Trump: Objectivist Opportunity?
Posted by D_E_Liberty 8 years, 9 months ago to Politics
Sometimes, out of disaster comes historic opportunity. From the ashes of a failed enterprise arises the Phoenix of a more evolved and ideal reality – sometimes!
Whether you support(ed) Donald Trump or not, he is the presumptive Republican nominee. His christening has ushered in a deluge of apocalyptic predictions from the left, but also, more surprisingly from the right. It evidences far less a coronation than a coup by a populist faction led by an accidental revolutionary who has high jacked the GOP by becoming the personification of the frustration, fear, and anger of its party faithful and newcomers who feel abandoned by their Republican leaders.
Say what you will about them, what these Trump supporters lack in fidelity to traditional GOP principles and character litmus tests, they make up for in loyalty. They don’t care who or how many people Trump insults. They don’t care how often he exposes his breathtakingly narrow understanding of the issues―they are going to support him no matter what. As Trump so brazenly stated himself, “I could shoot someone in the street, and I wouldn’t lose any votes.” His supporters are “Trumplidites” to the core, and a very hard core it is.
But beyond his “cult of personality” followers, Trump is not so popular. In fact, he is roundly hated by large segments of the voting populations. His negative popularity ratings are record-breaking for a Presidential candidate, particularly among Independents (the only voting block that really matters since it is the only one really “in play”)
And while the Democratic nominee has her own serious popularity problems, conventional wisdom and historic voting patterns among independents and moderates in the middle eschew extremism and extremist candidates. They abhor loose cannons and cavalier characters―both of which are perfect descriptions of Donald Trump. No one, including Trump, knows what he is going to do or why since, by all indications, his policy making process is devoid of any discernable principles―let alone an actual guiding philosophy. In that sense, he is an unknowable enigma, completely unpredictable. Such capricious and erratic propensities make everyone, but particularly, the majority in the middle, nervous.
This may very well mean that many among the “undecided” will cast their voting in keeping with the old adage, “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.”
Clinton is the devil we know, while Trump is the devil we don’t.
This would seem to give the edge to Clinton. Either way, it is a Faustian choice at best. From the Liberty perspective it a choice of “picking your poison.” Do you go with woman who is peddling poison that offers you a slow death by economic strangulation or the many who is a political poison pill that could cause instant death by one careless misstep?
From the perspective of Libertarians, and more pointedly Objectivist Libertarians, it would appear that the election of either candidate is a nightmarish scenario of apocalyptic proportion. But as apocalyptic as this may seem in the short term, it just might be the harbinger of good news for Libertarians and other liberty-loving micro parties in the long term―as unlikely as this might seem.
So let’s play this out. Here is one possible, if not likely, scenario:
Trump secures the Republican nomination, riding a wave of unprecedented dissatisfaction of traditional Republican voters and new Trumplidite voters (the latter being independents and conservative Democrats and Republicans who are not able to formulate their own political philosophies beyond the sloganeering sound bites Trump spews―they are, by definition, anti-intellectual).
Second, we can assume virtually all Democrats will eventually hold their collective noses and vote for Hillary. Add to that the Independents that strongly dislike Trump, either personally or politically. Subtract from Trump’s total MOST Libertarians and recovering Republicans who dislike and mistrust Trump (and who will just stay at home), and the remaining support for Trump will be woefully insufficient to secure him the Presidency. In fact, his hard ceiling for support is probably in the 40s. Translation: Hillary wins by a landslide.
Trump at the top of the ticket proves to be a tremendous drag on the ticket for those Republicans running for the Senate and the House―such a drag, in fact, that it reverses the majority in both chambers.
Now the Democrats have a field day for four years. Hillary―the human, unprincipled, political wind sock―further adjusts her orientation to the far left, driven by the new Sanders Socialistic/Millennial gale force political winds blowing at her back. She and her Democratic Congress begin passing ultra-progressive legislation and regulations.
The unprecedented landslide of freebies and give-aways (i.e., enhanced Obamacare, free college education, LBJ-ist expansion of the welfare state), in addition to draconian regulations on banking and financial systems, will lead to the final financial meltdown of epic proportions―not hard to imagine given an economy that has tittered on the brink since 2008.
Desperate to address the record budget shortfalls, Hillary makes good on her threats to make up the difference out of the financial hides of both the “rich” and the “upper-middle-class” causing many to flee not only the labor market, but perhaps even the country (effectively bringing to pass “the producer strike” Rand foreshadowed in Atlas). The net effect of the hostile business climate causes a massive economic collapse of depression proportions.
As part and parcel of this demonic Democratic dictatorship, Hillary and her PC Police and newly appoint ultra-progressive Supreme Court Justices, begin to dramatically curtail individual rights (and private institutions) in an attempt to legislate THEIR morality―subjectivism and relativism―into existence, all based on the collectivist ideal.
But there might be a light at the end of Taggart Tunnel – that’s not another train. As has historically been the case in this country, when the political pendulum swings to the extreme left or right, principles of political physics usually dictate that it swing just as far back to the other side. In this case, back to the right, from its precipitous pinnacle on the left (per Einstein, “for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction”).
Now the splintered right might finally find the crucible they have been searching for to melt their disparate coalition back together again.
The atomized right―now made up of traditional Goldwater Republicans, Neocons, the Evangelical Usurpers (many forget the GOP has already lived through one high jacking), the Tea Party, and good portions of the “Liberty Party”―may suddenly realize that their “way of life” is in jeopardy and that their most dearly-held principles of personal freedom are under a withering assault from the Hillary/Sanders rising liberal tide. Maybe then they will see that their only hope of avoiding permanent political irrelevance in Hillary’s “Brave New World” of European-style Socialism is to… UNITE!
In the midst of an economic crisis (perhaps even a depression), the GOP will be looking for a rallying point―the only one that can cure the progressive-induced black plague―and that rallying point is around the only flag that can be planted on the common ground they truly share―the one with the “$” on it.
(For the rest of this article go to www.libertas.website)
Whether you support(ed) Donald Trump or not, he is the presumptive Republican nominee. His christening has ushered in a deluge of apocalyptic predictions from the left, but also, more surprisingly from the right. It evidences far less a coronation than a coup by a populist faction led by an accidental revolutionary who has high jacked the GOP by becoming the personification of the frustration, fear, and anger of its party faithful and newcomers who feel abandoned by their Republican leaders.
Say what you will about them, what these Trump supporters lack in fidelity to traditional GOP principles and character litmus tests, they make up for in loyalty. They don’t care who or how many people Trump insults. They don’t care how often he exposes his breathtakingly narrow understanding of the issues―they are going to support him no matter what. As Trump so brazenly stated himself, “I could shoot someone in the street, and I wouldn’t lose any votes.” His supporters are “Trumplidites” to the core, and a very hard core it is.
But beyond his “cult of personality” followers, Trump is not so popular. In fact, he is roundly hated by large segments of the voting populations. His negative popularity ratings are record-breaking for a Presidential candidate, particularly among Independents (the only voting block that really matters since it is the only one really “in play”)
And while the Democratic nominee has her own serious popularity problems, conventional wisdom and historic voting patterns among independents and moderates in the middle eschew extremism and extremist candidates. They abhor loose cannons and cavalier characters―both of which are perfect descriptions of Donald Trump. No one, including Trump, knows what he is going to do or why since, by all indications, his policy making process is devoid of any discernable principles―let alone an actual guiding philosophy. In that sense, he is an unknowable enigma, completely unpredictable. Such capricious and erratic propensities make everyone, but particularly, the majority in the middle, nervous.
This may very well mean that many among the “undecided” will cast their voting in keeping with the old adage, “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.”
Clinton is the devil we know, while Trump is the devil we don’t.
This would seem to give the edge to Clinton. Either way, it is a Faustian choice at best. From the Liberty perspective it a choice of “picking your poison.” Do you go with woman who is peddling poison that offers you a slow death by economic strangulation or the many who is a political poison pill that could cause instant death by one careless misstep?
From the perspective of Libertarians, and more pointedly Objectivist Libertarians, it would appear that the election of either candidate is a nightmarish scenario of apocalyptic proportion. But as apocalyptic as this may seem in the short term, it just might be the harbinger of good news for Libertarians and other liberty-loving micro parties in the long term―as unlikely as this might seem.
So let’s play this out. Here is one possible, if not likely, scenario:
Trump secures the Republican nomination, riding a wave of unprecedented dissatisfaction of traditional Republican voters and new Trumplidite voters (the latter being independents and conservative Democrats and Republicans who are not able to formulate their own political philosophies beyond the sloganeering sound bites Trump spews―they are, by definition, anti-intellectual).
Second, we can assume virtually all Democrats will eventually hold their collective noses and vote for Hillary. Add to that the Independents that strongly dislike Trump, either personally or politically. Subtract from Trump’s total MOST Libertarians and recovering Republicans who dislike and mistrust Trump (and who will just stay at home), and the remaining support for Trump will be woefully insufficient to secure him the Presidency. In fact, his hard ceiling for support is probably in the 40s. Translation: Hillary wins by a landslide.
Trump at the top of the ticket proves to be a tremendous drag on the ticket for those Republicans running for the Senate and the House―such a drag, in fact, that it reverses the majority in both chambers.
Now the Democrats have a field day for four years. Hillary―the human, unprincipled, political wind sock―further adjusts her orientation to the far left, driven by the new Sanders Socialistic/Millennial gale force political winds blowing at her back. She and her Democratic Congress begin passing ultra-progressive legislation and regulations.
The unprecedented landslide of freebies and give-aways (i.e., enhanced Obamacare, free college education, LBJ-ist expansion of the welfare state), in addition to draconian regulations on banking and financial systems, will lead to the final financial meltdown of epic proportions―not hard to imagine given an economy that has tittered on the brink since 2008.
Desperate to address the record budget shortfalls, Hillary makes good on her threats to make up the difference out of the financial hides of both the “rich” and the “upper-middle-class” causing many to flee not only the labor market, but perhaps even the country (effectively bringing to pass “the producer strike” Rand foreshadowed in Atlas). The net effect of the hostile business climate causes a massive economic collapse of depression proportions.
As part and parcel of this demonic Democratic dictatorship, Hillary and her PC Police and newly appoint ultra-progressive Supreme Court Justices, begin to dramatically curtail individual rights (and private institutions) in an attempt to legislate THEIR morality―subjectivism and relativism―into existence, all based on the collectivist ideal.
But there might be a light at the end of Taggart Tunnel – that’s not another train. As has historically been the case in this country, when the political pendulum swings to the extreme left or right, principles of political physics usually dictate that it swing just as far back to the other side. In this case, back to the right, from its precipitous pinnacle on the left (per Einstein, “for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction”).
Now the splintered right might finally find the crucible they have been searching for to melt their disparate coalition back together again.
The atomized right―now made up of traditional Goldwater Republicans, Neocons, the Evangelical Usurpers (many forget the GOP has already lived through one high jacking), the Tea Party, and good portions of the “Liberty Party”―may suddenly realize that their “way of life” is in jeopardy and that their most dearly-held principles of personal freedom are under a withering assault from the Hillary/Sanders rising liberal tide. Maybe then they will see that their only hope of avoiding permanent political irrelevance in Hillary’s “Brave New World” of European-style Socialism is to… UNITE!
In the midst of an economic crisis (perhaps even a depression), the GOP will be looking for a rallying point―the only one that can cure the progressive-induced black plague―and that rallying point is around the only flag that can be planted on the common ground they truly share―the one with the “$” on it.
(For the rest of this article go to www.libertas.website)
End of the thinking or attention span . I suspect a lot of that is contrived propaganda but it seems to be working. The same people keep getting elected and show no signs at solving the stated problem of terrorism but instead seem to becoming the problem . Just like Marighella predicted when his cycle of repression is used. The onlh difference is it's not rag tag unsupported revoutionaries hiding in the barrios and jungles it's the government itself in the role of aggressor.
Thinking of Trump behind my ears.
it's enough to ignite some serious tears
Shut up, Keep quiet. Go to bed!
(It's me Mum with a stick the young child said)
I'll Monster you With a great oaken paddle
Stuff a cork or your foot, Enough of this babble
Thanks for the loan of the space and the time
To Finish off this bed time rhyme
For Larry and John as they think what lies
Behind their ears behind their eyes.
Out of sight behind the fence
In the land of dreams that make no sense
Gentlemen It's been a pleasure.
We give and write to extent you need
And save the best for the rest to read
With nae wasted thought nor devilish pun
For occasional drive by's on the run
You got the reason for your visit
Meant to end this line with fidgit
Though midgit clouds it's way in line
'Twill do quite well until it's time
To toddle off pop under the covers
With fright'ning stories for sisters and brothers
Light switches that won't as Mum bids you rest
Monsters 'neath beds,in closets and chests
Waiting for lands beyond negative fears
Hiding to pounce from behind your ears
Just past eyelids tightly shut
Waiting and waiting for sleep and such
Hiding just behind your ears.
If it made any sense
Your eyes would be open
Would they not?
My problem is entirely different but still includes parts of your little cat fight.
I leap ahead and assume your in one of the factions? I may be amiss or remiss in my thinking. Still it changes nothing. they went at each other last time why not let that solution work once again?
With all the dictatorial/fascistic leanings Trump has apologized about then reaffirmed, it is obvious to me that calling his rise to prominence is not an opportunity at all. Instead, it is chaos.
Trump poses the exact threat to the people of the world which he promises to exterminate. That is, he offers solace in reducing civil rights (which is to eliminate them), he offers opportunity by imposing strictures (trade deals), he offers security by encouraging harsh judgment to prevail (police state). Each of these components is completely outside the realm of rationality. Trump is the poster child of the capitalist described by Marxists, not Objectivists. Therefore, it is much more likely that the world would see socialism as the alternative to what Trump represents.
Trump is the "opportunity" for socialism in the same way that Nazism was an opportunity for Communism.
2. Rand ideas? I have no idea to what you refer
3. What, exactly, is the post about? The Non-Agression Principle dates back to at least 300 years BCE, it is not new with Rand (though she claims it as such). I do not understand what you are trying to communicate to me.
I believe the NAP is fundamental to Objectivism. I formed this conclusion by reading Atlas and other writings by Rand, as well as work by other Objectivists. This issue is easy to resolve by asking an expert in Objectivism. Ask, for example, David Kelley if the NAP is fundamental to Objectivism. But, fundamental or not, I would guess we agree it is a principle of Objectivism.
Meantime, at the risk of going back to my question, I asked: “Perhaps you can explain to me how agreeing with the Libertarian principle of not to initiate physical force is inconsistent with Objectivism’s principle of not to initiate physical force?”
I am told that my 'default' response is 'cognitive' as in 'critical thinking', rather than emotional. I can tell you that people do not recognize that actions have consequences (votes result in policies). Witness the number of people who lost jobs and still voted for BHO the second time.
I have several people who crossed me off their guest list when I was asked about candidate Barrack Obama and noted that he was a communist - specifically a Marxist - as noted in his televised tet-a-tet with "Joe the Plumber". And I knew his 'opponent' was a dictator disguised as a war hero. I watched in frustration as the roll-overs claimed more and more power while asking 'the faithful' what to do and then never doing it.
On September 8, 1964 I swore an Oath to support and defend the Constitution of the US - not to a president. I consider it to still be valid.
Whether I come into the discussion on day one or a year and a quarter into it, I consider the points I made to be valid.
I stepped up and put my life on the line - first during LBJs war, and later as a Fire Fighter. I stepped up and did my best to move a city in the best direction under the Constitution.
The communists have incrementally moved us left. We are going to have to incrementally restore the Constitution. Short of a shooting war, I think Trump is our best choice, but we also need to have more Constitutionally-inclined citizens step up on school boards, on city councils, on county supervisors, and they need to know how to frame the situation they face so the voting public is supportive of them. I invite you, Michael, to step up.
Load more comments...