You seem to be the one Objectivist above all others I can mostly relate to ideologically. In fact, if more objectivists were like you, I might still be one.

What you say about Dr. Peikoff's argument I fully agree with.

And it's being based on a "well then if A happens, B will SURELY happen, right? RIGHT?!" argument...and as I've pointed out many times over, that argument has proven more faulty than successful over time.

Robert,

Fair comments. I wouldn't assume that just because over the last week we are here focusing on whom we should vote for that nothing else is being advocated or thought about. And, too, there IS an election coming up, so it's natural the focus should be there now.

That said, I agree that forming the AOP is not on the action radar. Others, like yourself, have everyday life practical concerns to deal with -- as well as acknowledging the other roadblocks you mention.

I'm still mostly in the camp that having a new other party isn't helpful, nor where most should devote their resources, but I'm still thinking it over. Linz and your arguments are being seriously considered.

' The topic is who (if anyone) should you vote for in the next two weeks (and by extension, then whom in two years).'

To which I say that considering this question is pointless unless you have a horse worthy of backing for the next decade (or however long it takes to fix the problem).

I really don't care who objectivists vote for. What I find incredibly disturbing is the fact that their political strategy has a two year life-span! What are you going to do at the next election cycle when you end up having to make the same choice from the same list of parties, each with the same flaws you've been listing?

What I'm saying ladies and gents is that you ~need~ to create or find a political party worthy of your political support soon. Yes, there will be difficulties. The US system will make it tough. But remember something: so long as your policies get into the White-House it doesn't really matter who's implimenting them!

Jeff asked (essentially) "Why don't you [Robert W] form your own party." A fair question for which there are two answers.

(1) I'm concentrating on staying in the USA. At the moment the INS will evict me when my VISA runs out in August 07. I think my chances of forming a viable political party in that time are essentially zero, so I'm focusing my efforts on staying longer. Of course if the elephants or the asses would increase the number of Green Cards and H1B VISAs handed out to law-abiding, tax-paying, US-loving immigrants like myself, my task wouldn't be so difficult...

(2) Without the positive support of the Leonard Peikoff's, ARI's, TOC/TASS's in this country the project would fall flat on it's arse for lack of money and the right sort of people. Of the two, the second is more important. The reason the US Libertarian party sucks is because they weren't picky enough about who they let carry their flag for them. Having ARI et al. on board makes it easier to attract passionate, committed objectivists. Having ARI et al. ranged against you will drive those people off without them giving you a second look and nothing will kill this sort of political party quicker than that.

So the first task is to convince US objectivists like Peikoff that an objectivist political party is both necessary and an asset to the objectivist movement. Unfortunately for reasons I don't understand, many objectivists seem to think that such a party would be a millstone rather than an asset.

Until that attitude changes I'd be better to focus my energy elsewhere rather than answering Jeff's challenge and forming my own party.

I'm unstickying this thread & have stickied Diana's essay. Please direct all future comments to *that* thread. My own thoughts there to follow.

Linz

Diana has been hard at work writing the Mother of All Posts on this topic, and she's posted it over at Noodlefood. Great stuff, very clarifying for me!

Update: D'oh!  Didn't notice that she already cross-posted it here.

...I remember back in the days of Clinton that fundamentalists such as Bin Laden were calling the West (especially the US) a "paper tiger". They claimed that the US often made threats against them but were too frightened to take them on for fear of casualties. For that reason Islamic fundamentalists were claiming imminent victory.

Well, of course that argument is now long forgotten. Instead Islamic fundamentalists are now claiming victory because they say that the west is divided while they are easily able to gain more recruits. For that reason Islamic fundamentalists are now claiming imminent victory.

It is frightening how astute the Islamic fundamentalists are at identifying where their potential victory lies and how willing Western appeasers are to give them succour.

I was going to post about now, but shan't, for fear of saying something I might not regret. A muted version will follow when I've cooled down.

Linz

How did I know Jeff would bring up something like that?

I am not saying that nothing should be done. But mixing poison with food is hardly doing something good. Its doing nearly everything wrong, which, to be all Engineering-like here, is doing everything wrong to first order. That's all Im sayin.

Bringing up 9/11 is a low-blow with unfair implications, Jeff, certainly. Now if you are saying that the efforts in Afghanistan et. al. may have prevented further terrorist destruction, fine, I am possibly willing to concede that. I say it was not good enough though (London, Madrid), and its getting worse fast.

Poison and food.

Time to cut and run.

Full disclosure: I understand that its easy for me to get all self-righteous here, 20/20 hindsight and all. I dont mean to come off that way.

So, its not like I dont sympathize with your position, Jeff, and there was a time when I agreed fully agreed. I just dont see any justification at this point to continue the war such as it is or to defend it such as it was.

Jeff, I have stood against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Directly against, as in taking fire. Every night, every day.

I've tried to be objective, once or twice, since then.

I don't see signs of progress, and I'm sorry, my friend, but it's been twenty years and more.

Craig,

Every time I think of 9/11, I think about what the leading Democrats would have done in response. They would have talked and talked and talked. They would have tried to negotiate endlessly with evil regimes and the terrorists would have laughed their asses off. The terrorists now know there is no safe place to base themselves permanently and they know their life expectancy is low.

I don't think trying to install democracies is the best way to fight terror, but I agree with Tracinski that at least one party at least wants to fight. The ideal way to fight terror would be to follow through on the threat to decimate the terrorists and those who harbor them. Put a $200 million bounty on the head of every major governmental official in Iran and North Korea. Do the same for major militia leaders in Iraq. Give them nowhere to hide.

Jim

Every military person I have spoken to always has high morale and believes that we can win the fight, but every time a chance arises, we [the Administration] hold back. Muqtada Al Sadr, the shi'ite pawn of Iran, recently had his militia take over some town near Baghdad, the name of which I am sure someone on this list can provide. He has been a thorn in our side since day two, and we should already have sent him to his eternal reward many times. But even this time, in just the last week, we have let him stay in power, even though we rested back control of that town from him by force, and had every pretext to sqash him and quash the militias.

Why are we holding back? To make whom look good? We have carried water for the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Syrians, the Iranians, and everyone else in this war, but we won't proclaim that WMD's didn't matter, because Saddam was in violation of his armistice. We then do find the WMD's, but won't press our point. We know how deep into it the UN and the Russians have been, but won't embarrass them while they keep spitting in our faces. In Afghanistan, we could have swept the country clean long ago, except for not wanting to embarass the Pakistanis who subvert us.

This is all so frigging obvious, but every day in the press, we revert to the "well," either "Bush was lying," or "he's just made a mess of it" mode. Not one talking head I know of will stand their ground on the truth. Craig is right that we are sacrificing good men for naught - but how voting Dem could help that, I don't know. Bush's damn numbers are down not because the Dem's hate him, they always have. It's because those who would support him are too honest to pretend any more that they can approve of what he hasn't been doing.

And Peikoff goes off on his Ominous Parallels fantasy - has anyone here read that book lately? I read it back in 1986, and it gave me the creeps, not because of the possibilities it portrayed, but because of the disconnect with reality that it implied.

At this point, give me Wilson, give me LBJ, give me Nixon, give me FDR, give me anything that can talk and walk in a straight line at the same time without having to call Christophe for a haircut and I am there.

Ted Keer, 29 October, 2006, NYC

And the pit at ground zero keeps getting deeper every day.

I'll have more to say later. For now, I'll take those two parts in opposite order:

"than to do everything wrong." - Exaggeration, clearly.

And, the more important part:

"So yes, looks like it was better to do nothing than to do everything wrong."

I recommend for anyone who feels this way that, while they are objectively assessing profits and losses, they stand for a while at the rim of a large hole at the south end of Manhattan where they are still finding bones.

"Every time I think about voting for a Democrat I listen to one of his debates or read his position papers. That usually cures me pretty quick."

Of what, James?

It doesn't answer the question I posed.

"ust an assessment, a truthful accounting: what has been gained? Why should we continue to back a losing horse?"

And Id like to add:

Can agree that any worthwhile gains should at least marginally balance with the losses, now and in the long run?

"Why should we continue to back a losing horse?"

Yes, good question.

Every time I think about voting for a Democrat I listen to one of his debates or read his position papers. That usually cures me pretty quick.

Jim

Craig,

Funny you should ask. It will take a day or so, but I'm compiling a list.

Stay tuned.

Jeff

Marnee, you're right: it would have been better to do nothing rather than to spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives on what has amounted to appeasement. Yes, objectively better, blowhard "Objectivists" and neoconservatives be damned. Appeasement is always a losing proposition.

Should anyone belonging to those I've characterized above object, tell me: What has been gained? No name-calling, no accusations of appeasement or "Saddamy," no bullshit -- if that's possible (which I doubt). Just an assessment, a truthful accounting: what has been gained? Why should we continue to back a losing horse?

Craig,

"But Jeff, my brother Marines have died -- died, mind you -- in the name of a war that's not even being fought."

Ok, I hear you. And, I'm with you in being ultra-pissed about it. But 'not even being fought' is an exaggeration. I had the good fortune to ride on the plane to New York next to a Marine major, currently in the U.S. for the last few months but deployed in Iraq for a year or more. We talked for quite a while. I got the distinct impression the war was being fought.

Also, a recent raid cleared out another pocket of pus just the other day. (The Iraqi government, the ungrateful curs, chastised the U.S. for doing it, so maybe we should pull out of there and let them deal with it. But then, they should truck right over to Iran and take it where it really needs to go.)

Would I like to see the gloves taken off? God damn right I would. I'd be willing to reload for them. But, who's making the loudest noises to put more cotton in their gloves? Hell, who wants to tie their shoelaces together and put flowers in their muzzles? Who wants to make them feel guilty for even being there in uniform? I don't think it's the Republicans.

"The Taliban are not in power, though they're trying to make a comeback. No surprise, since the job wasn't finished. That is wasn't explains why your Ranger friend is there...."

How is this different from my view point or the my "news"? Too much is being wasted and lost on a poorly executed war. At this point yes, it would have been better to do nothing at all. The benefits are relatively marginal at best and the trend shows that the benefits are sure to disappear in the future. So yes, looks like it was better to do nothing than to do everything wrong while sacrificing our wonderful men, who by the way are more than willing to fight. Frankly, they deserve, nay, have earned a proper battle suited to good and intelligent badasses, not this bull. That's all I can think of to say.

Who said I was happy about any of this?

A large number of definable people seem to have declared war on the US, and the response of the federal government is to declare war on me: making me take my shoes off and throw away my contact lens fluid before I am permitted to board an airplane (yes, that makes me a fucking smuggler). Oh my.

But Jeff, my brother Marines have died -- died, mind you -- in the name of a war that's not even being fought.

No, happy I am not.

"I'm not aware of any support for Al Qaeda by the Saudi's, though I'd be open to seeing some reliable information on the subject."

Jeff, no. I had students in Saudi Arabia whose families helped bankroll the anti-Soviet (ie, pro al-Qaida) effort in Afghanistan, and who had been there themselves. They thanked me for being American and for having manufactured the Stinger missile. That relationship is decades old, and it used to be the case that both countries (US and Saudi Arabia) boasted of it.

Craig,

"The Democrats are despicable, and have been for some time. But they do not claim to be what they are not."

So you're more pissed at the Republicans because you view them as hypocrites, than you are at the Democrats because they are completely open about their evil views? Well, I suppose there some validity to that point of view.

I guess you can enjoy your anger while the Dems do nothing to stop suitcase nukes from being transported into Chicago.

Craig,

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Why would you have such expectations for the Republicans in the first place in light of 100 years of history?

As I said, I'll give your views more thought and answer at greater length when I've digested them.

And now I repeat myself. Would you, in fact, be better off with those who explicitly support handing all U.S. self-defense issues off to the U.N.? Based on what you say, I gather you'd be happier because you don't expect them to behave any differently. Will that keep you safer?

The Republicans are weak-kneed, we agree. But who is pushing them to compromise? Who wants us to lose the war against Islamism and the Islamists? It happens to be the only other party's candidates that have a chance of winning in two weeks and two years from now.

Think back. Nixon was vile. But he was bombing the hell out of Hanoi and they were within weeks of collapsing. The Democrats whined and he pulled back. We lost. (We shouldn't have been there in the first place, but that's another issue.)

I have to hope that after the election, the administration will stop trying to look good by looking weak. This is nothing more than a prayer rendered in pure hope. But again, this is a hope for after the election. By 2008, we will have settled things or they will have settled us.

Marnee,

I don't say this to insult you, but the best I can say is that we must be watching different news programs or reading different newspapers. The Taliban are not in power, though they're trying to make a comeback. No surprise, since the job wasn't finished. That is wasn't explains why your Ranger friend is there. It should be finished, with vigor. That is isn't being is revolting. But many people who live there (Europeans, not just Afghanis) have reported that conditions are infinitely better in many ways than when the Taliban were in power.

A Democratic president would not have gone in the first place. Would that have been better?

I'm not aware of any support for Al Qaeda by the Saudi's, though I'd be open to seeing some reliable information on the subject.

That the princes, et al of Saudi Arabia support, or acquiesce in the face of, Islamism is no surprise. They're Muslims and Wahhabism is rampant there. They should be dealt with fast and furious. It's disgusting that Bush, et al coddle them. They have a lot of oil. Pragmatists don't like to make waves if the oil supply will get disrupted. But the current Republican administration is hardly alone in that behavior.

To everyone who views the situation as Marnee, Lance, and Craig do:

Yes, it's extremely disappointing that the pragmatist compromisers are pragmatist compromisers. Being angry is valid. Deciding, as a result, that the alternative is NOT much worse is not.

Yes Craig great point. Like I said, our soldiers are being sacrificed and this is yet another prime example. No one with the immediate power to do so can be counted on to run the war the way it should be. If gridlock, or even the Democrats, can get our men back home (and I doubt they would actually) rather than fighting a dangerous nonsense battle against nothing, then that voting for Dems in the hopes of eventual gridlock seems the most rational option.

Uh huh.

Jeff,

The Democrats are despicable, and have been for some time. But they do not claim to be what they are not.

The Republicans, on the other hand, can be counted on to betray any idea of liberty or limited government, every time. They have sold us out, and sold us cheap.

Jeff, Ted, and Marnee,

As for control in Afghanistan, note the reality on the ground: the national "government" is able to exert control over 40% to 60% of the country, depending on the day. The president of Afghanistan is basically the mayor of Kabul, assmuming that US Army Special Forces types are able to keep him alive. And yet we are extending our own War on Drugs to that country. A country in which most subsistence farmers grow opium to survive, while there is a shortage of pharmaceutical opium, according to experts, and while (ahem) presumably a real war is being fought, for which our support is being asked.

And all the while, the Republicans are pulling out their old canard, bleating, "Please, please support us. We are the lesser of two evils!"

And we are asked to "stay the course" in Iraq, the clearly junior member of the Axis of Evil, junior especially as the other two have gone nuclear on Dubya's watch.

Disgusting.

Much of the anger seems to be generated by the belief that the Republicans or conservatives represent, 'in the public mind', the group in favor of Capitalism, freedom, etc and that they have betrayed them. That they have, in short, given those great values a black eye because of their atrocious behavior and worse arguments. And more, that they base their support of those values on religion.

But if you're going to be pissed at having your values betrayed by those who 'in the public mind' (grotesque concept, that) represent them, shouldn't you be even more angry at the faux-liberals or Democrats?

After all, who are alleged to be the secularists? Who is alleged to represent this earth, reason, and tolerance for individual differences? Those are much more fundamental values, we generally agree, and the faux-liberals have been betraying and undercutting and misrepresenting them for decades.

Compared to Afghanistan:

Isn't Saudi Arabia supposed to be one of the biggest sources of support for Al Queda et. al? And look who's dininng with Condi Rice. Am I crazy?

Craig is undoubtedly right.

Addendum:
"Therefore, Al Qaeda does not have the (same extensive) base of operations there they had before the Marines and others beautifully kicked their asses."

Then I kinda wonder why my friend (Army Ranger badass) keeps getting sent back there. He is there now. So what really happened? I'm not so sure much has changed, but a lot has been lost, nay, sacrificed.

Craig,

I'll give your comments more thought. In the interim, you should consider that even with the Islamic Republic in Afghanistan, the Taliban are (for the time being) not in power there. Therefore, Al Qaeda does not have the (same extensive) base of operations there they had before the Marines and others beautifully kicked their asses.

So, (though I would rather see the Marines pursue Al Qaeda into Pakistan, and into hell and back), Afghanistan is in a much better state for the U.S. than before the operations. Also, though it is a minor side benefit, the Afghanis are much better off too, as reported in many places.

That said, yes, I too would much prefer that Bush be greatly more aggressive than he has been. He has a regrettable tendency to compromise. And with whom is he compromising? The Democrats, largely, who would prefer we give Afghanistan back to the Taliban (some Republicans have said that wouldn't be so bad either; disgusting!) and who would have done nothing after 9/11.

In every instance where I have seen a pro-freedom individual express their (justifiable, to an extent) anger with Bush and the Republicans, they act as if (or possibly genuinely believe, which I find astounding) that the Democrats would not be 100 times worse.

More after I've thought more about your position.

Jeff

Ted, it doesn't matter who ignores me: the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan exists whether I carp about it or not. So do the Islamicist regimes in Iraq and in Palestine. I was mocking the four-times-offered "argument" that "nobody has answered Tracinski's clincher," and pointing out that, with reference to reality, said "clincher" is no clincher. It is only in that sense and for that reason that I make reference to those arguments on this thread. It matters not who pays attention to me or to what I wrote, but those Marines and soldiers who died in Afghanistan and in Iraq are indeed dead, and those living under Islamicist regimes are stuck there, and George Bush did what he did -- and requests support for it to this very day. And Republicans in Congress supported him and do support him, as do Republican voters and other supporters, in this country and elsewhere. The situation is what it is.

So, Ted, while I appreciate that you agree with me on part of this, I don't think my remarks are irrelevant: Tracinski specifically called for voters to prefer Republican politicians by claiming that they will defend us, while Democrats will not. That is demonstably untrue, as we are not being defended. Yet his words and his claims were defended here, and his one claim declared to be a "clincher." That is not so, and is not even close, so I raised my objection.

It's not just a matter of who has the most cogent arguments, but of who speaks to or defies reality. The Tracinski "clincher" does not speak to reality. Not on this planet.

As for what I support or intend to vote for, I for one do remember and support the ideas of the Founding Fathers: most ideas are bad, in particular most political ideas. They should be trashed, and forgotten. In other words, Peikoff and Diana Hsieh and Lance Moore are right, and gridlock is good. Hell, gridlock is god, in my book.

Craig,

I see that you are annoyed that the Republicans have not set up proper states in Afghanistan, Iraq, or helped to do so in Palestine. Fine, post an article saying how you might accomplish that end. (So far as you have expressed your criticisms, I agree with them.) But complaining on this thread about the next election that no-one has answered your previous arguments elsewhere makes little sense.

Take it as a sign that you have prevailed or vindicated yourself if no one has had the guts to answer you otherwise. I was accused a while back of being a hedonist, and some sort of namby-pamby new-age religionist. When I spent good time answering those accusations, was I answered with an "Okay, my judgment was hasty" or an "Alright, I retract the accusation" in response? No, the accusing or opposing parties simply went away without explanation. Whether this was through oversight, cowardice, or lack of integrity on their part, or just another example of Passive-Objective-Agressivisism (read my upcoming book, the POA Hypothesis) I won't hazard a guess. But if your words here on other strings go unanswered, don't feel the need to make irrelevant remarks on this one, just bask in your vindication by silence.

Ted

BTW, So which specific candidates are you going to be voting for, if any, and why?

Yep. Almost as funny as "Nobody has answered Tracinski's clincher."

Wait, that one was ridiculous, not funny. Sorry. My bad.

It would be hewing a lot closer to reality to claim that no one has answered Ceely's clincher, mentioned at least twice on this very site, to wit, the creation of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan with the blood of American soldiers and Marines.

Not to mention the US-sponsored government in Iraq, which explicitly recognizes Islam. Or Bush's call for a Palestinian state, and "democracy" there, which has resulted in a regime run by Hamas.

N.B. not "freedom," not "liberty," not "individual rights," but "democracy." No wonder his Secretary of State eventually prevailed upon Israel to back off its war against Hezbollah. And, before memories get too short, go back to the official White House response to the Danish cartoons incident.

There's a story about Abraham Lincoln, in which he supposedly asked: If you call a tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have?

Four, said Lincoln. You can call a tail a leg, but it's still a tail. We can call the Tracinski "clincher" a clincher, but calling it that doesn't make it so. And it's not.

Who has worked overtime to appease Islam and the Islamists? In my lifetime, nobody has done more to appease them than the Republicans have, particularly the presidents Reagan, Bush, and Bush. Nobody. The fact is that if we're talking of establishing Islamic theocracies, we should be aware that President Bush has created or enabled more Islamic theocracies in his own lifetime than Muhammad ever did.

Yeah, funny. I'm laughing my ass off.

"I'm scared to take that DIM course lest I end up voting Labour."

One of your funniest lines ever.

If you truly think there's nothing in it between the Reps & Dems when it comes to fighting Islamo-Fascism, which I think is nuts, then don't vote for either by all means. The point is, Peikoff is calling anyone who doesn't vote for the commie, capitulationist Dems, or doesn't vote at all, immoral in that instance. That too is nuts.

Part of Bush's problem is that too many people who should know better, including folk right here, are cutting & running just because the going has gotten tough. Fair weather friends. Until recently they spoke quite highly of Bush, cutting him slack for his failings. Now, cowed by the carnage wrought by the Islamo-Fascists in Iraq, for which the bombers & beheaders, not Bush, are to blame, they hand-wring about the "mess" & pontificate from Platonic heights. While their president toughs it out, they desert. I suspect these same folk would have abandoned Churchill in the darkest hours of WW2 'cos of the "mess" that had no end in sight. Lord knows he had plenty of ideological shortcomings they could have repaired to to excuse their lack of staunchness.

Linz

I'm scared to take that DIM course lest I end up voting Labour.

"[T]he only bedrock policy I've seen the Democrats put forth is an anti-Bush one. That's not policy, that's stalking!" - Robert Winefield

I submit again that in America, one must vote in every case for a candidate, and, although party affiliation is listed on the ballot, it should not be, since no person who does not know for whom he is voting by name is worthy of a vote. The American electoral system is not like that of some parliamentary systems where one votes for a party slate which seats candidates based upon proportional results. If it were, choosing to support any particular party based upon its platform might make sense. And the 92 page Republican Party Platform of 2004, while full of mealy-mouthed nonsense, does explicitly support the "ownership society" (if not capitalism per se) and the "war on terror" even if it equivocates on the nature of our enemy.

Nevertheless, the notions of "Republican" and "Democrat" are basically anti-concepts, either package-deals or definitions by non-essentials. If anything, a "Democrat" can be defined non-essentially as a politician who opposes the election of Republicans, (and who froths at the mouth at the mention of George Bush,) while Republicans are defined by a raggedy package deal.

So the fact remains, that in all cases, due both to the anti-conceptual nature of party affiliation, and due to the electoral system in place in the U.S. where one in all cases votes for Federal candidates by name, rather than by slate, that every contest must be judged upon the merits of the individuals running.

If you're not American, please feel free to express a conditional and guarded support for the Republicans. I endorse all of Jeff Perren's statements above. And I wonder on what planet (or perhaps what astral plane?) comrade Peikoff is living nowadays.

Ted

I will do my best to address this too, Linz.

Mr. Tracinski's point is that the terrorists are a genuine threat, ready and willing to do us harm. The Repubs are the only party who take this threat seriously and so: vote Republican.

The principle here is: America has the right to defend herself by any means necessary.

The Republicans violate this principle in the same way that they violate the ones I mentioned earlier. They do not hold, on principle, that it is virtuous and right to defeat our enemies. They can't even name the enemy but instead keep saying "Terror" is our enemy as if Terror were an entity. They are tilting at windmills. They are doing worse than tilting at windmills. They are empowering our enemies by their second-guessing and appeasement.

This is why Mr. Tracinksi's point does not register for me (though I do not call it disgraceful). The Republicans are not going to fight for your values Linz.

Ok Linzio, well I for one have been a supporter of the Repubs for a long time. My father and I were literally high fiving watching the returns on the night the Repubs took control in 1994. This was the Contract With America. And, like all things that are not based upon solid principles, that exaltation lasted for about a day and a half.

But that's no argument. So let's find out where the Repubs stand on the principles.

Principle #1: Our culture is more virtuous than the culture of the Middle East.

The Republicans do not stand for this principle. They push multi-culturalism - the idea that all cultures are equal.

Principle #2: Capitalism is the only economic system under which an American citizen can thrive.

The Repubs don't stand for this either. They are pragmatists. If a voting block wants to hear about capitalism in a speech they might mention it. And if a voting block wants to hear about Robinhood they certainly will mention Robinhood.

Principle #3: The separation of church and state.

There is no need to elaborate here. The Repubs are all for religion in politics.

So the Republicans violate my core principles. How can I possibly vote for that? To vote for that is to volunteer for pain. Just because they might seem "closer" to being on principle at times does not mean that they are on principle. It means, in fact, that they are off principle. It's Either/Or. Either they are on principle or they are not. A violation is a violation. A is A.

________

It's the philosophy underneath it all that has to change. I don't get too animated about politics anymore for that reason. Both the Dems and the Repubs are going to breach my principles. Long-term, my goal is to see that change. And it will only change by way of education.

I have now read the Thompson piece. Admirably KASS, and a timely reminder not to be seduced by that part of the conservatives' rhetoric that occasionally sounds like ours. I hope everyone reads it. Still, at its conclusion I wanted to say, "Well, tell us something we don't know" (though I confess I hadn't realised just how vile Irving Kristol is). Many of these horrors are precisely those acknowledged by Tracinski. There's nothing in Bradley's article that makes it remotely sensible to vote for Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy & their revolting ilk. The Tracinski Clinchy stands:

When there is an actual battle raging between secular Western governments and fanatical religious zealots who want to impose their religion by the sword, there is only one political party that is asking you to fight back.

I would remind you of what Rand said re the contest between Nixon & McGovern, as posted by Mr. Moeller. If I recall correctly McGovern didn't want merely to raise taxes, he proposed outright confiscation of all a person's income over a certain level. That's disgusting, but scarce begins to compare with what the Islamo-Fascists have in store. Read Rand's words with that in mind:

I am not an admirer of President Nixon, as my readers know. But I urge every able-minded voter, of any race, creed, color, age, sex, or political party, to vote for Nixon--as a matter of national emergency. This is no longer an issue of choosing the lesser of two commensurate evils. The choice is between a flawed candidate representing Western civilization--and the perfect candidate of its primordial enemies.

In that context, to claim that anyone was immoral who didn't vote McGovern on account of Nixon's not-inconsiderable perfidies, would have been batty. So too is Leonard's characterisation of anyone today who doesn't vote for McGovern's heirs—Jimmy Carter's heirs, they who would wave the white flag at Islamo-Fascism—as immoral. Batty.

Linz

P.S.—I'm indebted to Bradley Thompson for giving me one Eureka! moment—"the Oprahization of America." I realised when I read that phrase that it captured what really bugs me about the Brandroids, aside from their smears & dishonesty & Rand-diminishing: their attempted Oprahization of Objectivism.

"I'll go out on a limb here and say that anyone who votes for a slate of candidates due to their party affiliation, rather than either abstaining or only voting for the specific invidual candidiate he supports is a mystical rationalistic collectivist lone-wolf leftist right-wing bastard who needs to be strung up by the balls which he so obviously lacks."

Hahahaha!! Best post of the thread!

- Jason

I'll go out on a limb here and say that anyone who votes for a slate of candidates due to their party affiliation, rather than either abstaining or only voting for the specific invidual candidiate he supports is a mystical rationalistic collectivist lone-wolf leftist right-wing bastard who needs to be strung up by the balls which he so obviously lacks.

What is this nonsense about voting for parties?

I repeat, what is this NONSENSE about voting for PARTIES?

The only choice in the NJ (New Jersey) Senate race is to vote against the criminally corrupt senator Menendez, and thus, if one is going to vote, to vote either for Tom Kean Jr., (who happens to be the Republican) or, if one thinks he's too evil, to vote for some third party candidate whom one knows.

The only choice in the PA (Pennsylvania) Senate race is to vote against the sanctimonious big-spending Republican bigot Rick Santorum, by either abstaining or chosing an individual candidate whom one can support.

Anyone who does not know the name of the person for whom he is going to vote, but votes by PARTY AFFILIATION alone, is no rational egoist.

I will be at home on election day, taking an intestinal purgative.

Ted

Where can I read Tracinski's article?

I'm with Robert (and Adam) on that.

My views were not formed, nor influenced, by Piekoff or Tracinski. But I have to admit that from a public relations point of view it's a lot better than designating it as the Hseishians versus the Perrenoids.

Jeff

This is a great thread: It has lots of interesting points being made by both sides (and it is so far free of backbiting, personal vendettas or constant insults that have marred and cheapened other discussions and made them non-intellectual).

Are you kidding, Phil? There hasn't been a thoroughgoing 15 round bout with eye-gouging and ear-biting here in at least a week. I'm thinking of asking for a refund on my jumbo popcorn and Hot Tamales
.

Jim

Lance,

I'm still making my way through it (it's long), and I'll need some time to digest it. In general, he makes some very good points, but like many similar pieces is in danger of missing the trees for having such a bird's eye view of the forest.

Also, he (so far) doesn't address one of my main contentions. (Neither has anyone else, much.) The Democrats are much worse than the Republicans in almost every respect (and they are rapidly catching up in being as bad or worse on the religion front). They are just as spendthrift, horrible on defense, have as bad or worse ethics, and are no more friends of reason than the Republicans. If anything, on this last point, they are often worse. Watered down Christianity is bad. Full-blown Christianity is putrid. But nothing (short of something like Islam) destroys the mind as much as the toxic cocktail of views that underlies the Democrats' (psycho)epistemology.

That said, I don't have any firm views on the piece yet. Stay tuned.

Jeff

Richard writes:

The virtue of gridlock is not in passing better bills. It is in all the horrible bills that do not get passed.

Yes, Richard, I agree that's why I said I was "sympathetic" to the viewpoint. However, I was making a wider point here, i.e. that the government still continues to legislate and the question remains whether the Dem's having a voice "adds to the debate" (in the words of Tracinski)? Not passing "horrible bills" is not the only result (and sometimes not even A result) nor the only goal.

I don't think the Dem's do "add to the debate" and compromising with them on the bill-making process accomplishes what? Preserves individual rights? Will curb spending? Will properly advance the war on terror? It may be argued that things would be equally bad or worse with just the Republicans in charge, but I think that is a difficult claim to make given the nature of their respective ideas/agenda. I realize some of the bad policies passed under Bush's/Republican's control, but many of those included compromise with the Dem's, including the federal expansion of education. Another for instance: would "gridlock" stop something like the prescription drug benefits? No, the Dem's would just continue to argue that it is not enough. So a lot bad policies would pass anyway and you would be compromising and giving credence to the anti-American Dem agenda--not a net positive in my book.

Michael

Linz and Jeff P, I ask again:

Have you gentlemen read the C. Bradley Thompson piece in The Objective Standard? It can be read for free via the link Mike Mazza provided in his original post. I wouldn't go so far as to say it is required reading for this discussion but it is highly topical and presents some ideas and facts that may be new to you.

Incidently, Dianne Durante's article "19th-Century French Painting and Philosophy" is amazing. It's in the same issue of TOS.

After the prissyholic bits, Phil's post is right on the money, only he is repeating what others have said. Schoolma'ams are not good at paying attention. Anyway, nothing has changed since my first post after reading the two contending sets of strictures. Which was:

____________________________

Tracinski wins this stoush hands down. Here's the clincher:

When there is an actual battle raging between secular Western governments and fanatical religious zealots who want to impose their religion by the sword, there is only one political party that is asking you to fight back.

Peikoff, by contrast, is positing a U.S. theocracy within our lifetimes if Americans don't vote for appeasement, capitulation, Political Correctness & higher taxes [right now]. That's just nuts. The only U.S. theocracy that's possible within our lifetimes will come from voting precisely as he suggests—an Islamic theocracy, triumphant on account of a Jimmy Carter-like Democratic president.

Lenny says anyone who disagrees with him on this is a rationalist, not in the real world. He's describing himself. At least I now know where Adam Reed got his hysterical lack of proportion from.

_________________________________

The Peikovians in this argument still have not addressed Tracinski's clincher; the Tracinskians have pressed it home. Me, I'm still reeling from how deranged Leonard's advice was.

Linz

This is a great thread: It has lots of interesting points being made by both sides (and it is so far free of backbiting, personal vendettas or constant insults that have marred and cheapened other discussions and made them non-intellectual).

This has been such a long discussion, I hope I'm not repeating what anyone has already said: The question is whether short-term harm (losing the war on terror) is more important than any possible long-term increase in strength of either theocrats or post-modern leftists. If 9/11 had not happened and we were not in a war in which nuclear weapons might go off in U.S. cities, one -might- be able to argue that the religious right is a greater danger over the long term.

But to not mention that in your posts, to not factor in that elephant in the living room in your advocacy of who to vote for is totally inappropriate.

You have to be able to -survive- the short term, physically (and in terms of people not being on wartime autopilot and willing to listen to pro-freedom alternatives, since major wars are never times when people have time or interest in revising or reexaming their political philosophies). And I haven't seen any reasonable arguments that having the Democrats, the Nancy Pelosis, the Harry Reids win control of Congress is going to assist in the war on terror or be seen as anything but a mandate for the Neville Chamberlain strategy of defeating evil: appease, accomodate, rely on the U.N., back off from fighting and neutralizing state sponsors of terror, and "negotiate" with monsters such as the Iranian mullahs.

In addition -- as if death were not enough or having radioactivity making major economic centers of America, cities and/or ports, unusable (the smuggled in nukes would be multiple as were the 9/11 simultaneous hijackings) -- the results politically in -both- the short run and the long run of nuclear explosions on American soil would be disastrous: both the far left and the religious right would gain in strength in the wake of a national disaster.

So there is *only one issue* on which to vote until such a time as the threat has receded or been defeated: What result in November is likeliest to protect America, to keep us physically safe over the next years?

Hold your nose and hope that the Republicans lose some seats so that tax-and-spend is repudiated, but not so many seats that the Democrats and the leftist media gain a political veto of the war on terror at exactly the time when we need the political will for the next war that will clearly come to a head before the end of the Bush Presidency -- the one to destroy Iran's nuclear capability (and hopefully topple the regime at the same time if possible.)

That's not just the number one issue right now. It's the only issue.

The virtue of gridlock is not in passing better bills. It is in all the horrible bills that do not get passed. That doesn't mean that nothing bad will be passed, since there are many bad ideas (the "War on Drugs" for example) that have broad support in both parties. But having one party in charge doesn't stop those anyway.

In the "long term" (however long that may be) it would be great if there was a party that genuinely supported individual rights. In the short term, I won't be holding my breath. As long as the two major parties are mostly fighting about whose boot we should be under, I'd prefer that neither have the upper hand. (Or should I say "upper foot?" That's what I get for mixing metaphors.)

--
Richard Lawrence
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center

In response to WM Green...

Due to laziness, I'm still registered Republican. The candidates in the primaries in which I could vote were all uncontested, except for the sheriff. And I voted, solely to vote for the one I strongly preferred -- although not for reasons at all related to the present discussion.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Robert W.,

I agree there should be greater political activism and waiting for the "right time" is a silly notion. However, I don't think it makes much sense to promote another political party, at least in terms of the US political system.

Afterall, it is a two-party system. The other parties have no influence qua parties in terms of public policy. For instance, the Green Party has no influence on the political system. However, many environmentalists organizations have influence via public policy debates and the Democratic party. With exceptions such as Nader and Perot, the candidates of these parties are totally unknown, and whatever their agenda, they exert virtually zero political influence.

Like Tracinski pointed out in his article, American politics can be regarded as a "giant national debate". In the American system, influence is usually felt through think-tanks, public policy organizations,etc. but who work largely inside the two-party system. I mean, just watch how a hot issue is debated on news programs--they usually get people on from these think tanks or organizations to have it out in a debate. They don't call in the Green Party or the Libertarians or whatever other party is out there and have a political round-table--these groups remain politically voiceless to the public at-large. The think tanks and public policy organizations, however, do not.

So I don't know what a policital party would add to the mix, i.e. what added benefits would it give above and beyond an intellectual organization? At least in the American system, I think they would have a much greater effect by writings articles and books, getting in the news, giving speeches, entering into to debates and so on. However, I could think of plenty of negatives of a philosophical movement getting bogged down in trying to run a political party. Not just the practical elements of constantly having to raise money and spin out candidates and all the things that go along with running a political party, but also may undermine the philosophical focus that the organization should have.

I don't see why being politically active necessitates having a political party, and within the American political reality I don't think it makes a lot of sense.

Michael

Posted over on HPO. To quote:

On this, Bugged exercises characteristic and due intelligence.

Gee, sounds like Bugged gets candidate B either way. In fact, Bugged
gets candidate B even if he sits at home watching lezbo vids instead of
voting at all. And you recommend voting as a solution?

Of course, I find myself in a seeming condundrum. Say that the electorate of the future has become more rational and thereby more receptive to the pro-capitalist candidates. Seems that I'd better hope that these more-rational folks don't also get a hold of my argument about the rationality (or lack thereof) of voting, and whereby they'd stay home and the rational candidates wouldn't get elected.

Then again, to further confound things, in such a scenario I would be proud to go in there and vote, to express my preference for the greater of two goods. At least then, I know that I'm partaking in a process that produces a good outcome. As it is, what pride is there in expressing preferences for either candidate, neither of whom remotely represents my ideals and values in a recognizably consistent form? Using Rand's advice in '64 on judging political candidates, I could vote with pride for the right kind of (non-kooky) Libertarian candidate, if it were the aforementioned scenario where pro-capitalist candidates could actually win elections. For now, there's no point in bothering.

Although I am highly sympathetic to the gridlock argument in the context of current American politics, I think there are a lot of flaws that others need to be more cognizant of.

Among the practical flaws is that decisions concerning new legislation and budget appropriation still have to be made. The bills compromised in the committee sessions often look much worse when there is "bipartisanship". Just look at any bill with the label "McCain" on it.

Voting Dem's gives them bill-making power and credence to their viewpoint, which is precisely why I would like to see them crushed. Remember when Rand wrote her "obituary" for the conservatives, she stated that the most consistent in regard to altruism would win--that the conservatives would give way to the liberals who would give way to the socialists.

I think the reverse is also true. I think among those who favor individual rights, the most consistent defender will win in the long-run. I think voting for the Dem's in search of "gridlock" undermines this principle--if individualism is to win, then the enemies have to be soundly defeated, NOT supported.

Just as the liberals would be left to fight it out with socialists in a altruistic victory over the conservatives--let the capitalists fight it out with the pragmatists on the right.

While gridlock maybe ok short-term, its certainly nothing you want long-term. There is antitrust to be eliminated, the welfare state to be dismantled, property rights to be protected, new areas of legislation that need the protection of individual rights (like stem cells) and on and on. Gridlock is not going to accomplish this and probably end with a compromised statism. What is needed is a pro-active individual rights public policy--and a step in that direction is vanquishing the Dem's and their viciously anti-American agenda.

Michael

William,

I think a better focus is an attack on the Congressional seniority system in the US. Supporting term limits initiatives and anything to get rid of this would be good. This is the source of a lot of government waste as entrenched powerful committee chairmen are precisely the lawmakers who'v been in Washington too long.

Jim

I largely agree with what Jeff Perren says above. It looks like the likely Republican Presidential candidates in 2008, Rudy Guiliani or John McCain would be a vast improvement over Mr. Born Again Shrub. If Hillary gets the Dem nomination, nobody should vote for her. If people really want an indicator of what a Democratic House Speaker looks like, look no further than Tip O'Neill or Jim Wright.

Jim

Where were all you folks cursing the statists in the Republican party during the primary? Primaries are the time to change the direction of a political party. Responding to something somewhat earlier, you do have conservatives, like Rush Limbaugh, who provide a (flawed) principled defense of constitutional values of individual rights and capitalism. People respond to the call of freedom and rugged individualism. I think I'll write on his recent "Conservative Fundamentals" series in the Limbaugh Letter.

Wm

Well, bald eagle, those are good suggestions. But that isn't the topic at hand. The topic isn't 'How should we fix the U.S. political system', or maximize individual liberty over the next 10 years, etc. The topic is who (if anyone) should you vote for in the next two weeks (and by extension, then whom in two years).

(The suggestions should be discussed in another thread, but I'm actually a little surprised this one hasn't been hijacked sooner. As to irony, well irony is good. And, if I'm not mistaken, you're in Kansas and nothing is stopping you from acting on your suggestions. You don't have to be a citizen to start forming a party.)

Nothing anyone can do in the next two weeks, or the next two years, will change the fact that the voters have three, and only three, real choices: vote for a specific Republican candidate, vote for a specific Democratic candidate, or don't vote.

As for being contortions... no one is arguing here that the Republicans are really ok guys, after all. But, again, the topic is not what to do for the long term, but how to vote in the next two weeks.

As to inflitration: Contra what Chris says, the Democratic Party is not an intellectual void. Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, and many other high profile Democrats have plenty of ideas -- all of them bad. The best hope for the next several years, and probably the long term is to reinforce the good elements within the Republican party, then (probably, at some point) split it off into another major party. Third parties in the U.S., as Chris notes, don't do well -- though I'd add, that that's true mostly when they start from scratch. They do better when they splinter off from existing parties. (See the history of the 19th century political systems.)

For what it's worth. For a moment I want to try to get into the mindset of the people setting up the LP back ca. 1970. A bunch of them were Ayn Rand fans and perhaps all of them were convinced that small-l libertarian ideas are so right and powerful that their Party venture would get it all rolling electorally. Do you think that they would have dreamed that, 35 years later, the Party would be the resounding failure that it's been? That, 35 years later, they'd be, politically, in just the same place or worse than at the founding? Hell, their biggest "success" was getting a single Presidential electoral vote, in their first election. It's been downhill from there. They might have scored a win had Howard Stern stayed in the NY Gubernatoral race. So you have one tiny win and one maybe-could-have-been win. In 35 fucking years.

You think that had they known that in 35 fucking years they'd still be treading water that they would have bothered with such a farce? Or do you think they'd have heeded Ayn Rand's words and devoted their time and resources to where it would have mattered? Or, even more importantly, would they have devoted their considerable intellectual capital to actually understanding Objectivism (thereby understanding Rand's reasons for so accurately predicting the joke and the futility that the LP was and still is) rather than latching onto falsely-integrated cut-rate versions of such (e.g., Rothbardian-anarchism)?

Isn't the LP example plenty enough to show just where and how and with what the battle is to be fought?

Sooner or later, they're also going to have to face up to the grim realities of how far the economistic Mises/Cato approach is able to get them. Hardly anyone is in the dark about the economic aspects of capitalism as it is, anyway -- and still only a few want it. And it's not just the unwashed electorate that ignorantly rejects it; the academics understand the economics well enough and still reject it. Rand correctly predicted this outcome, too. Time for the doubters to take note and regroup, methinks?

(Someone fix the uber-italicization going on below, eh?)

That could well be a reasonable suggestion. Here in the U.S., there isn't anything that I know of like the Libertarianz in NZ. The U.S. LP isn't anything like that, since it's all about ineffectual, unintellectual, out-of-context political activism. The LP has done exactly nothing in 35 years to help anything. What you're talking about is some largely-intellectual-activist organization with an explicitly and firmly Rand/Objectivist philosophy, with the leadership packing the necessary cojones to keep it that way long-run. (What's going to happen with the Lz's when Linz moves on? Is the next round of leadership going to have what it takes to stay the course, or will the next generation water itself down into the NZ equivalent of the U.S.'s LP?)

Here in the U.S. things might be different than in NZ. The U.S. is a much larger country, more spread out, so I think that a national-level organization with the necessary intellectual integrity could be that much harder to maintain. Multiply the Jim Peron thing by, what, 50? and you've got an idea of how tough it could be. Anyway, even at a somewhat-political-activist level, the focus is still more long-term. You can't realistically expect to field candidates here in the U.S. and spark some revolution within a few elections. The main value won't be in the fielding of candidates, but in the spreading of ideas. I think that we've already got an organization or two here in the U.S. that's doing that job, and is on the cusp of acquiring annual funding resources that will make their job all that much more effective. Yeah, sooner or later, maybe within the next several years even, it'll be time to start considering your idea of forming a party that has a realistic shot of changing things on the political level. Right now, it'd be a waste of time and resources.

A legitimate alternative, if it can be done, is to infiltrate one of the two major parties here. You know, the ones already with name recognition that, in virtue of that alone, gives them at least a chance of winning. Third parties just haven't made any headway in the U.S. system, for whatever reason. At least not in terms of getting people elected to office. The Socialist Party in the U.S. didn't have electoral success under their party name, but they did intellectually, basically by infiltrating the Democrats. Strategically speaking, the Democrats are such an intellectual void right now, that they might be the party to infiltrate and overtake. Think of it like this: academia is currently a leftist stronghold, and yet that's the arena that Objectivists are infiltrating because that's where they're going to have the greatest effectiveness long-term.

Political parties do change over time, through the power of ideas. I don't know if it would work with the Dem Party, but it's a thought. Here's the basic idea, though: as long as the ideas infiltrate the culture, the rest will fall into place, whether it's via the two major parties or some unique third-party success. Once ARI is overflowing with funds, maybe it'll start looking into what can be done at a political level in addition to the academic and media levels.

I second Robert's last post! Anyone interested?

Adam Buker

Music Composition
www.adambuker.com

the whole point of this thread  -- to paraphrase the question you posed to Democrat supporters -- is " The question is, what do US objectivists intend to do about it."

I've seen three proposals discussed so far. (1) Vote for the statists from team elephant, (2) vote for the statists from team ass, (3) vote for both and cause gridlock. In other words you've seeded the political ini