Luke:

Yes, you're getting my point. Although it shouldn't be a surprise to any Objectivist that Christianity is ultimately altruistic, I just thought it was pretty interesting at how blatant it was in this case, especially in trying to defend a hypocrite

Frum's whole case for Haggard's morality is based on the "good" Haggard's anti-gay preaching did for others and that Haggard's "moral" teachings rose above his selfish desires/actions. Frum conveniently leaves out Haggard's wife, children and parishoners (whom he made his living from) in those affected by Haggard's actions.

I'm currently reading Rand's essay, For the New Intellectual, in order to review your book (free plug ). The first thing I thought of when reading the opening paragraph in that essay was the current Republican party:

When a man, a business corporation or an entire society is approaching bankruptcy, there are two courses that those involved can follow: they can evade the reality of their situation and act on a frantic, blind, range-of-the-moment expedeiency--not daring to look ahead, wishing no one would name the truth, yet despaerately hoping that something will save them somehow(my emphasis)--or they can identify the situation, check their premises, discover their hidden assets and start rebuilding.

Frum's post just strikes me as frantic, range-of-the-moment expediency, in order to convince those people who are begining to open their eyes to Republican hypocricy to not leave the fold.

Frum wrote in his "beauty" link:

I have revealed my faith in the power of human reason to rise above the individual's passions and selfish interests to apprehend objective truth. I try to live my own life this way, and I think Andrew would be a better thinker and writer if he tried to do so too.

If I understand Frum correctly, he adheres to an external duty ethic rather than an internal causality ethic.  I know Objectivists reject this viewpoint.  In fairness to Frum, I have seen some Objectivists try to argue against the practice of homosexuality on similar grounds, however.  In other words, they will claim that homosexual desire clashes with the reality of normal human sexual function.  Since the Objectivist ethics demands that we act ultimately on facts rather than feelings, the argument goes, someone with homosexual feelings needs therapy to reprogram his emotions to align with reality.

I know that this argument has basically lost credibility among even the staunchest ARI types, but given its history, I can see why Frum might claim that his stand has earned the label of "objective."

If I understand Frum's critics correctly, they call him on his support for Haggard despite Haggard's evident acts of dishonesty and, more deeply, his hypocritical support of values at odds with his own sexual orientation.  More broadly, they see this event as evidence of the nonsense that the Religious Right spouts that leads people to such splits between theory and practice.

Am I getting your point at all, Ryan?