I did run for State Assembly as a Libertarian in 1982. I knew I wasn't going to win (got 3.6% of the vote) but it was fun. I got to talk to (and perhaps educate) a few groups during the campaign. If I had won, I think I would have enjoyed "shaking up the system" with my speeches and votes, even if my influence would have been minimal.

The founders viewed public service as an obligation not as a career. Citizens were encouraged to take time off from their productive activities to provide support for the republic. Government, no matter how unobtrusive, requires some degree of administration or chaos and anarchy follow. The problem with our present system is that politics provides a path to power and a the old saying goes "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." So the question becomes should an objectivist accept a temporary position as a public "servant" because the system views it as an obligation? Under what circumstances, if any, should an objectivist yield to an obligation imposed by others?

Good point. And unfortunately, I don't see even a John Galt being a politician, as to succeed you would need to sell out your principles long before you could get into a position to actually practice objectivism in government. And as the axiom goes, power corrupts, so a John Galt will be gone, replaced by a Dr. Robert Stadler.

There is nothing in Objectivism that prevents political activity or even a political career, but what you could do in that depends on what is possible, if anything, in whatever the current culture and political system.

In Atlas Shrugged there were no heroes in politics because the political system was so corrupt -- the premise of the plot included a political system based on the wrong philosophical ideas. Galt refused to participate when offered the position of economic dictator. Likewise, Anthem and We the Living had totalitarian governments. The Fountainhead was not a political novel.

In a better system, like the one the country started with, you could do quite a lot. But today you could not only not accomplish anything significant in public office because of the laws and the pressure groups directing your duties, you would not be able to tolerate the environment of sleaze and dishonesty, except perhaps for some very limited, low level positions.

When I have gone to Washington or the state capitol to talk to a representative or official, or to testify at a committee hearing, my overwhelming reaction was to want to go home and take a shower from just being around those people in that general atmosphere -- though that doesn't mean there aren't some better people there worth working with on a limited basis.

So you have to ask yourself, what would it do to you to be in politics? Ayn Rand was asked about this on Johny Carson's The Tonight Show in October 1967:

Carson: "Would you ever run for office?"

AR: "Certainly not!"

Carson: "Why not?"

AR: "Because I think that would be the most sacrificial action anyone could undertake, particularly today."

The only way to have a meaningful impact today is educationally, spreading and defending the right ideas that make a rational government possible -- and without which it is not possible -- and in limited grass roots action on specific issues where it is still possible to affect public policy in self defense without being forced to support ideas and politicians who destroy your goals. Otherwise, it is "the most sacrificial action anyone could undertake".

absolutely. I think we need administrators that support the consitution efficiently, not politicians who just get up there and manipulate us for their own good

You are right that "they don't know squat." We had the occasion to meet personally with the Massachusetts Commissioner of Public Safety, following a hearing on "The Carriage Bill" that would have eliminated (by oppressive and self-contradictory regulation) horse-drawn vehicles in Massachusetts. We pointed out that the bill required that he had to approve any whips that were to be used. We asked him what criteria he might use. He said, "Probably short enough that it would not hurt the horse." The man had never worked with horses, and had no idea of the purpose of a driving whip. To "improve safety" he would have created anti-safety regulations.

Effective politicians know how to use power. They know how to pressure people into doing things that they don't want to do, and understand Tip O'Neil's observation: "All politics is local." When you have a taxi business and an undertaker, both of whom want their competition eliminated, you get the taxi man's support for regulating funeral parlors, and vice-versa. (In Chicago you get the added benefit that the dead will vote for you.)

My vote for "closest approximation to an Objectivist politician" goes to Calvin Coolidge.

As for proper carriage-horse whips--the whip must be long enough to reach the ground and smack in the face any dog that is trying to grab the horse's leg, thus preventing a run-away disaster Normally it is used to touch the horse on his side, getting his attention, or to brush away flies. Yes, you could beat your horse with it, but that action is rarely required. You could kick your dog with your heavy boots, but should we outlaw shoes? The good Commissioner honestly admitted that he didn't know squat.

One more thing about that carriage bill... It provided that carriages must have ball bearings, and also defined sleighs (no wheels!) as carriages. So one either would need to carry a bag full of ball bearings affixed to the sleigh's dashboard, or else drive a (ball-bearing) stallion.

I get what you're saying with a +1 so I am not putting you down. But me dino thinks a TRUE all the way through objectivist would be a failure as a politician, who I doubt could get past primaries..

Interesting comments. What is your take on the differences in being a libertarian and being an Objectivist? I certainly consider myself to be a libertarian, so I'm interested in how one defines the difference.

Welcome to the Gulch.

an objectivist would have to agree to lie in order to be a politician

Objectivism does not prevent anyone from doing anything that is not evil. However, in today's politics it may be difficult to avoid evil intent if one subscribes to a certain party and must "go along to get along." But, if an Objectivist can get into politics and still maintain his or her integrity, then I see no problem with it except for the problems the Objectivist will encounter.

Yes, but only in an Objectivist society. That's the rub. Our current government has solidified around socialism and the perpetuation and growth of the State. An Objectivist is opposed to those goals.

It reminds me of a story about a gentleman who was asked to take the job as head of Immigration - under Reagan. He declined because the political atmosphere even in those times would have prevented him from actually doing his job enforcing immigration law!

I find it very difficult to even imaging a true objectivist ever thinking that is possible.

Great question! I've mulled this over, myself. Recently a good friend strongly suggested that I run for our State Assembly. My reaction was actually physical repulsion. "I don't want anything to do with those people!" But, it made me ponder this same question. I think an Objectivist could be a politician. What would I do, for example? First of all, I'd likely not get elected because I'd run on the platform of, "The government isn't your parent." But, let's say that I still get elected (by some miracle) I'd immediately start by dismantling a majority of government offices and functions. Some are good, some need to go. That kind of leadership wouldn't be tolerated. And, you can't make such sweeping changes as a junior elected official. You'd have to survive a couple terms to have any power within the system. So...can one of us become a politician? Possibly. Would we last long enough to make an impact? Highly unlikely.

I have met with politicians a few times. Frankly, they don't know squat. Almost all seem like failed lawyers to me, and need to be educated on the topics.

It is complicated. First of all, government is just one kind of social organization. Every group is comprised of "politicians" one way or another. We volunteer to get together, schedule meetings, post minutes and announcements, handle finances, partner with other groups, and so on.

As for government, Ayn Rand pointed out that as government absorbs ever more activities, it is not immoral to work for the government doing something that would exist in a free market. I think that she offered teaching the piano as an arbitrary example. But it would be wrong to do work that no one should do, like working in a regulation department.

Also, as Reasoner pointed out, legitimate government functions do exist. I was appointed by my county commission to serve on a criminal justice committee, for example.

You mean, just occupy space and do nothing?

This is a huge topic that can't be quickly answered, but in a nutshell...Objectivism's political stance is that of capitalism (and by extension objective law that protects the individual). To the extent that a politician stands for these ideals, they align with objectivist philosophy.

Libertarians want limited (or no) government because they see it as a logical extension of their non-aggression principle, which they consider an axiom.

Objectivists tend to want less government because so much of it is corrupt and subjective, and more specifically stands in opposition to true capitalism and individualism. Objectivists support government to the the aforementioned extents.

In my opinion, the current state of politics is so far from either groups ideal that the near term path for both is less government in nearly every instance.

Should the size of the federal government be significantly reduced (unlikely) I expect one would find libertarians and Objectivists would no longer be as close politically, as their differences would come to the forefront.

An Objectivist can certainly be a politician (or try to be one!) but they would be a different type than what we are used to for sure. As soon as they traded power for favors or bribes, or advocated for any type of non objective, anti capitalist or anti individual law, they would, of course, cease to be Objectivists...and they would just be another politician ;)

If you are interested in Objectivism, I would strive to understand the reasoning behind the conclusions and concepts that form the philosophy, rather than focus on high level conclusions such as the ones this question pertains to. Understand the reasoning from the ground up, testing it against your own independent evaluations of reality. Keep studying, it takes a long time to integrate the concepts that form Objectivism.

There is no "supposed to's" in Objectivism. You are asked to form your own conclusions in all situations. The extent that they are correct will depend on how closely they align with reality.



An Objectivist could serve as a politician as a "shrug job".

Any objectivist serving ethically in public office would likely not be doing so in his highest primary self interest. He might have a secondary self interest in doing such a job for a limited time. For a few their highest and most productive role (and self interest) could be as an elected official. However, in a government as in Atlas Shrugged (and in today's reality in America) they would be unable to continue in that role improving the operation of looters.
Just my opinion, without any claim as an expert on Objectivism.