11

Trump and Ojectivism

Posted by Tavolino 5 years, 8 months ago to Government
670 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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?






All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 22.
  • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In that case, please show how repeal of the Obamacare opt-out tax is not real. And show how Trump’s rollback of regulations is not real. (Here is evidence that it is real: https://www.brookings.edu/interactive... )
    And please show how such actions and policies demonstrate that Trump a complete collectivist.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The left has been scaring me for a long time and it's becoming more alarming. The threat of violence is on many fronts. Some of it is the Antifa types, some of it is the threat of government violence, some of it is the threat of common criminals running loose because a leftist government does not stop them, and some of it is from the general breakdown in civilization across society. That force and chaos are all aspects of the same rising trend towards irrationalism, collectivism and statism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Discussing Trump's weaknesses only here is not enough. The culture and its consequent politics cannot be changed without public discussion and explanation.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There is no requirement to cast issues in your preferred language. Trump is repeatedly described as appointing conservative pro-constitution judges. The 'constitution' aspect of that isn't true.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Rejecting the illogic of Dobrien's condescending and demeaning misrepresentation does not mean anyone is "trolling" him. His inappropriate non-response was properly subject to rejection, as is the sarcastic "of course you don't" and false "troll" accusation. This is Dobrien's own personal hostility, arising from resentment of rejection of the conservative position. It does not contribute to the discussion. Conservativism is not the standard and is not immune from criticism here.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ayn Rand thoroughly opposed and denounced Nixon on principle and explained why. She advocated voting for him as an "anti-Nixonite for Nixon" only to keep McGovern out, who was advocating far worse policies. She did not grasp for lists of accomplishments within Nixon's statism to promote him as not a "complete collectivist" on principle. That Nixon opposed the communists did not make him not a collectivist himself -- of the nationalist pragmatist variety.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    He did not contradict himself. Meeting a payroll and knowing that wealth is produced by men with ideas and ambition does not make one an Objectivist. That much was done in the Weimar Republic and well into the 30s under German nationalism. Objectivism is a philosophy, with a sense of life, that Trump does not have. To point out that Trump has some redeeming characteristics as a businessman does not contradict his fundamental antithesis to Objectivism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Those are good ones to start with. They (and For the New Intellectual) are the first non-fiction books she published. Most of the rest are later anthologies of other articles (written from 1962 to 1976) and a few on public appearance Q&A and interview transcripts. All are worth reading as you have the time to get to them.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So I stated a fact.
    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm not the one trolling here.
    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dobrien 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    He stated “it’s not like he’s passed any bills removing green bureaucracy “. You or we or are you both one and the same? Your snide comments are unnecessary.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    He should actively repeal the silly present rules. For example, supressors should be mandatory, not illegal.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Clearly a complete collectivist... yawn ...

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Roland_Porter 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I've purchased the following:
    "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?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You wrote: "I am committed to the grey and avoiding the black and white, all-or-nothing mentality." That is not Objectivism. See Ayn Rand's "The Cult of Moral Grayness" in The Virtue of Selfishness.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You reposted what the Trump administration and it's mindless supporters keep claiming as accomplishments but I responded pointing out that none of it is real.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't know how you concluded that I don't understand the political process for laws and bills by stating the fact that Trump hasn't passed any bills repealing anything.
    Way to evade and strawman.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Roland_Porter 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No gun control.
    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Roland_Porter 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am not endorsing ignorance, I am endorsing the very real and observable notion that many humans trend towards grey, unclear, unstructured morality. I do not hold myself to the standards of others and try to live my life as close to Objectivism as I can.
    "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".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What “campaign talking points bandwagon”? I posted a short list of actual Trump accomplishments to demonstrate that Trump is not “a complete collectivist." As I stated earlier, “The word ‘complete’ has a specific meaning, and Trump's views and actions don't qualify for it.” That is hardly Trump idolatry, and does not “indicate a lack of intellectual independence and/or rational standards” any more than Ayn Rand’s support of Nixon did.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 8 months ago
    Thoritsu, the final sentence of your last post is the initial reason and what started me thinking about Trump and Objectivism, which led to my original post. Kudos to that simple identification. This is not meant to undermine many of the rational concerns expressed by others.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo