conservatives from other existing political entities:

============

A member of the Republican Party who legislates and executes according to the following 5 “values” …

(1) Big Government (spending >15% of the GDP; preferably twice or more of that proportion)

(2) Extensive Military Deployment (persistently deploying >1% of all 18-25 year olds overseas)

(3) Secret Police (or a Domestic Spying program)

(4) Pragmatism; including “Noble Lies” (to confuse the U.S. public)

(5) The appearance of overt Religiosity (“pro-life” public policies, etc)

============

That’s 5 useful standards for identifying NeoCons. Being part of the Republican Party is kind of a 6^th standard – but it could

also be collapsed into standards 4 and 5: the pragmatic Noble Lie standard; and the appearance of overt Religiosity.

Interestingly, Bush recently praised McCain as a “true conservative”:

John McCain is a "true conservative," President Bush says, …

… McCain "is very strong on national defense," Bush said …

… He is pro-life. His principles are sound and solid …

Knowing that McCain is a member of the Republican Party who …

--plans on spending more than 15% of the GDP (and likely close to double that proportion);

--plans on keeping more than 1% of 18-25 year olds militarily deployed;

--defended Bush’s post-911, not-FISA-approved, domestic spying;

--uses Noble Lies like a champion;

--and appears overtly Religious

… Bush should have said he’s a “true Neo-Conservative” – in order to avoid a definition by non-essentials!

Post 1

Sunday, February 10 - 12:52pm

Link

Edit

Ed,

You said ">15%", which is true but "conservative." :-)

Federal government spending in recent years has been about 20%. Add state and local government spending and the total comes to around 36%.

Post 2

Sunday, February 10 - 1:11pm

Link

Edit

Some useful articles:

C. Bradley Thompson on neoconservatism

and a recent blog post by Ed Cline

outlining the history of conservative politics in the early 20th century.

and, from Wikipedia:

Neoconservatism

[Update: Middle link repaired. Also, corrected first link which incorrectly pointed to the same article as the second.]

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 2/10, 1:42pm)

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 2/10, 1:43pm)

Post 3

Sunday, February 10 - 1:16pm

Link

Edit

hehe. Good one, Merlin!

I chose 15% as the benchmark because there was a study done (by the Heritage Foundation?) which proved that it's detrimental to have a government any bigger than that. A proper response to this finding would be to limit government down to the point beyond which you have proved it to cause a net harm to society.

Folks who willfully ignore this finding are evil statists who know that they are going to cause more harm than good; but try to lie and keep the U.S. public confused and, by default, subordinate to their evil aims.

They are kind of like terrorists, in a certain, twisted way.

Ed

Post 4

Sunday, February 10 - 1:23pm

Link

Edit

Thanks, Jeff.

But your middle link doesn't work.

:-/

Ed

Post 5

Monday, February 11 - 1:51am

Link

Edit

Ed,

McCain is the consummate pragmatist and a counterfeit neocon. He has done a complete 180 on his religious views since his 2000 campaign. Here is what he had to say then:

“Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics or the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakan and Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson and Jerry Farwell on the right.”

--John McCain, 2-28-2000

Here’s the youtube link for the “Doubletalk Express”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbrejLsixwk

With respect to domestic spying, I am obviously aware of the principles involved, but I see today’s global terrorist threat as creating a crisis comparable to circumstances mandating temporary martial law. I will be crucified by purists for saying this, but would anyone truly feel safe getting on a plane right now if the government were not imposing severe security restrictions or tapping the phone lines of suspected Islamist sympathizers?

I believe we could put a stop to the situation tomorrow by taking appropriate military measures, but the lambs who condemn all proposed attacks on bin Laden’s “innocent” fellow travelers in the Middle East are the same ones having conniption fits over the Department of Homeland Security. As long as we’re acting like cowering altruists who don’t have the moral courage or self-esteem to destroy those who would destroy us, we don’t have any choice but to let the FBI disrupt their murderous plots by any reasonable means necessary. Until and unless we decide to start defending ourselves, if letting the government read my e-mails is the price I have to pay for not getting blown up, I will gladly pay it.

Post 6

Monday, February 11 - 6:07am

Link

Edit

Just a footnote here. As I pointed out in the Armaos Flame topic, Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice have something in common, Albright's father, Josef Korbel.

On the other hand, we have someone with a 1974 BA cum laude in political science, University of Denver, MA, University of Notre Dame (1974) and then in 1981 a PhD in International Studies again from the University of Denver. (Condoleezza Rice ) We have Wellesley College (B.A with honors, 1959; political science) and Columbia Univ. (M.A., 1968; Ph.D., 1976; Public Law and Government) -- Madeleine Albright.[1]
[1] Albright's father, Josef Korbel, was one of Condoleezza Rice's professors at UD. He called her his most promising student

Domhoff's book on the ruling class did not make much headway here. There was a reflex reaction to any criticism of the wealthy. The fact is that we associate with people most like us.

Post 7

Monday, February 11 - 7:06am

Link

Edit

And DID you know that Peikoff taught at Denver a few years before Rice arrived - just in time to lay the groundwork and then hie himself to New York in order to establish an alibi.

Rand's fingerprints are all over some of the big conspiracies of recent decades. She received an honorary degree from Lewis and Clark, where Monica Lewinsky later graduated. MLKing's assassin used the pseudonym of Ernst Stavro Galt, amalgamated from Fleming and Rand. She spoke at Yale a few years before Bush arrived, enabling herself, like Peikoff, to beat a timely retreat. Yale, as we all know, is home to Skull and Bones, recruiting ground for the Trilateral Commission, the primary front group for the Insiders.

And yet people deny that the Illuminati control the Insiders!! (Or is it vice-versa?)

Post 8

Monday, February 11 - 7:41am

Link

Edit

And DID you know that Peikoff taught at Denver a few years before Rice arrived - just in time to lay the groundwork and then hie [sic] himself to New York in order to establish an alibi.

What do you mean "before Rand arrived"? "Arrived" where? Peikoff was 17 when he first met Rand and got introduced to Objectivism.

Post 9

Monday, February 11 - 9:10am

Link

Edit

Dennis, thanks for video on the anti-Falwell/pro-Falwell McCain. You also wrote:

I will be crucified by purists for saying this, but would anyone truly feel safe getting on a plane right now if the government were not imposing severe security restrictions or tapping the phone lines of suspected Islamist sympathizers?

I'm not going to crucify you, Dennis. I'm not even going to lose my cool. I'm just going to share with you that fear is never a good motive for making political decisions. I, myself, am not motivated by the fear of which you speak. I've actually never been afraid of terrorists -- even though I know of their evil and heinous acts against innocents. Let's dispassionately look at the situation you have set up. The proper response to this threat -- instance of crying out "More centralized power and control!" -- would be for airlines to adopt 3 simple measures ...

(1) security doors for the pilots' cabin
(2) non-lethal weapons for the flight attendants (e.g. 800,000 volt Telescopic Stun Batons, laser-sighted Tasers, and gel-suspended Pepper Spray)
(3) lethal weapons for the pilots

Put your boxcutters up against THAT kind of firepower.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/11, 9:13am)

Post 10

Monday, February 11 - 9:16am

Link

Edit

What do you mean "before Rand arrived"? "Arrived" where? Peikoff was 17 when he first met Rand and got introduced to Objectivism. (Bill Dwyer)

Bill, he said before RICE arrived, as in Condoleeza....unless you're making a joke, and I've missed it?

Excellent post, by the way, Peter.

Post 11

Monday, February 11 - 10:25am

Link

Edit

Ed,

Let's dispassionately look at the situation you have set up. The proper response to this threat -- instance of crying out "More centralized power and control!" -- would be for airlines to adopt 3 simple measures:

(1) security doors for the pilots' cabin
(2) non-lethal weapons for the flight attendants (e.g. 800,000 volt Telescopic Stun Batons, laser-sighted Tasers, and gel-suspended Pepper Spray)
(3) lethal weapons for the pilots….Put your boxcutters up against THAT kind of firepower.

I would favor those measures, Ed. And I agree they would help against boxcutters. But curtailing current security restrictions would open the door to letting all kinds of lethal weaponry on board. The terrorists would love nothing more than to wreck the U.S. economy by destroying the airline industry, and downing a couple of passenger jets with bombs would go a long way toward achieving that goal. Those practices would not stop a bomb. And what if one or more terrorists had assault weapons? Imagine how many passengers and flight crew they could kill before they would be stopped. If they managed to kill off the crew, taking down the plane in a well-populated area would not be that difficult.

P.S. More conspiracy theory garbage! “Excellent post???” Would RoR members please stop humoring these clowns? What a total waste of bandwidth.

Post 12

Monday, February 11 - 10:31am

Link

Edit

Oops! God, I'm losing my eyesight -- or is it my mindsight, which proves that mindsight isn't always 20/20 . . . or is that hindsight?! Rice, Rand, whatever . . . well, at least they're both women

Focus, Bill! Focus!

Post 13

Monday, February 11 - 11:09am

Link

Edit

Newbie question -- who is this Peikoff guy everyone keeps talking about, and why on earth would any Objectivist take someone seriously who, if I've correctly recalled some recent threads here, advocates voting a straight Democratic ticket, when virtually all Democratic politicians are heavily statist? (Not that the Statists Lite party, aka the GOP, is much, if any, better.)

Post 14

Monday, February 11 - 1:34pm

Link

Edit

Officer Ed was working at the carry-on baggage check booth at the airport. He spotted a potential perpetrator, Muhammed Ali al-Alalal Muhammijad, and jumped from his chair. "You, with the turban on your head, is that thing loaded?!" (pointing to an assault rifle carried on the man's shoulder).

"No!" replied the terrorist-looking man, as he placed his key-chain in the tray. Not quite believing the man, Ed sifts through the tray with intense concentration. "What's this?!" Ed said, holding up what appeared to be a fingernail clippers. The terrorist-looking man immediately turned and ran -- but Ed caught up to him and knocked him over the turban with an 800,000 volt telescopic stun baton.

We don't allow terrorists on our planes anymore, mister ... [rummages the man's pocket for the man's passport] ... mister ... al-Alalal Muhammijad! We've beefed up security now, Sucker!

Ed sticks him in the "nards" with the stun baton (for good measure) and boisterously escorts him to a holding cell.
============================

[Inspired by information contained in post 11 of this thread]

Ed

Post 15

Monday, February 11 - 1:35pm

Link

Edit

Leonard Peikoff is a professor of philosophy who is considered by many to be Ayn Rand's intellectual successor. He was associated with her for over 30 years, and, with her authorization and approval, gave courses on Objectivism and related issues. He has written what is perhaps the definitive book on her philosophy, entitled Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR, for short). which is a comprehensive, readable exposition of the basic principles of Objectivism, and is worth reading if you want a good systematic understanding of the philosophy. Any major book seller should have it, but you can also buy it from the Ayn Rand Bookstore online.

Peikoff is controversial among Objectivists, not only for his views on supporting the Democrats, but also for his willingness to "excommunicate" prominent Objectivist intellectuals if he disapproves of their views or the company they keep. When Rand spurned her lover of many years, Nathaniel Branden, for lying to her, Peikoff and other Objectivists expelled Branden and his supporters from their organization. A similar expulsion occurred with Professor David Kelley, who was associated with Peikoff until Kelley fraternized with and "tolerated" the libertarians; then he was persona non grata. Others who have differed with the Ayn Rand Institute on matters of policy (notably Economist George Reisman -- See his Capitalism: An Economic Treatise) have been similarly disenfranchised.

So there arose within the Objectivist movement a schism between the Kelleyites (or The Atlas Society -- TAS) and the Peikovians (or members of the Ayn Rand Institute -- ARI.) Kelley and those who support him are demonized as "tolerationists" and are banned from certain Objectivist blogs and websites operated by Objectivists who are sympathetic to ARI. The schism is unfortunate, because both groups have much to offer, but have had to go their separate ways, because Peikoff & company refuse to cooperate with Kelley and his organization.

Peikoff's primary reason for voting Democratic, as far as I can tell, is his strong opposition to the religious right. Apparently, he fears a movement by the Republicans towards a theocracy of sorts, and also feels that the Republicans are a lost cause and that if there is any hope for Objectivism, it lies within the Democratic Party. There are many Objectivists who disagree with him on this issue whom he's branded non-Objectivist simply for their failure to follow his recommendation and vote Democratic.

For all of his unwillingness to tolerate differences of opinion on such issues, Peikoff is very bright guy, who's written an excellent book on Objectivism. He understands Rand's philosophy very well and has done an excellent job of presenting her views to the general public.

- Bill

Post 16

Monday, February 11 - 4:05pm

Link

Edit

In answer to post #14:

The Micro Uzi, 9mm Machine Pistol Gun

THE TOP 10 NRA MYTHS ABOUT ASSAULT WEAPONS

Quote:

"Police Chief William Bratton said recently:

There is a reason that these weapons are so appealing to criminals. They are designed to be easily concealed and kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible…"

(Edited by Dennis Hardin on 2/11, 4:11pm)

Post 17

Monday, February 11 - 4:49pm

Link

Edit

Dennis regarding the post script in your post 11, I think Peter was actually kidding.

And while Uzis certainly can do a lot of damage, I don't think banning them does one bit of difference. Banning weapons are about as successful a venture as banning recreational drugs are. The best answer is to have an armed citizenry ready to defend themselves from criminals, which criminals will themselves get guns whether there is or isn't a ban.

Post 18

Monday, February 11 - 5:18pm

Link

Edit

William -- thanks for info about Peikoff and the schism thing. LOL about the schism -- I think it was Nick Gillespie at Reason.com who said something along these lines -- "Libertarians are people who agree with each other on 99% of things, and are actively seeking ways to hate each other's guts over the remaining 1%."

Newbie question set #2 -- I thought Objectivism was a subset of libertarianism -- different flavors of individualism basically-- is this some sort of heresy that would get one excommunicated? And how exactly does one get excommunicated from a branch of philosophy with no coherent central organization anyway, that appears to be a bunch of individualists who pretty much by definition can't be ex'd? And what are the main differences between people who call themselves libertarians and those who call them Objectivists? Is it impossible to be both?

I'll try to get hold of a copy of OPAR -- it'll look good alongside my copy of David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom." I may even read it. ;)

Post 19

Monday, February 11 - 6:10pm

Link

Edit

Here is an answer by Peikoff to a question about whom to vote for from his website -- http://www.peikoff.com/index.htm:
(Sorry, because I have a Mac and am using Firefox, I cannot post a direct link.)

Q: Rudy Giuliani seems to be the least disgusting Republican presidential candidate in many years. What are your thoughts of his candidacy?

A: All I know about Mr. Giuliani as a candidate is that he has already softened his stands on abortion, immigration, and Iraq. This will hardly convince conservatives but will alienate liberals; it is the classic formula for going nowhere. The major reason, however, why I would not support Mr. Giuliani is his vicious behavior some years ago toward Michael Milken in the junk bond issue of Drexel Burnham. And even beyond this, I will not vote for any Republican until the party repudiates its affiliation with Christianity, if I live that long.

And here is Peikoff on libertarianism:

Q: Are you a libertarian?

A: No. The libertarians are a group of right-wing anarchists and/or subjectivists who reject philosophy and rush into political action senselessly, without any foundation.

-------------------

Orthodox Objectivists reject libertarians as fellow travelers because, as a group, libertarians tend to ignore the philosophical foundations of capitalism. According to Objectivism, politics is a branch of philosophy that depends on metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Without a proper grounding in these other, more fundamental branches, one cannot claim a proper philosophical foundation for one's politics.

- Bill

Neo-Conservative: a heuristic (operational) definition

The Micro Uzi, 9mm Machine Pistol Gun