I think we are getting ahead of ourselves. The first thing that has to happen is to get a consensus amongst objectivists that a new political party is needed. Then you thrash out policies and then you find candidates and a strategy. Then you can think about ways to get the message out to the public (my thoughts on that later.)

IMHO this project is doomed from the start if objectivists can't be shown the error in their thinking. And that error is that they aren't thinking in the long-term.

It seems to me that a great many SOLOists are waiting for the next Republicrat political messiah (JFK & Ronald Reagan are two names I've heard objectivists wax lyrical about) to lead those parties out of their socialist/theocratic/authoritarian funk. Well how many messiahs have these parties produced during their hundred(?) year history?

Leonard is planning his politics from election to election. Granted, he's doing a hell of a job writing books & prosthelysing in an apolitical way. But all the while he ignores the fact that the party he is voting for is the antithesis of almost everything he has spent his life fighting for and it's been that way for a long while and shows no sign of changing anytime soon.

We in the West are in the position we are in because people don't pick politicians after considering everything they stand for. And after holding them to the lowest possible standard we give them the keys to our liberty! Leonard's election message is a classic example of this - vote for the Democrats because they are for secular government and ignore all the other shit.

I seem to remember Ayn Rand musing on the wisdom of diluting poison with food.

So one of the jobs of an objectivist party will be to educate the public about the importance of politics. About how important it is to choose men of principle with an integrated message. And that is one of the things I can't understand about Leonard's voting advice.

Here is a bloke who spent a great deal of his life thinking about a fully integrated philosophical system (for want of a better term). And then he up and advocates - over the course of two elections (that I'm aware of) voting for a bunch of pragmatic tossers armed with an unintergrated grab-bag of capitalist, socialist & post-modernist doctrines.

And he isn't the only one!  Before you can convince the public of the importance of politics, you have to convince objectivist. Otherwise (among other things) your campaign will have weather a constant barrage of sniping from unconvinced objectivists who still believe that the Democrats and Republicans can be turned.

They can't. Period. You'd be better off attempting to infiltrate the Libertarian party - and maybe that's the answer. Take Ross' strategy and a large broom and take over that party after removing the less desireable elements (like the 'US libertarian' I had the displeasure to encounter in NZ a few years ago).

But first, you'll have to disabuse objectivists of the notion that US Libertarians are bigger Quislings then the Republicrats... Same problem you see. You need to get objectivists to become active in politics.

As to your other points:

"I don't see how John Q. Public will see much of a difference between the policy implications of the two offerings."

That's the challenge of politics. To educate the public about who you are, what you believe and why you are different from all the others. Firstly any objectivist party must pick its candidates very carefully.

As for the inability of the greater public to percieve a difference between parties, this is one of the biggest falacies out. The problem is that the public isn't paying attention mainly because - as Jason points out - things are very good in the USA (that's one of the reasons I want to stay!). It isn't that they lack the intelligence to see the difference between two political parties.

Let me give you an example: ask Joe average sports fan on the street to describe how his favourite NBA, NFL, MLB team differs from the miriad of other bat swinging, ball kicking groups of people out there. The reason they can do so - often with astounding clarity - is simply a reflection of the fact that sport interests them. Politics, particularly US politics doesn't.

The fact that a politician actually gets out of his limousine, gets on top of a podium and addresses a walk-up crowd with a rousing off the cuff speech would be enough to differentiate a particular politician from the myriad of other faceless bastards who only enter the public's consciousness as names on a ballot paper with an elephant, donkey or similar icon next to them.

Make no mistake about it. If an objectivist political party is going to succeed, it's candidates will need more than just a message. They will need charisma and fire in their bellies and an ability to speak plainly & convincingly.

"Unfortunately in a democracy, all that matters is popular perception."

That's because people aren't interested in politics - they let the media tell it like it is without questioning it. But, again, observe how sports reporters differ from political reporters. Observe how the quality of sports journalism - in terms of the volume and quality of information as well as the editorial insight & balance - is superior to political journalism. That is simply a reflection (IMHO) that the public holds sports journalists to a higher standard. They are more knowledgible about sports and can detect bullshit faster in that realm.

If all an objectivist political party does is to get people to put the Republicrat candidates under a more powerful microscope - perhaps by getting the media (via the marketplace) to up their game and do that for them - then you will have succeeded in overcoming the inertia that is preventing the message of TAS, ARI etc. from penetrating the public mind.

And that may be enough. Like I said. It doesn't matter whether objectivists make it to Washington (or the State capitals), just so long as their ideas do.

All I know for certain is that objectivism will not make it to Washington while key-objectivists like Leonard Peikoff continue to agitate for the Demoplicans.

While there are some anarchists within the support base of the Libertarian party, the party itself has to my knowledge steared clear of advocating military, police and court privatization. If they went in that direction, then no doubt an Objectivist based political party would be a distinct alternative.

But given that the Libertarian Party generally espouses minarchy, I don't see how John Q. Public will see much of a difference between the policy implications of the two offerings. While it's definitely the case that there are some odd ducks who call themselves Libertarian, most people would probably have a pretty similar impression of self described Objectivists. Unfortunately in a democracy, all that matters is popular perception.

" how would an Objectivist party offer a real alternative to the Libertarians?"

By pointing out that a number of US libertarians are actually (a) fruitcakes, (b) anarchists, or (c) well meaning softcocks...

WRT (c) see #14 in Harry Browne's New Years resolutions:

"14. I resolve to be civil to my opponents and treat them with respect. However
anyone chooses to treat me, it's important that I be a better person than my
enemies."

Barf!

I think in the eyes of the mass electorate, it would be hard to distinguish an Objectivist party from the Libertarian party (speaking in terms of the USA). Right now, the general pitch of an Objectivist party would be, "Our policies are the same as libertarians, except we favor aggressive foreign policy". Defense might not even be a big election issue in five or ten years, in which case how would an Objectivist party offer a real alternative to the Libertarians?

...but that's not so much what I'm talking about.

Brash's election to party leader was a *reaction* born of the shock that National experienced after nearly being voted out of existence.

I mean a coldy calculated, stealthy takeover of a major party in the most dedicated manner possible by a reasonable number of people at firstly electorate level and then at policy & conference level. Subversion of the party machinery, locally, and then nationally.

As I said, that's *exactly* what the collectivists have been doing for over 70 years. And look where they are now.

"I still can't see any *important* clear distinction between Democrats and Republicans. Clearly not enough to say that one stands for socialism and one for theocracy."

Bottom line, both parties stand for statism regardless of which qualifier you choose to insert in front. And their statism is so entrenched in the majority of their supporters and their rank and file that one or two enlightened individuals cannot - in my opinion - overcome it. That is why efforts to infiltrate such parties fail.

Ross, you only have to look at what happened to Don Brash, ex-leader of the NZ National party to see a clear cut demonstration of this point.

Jason, you have put your finger right on the reason why I believe I'm pissing into the wind with this post.  WRT an integrated political movement, it doesn't mean you have to field candidates for every organisation everywhere. You don't need to get into the White House to effect changes - only your ideas do.

To that end you could (for instance) obtain the bully pulpit you need simple by winning a Governer's race or by becoming Mayor of a major US city.  I'm a little hazy on the how at the moment, but that doesn't matter because the first step is getting people to see the political wood for the trees.

And if the pinko/theocratic apocalypse is as near as people are arguing, then those very people should be willing to go into politics and fast track the changes the ARI/TAS etc. are gently agigtating for right now. And if not, why not?

I still can't see any *important* clear distinction between Democrats and Republicans. Clearly not enough to say that one stands for socialism and one for theocracy. Nor do I think any case can be made (outside of individual candidates) that one of the parties is actually better then the other based upon their general platforms which are so blatantly watered down that is is impossible to understand exactly where they stand. I think one can make a clear distinction between say President Bush and Hillary Clinton, but I can't make the same statement about their respective parties.

As it stands now American politics can roughly be considered as a sort of hazy mixed market, semi welfare statist, mostly secular mish mash of both good and bad ideas. It is the best, most prosperous place in the world and it is still a beacon of light for the rest of the world to live up to. The thing that is frustrating to people like us is that it could be BETTER, MUCH BETTER. More prosperous, more free and an even better, clear example for the rest of the world to follow.

Our problem is that things are relatively good. One could even argue that the level of prosperity of the average American right now is better then that of any group of human beings in the history of the planet. Revolutionary political movements generally take hold when times are bad. In these occasions clear enemies (real ones, or made up ones), bad and good sets of ideas, and ideological clarity (both the good and evil types) take hold.

This is why you see people like Leonard Peikoff (or libertarians who try to convince us that the U.S. is a totalitarian state) attempting paint a picture in which things are dire. It takes grand feats of intellectual nonsense to claim such things, but the trouble is that revolutionary movements require a dire state of affairs to flourish. If not, no one will pay any attention.

I am 100% in favor of a good anti-statist, pro individualist, pro capitalist political movement but I don't think anyone will listen. Those that will are likely to be also prone to listen to the doomsdayers, or will belong to "kassless" groups like CATO.

One thing I think we CAN do is mount specific campaigns against specific things like eminent domain. In that respect I think we can be more successful. I am pessimistic about an integrated political platform at this time.

- Jason

Jason D. Quintana is not associated with the Ayn Rand Institute -- neither as a writer nor as a speaker.

But the reality is, you may very well be pissing into the wind, which you recognise.

The New Zealand Libertarianz have made little headway despite NZ being far more socialistic *and* secular than the US. Is the US Libertarian Party any better off? Why would an Objectivist party fare any better?

But I take your point re the wasted energy and the futility of trying to choose the lessor of two evils.

I came to the conclusion years ago that the best way to implement *real* change was to hijack a major party. Do it by electorate, or congressional district, or state. Take control of the party machine and subvert it. Do it en masse, and treat it like a covert operation.

I mean, how else do people think we got to the current state of affairs if not by the calumny and subversion of collectivists? Well, time to copy their tactics.

I'm with you! If you're American, I'll help here, if you're a NZer, I'll help however I can. Hell, if you can get a decent political party into power in *any* country, I'll move there.

Bravo, and much better stated than mine!

Melissa

"Shiny. Let's be bad guys."