Say what you mean, and mean what you say
who is chatting on SOLO ChatThe Free RadicalPopular contentWho's onlineThere are currently 4 users and 11 guests online.
Online usersPollElection 2008: Who Will Win? Obama by a landslide 13% McCain by a landslide 23% Obama comfortably 11% McCain comfortably 23% Either narrowly 30% Total votes: 47
 Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
 Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
|
Why I'm Voting for the Democrats Submitted by DianaHsieh on Sun, 2006-10-29 15:40.
Dr. Leonard Peikoff recently posted the following Q&A on the upcoming election on his web site.
A: How you cast your vote in the coming election is important, even if the two parties are both rotten. In essence, the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power. Socialism--a fad of the last few centuries--has had its day; it has been almost universally rejected for decades. Leftists are no longer the passionate collectivists of the 30s, but usually avowed anti-ideologists, who bewail the futility of all systems. Religion, by contrast--the destroyer of man since time immemorial--is not fading; on the contrary, it is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government. The survival of this country will not be determined by the degree to which the government, simply by inertia, imposes taxes, entitlements, controls, etc., although such impositions will be harmful (and all of them and worse will be embraced or pioneered by conservatives, as Bush has shown). What does determine the survival of this country is not political concretes, but fundamental philosophy. And in this area the only real threat to the country now, the only political evil comparable to or even greater than the threat once posed by Soviet Communism, is religion and the Party which is its home and sponsor. The most urgent political task now is to topple the Republicans from power, if possible in the House and the Senate. This entails voting consistently Democratic, even if the opponent is a "good" Republican. In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life--which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world. If you hate the Left so much that you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster, i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner. I fully support Dr. Peikoff's statement. I am acutely aware of the concrete evils of voting for the Democrats: high taxes, environmentalism, welfare programs, socialized medicine, and gun control. Nonetheless, I will vote for Democrats as long as necessary, even for Hillary Clinton in 2008. That is a substantial change for me, as some of you might recall. In the 2004 election, I was hopelessly torn by the choice between Bush and Kerry. While I knew that both were evil, I could not say Bush was apocalyptically evil while Kerry was merely ordinary evil. (Frankly, that middle ground was progress for me, as I'd been pro-Republican in the general vein of TIA Daily for many years beforehand.) I continued to pursue the matter after the election: I knew I needed to understand the relevant principles much better than I did. Listening to Dr. Peikoff's excellent DIM Hypothesis course made the most difference to me: upon hearing the whole course, I finally understood the real meaning of the posted excerpt on the 2004 election. Of course, I still had much more thinking to do. Dr. Peikoff's Religion Versus America and America Versus Americans lectures were illuminating, as was Dr. Yaron Brook's lecture The Morality of War and Dr. John Lewis' Ideas and the Fall of Rome. Dr. Brad Thompson's recent article The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism is also a must-read. I mention those sources for a very specific reason: It's hard to understand the depth and power of Dr. Peikoff's position unless familiar with them, particularly his DIM Hypothesis course. Dr. Peikoff's position is not based on any casual survey of recent events; it is well-grounded in fundamental principles, particularly the essential factors governing philosophic change in cultures over the course of centuries. The Objectivist view of the role of philosophy in shaping individual lives, politics, culture, and history is a massive integration. While most professed Objectivists could summarize it, they do not genuinely understand it for themselves, i.e. based upon their own induction from the concretes. Dr. Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis course makes that induction so much more clear. It helps a person cut through the confusing sea of today's concretes, so as to see the essential trends. (Note: The Ayn Rand Institute has made Dr. Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis course available for free to registered users!) As regards the election, the past two years of the Bush Administration and its Republican Congress have displayed the true philosophic commitments of today's conservatives more starkly than ever. In their domestic policies, the Republicans fully support socialism and statism. They simply so do in craftier ways than the Democrats. Most obviously, the Bush Administration successfully pushed its prescription drug plan -- a massive new entitlement -- through a Republican-dominated House and Senate. Even with his Democratic Congress, Clinton was unable to match that feat of welfare statism. As a general matter, the Bush Administration is not even slightly concerned with controlling spending or the growth of government. Consider these "hard facts" from Dr. Thompson's The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism:
Increased spending inevitably means increased taxes. Thus, despite President Bush's much vaunted tax cuts, Americans actually pay more in taxes today than they did during Bill Clinton's last year in office. The 2006 annual report from Americans for Tax Reform, titled "Cost of Government Day," sums up rather nicely the intrusive role played by Republican government in the lives of ordinary Americans. The report says that Americans had to work 86.5 days just to pay their federal taxes, as compared to 78.5 days in 2000 under Bill Clinton. In other words, the average American has worked 10.2 percent more for the federal government under George Bush than under Bill Clinton. When state and local taxes (controlled in the majority of places by Republicans) are added to federal taxes, Americans worked for the government eight hours a day, five days a week, from January 1 until July 12, meaning they worked full-time for the government for more than half the year. As Tom Feeney, a congressional Republican put it: "I remember growing up and reading in some school textbooks that if more than half your paycheck went to the government, then you were living in a socialist society." Just so, Mr. Feeney. The profligate spending of President Bush and the Republican Congress is thoroughly consistent with current Republican principles. In fact, Bush's massively expensive prescription drug plan was based upon the very same model of a "conservative welfare state" as his failed attempt to reform Social Security, his support for school vouchers, and his tax cuts. As Dr. Thompson explains:
In practice, this means that the coercive force of the state is used to provide for all of the people's needs--from universal social security to health and child care to education--but the people choose their own "private" social security accounts; they choose their own "private" health and child-care providers; and parents receive vouchers and choose which schools their children will attend. The choices, of course, are not the wide-open choices of a free market; rather, the people are permitted to choose from among a handful of pre-authorized providers. The neocons call this scheme a free-market reform of the welfare state. As economic "supply-siders," the neocons occasionally support tax cuts--but not because they want to return to taxpayers money that is rightfully theirs. Instead, they advocate lowering the marginal tax rate because it will provide an incentive for people to work harder, earn more money, spur economic growth--and, thereby, generate more tax revenue that will be used to fund the conservative welfare state. In other words, President Bush's occasional vaguely free-market rhetoric means nothing. The guiding ideal of his administration is that of total government control over our lives, albeit with some nominal choices sanctioned and regulated by that government. That's the kind of "freedom" that today's Republicans support -- and that TIA Daily routinely praises. It's worse than a farce: it's a dangerous illusion. Due to the apparent choices still available to them, Americans might not recognize the ever-tightening vise of government control until it's too powerful to effectively resist. To put the point somewhat crudely, the Republicans want Americans to indulge their power-lusting fantasy that their kinder, gentler form of rape is actually consensual sex, i.e. that their form of statism is actually freedom. It's not. If Objectivists can't see that, then America's prospects are very bleak. Even more alarming, Republicans at the local, state, and federal levels are actively intertwining religion and politics. Republican candidates clearly display their Christian credentials in their campaign literature and declare their intention to govern by Christian principles. They claim that America was founded upon Christian principles -- and advocate a return thereto. They actively promote religion with state power and taxpayer dollars via faith-based initiatives. Many now openly reject the very idea of secular government, i.e. of separation of church and state. For example, Janet Rowland, the woman Colorado's Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez selected as his running mate, openly advocates teaching creationism in public schools, wholeheartedly supports faith-based initiatives, and denies any Constitutional support for separation of church and state. She claims that "we should have the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion." Based upon recent threads on Objectivist discussion boards, many Objectivists seem to think that the meaning of Christian government in America is limited to marginal issues like abortion, stem-cell research, evolution, euthanasia, and the like. That's completely false. Christianity is an all-embracing worldview: otherwordly, mystical, altruistic, and authoritarian. Its holy scriptures are explicitly and unequivocally opposed to all the values of this world: success, wealth, pleasure, science, justice, love, reason, pride, independence, and even long-range planning. It demands poverty, incompetence, misery, suffering, mercy, humility, submission, miracles, faith, and death. In recent decades, ever-growing millions of American Christians, both Catholics and Protestants, have embraced an ever-truer faith. They are committed to living in obedience to God. They are rediscovering the actual meaning of the teachings of the New Testament. They are rejecting the common sense worldliness that has long tempered American Christianity; they are embracing the blind emotionalism of faith. Ominously, they are raising an even more radical generation of Christians, teaching them to be "sons of God" rather than "children of the world," just as Augustine demanded. This new Christianity is a whole new animal. Unsurprisingly, these millions of serious Christians want to live in a society that reflects and supports their Christian values. Also unsurprisingly, they are perfectly willing to use the coercive power of the state to achieve that end. They fight to implement and/or retain laws criminalizing homosexual sex, forbidding the co-habitation of unmarried couples, and requiring modest clothing. They support the Bush Administration's vigorous prosecution of obscenity and heavy fines for indecency in the name of "family values." They demand that religious nonsense (i.e. "intelligent design") be taught as science in public schools. They demand the removal of un-Christian books from public and school libraries. Significantly, serious Christians will not be satisfied with success on those limited issues. They will demand strict divorce laws, limit access to birth control, prosecute adultery, and demand religious instruction in schools. To set a proper moral example for the children, they will force everyone to live a Christian life. They will silence critics of religion, whether by actively denying the right to offend religious believers or by passively permitting the intimidation of speakers. (Sadly, that's not much of a stretch in light of Bush the Father's response to the fatwa Salman Rushdie and Bush the Son's response to the Muslim jihad against the Danish cartoons.) Meanwhile, these Christians will continue to support socialism for the simple reason that the New Testament commands it. It demands total collectivization of property and distribution according to need. In passage after passage, it inculcates vicious hostility to wealth, in part on the grounds that the wealthy exploit the poor. Marxism collapsed as an ideological force with the Soviet Union, but Christianity can and will give socialism a new lease on life. The utter misery created by Christian socialism will not be a reason to abandon it; Christianity is explicitly opposed to worldy values like happiness and prosperity. It lauds the silent endurance of suffering and misery as a virtue -- and Christians will force you to be virtuous. The size and power of the evangelical Christian subculture in America should not be underestimated. It is millions strong, generously funded, and growing quickly, often below the radar of the mainstream media. (See the excerpt from the DIM Hypothesis course for details.) Moreover, consider the slew of large Christian organizations seeking to influence American politics, such as American Family Association, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, Christian Coalition of America, Pro-Family Law Center, and Family Research Council. All were created in the last 30 years. In addition, Christian conservatives are successfully infiltrating academia, filling the vacuum created by the ideological death of the left. (To head off a likely objection: Yes, Democrats are increasingly appealing to religion. However, they're doing so because they've seen the great success of the religious Republicans. For now, it's just opportunistic me-too-ism. If religious Republicans are rejected by the American people sooner rather than later, it will disappear. If not, Christian Democrats will gain power over their party and thereby eliminate the possibility of secular government.) For those who understand the awesome power of philosophy in human life, the grave threat posed by this virulent new strain of Christianity is obvious. If America embraces the Christian government of the Republicans, the anti-reason and anti-life ideals Christianity will soon permeate every aspect of American life: politics, business, foreign policy, art, science, criminal and civil law, medicine, education, child-rearing, and more. Of all people, Objectivists ought to see that, precisely because Objectivism recognizes that philosophy is the fundamental driving force of human life and society. Yet many of Dr. Peikoff's critics dismiss the reinvigorated Christianity spreading throughout Republican Party as irrelevant or marginal, focusing only upon superficial issues of policy. They are utterly missing the point. As if the prospect of Christian government in America isn't bad enough, the foreign policy of the Republicans is even more dangerous. The Bush Administration is not fighting a half-war against Islamic totalitarianism, as its Objectivist apologists claim. It is fighting an altruistic pseudo-war in which the lives of thousands of American soldiers and billions of taxpayer dollars are openly sacrificed for the good of the enemy. To take the most telling example, President Bush has embroiled the American military in years of fruitless war in Iraq -- with no end in sight. On the present course, American can only leave Iraq in defeat, i.e. by withdrawing troops as the country sinks further into chaos. When that happens, Iraqis will be free to do as they please, namely to slaughter each other in religious and civil war culminating in the establishment of a repressive Islamic theocracy. That new Iraq will be far more dangerous to America than Saddam's regime ever was; it will be another Iran. Notably, Bush's lofty plan for Iraq diverges only slightly from that grim reality: he wants Iraqis to democratically vote themselves some new government, any new government. Since his basic goal is promote democracy rather than secure America, he's willing to accept an Islamic theocracy hostile to America, so long as Iraqis vote for it. That's what our soldiers in Iraq are fighting and dying to protect in President Bush's "war on terror." The fact that they have killed some jihadists is wholly irrelevant: militant Islamists are not in short supply in the Middle East. America's bloody self-sacrifice in Iraq is the concrete reality of President Bush's "Forward Strategy of Freedom." According to that doctrine, the root cause of the "stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export" common to almost all countries in the Middle East is the absence of democracy. So the solution to Islamist terrorism is to allow Islamists the power of the vote. By implication, Islam is fundamentally unrelated to terrorism. As a "religion of peace," Islam cannot inspire or motivate terrorism, whatever the terrorists might say. Notably, Bush explicitly connected his Forward Strategy of Freedom to his own religious faith. He declared the spread of democracy to be America's "calling," a task to be accomplished with God's assistance and American sacrifice. Iraq was supposed to be the first major step: "the establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution." In fact, the only significant outcome has been an explosion of Islamism in Iraq. President Bush's much-lauded Forward Strategy of Freedom has worked equally well elsewhere. The Bush Administration has vigorously promoted government by democratic vote in Muslim countries, even when that elevates violent Islamic totalitarians to power. Democracy brought Hamas to power over the Palestinian Authority, injected Hezbollah into the Lebanese government, and enshrined Islam as the law of the land in Afghanistan. Yet Bush continues to push for full-blown elections Egypt and Jordan, even though that would undermine the efforts of those semi-friendly countries to suppress militant Islam. By promoting democracy, President Bush is aiding our enemies, openly helping them gain political power that otherwise would have been out of reach. Yet he has not been deterred from his God-given mission by the ever-growing political power of the Islamists around the Middle East. Like any good Christian, he is impervious to the facts of this world. The Bush Administration's foreign policy is influenced by Christianity in more than just this "love your enemies" plan for Islamists. In his recent talk, "Nothing Less Than Victory," Dr. John Lewis rightly argued that America ought to demand that the Muslim world wholly separate mosque and state. As in Shinto Japan after World War II, Muslims would be free to pray to Allah in their private lives, but Islam would be barred from public life and politics, including education. Muslims could rationalize that public secularism however they pleased -- or abandon Islam entirely. Such secular government in Muslim countries is required to eliminate their threat to the West. Yet President Bush is completely incapable of demanding anything of the sort. He does not believe in the separation of church and state; he's actively intermingling religion and politics in America. So he has no principled objection to states governed by Islamic law. He regards religion as a positive force in human life and in the state. He merely prefers Christianity to Islam. In essence, by the very nature of his guiding philosophy of life, President Bush is incapable of defeating Islamic totalitarianism. He lacks the capacity to identify the enemy as Islam and to demand the separation of mosque and state. The result is not some half-good measures against Islamic totalitarianism. He's actively sacrificing American lives, dollars, and security in order promote Islamists to political power. Even worse, by so doing while posing as a tough defender of America, the Bush Administration has substantially destroyed the critical ingredient in the battle for Western civilization against the Muslim barbarians, namely our will to fight. America's military might is awe-inspiring. If victory was the goal, America's military could probably crush Islamic totalitarianism in mere months, if not sooner. The only question is whether America has the moral confidence to use that awesome military power in the service of its own defense. In the weeks and months after 9/11, most Americans were eager to terminate the deadly ambitions of the Islamists. The Bush Administration bled dry that fighting spirit with years of war in Iraq, not to mention the ongoing appeasement of terrorists and the states that sponsor them. The cultural and political power of the Islamists in the Middle East has only grown since 9/11, so much so that many Americans now regard victory against the Islamists as impossible and self-defense as slow suicide. They do not think we can win; they aren't certain we deserve to win; they don't even know what "winning" would mean. That's obscene. In concrete terms, the loss of moral confidence means that America will not confront Iran or Saudi Arabia, even though they are the two ideological and financial fountainheads of terrorism against the West. Our government will continue to appease Iran with diplomacy while it openly pursues nuclear weapons. It will continue to pretend that Saudi Arabia is an ally. Of course, I cannot imagine that the Democrats will wage anything like proper war against the Islamic totalitarians determined to destroy America. However, I can reasonably hope that their fearful cowardice will protect us from self-sacrificial wars. They will not sap America's will to fight, but perhaps even reinvigorate it by their inaction. For example, by pulling out of Somalia in disgrace, the Clinton Administration saved us from the self-sacrifice of Bush the Elder's humanitarian "war" to protect and serve a hostile population. Americans were not sapped of their will to fight thereby: most understood that we could and should have retaliated -- even though we shouldn't have embroiled ourselves in that mess of a country in the first place. In contrast, if Bush the Younger were in charge, American soldiers would probably still be dying senselessly in Somalia, just as in Iraq today, on the premise that Somalis really want freedom too. The world would be a safer place today if President Bush refused to take any action in response to the 9/11 attacks. Fewer Islamists would be in positions of political power in the Middle East. Americans might be frustrated by the inaction rather than cowed by improvised roadside bombs. Objectivists ought to recognize the total failure of Bush's foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly in light of the slew of articles and lectures on the topic in recent years by Dr. Lewis and Dr. Brook. Yet many seem utterly blind to the disaster, focusing only upon insignificant concretes. The fact is that the Bush Administration is not fighting a war against Islamic totalitarianism: as a matter of deliberate policy, it is promoting their political and cultural domination of the Middle East. Yet that's the Administration that TIA Daily praises, supports, and urges you to vote for -- precisely on the grounds of its "war on terror." It's appalling. Those are my basic reasons for regarding today's Republicans as far, far more dangerous than today's Democrats. The problem is not some few individual Republicans but the whole Republican Party, including its leadership. It must be told in no uncertain terms to reverse course. It will only do so if punished by voters for injecting religion into politics and promoting Islamism in the Middle East. Yes, the Democrats are awful. Yes, it will be painful to vote for them. However, the alternative of Christian government is so much more dangerous to our liberties. The fundamental philosophic principles required to clearly understand the nature of our choice in this election are not self-evident. They can be difficult to understand, even for someone long familiar with Objectivism. An honest Objectivist could be confused by the flood of irrelevant concretes and misleading analyses, particularly if attentive to the seemingly Objectivist defenses of the Bush Administration published in almost every TIA Daily and commonly posted on HBL (based on what I saw during my trial membership this spring). However, I think such confusion is possible only to a person without anything like a firm grasp of the relevant philosophic principles. That's why I agree with Dr. Peikoff's claim that "anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life--which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world." Sadly, that assessment has been confirmed by the flurry of concrete-bound objections to Dr. Peikoff's statement posted on various Objectivist forums. More particularly, most critics of Dr. Peikoff dismiss as insignificant (or even deny) the rise of a new form of Christianity among millions of Americans over the last three decades. They treat Christianity as relevant to little more than birth and death, i.e. to abortion and euthanasia, even though millions of Christians are determined to live by the actual teachings of the New Testament. They claim that America's sense of life makes theocracy impossible, as if the sense of life of a nation is independent of and impervious to massive changes in explicit philosophy. In essence, they do not recognize that Christianity is an all-encompassing philosophy with the power to drag America into a second Dark Ages if unchecked. In other words, they fail to grasp "the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life." In response to Dr. Peikoff's claim, some argue that a person's vote reveals nothing about his understanding of Objectivism. In fact, a person's concrete actions often do reveal failures of understanding--particularly when the choices are stark. An Objectivist who occasionally shoplifts doesn't understand property rights (and more); an Objectivist who stumps for the Libertarian Party doesn't understand the role of fundamental philosophy in politics (and more); an Objectivist who admires Kant's philosophy doesn't understand much of anything. Similarly, an Objectivist who thinks that today's Republicans are less evil or as evil as today's Democrats fails to grasp the fundamental ideological commitments of the Republicans and the real life meaning thereof, particularly the totalistic crushing oppression of life in a Christian culture and under Christian government. Moreover, I'm glad that Dr. Peikoff was so blunt, even though some were insulted. Many Objectivists needed to hear those shocking words. They needed to be told in no uncertain terms by the foremost expert on Objectivism that their understanding of the philosophy is seriously deficient. If Dr. Peikoff had stated his views in less stark terms, most pro-Republican Objectivists would have dismissed them without much consideration. Others would have remained oblivious to the enormous differences underlying the positions advocated by Yaron Brook, John Lewis, Craig Biddle, and Leonard Peikoff on one hand and Robert Tracinksi, Jack Wakeland, and Harry Binswanger (at least in 2004) on the other. A wake-up call was needed. Yes, it's blaring -- probably because the softer alarms weren't often heeded. Obviously, a person who fails to properly understand Objectivism is not thereby dishonest or immoral. However, some of Dr. Peikoff's most vehement critics have interpreted him as saying just that -- wrongly, I think. Dr. Peikoff wrote:
In my judgment, that claim of immorality presumes that a person understands the choice in question basically as stated, i.e. between an ever-weaker killer and an ever-stronger killer. If a person fails to understand that despite serious and honest effort, then his failure to vote for the Democrats would not be a moral failing, although still a serious mistake. More generally, the identification of a certain act as immoral doesn't imply that everyone performing it is immoral. For example, it's immoral for a husband to lie to his wife to spare her feelings, but if he's accepted the standard view of honesty, he might reasonably think that some "white lies" are proper. Such a husband has done something wrong by lying, even though he's not acted immorally in the sense of evading his knowledge. Hopefully, someone will tell him that he's doing wrong, that lying to his wife is immoral, and that he doesn't understand honesty. That's what Dr. Peikoff has done for Objectivists. (Of course, some pro-Republicans Objectivists are probably dishonest in their views. However, my point is simply that Dr. Peikoff didn't say that all were.) Finally, I must comment upon some of the vicious attacks on Dr. Peikoff posted to the ObjectivismOnline and The Forum threads on his statement. To be blunt, I'm appalled by them, particularly by the many accusations of intimidation, bullying, dogmatism, and the like. (For example, Jack Wakeland began this post with "Thank you, [name omitted], for so quickly standing up to Dr. Peikoff's attempt to bully.") Such charges are absurd: a person does not dogmatically impose himself upon anyone else by expressing strong epistemological and moral judgments. (That's David Kelley's "tolerationist" view; it's not Objectivism.) Dr. Peikoff is certainly not obliged to sugarcoat his negative judgments for the sake of spineless cowards fearful of his disapproval, particularly not on such weighty issues like the fate of America. More generally, Dr. Peikoff deserves far better treatment from Objectivists than he's received of late. Apart from Ayn Rand, he's undoubtedly the most knowledgeable and accomplished Objectivist philosopher -- by far. No one else could have so skillfully and clearly systematized Objectivism as he did in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. For that feat alone, he deserves the deep respect and admiration of Objectivists. In action, such respect means that Objectivists ought to give his arguments careful attention and scrutiny, even if ultimately disagreeing with them. That's hardly too much to ask. However, that's not happened in this debate. Dr. Peikoff has been attacked in the very same terms as I often heard in TOC circles, i.e. with the same casual disregard for facts and the same specious arguments about intimidation. Also like at TOC, many people have dismissed his arguments as absurd without any substantial effort to understand them. That's inexcusable. [This final paragraph was obviously written for the NoodleFood version of this post. I've retained it for the sake of completeness, as well as to make my position more clear. To be pointed: Linz, I think you've done wrong in the invective you've slung at Dr. Peikoff.] To be perfectly clear, I will not tolerate any such attacks upon Dr. Peikoff in the in the [NoodleFood] comments on this post. Disagreement is fine, but I want nothing to do with anyone who treats him with the dismissive contempt I've seen elsewhere. My admiration for Dr. Peikoff and his accomplishments means something to me, something serious and important. So those supposed Objectivists who cannot treat Dr. Peikoff with some minimal respect are kindly invited in advance to remain silent [in the NoodleFood comments].
( categories: )
|
I
think the idea of the unpopularity of the Bush administration causing inevitable defeat for the Republican candidate, although conventional wisdom, is highly optimistic.
What would be more likely is the unpopularity of Hillary Clinton bringing down the Democrats.
Her 'negative' numbers are just astounding.
You could have a monkey as the Republican candidate and it could reasonably expect 45% of the vote, every Southern state except Arkansas and Virginia, the 'Plain' and 'Rocky Mountain' states except Colorado
There is evidence that having Hillary on the ticket jeopadises Freshman Democrat house members, and many of them are terrified of her campaigning anywhere near their districts next year.
Something which is not widely understood about her supposed popularity is 1 in 6 Democrats voted against her in the Primary last year, and her percentage in November was a lot lower than Elliot Spitzer received, and Charles Schumer in 2004....seeing her 'Bottom of the ticket' in quite a few New York congressional districts.
Too close
I'll bet that it will be a very close election (provided there are no 3rd party candidates). I think it is too far off to call right now though. There are a lot of things that can happen between now and then. The President's approval numbers are low, but congresses numbers are at record lows. I think there will be a lot of turmoil in the next election cycle.
Wm
Want my bet?
Nominations: D: Clinton R: Giuliani
Winner: Clinton
I think that the Dems will go for a familiar name and Reps will go for a 9/11 hero that has some appeal to centrists, Clinton will win because Bush is so unpopular at the moment and will probably remain that way. Any takers?
Every
4 years I take a very close interest in the US Presidential elections, the year in the run up to the Primary season, and the 10 months from New Hampshire to the General Election.
Have been doing so for 20 years and find it great fun, especially as I have accurately predicted the winner of each state during these 5 Presidential contests...(yes, yes I know what you mean but there is no need to dwell on Florida in 2000)
...and consider myself a 'World Authority' on the subject. 
One interesting parallel between this Presidential Contest and the first one I observed during 1987/88 (apart from Joe Biden, Ron Paul and Al Gore), is the impossibility of visualising any of the Democrats actually being elected President, despite the media interest.
Back in 1987 the media were running stories (with a straight face) trying to imagine "President Gore", "President Dukakis", "President Gephardt" (wtf?)
and for a brief period around Christmas 1987 even "President Simon"...(former Senator from Illinois).
The idea of "President Bush" or "President Dole" was never entertained, and laughed off with a "well the Republicans have to have a candidate, too, I suppose"
Looking at the field from both parties at the moment it seems faintly ridiculous to suggest there would be a "President Obama" or "President Clinton"...yet these scenarios are widely commented on, including the 'Heir-to-George-McGovern-let's-have-an-unelectable-policy-programme' "President Edwards".
I can easily imagine, however, "President Giuliani" "President Romney" and "President Thomson"....(although "President Mccain" seems a non starter nowadays).
All three are very impressive on television (especially Romney, to my surprise) and seem to talk about issues of interest to the American voting public at large.
Chris
Hi Chris, regarding the Christian Coalition - certainly they are less confident now than they were before. Reality just El-Kabonged them on the head and they are forced to reconsider what God wants.
Short-term that's a very good thing. As far as what the future holds with the CC, your guess is as good as mine.
J.D. Hayworth, Missing Link, Declared Extinct
Frankly, it's better for the left to have to put up or shut up now rather than risk getting Hillary and both houses in a sweep in '08. What will matter now will be how Bush completes his term and who stands up under what principles for the next election.
A lot of horrible Republicans are gone now, and although I might only support 1/200 Democrats, (Most of whom are dead or in their 80's) I say good riddance. I am happy with the results.
Jim V
Do you -- or anyone else -- see any other big "pluses" in the Republican category?
Right off? Not really. The differences in the two parties' positions on taxes is the most obvious advantage for Republicans.
This doesn't mean the GOP nowadays likes spending less, as Diana correctly points out. Their mentality is more the "let the economy grow and provide the greater revenues" approach. Which would solve any deficit problem in time if spending were kept in check. The Dems are vile on this point for the obvious reasons.
While it's not exactly a "plus" for the GOP -- more like a larger minus for the Dems -- the GOP has some kind of advantage when it comes to national defense, terror, etc. The argument here is generally that while GWB may be doing a lousy job at it, the Dems aren't going to be any better and probably worse. I could accept all of Diana's criticisms about how GWB has been acting as an enabler for Islamofascist theocrats abroad, and still raise the challenge as to how the Demo-Europhiles could do better.
Oh, and as another plus relatively speaking, the GOP does seem to do better on gun-control issues. Not that there's an imminent threat of people's guns being taken away, but it's nice knowing that one party seems firmly committed enough to that not happening; with the Dems I don't know what you might get given enough time, Europhiles that they are. It's nice knowing that the GOP would act as a safeguard on this just to be sure.
Taxes are the biggest plus, they're friendly to gun-ownership rights, and they're less worse on defense/terror. I don't know what else gives them much of any advantage these days. I know that for Ayn Rand, this wouldn't be enough anyway. If you remember her views on Reagan, it didn't matter that he was more the way the Republicans are supposed to be than what they've become; his position on abortion was enough for her to oppose him.
With the two major parties, it's like comparing rotten apples and rotten oranges. They're each bad in their own ways. But consider something like this: Roe v Wade isn't getting overturned anytime soon, while tax hikes are perhaps as close as a presidential election away.
Heads and Tails
"At first I thought, "Well, this is a kick in the head to the 'Peikoff position'. Here you have the Democrats we're supposed to vote for to oppose religion embracing those very same ideas as the Republicans." On the other hand, it illustrates the "Peikoff position" to the extent that it shows that even the Democrats feel obliged to pander to it."
Heads I win, tails you lose. Proponents of Freud argued in a similar vein 50 years ago. I'm reminded of the scene in Life of Brian. "Well, what chance does that give me? Alright, I AM the messiah!"
Don't be angry, Fred. Just a little post-election stress relief humor.
Jeff
The Election
I found a couple of things curious in this election and a couple of things *very* encouraging.
The most encouraging thing is that apparently all of the anti-abortion propositions (including parental notification) went down to defeat, particularly the most visible and the one that the religionists had staked the most on - the one in South Dakota. One would hope that in this vote the country has once and for all sent a loud and clear message on this subject - and that the "pro-lifers" have heard it.
There were a couple of other obnoxious propositions, such as the one in California which would have imposed massive taxes on oil companies to pay for "alternate" energy research, that also went down to defeat.
I have been unable to find the results of the various "eminent domain" propositions - I believe there were about 8 around the country. If anyone can find a web page which summarizes it, I'd appreciate it.
The most curious thing to me was that a number of the winning Democrat candidates, e.g. the one who defeated Rick Santorum, were themselves staunchly "social conservatives", including opposing abortion and stem cell research. At first I thought, "Well, this is a kick in the head to the 'Peikoff position'. Here you have the Democrats we're supposed to vote for to oppose religion embracing those very same ideas as the Republicans." On the other hand, it illustrates the "Peikoff position" to the extent that it shows that even the Democrats feel obliged to pander to it. One of the Fox commentators noted that the Democrat senate candidate in Tennessee referred to God more often than his Republican opponent. (The Republican won, btw).
One other good thing. According to reports, the Republicans largely held their evangelical base but went down to defeat because their support among other groups, e.g. "independents", dropped significantly. In other words, evangelicals alone are not enough for Republicans to win. So, if we are heading toward "theocracy", the theocrats don't yet have sufficient clout by themselves to carry an election.
All that said, the Republicans deserved to lose. It would be nice, too, if in 2008 they could find a candidate who could actually speak the English language.
Jim
Jim,
We have no way of knowing and a serious candidate has to come in with some kind of credibility on these issues. Diana has stated in her piece that she will vote for Hillary Clinton in the next election. Hillary Clinton is no Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi or Golda Meir.
Until and unless the Democrats nominate a Zell Miller, a Bill Nelson or even a Bob Kerrey they will have no credibility on the national security issue. I mean most Americans can just imagine Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi spreading their legs for the Islamofascists...
Preview of Democratic President
If you want to get a glimpse of what a Democratic president might sound like on that subject, catch interviews of the last two days with Nancy Pelosi.
No, I won't try to summarize them here and now.
Jeff
Jim
Do you think that the Dems can be successful in national elections after 9/11, and maintain this stance? Wouldn't a Dem elected to the White House in '08 have to prove he's (or she's) "tough on Islamic terrorists" -- or risk killing their party's chances in national elections for the foreseeable future?
Those Dems who were, once upon a time, against the Soviets simply felt a practical reality -- one that Clinton could avoid so long as the public perceived no like threat. Out of power, the Dems can politically exploit the full range of criticisms of Bush. But, in power, would they have really acted much differently?
After 9/11, it remains to be seen what a Dem president would actually feel obliged to do.
National Security and Foreign Policy
James V,
Many of us have looked at how Presidents respond to major threats. The Democratic Party of today does not have anything close to an FDR, a Harry Truman or even a JFK when it comes down to responding to a significant external threat. They are doormats and everybody in the world knows it.
Jim
Chris
Thank you, Chris.
On this issue, I see your point. Within certain limits that transcend party-politics, and all other things being equal, taxes will be higher under Dems.
Of course, we must bear in mind our "odds" with the Republicans even on this score: On occasion, we get a Reagan and we get a tax cut. Sometimes, we get a "read my lips," and then higher taxes. Other occasions, we get temporary, automatically dissolving tax cuts.
The tax cuts do not seem to have shrunk government, either, although they certainly had some impact in keeping spending from growing still faster.
Do you -- or anyone else -- see any other big "pluses" in the Republican category?
May I also ask a similar question, already suggested by Lance? Have the Republicans -- in power for the last six years -- on balance -- advanced or harmed individual freedom?
BTW,
The latest results should give the GOP some cause for rethinking about priorities. The nice thing about the GOP is just what the Dem-ogogues berate them for: keeping taxes low (which means keeping taxes low on those who pay the most). So the GOP has its "rich buddies" whose tax bills they want to keep low. So now is a time for a question, given that within two years we have a looming Dem re-takeover of the White House and Congress, something that'll have the DIMmers circling the wagons quick enough. So with Dems in power, it's the end of any talk of lower taxes, and on with the talk of higher taxes. The question here being, how much do the Republicans value lower taxes compared to running the Iraq War the way they've been running it, and compared to pandering to the Christian Right and to rednecks? If it falls lower, they've not earned the right to the people's vote.
Much as I'm not a Rush Limbaugh fan, he's the voice that the GOP needs to be following -- and it's the voice on where the GOP is supposed to be strongest, the economy and taxes. It's supposed to be stronger on defense, and it could and should be, but it's running things too much like the military-industrial-complex theory would say it's running things, with no end in sight to involvement in Iraq. So GWB could keep on enriching his buddies that nasty way, or do the right thing and win the fucking war the way it can and should be won, and let his rich buddies get richer the old fashioned way by keeping their taxes low.
From the standpoint of what the GOP's money source and good political sense would want, GWB's doing a nice job of screwing it up for them. I don't think GWB's present course is what the GOP wants; they should be focused not on defending him, but on retaining control after '08. So, in that sense, hopefully the '06 outcome is a wake-up call and that they go the smart route rather than the politically and existentially toxic combination of Military-Industrial-Complex and Christian Right.
Jim V
Okay then, guys, forget the "advantages" of a Republican majority -- what's the "empirical" case for Republicans over Democrats in general?
One advantage is that when Republicans want to cut taxes and have done so a few times. Democrats fight tooth and nail against tax cuts. The last time the Dems went along with a tax cut was back in '81 when Reagan had the political clout to see to it that it happened. With Republicans in majority in Congress, the sunsetted tax cuts would have been extended; with the Dems in charge and GWB lacking the clout, I don't see these tax cuts being extended -- or it's going to be much tougher to get it done. Dem Congresses have ushered through big tax hikes ever since '81, getting Bush Sr. and Clintoid (most eagerly) to go along. We could get into semantical debates on whether the sunsetting of the present tax cuts amounts to a tax hike, but it's all the same in reality -- the government and its assorted parasites getting their grubby mitts on more than if the tax cuts were kept in place.
Democrats hate, HATE, HATE tax cuts. That alone makes them pretty damn vile.
(And as it goes with politics today, while the voters didn't like the Iraq War as it's being run and voted accordingly, they're getting, as a side effect, no more easy breaks on tax cuts in the next few years. And tax cuts are actually popular. The Dems have something bordering on a "principled" opposition to tax cuts, even if they're popular. Remember, last time these fuckers cut taxes on their own was 45 years ago. Once the party went McGovernite, no tax cuts save for '81. Oh, BTW, the Dems didn't even control the whole Congress in '81; the Republicans had a majority for a short two years in the Senate in '81-82. So, really, it was a GOP White House with a popular referendum on tax cuts and a GOP-run Senate that were instrumental in making tax cuts a political reality.)
Lance
I also feel good knowing that the Christian Coalition will have to re-group and re-think their positions. I don't imagine this will crush them politically but it had to hurt.
Lance, I would agree with Diana, Dr. Peikoff, et al, that the Christian Right is a dangerous and politically-powerful gathering element, and the regrettable part is that this election was not a referendum on the Christian Right, but on the Iraq War. I don't see why the Christian Right should be particularly bothered by this outcome, nor the Objectivists any less rightfully concerned about (fearful of?) their underlying influence in politics.
Dan
The significance of voting in this election is primarily symbolic. As Objectivists, our votes may not count for much, but our voices are each as powerful as 1,000 Democrats or Republicans. This is particularly true when our voices are united and our reasoning sound. The fundamental question here is not who to vote for but why to vote for him.
At this point in history the Objectivist vote is not going to significantly effect the outcome of an election. But one's public support of a political party does have long term consequences. Men like Rob Trancinski, Yaron Brooke, and Lindsay Perigo speak to a much broader audience that just Objectivists. It matters what they think, who they support, and why they support him. That is why the issue is so important.
If ideas move history, then one must be aware of which ideas are dominant and where they are leading us. Please don't try to reduce this issue to the significance of one man's vote.
I agree with the first part, about the important part being not who to vote for, but the reasons for voting that way. However, we shouldn't be getting into begging questions. I think everyone here is agreed that both major parties as we know them are vile, and each in their own way strongly committed to killing off the good in this country. The idea is to replace the major parties as we know them, but that's a long-term thing requiring major cultural change. So it's certainly not me reducing this issue to the significance of one person's vote; I'm responding to those folks who are treating it that way. You have Peikoff declaring things about people who vote some way, and you have Diana posting about why she's voting a certain way, not merely why one party would be better than another right now.
I agree with the part about Objectivist voices being more powerful -- and that's the arena where Objectivists can make an impact. Not in the voting booth.
I liken the act of voting to rooting for a sports team. If it accomplishes anything, it's as an expressive act. But I despise the major parties right now too much to express support for either. I'll be glad to take part in the rooting once the necessary cultural changes have taken root and become effective in the political realm.
Phil
I have none of the obvious personal investment in a "position" that you seem to have -- and (are you were paying attention?) I have no position here to defend -- yet.
Linz
Linz,
Don't write the Epilogue, just yet.
Uncertain at the moment, I have no long position statement to make -- and it's hard to see how anyone could have "wiped the floor" with me.
I will wait for Jeff -- who always has something worthwhile to contribute -- but from these responses, especially Phil's, it's becoming clear that the issue is not one of Republican superiority -- a case no one, I think, can make.
Of course, this does not mean that one should vote for the Dems, either, but it's a good starting place for the discussion. Uh... "starting place."
It may not be "earlier than you think" about the world -- but it's way too early to denounce me as a pomo-wanker, my friend.
No Takers, Indeed!
James Valliant, as someone who went through the agonies of the damned having to rethink himself after reading PARC, I am pained and dismayed to say that in this instance your modus operandi sucks. How much time went by before there were any takers for my Turandot challenge? Actually, we don't know, since there have been no takers still! And you as a Hsiekovian in this debate have the gall to bitch about "no takers" a mere few hours after posting a dumb challenge re the empirical difference between Republicans and Democrats as though the non-Hsiekovians were blind Republican-worshippers. Jesus H. Christ!
You've been appropriately punished—Phil Coates has wiped the floor with you. Phil Coates!!
I'm shortly going to write an Epilogue to this sorry affair, which I'll post separately.
Linz
The Dimocrats?
Bill -- So does that make me an M4 or a D2?
- Jason
(Yes, I have been making jokes (and very direct comments) about about certain people who previous to this debacle have been considered to be untouchable in certain circles. I know that jokes about them make some people uncomfortable. Personally I believe they deserve it. That certainly doesn't make me a nihilist. And please don't lump Jeff Perren in the same category as me. He has been EXTREMELY diplomatic in these discussions.)
Jason
You wrote:
"Ladies and Gentleman, we can all breath a sigh of relief. The Democrats won the House (and maybe the Senate). The dastardly philosophical premises of the Republicans have been thwarted. Chalk one up for the DIM Hypothesis."
My response:
Jason, I don't know what your personality is like in real life, but your internet personality sucks. You seem like a nihilist. All your posts reveal is a desire to attack anyone who agrees with Dr. Peikoff or Diana. You add nothing to the conversation except insults.
I'll be blunt. You really irritate me. So much so that from now on I intend to skip any post with your picture attached to it.
Takers, Later.
James,
Ur... maybe you'd be willing to have a little patience. I've written enough words to compile a short book in the last two weeks. Coming in after closing arguments and demanding the case be re-tried -- when no one has addressed those words very much -- is a bit much, don't you think? Maybe you could review them (and Speicher's, et al) and make some statements. Or is the claim that they are 'concrete bound' now enough? (No, I'm not leveling having used that phrase at you personally.)
Anyway, like I said. If I have the time and energy, I may say more on the subject later. Right now, I'm under some deadlines.
Jeff
"Blowing Off" the Arguments
> what's the "empirical" case for Republicans over Democrats in general? [Jim]
I don't know about Jeff, but my policy is not to repeat arguments and posts or "summarize" them when the previous ones have been ignored.
Also, Jim, please pay attention:
The main points that have been made by the people I listed in my last post are -against- the idea that theocracy is imminent, that the Left is dead, that religion is the overwhelming threat in the short run. It is not (necessarily - Jeff and me and Linz and the Speichers, Tracinski, and so on might disagree on this) the position that Republicans are better than Democrats. Or even that one should have just voted for the former.
Once again, you are writing a "one-liner" asking another question, instead of engaging the points I and Jeff and others have made. It's as if you don't want to take the trouble...and expect us instead to keep spending a lot more posts trying to satisfy you when we've already done the work and you are "blowing it off."
....
Note that this is exactly the point that I was making in my last post here about: "brushing aside any very detailed engagement" and here: "you simply can't argue with people who are unwilling to concretely and empirically study them in sufficient detail".
....
Jim, I have noticed you doing this on other threads and on other topics and it is infuriating:
A long chain of discussion has gone on, sometimes for weeks. And the side you disagree with has invested many hours making a long list of arguments and presented a *lot* of evidence. You never systematically take them on point by point. Days later, you make some very short post saying something aksing a Socratic question along the lines of "please tell me what your point is" or "what evidence do you have'.
Ignoring the fact that it has already been offered at great length. And that you simply are not willing to or don't have time to slog through it. And then you append a line like "NO TAKERS?" which suggests that people have not stepped up to the plate to debate YOU...as if you had written enormously detailed posts laying out the arguments and evidence!!
Would you be allowed to do this in a court of law or in preparing a case?
No Takers?
Okay then, guys, forget the "advantages" of a Republican majority -- what's the "empirical" case for Republicans over Democrats in general?
Jeff
See my most recent Blog Entry for some on this. Here are some short answers.
Yes, men have free will. But the history of the world indicates that even in the presense of relatively good ideas (like the Enlightenment) free will does not work automatically nor does it always choose to think. Thinking is, after all, difficult sometimes and when the ideas it has to consider are abstract and the most rational ideas subvert short-term self interest (public schools, earmarked funds for your pet project, etc.)rational ideas are not guaranteed acceptance. As Peikoff points out in the DIM lectures Disintegration (entropy?) is the default position. (This series is really important, Jeff, even if all you want to do is defeat it.)
To use the firehouse analogy to answer your last question, it's hard to fight the arsonist when he's in bed with the fire-fighter. And when the arsonist is first-rate and the fire-fighter is third-rate, it's almost impossible. That's why it's sometimes necessary to change ownership of the firehouse, even if the new owner is a third-rate arsonist. Better a third-rate arsonist in the firehouse than a third-rate firefighter in bed with a first-rate arsonist.
Uh...
Well, no one on the political Right did anything about it, Jeff.
Prognostication
"Peikoff deserves a lot of credit for identifying and naming Islamic jihadists in theocratic Iran as our enemy following 9/11. He had actually figured it out well before 9/11."
With all due respect to Dr. Peikoff, quite a few people across the political and philosophical spectrum saw that even before 1979, when it became obvious to damn near everyone but the committed Left.
Hell, even Saddam Hussein saw them as a danger and engaged in a several-year long war against them. (Not for the right reasons, of course.)
Jeff
Is Rebublicanism toast?
Peikoff deserves a lot of credit for identifying and naming Islamic jihadists in theocratic Iran as our enemy following 9/11. He had actually figured it out well before 9/11. 5 years later small numbers of people are beginning to see it as clearly Piekoff did then. Most still don't see it all.
He also saw the mess in Iraq for what it is before the 2004 election. Since at least the 1970s the Republican party has been viewed as more rational and more friendly to liberty than the Dems. That view was based more on hope than on fact. There is simply no truth in the idea that Republicans are friendlier to liberty than Democrats. It feels good to let that truth wash over me because it is the truth.
I also feel good knowing that the Christian Coalition will have to re-group and re-think their positions. I don't imagine this will crush them politically but it had to hurt.
Okay, Shoot
Jeff and/or Phil and/or Linz (not that these are interchangeable units),
Could you please lay out what you see as the "empirical" case for the superiority of a Republican majority in Congress (or, the Presidency, for that matter)?
> I tire of repeating
> I tire of repeating myself. [Jeff]
At a certain point, when you've presented more than a dozen pieces of directly relevant, diligently gathered and carefully presented, inductive evidence from surveys, from history, from current events, from statements by the very people and leaders being speculated about and they have not been engaged, it is clear that no more is needed or will have any effect.
It's enormously significant that people haven't been willing to engage these points. They consider them beside the point.
The reason is the thinking method they tend to employ.
The reason our opponents on this issue of current politics and philosophical trends are pretty much brushing aside any very detailed engagement with you, Jeff (as well as myself, the Speichers, Tracinski, etc.) is largely because they are *deducing* what -has- to happen from principles taken out of context. Since they are on a rationalist, deductivist premise rather than an empirical, look at the actual world, 'reality check', inductive premise, they are unwilling to focus on arguments based on the latter.
This is why they tend to dismiss what we are saying along the lines of "reality check" type arguments as "concrete bound".
They think it's as simple as postulating that socialism, which is the heart of the Left and of Democratic nihilism, has died and that religion, which is the heart and unchallenged dominant force of Republicanism today, is alive and driving the culture and therefore it is a direct deduction that the latter is the great threat and not the former. Of course, all four of these premises are false:
i) that socialism is dead
ii) that socialism (as opposed to relativism, subjectivism, altruism, collectivism, nihilism, postmodernism) is the philosophical heart of the Democrats or the liberals
iii) that religion is what is driving the direction of the culture
iv) that religion is the heart and dominant force of the Republicans.
i) - iv) are certainly debatable (and I'm willing to be proved wrong on any one of them). And in principle, if I had an engaged audience willing to get into the details, I could do very long posts on each of these four issues. But they are heavily detailed, heavily empirical, heavily FACTUAL issues and you simply can't argue with people who are unwilling to concretely and empirically study them in sufficient detail. Or who would rather "do philosophy" exclusively.
Or try to directly deduce the political state, direction (and worst of all -speed- of change) of a complex country -solely- from it. While pooh-poohing all other factors (or boundary conditions).
The best analogy I can come up with for this kind of rationalistic context-dropping is fr0m the branch of physics known as mechanics: It's as if someone were to launch a pin ball and try to determine which pins it would hit solely by deduction from the initial impulse and Newton's laws of motion without taking into account the elasticity of the posts, the nearness or the walls, the weight of the ball, and the tilt of the table.
Assertions from Noumenal Self
More of the same assertions and assumptions that have been challenged or entirely refuted several times. Very few of which are addressed by Mr. Self, and those poorly.
But, I tire of repeating myself.
Anyone interested should read my posts earlier in this thread as well as the comments -- on both sides -- on The Forum and NoodleFood.
And, of course, he or she should continue to examine both historical facts and the real world we live in today. Then be as objective as possible. It's the only way to form a reasonable prediction about the future, or even to understand what is happening now.
If I have the time, patience, or energy to expose yet more weakly grounded views, I'll pick up the debate later.
Jeff
Significance of Voting
Re: You guys ...
... shouldn't be making jokes about this. The country was *this* close to theocracy. Thanks to DIM, the Dems—those rational, freedom-loving Dems—have saved the day for now. But DIM-Dems must be eternally vigilant. There are more elections in 2 years. If the Republicans win, they could be the last free elections ever.
Oh, no joking about it at all. No seriously, the best part about all this is that the way to fend off a theocracy is to vote a certain way. I shit you not. It's Diana's doing. She voted Democrat, ergo theocracy was fought back for now. It's there in those graduate-level logic textbooks somewhere, or implied in the DIM course. The course of society hinges on how you vote.
C'mon, Linz, this is obvious.
More Links
Noumenal Self chimes in here and here.
A Friendly Semantic Suggestion
Ted
> We have no specific goal
> We have no specific goal of destroying a specific enemy. [Lance]
1. Al Qaeda insurgents specifically. 2. Shiite militias specifically. 3. Baathist Saddam loyalists specifically.
> The lives of American soldiers are very literally put on the line, not to fight and win a war, but to see to it that the Iraqi government becomes a Democracy.
Not exactly. The main purpose was first for Saddam to be removed as a danger, then for the country to become stable as a vital -ally- in the war on terrorism, not a breeding ground for the Iranians or the terrorists. And a crucial base to seek out and destroy the rest of the terrorists (and Iran) in the Middle East. We can't do that solely from the continental U.S. We need bases and allies...in more than just the military sense...in the Middle East to win the war on terrorism. Since that's where their breeding grounds are, among the Arabs and the Persians.
The idea of making it a western rights-respecting democracy will probably be unworkable, so we'll probably end up being willing to settle for a (not very free) ally with someone like Maliki or someone like Chalabi holding the reins of power and dependent on us or on Nato or on the Turks, etc.
Bush's error was not one of HIS INTENTION being for Iraq's government to become Isamist or a pawn of Iran, obviously, but i) of simplistically thinking Iraq would suddenly be remade into postwar Germany or Japan, an island of westernism in a medieval sea, ii) thinking we couldn't just knock down the dictator and leave chaos and a breeding ground for Al Qaeda behind.
I'm surprised you and Diana and op ed writers like Ethan Journo don't know all this. Iraq 101. It's been published: It's in books about the war, in interviews with Administration figures, magazine analyses such as in Foreign Affairs, etc.
Again, do not confuse -intent- with -execution-.
You guys ...
... shouldn't be making jokes about this. The country was *this* close to theocracy. Thanks to DIM, the Dems—those rational, freedom-loving Dems—have saved the day for now. But DIM-Dems must be eternally vigilant. There are more elections in 2 years. If the Republicans win, they could be the last free elections ever.
If I see any more irreverence toward Dr. Peikoff, I'll have to ask those responsible to stop posting here.
Linz
"Chalk one up for the DIM
"Chalk one up for the DIM Hypothesis."
Yeah, somehow, I don't think that was it...
But Peikoff has his "golden moment," regardless...I think the next few years will be make-or-break for him...
Theocracy on Hold
Ladies and Gentleman, we can all breath a sigh of relief. The Democrats won the House (and maybe the Senate). The dastardly philosophical premises of the Republicans have been thwarted. Chalk one up for the DIM Hypothesis.
- Jason
Dems win House, Republicans trying to hold Senate
It looks like the Democrats have won the House of Representatives and the Republicans are trying to hold the Senate, probably winning in Tennessee and Missouri. Montana and Virginia look like they're going down to the wire.
Jim
Questions
I have some questions for those who are inclined to believe that Evangelical Christianity (or religious faith more generally) is, or within a generation or three will be, a serious problem in the U.S.
Do you believe that individuals have free will?
Granted that ideas can influence the young and that some of them may require a period of re-evaluation to dismiss those ideas, is it not equally true that many young people will simply dismiss those ideas out of hand. And this, for several reasons.
One being that they are able to look at reality and think for themselves. Another that religion is fundamentally at odds with reality. A third that there are, in fact, many alternative belief systems -- even apart from Objectivism -- that are much more pro-reality, pro-reason to which these same people are likely to be exposed over the same period of time.
So, I ask again. Do you believe that such ideas are like gas and that individuals can and will be affected by them against their will and personal observation and reasoning with which nature endows them?
Further, do you think only Objectivism can provide the gas mask? (Granting, it is the most effective one.)
Further still, do you believe that the numbers and/or influence of Objectivist, and other pro-reason, pro-freedom intellectuals is so small or weak that they can not slow or stop this, even without believing that religious influence in the current culture and political system is nowhere near what has been claimed?
Plausible
I am not exactly sure where I heard this explanation, though most likely from someone at ARI. For a long time our leaders failed to identify our enemy as Islam or Islamic terrorism but instead simply referred to our enemy as "terrorism". President Bush has spoken many times about the "peaceful religion of Islam" and other comparable absurdities.
Explanations
"I have not heard any plausible explanation why our troops are in Iraq instead of Iran besides that Iraq was run by a relatively secular government and President Bush did not want to offend Muslims."
From whom did you hear this and why do you regard it as plausible?
Bush is Evil
Instead of taking the necessary actions to protect the individual rights and lives of Americans, President Bush instead sacrifices the lives of American soldiers now and American civilians in the future. How this is anything short of evil I have no idea. I am equally at a loss as to how a Democratic President could possibly do any worse.
To avoid damaging mosques or killing civilians or seeming insensitive our soldiers are taking unnecessary risks. Sometimes these utterly sacrificial policies result in the immediate deaths of our troops, while other times the deaths of our troops comes later, when these terrorists "live another day".
And while focusing on a comparatively insignificant enemy Iraq, our far greater enemies Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria remain as of yet basically unchallenged. I have not heard any plausible explanation why our troops are in Iraq instead of Iran besides that Iraq was run by a relatively secular government and President Bush did not want to offend Muslims. While the loved ones of those who die in future terrorist attacks grieve the loss of their loved ones, hopefully they will sleep well knowing that their loved ones died to avoid hurting Muslim sensibilities.
And what about President Bush's domestic attacks on the lives and individual rights of Americans, stem cell research and abortion being just two examples?
Jeff