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 16.
Trump has talked for more than three years about China and its plans and actions. It might be even too late for any sort of boycott to even have any effect. The important thing is for the USA to regain its lead in technology and to adopt a more consistent free market philosophical basis ( unfortunately not likely to happen)
"If the Libertarian Party 'takes votes away from Trump, that must mean that Trump 'owns' those votes and the LP 'stole' them."
The full response was:
"It does not 'must mean' that. Obviously we are talking about voters choosing how to cast their own votes to be counted within in a real election rather than squandering them for a different purpose that detracts from the voting and accomplishes nothing in the election."
What he dismisses as "value judgments" he claims are not themselves "arguments" overlooks the record of the party's own predicted history and the arguments for the judgments.
If my responses to him "make his case" as he claims, then the Libertarian Party's "case" itself shows why for 40 years it has remained a fringe party with no chance of winning or coming close to winning national elections, with no effect on keeping out the worst candidates that threaten us, let alone elect anything better. None of his repetitious claims for "legitimacy" of Libertarian Party wishful thinking change that.
Even here the snide smears continue. No one is "interested in convincing 3 people to read everything Ayn wrote and treat it like a bible". Explaining and defending Ayn Rand's principles and implications are not "an Objectivist monastery". His threat to "take on" those he smears as "attempting to shut down" his personal smears, which he calls "compelling, pragmatic, logical, freedom-supporting arguments", is a very ugly misrepresentation of what he is doing. Alinskyite tactics do not belong here.
”votes should be cast for serious candidates, which is what make them 'votes' and not an opinion with no impact on the election.”
Please look up any dictionary definition of the word “vote”. You can’t just make up your own definitions when it suits you. As Ayn Rand says in Atlas Shrugged, “words have an exact meaning.”
”If the limited choice makes no difference in reality, regardless of what one would prefer with a different choice not on the ballot, then don't vote.”
So you’re willing to accept the “limited choice” offered by the two corrupt major parties as a given? Also, in what way is not voting superior to voting for a candidate that aligns more with your views? And what do you mean by "a different choice not on the ballot?" The LP usually is on the ballot during major elections.
”Individual votes do in fact determine the result -- they are counted one at a time and the counts added. Included in the process is arguing for others to vote in the best way available.”
I never said otherwise and you know it. What I said was “your lone vote will not spell the difference between victory and defeat for either establishment party candidate." This enables you to vote for the candidate of your choice, “fringe” or otherwise, without concerning yourself about making the outcome worse than it will be anyway. Being on the ballot gives the Libertarian Party the opportunity to “argue for others to vote in the best way available,” which almost always means to vote for someone besides a corrupt establishment politician. And occasionally a down-ballot Libertarian candidate actually wins.
” The alternative would be the abolition of elections. That would be a one party system and it won't be the Libertarians.”
There are many alternatives to the way most elections are run today. One that is frequently used at the state level is holding a runoff election when no candidate receives a majority of votes. This easily solves the “fringe party” problem, assuming that such a problem exists in the first place.
”Politicians do not ‘modify their stands’ based on a hopeless fringe party. When politicians look at the vote totals of the Libertarian Party they conclude, ‘Those are the ones who do not matter because they are not participating in the election'.”
Right, that must be why both major parties go to such extreme lengths to deny ballot access to Libertarians and other pesky “minor” parties. Also, check out the history of the Socialist Party and its influence on the Democratic Party in the early to mid 20th Century – an influence that continues to this day.
To be continued . . .
There are several other posts of yours that also appear to be responses to something unspecified. You can find them by searching for your name on the page.
Arthur Ekirch's The Decline of American Liberalism in parts of chapters 11 and 12 describes how Pragmatism, with its perverted ideas of meaning and truth, became the philosophy of the early progressive movement.
"Pragmatic" has unfortunately become an ambiguous term, or worse a package deal, mixing common sense practicality with Pragmatism. Most people don't know what Pragmatism the philosophy is or where it came from, but the general ideas of that philosophy most certainly have been widely accepted and mixed with the meaning of the "practical".
That is a result of Pragmatism having spread and been uncritically accepted after more than a century, first from academia (dominating at Harvard), then the intellectuals generally, then the general public. See the well-written but frightening prize-winning The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America by Menand (NYT best-seller and editors' choice of best books of 2001 -- they know what they are after).
I haven't seen anyone with a serious understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy to any significant degree claiming Trump's thought and actions have any significant relation to the ideas. I don't know how much debate there is within that intellectual realm over the electoral support, but serious debate in terms of Ayn Rand's principles has nothing to do with "cults".
How are US citizens, especially citizens who aren't getting articulate explanations, and almost no explanations except in terms of business "deals", expected to want to "boycott" China and how are we supposed to do that now that it means boycotting imports from US companies in China whose products are everywhere? I already try to avoid "made in China" consumer products starting with quality reasons. Alternatives are difficult or impossible to find at any price.
Yes we should "oppose" him -- we sure can't "kid ourselves" and support what is happening -- but in the context of the state of the country and the remaining difference between the politicians, not in the sense of "never Trumpers" in the elections.
Another possible position is to vote for neither side, but that would have to be argued, not simply concluded from his "leftist premises", and I don't think that can be successfully done given what the Democrats are. As alarming as some of Trump's anti-intellectual antics are, he is still all that stands between us and the far more alarming radical egalitarian left.
The future of mankind? (Or would that be human hive, since there would be little kindness as we know it today?)
We do need to connect rational policies and the dots, so to speak.
I hope we have time to do anything, before altruism is the end of all freedom. If so, I probably won't have to fight this out in my lifetime, but wonder if there can ever be enough to take it on in my children's if we let it.
Imagining:
- Socialism takes hold.
- The 28th Amendment eliminates the Second Amendment
- The 29th Amendment is passed and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. No individual right can infringe on the greater good.
- The US and China merge, after all in US government are admitted to the top of the party.
- With the level of technology in government, and lack of privacy, no uprising can succeed.
- Humans become bees.
Pragmatism and Trump
Valid or Misunderstood
To properly utilize a word, concept or idea we must first understand its definition. Merriam-Webster defines pragmatism as:
1-A practical approach to problems and affairs
2-An American movement in philosophy founded by C.S. Peirce and William James and marked by the doctrines that the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief
These two definitions are profoundly different and can have implications that are polar opposites. The first can be seen as a rational attempt to understand the world around us. We begin by observation and formulate an idea or question. We continue to acquire data to propose and test a hypothesis, and then analyze the information to form a conclusion. That is the scientific method and has demonstrated its efficacy in the sciences that has immensely advanced the human condition. Proofs and principles are firmly grounded and form the basis of the inductive/deductive logical method.
The second definition is more reflective of a philosophical movement that began in the late nineteenth century. The dilemma was to reconcile the claims of science on one hand with those of religion and morality on the other. “The people needed a philosophy that is both empiricist in its adherence to facts yet finds room for religious belief.” To accomplish this they needed to sever the relationship of the real world and knowledge to justify actions of a predetermined morality or conclusion. Simply put, the ends justify the means. Rand more eloquently stated “the pragmatists declared that philosophy must be practical and that practicality consist of dispensing with all absolute principles and standards—that there is no such thing as objective reality or permanent truth—that truth is that which works, and its validity can be judged only by its consequences…………there is only an undifferentiated package-deal labeled ‘experience,’ and whatever one wishes to be true, is true, whatever one wishes to exist, does exist, provided it works and makes one feel better.” She further stated that “a later school of pragmatists (including Dewey) amended this philosophy……….and decided that objectivity consists of collective subjectivism-that knowledge is to be gained by means of public polls among special elites of ‘competent investigators’ who can ‘predict and control’ reality.……since reality is indeterminate and people determine its actual nature.”
Which of these two definitions more aptly defines today’s political culture. Does Jonathan Gruber’s or Pelosi’s comments on Obamacare come to mind? Or is it Bushes neocon foreign policy of nation building. The recent Clinton strategy was void of any substance and driven by lies, spins and deceptions to achieve a win at any cost. Re read the above and decide which is the current political establishment and which one Trump represents.
While Trump may not be able to articulate his principles with the scientific factuality of a Stephen Hawking or the eloquent consistence of the philosophical writings of Rand, he still appears to have an “intuitive” sense, not only of practicality but also of right and wrong. One need only to look at his children to realize some form of proper values was present and even Hillary recognized that in one of the debates. His productivity and financial success had to be seated in proper fundamentals as opposed to a chaotic unprincipled achievement of goals. And many, if not all (including his adversaries) that have personally engaged with him have echoed his likability. So does he have a “practical approach to problems and affairs”? Absolutely and if that is pragmatic so be it. But our political system is more reflective of the second definition of pragmatism and it’s what Trump has identified and hopefully will attempt to correct.
We are at a crossroads and as the more rational policies are instituted and succeed we need to recognize the “cause and effect” to connect the dots of the practical existential applications to the proper fundamental principles in the same manner and integrity that the scientific method accomplishes for the physical sciences.
Your point is that "pragmatism" is generally viewed as of immediate value, but without moral/logical/rational support? Like a local minima where one may fail to see the larger picture and be "mired"?
I came here to learn and help develop points and discussions to convince others of the obvious positives of freedom and minimal government. I am not interested in convincing 3 people to read everything Ayn wrote and treat it like a bible. I am interested in getting legion to think objectively and understand the pouring power into government is a disaster.
I believed this was a forum for fiscal and social freedom, not just an Objectivist monastery.
If this platform rejects my purpose, I'll find another platform to learn from. Until then, I'm going to take on person's attempting to shut down compelling, pragmatic, logical, freedom-supporting arguments.
Of course I do not mean to assert no one criticize anyone they don't agree with. People should voice reasonable, well-thought out views. However, it is self-defeating to take actions that lead to the election of the worst candidate. This would include going all in against someone, like CNN. This is not in one's self-interest, unless one's self interest is just to complain about whoever did get elected (which I hope results in one ending up unemployed).
I think I have been clear on that here. Yes Trump does stupid things. He is far from perfect. However, I want him to win the next election, because the alternative reduces freedom more, much more.
You can argue my points are not an Objectivist argument, but they are a logical, and self-consistent argument. every argument need not be based in Objectivism to be correct, and actions that are against self-interest and greater freedom are wrong, regardless of asserted compliance with Objectivism.
I do intend to be practical. If this is a problem with Objectivism, it is Objectivism's problem. I did not set out to make one lose one's cool. If someone wants to troll around and make comments, they better be be ready to defend them with logic, not begin a separate discussion, deflect or simply whine about being picked on. Otherwise, don't make unsupported assertions in comments.
I have presented a solid, practical, logical argument with a conclusion. One of the group of purists take the logic on, or leave it.
BTW, some group can stop the cowardly wholesale downvoting to hide discussions anytime.
Most uses of the term pragmatism are not meant with the same philosophical implications that we know.
You don't know who and the reasons others may differ from you and to slam the door on those with such a vitriolic statement only fosters the cultish perception we've been trying to counter for over 50 years. Use your understanding of Objectivism in a more positive manner.
If Objectivism can not be pragmatic, it is uselsss.
Trump is better, my bank account shows it.
My used Walker diesel mower is better than a new Home Depo John Deere. Neither is an Obvectivist, but my choice was as logical and in self interest as any decision.
I support Trump because my taxes are massively lower now.. I also support Trump because I do not want my firearms taken away. Lastly, I support Trump because he has limited Executive Branch legislation. These are all perfectly valid reasons, and there is No democrat I can expect the same from.
This is perfectly logical, and you have no basis to assert my reasoning can not be distinguish democratic candidates.
Maybe your Congressional/Executive reversal would yield similar results, but that is not on the table presently.
Yes, the Border Wall is stupid. I would've done that with EOIR towers for a fraction of the cost, or nothing, whatever. Trumps tweets are stupid. His behavior is unbecoming of a state leader. On and on.
Totally agree with your statement about conservative social left (I think they are social leftists for religious reasons, not religious leftists). That is why I am here.
Except he IS one of them.
If you want to argue Trump is the least worst choice that's one thing. But pretending Trump is not a leftist is kidding yourself.
Potentially there might be a Democrat candidate that is so bad that it is better to vote for Trump, but personally I don't see it, given the reasons already covered in this thread.
Ideally the best situation for America at the moment is a democrat persident with republicans controlling congress and senate.
This will create grid lock and buy time.
Everything else just advances statism.
You need to discover that conservatives are just religious leftists, not an alternative to the left.
Load more comments...