Trump and Ojectivism
Posted by Tavolino 5 years, 8 months ago to Government
Trump and Objectivism
I’m puzzled by the formal Objectivist movement (ARI, TOS) and their complete disdain for President Trump. From the beginning they have never missed a chance not only to distance themselves, but also follow with a pompous negative certainty, without having the necessary relevant facts. Ironic, considering our foundations are based on proper identification (metaphysics) and validation (epistemology) before passing judgment or taking action (ethics). While I agree principles should never be compromised, context and perspective need to be objectively evaluated and applied, rather than a blind intrinsic repetition. Regarding Trump, there some broad hierarchal recognitions that I believe are very consonant with our philosophy.
Our fundamental basis is metaphysics, which is the proper identification of the nature of something. More than any past politician, however brash, Trump calls it like he sees it within his known knowledge. Be it the emotional motivations of political correctness, the lies of the “fake news,” the imbedded corruption, the recognition of the good and bad on the world stage (Israel, China, North Korea, Iran), the parasitical nations that feed off our teat, etc., etc.. The transparency of his thoughts have been unmatched and not hidden behind political speak, spins, alternate agendas, backroom deals or deceit. It is what it is.
As Dr. Jerome Huyler noted, “Trump has the sense of life of an individualist. His common sense - born of decades of experience as a businessman and dealing with politicians - tells him that taxes and heavy-handed regulations destroy economies. It is true, as Rand said that common sense is the child's method of thinking. But it is born of empirical experience,” the basis of knowledge acquisition.
His “America First” mantra should be championed by us. Rand had always said America will never regain its greatness until it changes its altruist morality. America First is just that. It’s not some blind German nationalism, but an attitude that America’s interests need to be selfishly upheld. This is a necessary fundamental to our ethics. He has attempted to keep open discussions with all, based around trade and fair exchange. Rand had said, “The trader and the warrior have been fundamental antagonist throughout history.” His movement away from aggressive wars, political globalism and multi-lateral agreements keep our own self-interests as paramount. It’s the application of the trader principle.
Lastly, his counter-punch mindset and approach is completely in line with our moral rightness of retaliation. He may prod or poke, but does not pull the proverbial trigger until he’s attacked, either with words or actions.
There is a dire threat that’s facing our country today with the abuses and power of the ingrained bureaucracy utilized for political purposes. It's imperative that all Americans unite, led by the voices of reason to identify and expose this fundamental threat to freedom. It's not about the false alternative of Trump or never Trump, it's about the American system and the fundamental role, purpose and responsibilities of government, regardless ones political persuasion.
As Objectivists, we need to continually apply our principles in the real world of what is, slowly moving it to where it should be. We need to descend from the “ivory tower” to the first floor of reality. Trump may not be able to articulate the principles, but are not what’s mentioned above consistent with our most basic and fundamental beliefs as Objectivists?
I’m puzzled by the formal Objectivist movement (ARI, TOS) and their complete disdain for President Trump. From the beginning they have never missed a chance not only to distance themselves, but also follow with a pompous negative certainty, without having the necessary relevant facts. Ironic, considering our foundations are based on proper identification (metaphysics) and validation (epistemology) before passing judgment or taking action (ethics). While I agree principles should never be compromised, context and perspective need to be objectively evaluated and applied, rather than a blind intrinsic repetition. Regarding Trump, there some broad hierarchal recognitions that I believe are very consonant with our philosophy.
Our fundamental basis is metaphysics, which is the proper identification of the nature of something. More than any past politician, however brash, Trump calls it like he sees it within his known knowledge. Be it the emotional motivations of political correctness, the lies of the “fake news,” the imbedded corruption, the recognition of the good and bad on the world stage (Israel, China, North Korea, Iran), the parasitical nations that feed off our teat, etc., etc.. The transparency of his thoughts have been unmatched and not hidden behind political speak, spins, alternate agendas, backroom deals or deceit. It is what it is.
As Dr. Jerome Huyler noted, “Trump has the sense of life of an individualist. His common sense - born of decades of experience as a businessman and dealing with politicians - tells him that taxes and heavy-handed regulations destroy economies. It is true, as Rand said that common sense is the child's method of thinking. But it is born of empirical experience,” the basis of knowledge acquisition.
His “America First” mantra should be championed by us. Rand had always said America will never regain its greatness until it changes its altruist morality. America First is just that. It’s not some blind German nationalism, but an attitude that America’s interests need to be selfishly upheld. This is a necessary fundamental to our ethics. He has attempted to keep open discussions with all, based around trade and fair exchange. Rand had said, “The trader and the warrior have been fundamental antagonist throughout history.” His movement away from aggressive wars, political globalism and multi-lateral agreements keep our own self-interests as paramount. It’s the application of the trader principle.
Lastly, his counter-punch mindset and approach is completely in line with our moral rightness of retaliation. He may prod or poke, but does not pull the proverbial trigger until he’s attacked, either with words or actions.
There is a dire threat that’s facing our country today with the abuses and power of the ingrained bureaucracy utilized for political purposes. It's imperative that all Americans unite, led by the voices of reason to identify and expose this fundamental threat to freedom. It's not about the false alternative of Trump or never Trump, it's about the American system and the fundamental role, purpose and responsibilities of government, regardless ones political persuasion.
As Objectivists, we need to continually apply our principles in the real world of what is, slowly moving it to where it should be. We need to descend from the “ivory tower” to the first floor of reality. Trump may not be able to articulate the principles, but are not what’s mentioned above consistent with our most basic and fundamental beliefs as Objectivists?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 22.
And please show how such actions and policies demonstrate that Trump a complete collectivist.
Attempting to hide the discussion so Trump can somehow slip through the next election with no one noticing is futile temporizing and damaging to our own intellectual reputation when others see what is happening with our apparent acquiescence.
Given that the reasons for supporting his election are relative to the Democrats, a public proper discussion providing the full context is required. That is not counter to our self-interest. But it necessarily requires not being morally intimidated into going along with criticism of Trump without that full explanation -- that is what would support electing the Democrats. Restricting criticism of Trump to smirks sounding like a New York Times editorial and failing to advocate voting against the Democrats is what is not in our self interest, not honest, rational discussion.
When Ayn Rand advocated voting for Nixon against McGovern she did not refrain from analyzing and evaluating Nixon, fearful of public discussion. She made it clear what was wrong with Nixon, why McGovern was significantly worse, and that she was an "anti-Nixonite for Nixon". She had no illusions about the results of Nixon being in the White House and knew what she was getting. She did not engage in Nixon idolatry, either in self-delusion or deceptively to win an election.
They are generally not as bad as what the Democrats would have appointed -- other than the religious implications -- but they are not generally for the Constitution as was originally intended (i.e., before the progressive reinterpretation).
The legal culture is so bad now that it would be impossible for anyone to appoint so many judges to be what is being claimed. And Trump wouldn't know what standard to use at all without his conservative advisors telling him what to do, which is why we are getting conservatives and he is being praised from that quarter.
Contrary to Dobrien, Peter Smith's characterization of Trump as collectivist, whether or not anyone quibbles over the degree, does not make him "incapable of critical thinking", which was Dobrien's response in its entirety. It was a highly personal attack, for which there is no excuse.
An excellent systematic, more comprehensive presentation of the philosophy is Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.
You can post questions under the topic "Ask the Gulch" or communicate privately.
You went into a technically that no one is disputing because you have no counter to the fact that Trump hasn't passed any bills deregulating anything, but want to keep arguing anyway.
This is called being intellectually dishonest.
I'm not really sure what so many politically illiterate, religious leftists and anti-Objectivists are doing on what is meant to be an Objectivist blog.
If only he had a little of Ayn's DNA, then he could speak without error, and be the beacon of truth we all seek...
... someone here does realize that we need to move from "here" to a better place, not just start over with magic Rand beans. However, that someone, isn't you.
"The Virtue of Selfishness"
"Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"
"The Romantic Manifesto"
It's been hard to find time to read them; been doing a lot of university planning as of late. I've managed to read a few chapters of the first two and haven't started TRM yet. Though I clearly have a lot to learn.
You seem to know your stuff pretty well. Do you mind if I come to you with any questions I have in my discoveries?
You wrote: "Obama was a thesis and Trump was the antithesis. There is no synthesis yet and may not be for a long time." That is not Objectivism and in particular not an Objectivist analysis of history. It is a Hegelian falsehood based on his irrational metaphysics, and has become a common fallacy repeated by those who never heard of Hegel. See Leonard Peikoff's lecture course History of Philosophy, Volume 2 – Modern Philosophy: Kant to the Present, lecture 4 on Hegel.
Way to evade and strawman.
I'm sorry, I suppose I should make my previous statement more clear. Donald Trump has supported the ban of the bump stock novelty for no apparently good reason and supports tightening background checks for firearms sales (even though all sales in all states require a federal background check, a process made faster and more efficient due to the advent of the Internet). When I say he has a "lax attitude on gun control", I don't mean to imply Donald Trump has necessarily been making efforts to repeal existing gun control or has been doing nothing in regards to gun control.
"A Philosophy of reason, egoism, and freedom is not a synthesis of a contradictory false alternative." I never said it was. I am merely pointing out that Trump was the natural progression of ideas rather than the solution to every problem plaguing the United States today and it seems you agree with me here, a "contradictory false alternative".
Load more comments...