RoR: Forum

Post 0

Monday, July 14 - 5:53pm

Link

Edit

Is there a real platform? The so-called platform on the website is no such thing - no application of philosophical principles to political concretes. Rather it is a list of abstract quotes of Rand.

The existence of an Objectivist party, so long as it did not undermine Objectivism with anarchist heresies and political power-seeking, might serve as an alternative to Libertarian nonsense and to bring attention both to Rand and to rational policies.

How soon would it be, if the party had some success, before the Libertarians would start attacking it?

Post 1

Monday, July 14 - 6:21pm

Link

Edit

This is a (bad) example of how not to win the minds of others. Political campaigns, it seems to me, are a terrible way to teach.

Libertarians, on the other hand, are a great example of this. Even if the party had something to say, libertarians are unaware that no one really wants what they have to offer. The little they do have to offer is lost on the public due to a lack of understanding. A political campaign will never change this.

Political science is an ocean away from political theory.

Post 2

Monday, July 14 - 7:47pm

Link

Edit

I support this party for 2 main reasons. 1)NO Objectivist organization is perfect or will always encapsulate the objectivist ethics perfectly, that's just the human condition. Not ARI, TAS, RoR, SOLO, OL, etc.-and it isn't necessarily a bad thing since most of those involved with these several organizations find value in Objectivism and desire to further its epistemology in their lives-it means that people are using their reason to come to objective conclusions on the questions of life. I admire anyone who makes an attempt to help facilitate objectivism and its values. 2)This party has the potential to reach untold millions especially during election years. It can serve as a check on the Libertarian Party's rampant anarchists and moral relativists. And since this party, at least from what I can gather from its website, adheres to Ayn Rands philosophy and sense of life this could be a great opportunity to unify idea's that have been shelved for too long in our nations history. I am serious when I say that I will be writing in DR. TOM STEVENS for President of the USA.

Post 3

Tuesday, July 15 - 4:29am

Link

Edit

While I wonder what you consider to be perfect, Erik, I will focus my comments to your second point.

First this party does have the potential to reach untold millions, but does that really mean anything? The potential to reach millions exist for Gene Amondson also, however he is not going anywhere and never will. I am sure that the 'Objectivist Party' will come to the same end.

Second, a claim of adherence to Rands philosophy is meaningless if not applied to current affairs. I have seen nothing close to that from the Objectivist Party. Lifting statements from Rands writing is no more valuable than the Rights wish to lift passages from the Bible and place those into law. While we might get a bit closer to a better political atmosphere using Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, I am not sure I want a dead woman running for political office.

Now I would like to ask a question. Why does a man run for president when he knows that he stands no chance of winning? Why would he not choose to run for mayor or councilman or state representative? I know much of the reason is the silly idea that a political campaign is simultaneously an educational one, but I do not understand why that could not be done on more local or limited a level. Let this Dr. Stevens run for mayor of the city in which he lives. He might have a chance there and if he won he could actually do something to change the policies of his community. Then he could move on to a more influential office.

Anyway, that's what I think.

Post 4

Tuesday, July 15 - 12:11pm

Link

Edit

Hi Steve,

You said, "I know much of the reason is the silly idea that a political campaign is simultaneously an educational one."

I'm not going to argue for or against the Objectivist Party or its candidate or its platform - I haven't had the time to look at any of that or think about it.

But I have seen the Libertarian party, even with all of its problems, as a significant educational tool. Take for example when Harry Brown was on several national debates on CNN or on Larry King Live and some in-depth articles and news copy was written, or when people read about John Hospers getting 1 electoral vote from a run away delegate, and think if the new libertarian candidate can get into any of the debates between Obama and McCaine. It doesn't take a much greater level of public support of the Libertarian party to give it a significant role as a spoiler in close elections - which isn't good as a goal - but it would bring about a close examination by the mainstream. And education is the only path from here to a lasting freedom built on principles.

I can't bring myself to have such a low opinion of ALL of the American public as to think that NONE of them will hear anything of value when they listen to a debate with a free market exponent speaking. Remember, most of the public have never heard rational political principles applied to current events before in their entire lives - they certainly didn't hear them in school, they aren't hearing them from their normal news sources or media talking heads.

Ayn Rand went out and stood on New York street corners campaigning for Alf Landon despite that he was just about as unlikely to win as this year's Libertarian candidate (Landon got 8 electoral votes to FDR's 523).

At election time people are focused on politics and how it's intersecting with their concerns and their lives and hoping to hear good answers. Voters aren't going to change in great numbers to favor a third party candidate - and without fantastic levels of charisma or something extraordinary, the third party candidate can barely register a blip on the political radar, so at this time, it is ONLY educational - and it's almost the only time that people never before exposed to rational political positions get to experience how different that is from cheap, meaningless sound bites - and at a time they are focused.

Like I said, I don't know anything about the Objectivist Party, and maybe it would be a bad idea because it would dilute the Libertarian vote, but I certainly see political campaigns as educational opportunities and if SOME PARTY doesn't field a candidate that matches our basic positions more closely then we are forced to throw our vote away on a Republican or a Democrat (or abstain), but those parties represent what we are fighting against - why keep going along with electing one of theirs?

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 7/15, 12:16pm)

Post 5

Tuesday, July 15 - 1:49pm

Link

Edit

It's always easy to complain about things and the Objectivist movement is a master at cutting off it's own nose to spite its face. As in any field, often many experiments need to be tried before one pans out. I applaud these guys for at least making an effort to get something started and wish them the best.

However, like Ted, I was immediately struck by the lack of a real political platform and its substitution by the series of Rand quotes. The fact that they were willing to launch their web site while lacking more substance doesn't speak well to the future of their effort. They are not going anywhere unless they are will to "bring it home" and lay out real proposals for national defense, reducing the debt, decreasing the size of government and privatizing or eliminating entitlement programs. To get any traction at all, a well developed platform must be coupled with an attractive orator who can capture the imagination of the public as Obama is doing. If you had that, coupled with any actual ideas (unlike Obama), then you would have a real tool for communicating to a wide audience. The fact that they did not include photographs of the Presidential and VP candidates is also not a good sign.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 6

Tuesday, July 15 - 6:29pm

Link

Edit

I agree that the Objectivist Party at present is lacking greatly in its present form, although I think that it is a step in the right direction, much much more needs to be done, and I would assume that the party organizers are well aware of it. Money is a big issue in organizing a party/movement. They will need to get donations. Either way I will not be voting for either McCain or Obama in November.

Post 7

Tuesday, July 15 - 7:34pm

Link

Edit

Jeff,

As usual, your posts are a joy to read....

It's always easy to complain about things and the Objectivist movement is a master at cutting off it's own nose to spite its face.

:-) Yes, too true. One problem might be a fear that moving towards the Objectivist ideal can not be done in stages, out of fear that it would be 'compromising' - all or nothing. That would lead to a feeling of paralysis in trying to put forth concrete steps they would propose for the coming 4 year term of office. And it would leave them with just the quotes from Capitalism the Unknown Ideal.

I expect that getting a political party's machinery up and running and getting on the ballot and persisting in all of the attendant work - like raising money - is a massive undertaking. Even if they keep at it diligently, it will take a long time and we will have to be patient (unless they find that charismatic orator - that's the accelerant in this equation - as you pointed out).

I wish them well and if they look like they are going to be open to making a real effort and an effective effort, I'd certainly be willing to help.

Post 8

Tuesday, July 15 - 9:32pm

Link

Edit

Thanks for your kind words Steve.

If the Objectivist Party actually put forward even a moderately well defined plank, they might actually get me to register and vote for them. Of course they wouldn't have a chance of winning, but this would be a case where every individual vote received by the party would have a significant personal meaning to me, regardless of the overall outcome. If they put forth a candidate that I could personally respect, I might even campaign for them. I would feel that there was at least a small possibility that I was working for a worthwhile cause. I couldn't say the same with respect to McCain, Obama or either of the major political parties.

One other thought. As I was day-dreaming about what strategies I would implement if I were organizing a political campaign, I realized that as soon as an "Objectivist Party" began to get any notoriety at all, people would flock to the ARI website looking for information and would quickly find Peikoff's rants about dropping nukes on Iran and basically engaging in genocide of Muslims. I think this is an albatross around the neck of "Objectivism" and he has pretty much single-handedly insured that an Objectivist Party isn't going to get anywhere significant in the next 50 years. What do you think?

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 9

Tuesday, July 15 - 11:15pm

Link

Edit

Jeff,

I feel exactly the same as where you said,

If the Objectivist Party actually put forward even a moderately well defined plank, they might actually get me to register and vote for them. Of course they wouldn't have a chance of winning, but this would be a case where every individual vote received by the party would have a significant personal meaning to me, regardless of the overall outcome. If they put forth a candidate that I could personally respect, I might even campaign for them. I would feel that there was at least a small possibility that I was working for a worthwhile cause. I couldn't say the same with respect to McCain, Obama or either of the major political parties.

It would be exhilarating to join in a battle not just of ideas, and not just because they are the right ideas, but also because the fight would carry through to the realm of implementation (even if just educational in its practical aspect)

As to the other portion of the your message.... sigh. I haven't seen any Objectivist or Libertarian web site that doesn't have posts that make me cringe (yes, even here at ROR). I haven't a clue as to how this problem is best dealt with. It isn't just a single person or a clique or organization - it includes the wild, bizarre postions and even personalities problems that appear in greater proportion in fringe (as oppossed to mainstream) movements. That added to reasonable, but sharp and acrimonious factional differences.... sigh again.

The public desparately needs education on the very core basic principles of Objectivism. But we who want to see those principles take their rightful place have to find a way past this problem.  In part, it is our educational issue, we Objectivists, need to focus on the purpose of making Objectivism the dominate philosophy. That goal requires setting aside many of the ways we currently talk to each other, setting aside some of the angels-on-head-of-pin discussions, and becoming more appropriate in our judgements of each other (less so for differences that are minor, more so for differences that are absurd).

But we both know that progress in that direction isn't going to be fast and will never be complete - there are always going to be people, claiming to speak as Objectivists, who's views are embarressing to behold.

And we need a way to cast our movment's goals in prioritized, concrete, actionable steps - (which is what a political party automatically does in it's dimension).  A more goal-oriented approch might help with focus on what needs to be done for effective advocacy and maybe even generate more of a willingness to give up yammering on absurd positions and harsh styles of communication and to be less tolerant of those who don't. I suspect that younger members of the movement, who will be it's future, have the most energy but often it is like watching brilliant explosions of creativity and great excitement but going off in every which way and thus ensured of hitting no goal beyond the joy of intellectual and personal expression.

I welcome any suggestions and ideas along the lines of this conversation because I think it is of critical importance to the future of our ideas.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 7/16, 7:30pm)

Post 10

Wednesday, July 16 - 5:37pm

Link

Edit

...Peikoff's rants about dropping nukes on Iran and basically engaging in genocide of Muslims.

Hi Jeff,

Doctor Peikoff has correctly and properly identified Iran as the long-time primary sponsor of terrorism against the West. He hasn't advocated nuking Iran. He has only presented that as a possible option, if necessary. And he definitely hasn't advocated genocide. He's advocated destroying Islamic totalitarianism. That's a huge difference.

John Lewis has outlined how the United States can destroy Islamic totalitarianism, without the use of nukes and without costing one American life, using the United States' defeat of Japan and Shintoism as a model: �No Substitute for Victory,� The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism

Post 11

Thursday, July 17 - 7:26pm

Link

Edit

...Peikoff's rants about dropping nukes on Iran and basically engaging in genocide of Muslims.

Doctor Peikoff has correctly and properly identified Iran as the long-time primary sponsor of terrorism against the West. He hasn't advocated nuking Iran. He has only presented that as a possible option, if necessary. And he definitely hasn't advocated genocide. He's advocated destroying Islamic totalitarianism. That's a huge difference.

Sanctioned. I finally got around to listening to LP talk about this on O'Reilly (via YouTube). While I don't like LP's style, there is nothing that he said that I find fault with.

Post 12

Thursday, July 17 - 7:47pm

Link

Edit

Peikoff on O'Reilly

Post 13

Friday, July 18 - 1:04am

Link

Edit

"How soon would it be, if the party had some success, before the Libertarians would start attacking it?"

The more likely scenario would be Objectivists attacking it, accusing it of selling out Objectivist principles to gain votes, arguing about who and what is a REAL Objectivist, squabbling over when exactly is the ideal time to nuke Iran, and having pissed-off factions storm out of meetings because it was being taken over by Libertarians, liberals, and neo-cons. (See Libertarian Party, history of).

While libertarians sit around chuckling over this steep learning curve while reading about it on posts at Reason,com.

Post 14

Friday, July 18 - 2:32am

Link

Edit

Well, of course Objectivists would attack it. But "the Libertarians" refers to a party, not an ideology. The ideology is not capitalized. The Libertarians would see the Objectivist party as competition. And the pacifist/anarchist wing would probably be foaming at the mouth against any orthodox Objectivist Party. An Orthodox Objectivist party would both compete with Libertarians for votes and for membership. I could easily see right-wing Libertarians leaving the party in droves.

I will definitely not vote Libertarian this cycle with their crypto-conservative candidate and his left-leaning running mate. But I would register and vote Objectivist. Just give me a platform and someone with a little more Charisma than Rand's heir.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/18, 1:26pm)

Post 15

Friday, July 18 - 7:59am

Link

Edit

Doctor Peikoff has correctly and properly identified Iran as the long-time primary sponsor of terrorism against the West.

That's hard to swallow given:
(a) 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis and the Saudi government's support of Wahhabism, and
(b) Peikoff's appearance with O'Reilly was before the current Iraq war, in which many Iranis have participated.

Post 16

Friday, July 18 - 3:09pm

Link

Edit

Doctor Peikoff has correctly and properly identified Iran as the long-time primary sponsor of terrorism against the West.
That's hard to swallow given:
(a) 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis and the Saudi government's support of Wahhabism, and
(b) Peikoff's appearance with O'Reilly was before the current Iraq war, in which many Iranis have participated.

Hi Merlin,

Regarding (a,) "...The 9/11 Commission found that 'senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives,' and that '8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi 'muscle' operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001.'
"With or Without Nukes, Iran is a Mortal Threat" by Elan Journo

Regarding (b,) I don't understand your point.

Post 17

Friday, July 18 - 4:20pm

Link

Edit

Bob Palin wrote:

Regarding (b,) I don't understand your point.

Your earlier claim that "Doctor Peikoff has correctly and properly identified Iran as the long-time primary sponsor of terrorism against the West" does not say when he identified it, so I took it to be before he was on The O'Reilly Factor. That was before the current Iraq war, so Irani involvement in it was irrelevant when Peikoff was on The O'Reilly Factor.

I haven't read the 9/11 Commission Report, but the evidence of a connection between the 9/11 hijackers and Iran cited by Elan Journo is very skimpy. (How much should we trust Commission Report?) Moreover, Peikoff nor Journo nor you have presented any argument that Iran's involvement in 9/11 is greater than that of Saudi Arabia.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 7/18, 5:01pm)

Post 18

Friday, July 18 - 5:35pm

Link

Edit

Hi Merlin,

I'm not interested in going back and forth on this subject. I'm convinced of Iran's role as the long-time primary sponsor of terrorism against the West but we all have to come to our conclusions based on our own reasoning.

The turning point for me came when I attended an Objectivist Mini-Conference in the fall of 2006 that featured Daniel Pipes, Yaron Brook, Flemming Rose, Robert Spencer, Peter Schwartz and John Lewis. An audio 9-CD set of that conference is available from the Ayn Rand Book Store. I highly recommend it to anyone interested.

(Edited by Bob Palin on 7/18, 5:36pm)

Post 19

Saturday, July 19 - 1:45pm

Link

Edit

Does it matter whether Iran was involved in 9-11? Why? They have been at war with us since they took our diplomats hostage in Teheran. There is no doubt that they have been supporting our enemies in Iraq with money and IED's. They have explicitly threatened to destroy Israel. Their funding of hezbollah is undoubted. What does 9-11 have to do with this? Who cares?