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 20.
As to Obamacare, whatever. I'm not interested in playing semantics where you try to find trivial actions of a largely left wing government so that you can pretend it's not largely a left wing government.
The question is: did Trump repeal Obamacare or anything?
The answer is: No. No bills deregulating Obamacare or anything else have been passed.
Everything else is just fiddling around the margins, as I have said and should not be confused with long term, meaningful deregulations which is those of us who are actually right wing and Objectivist want to see.
Such a limited vote is also not a means to "awaken the majority of people". That takes intellectual activism, the opposite of relying on the likes of Trump's rhetoric, let alone selling Trump idolatry.
The claim that Trump is playing 3D chess (sometimes escalated to 4D), was not a Trump strategy. It was self-imposed delusion by Trump idolizers who could not explain away his emotional, juvenile, inconsistent and often shocking rhetoric (like endorsing murderous dictators in superlatives) by rationalizing that he must have some profound thoughts they cannot discern and no one else has yet discovered. (When the appeal became dubious in its effect, it escalated to 4D.) Faith requires such rationalization. To say that Trump deceived them is an overstatement that gives him too much credit -- they deceived themselves with their own lack of thought and objectivity.
To say "the is not a professional politician and therefore a straight talker; He is a self serving politician who will say what he thinks people want to hear so they vote for him" likewise gives him too much credit. He is not a straight talker at all, just an emotional thinker who will say anything -- which he momentarily believes himself to the extent that he believes anything -- to pitch any deal, as if thought and communication have no meaning other than a pragmatist tools to manipulate people. It's not, while in politics, even just for votes; he does it by nature continuously about everything. We are fortunate, temporarily, that his nationalist collectivist feelings happen to be mostly pro-American economy as opposed to deliberately destroying the economy as the viro left wants.
Right, so would you call them Trump's regulatory reforms?
They are just changes happening under their own momentum, because some republicans are not all bad.
Such things cannot be celebrated as Trumps successful government of deregulation, as many here are trying to do.
Rejecting the widespread anti-intellectualism of conservative Trump idolatry is not a personal attack. It is an "issue at hand". This is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, not a place to spout political emotionalism immune from rebuttal, exploding in personal attacks out of resentment of criticism of conservatism.
Tax cuts, when they are real, only let keep our money longer with more flexibility to try to dodge the deliberate coming destruction from the unlimited government spending and control.
Deficit spending is not only exploding, it is deliberately and dishonestly pursued with wild abandon as an accelerating means to suck wealth out of the economy. Conservatives used to claim to oppose this, but conservatives are now whatever they are told to be in support of Trump idolatry.
Quoting from a Washington press release that "just appeared today" as a "administrative overview" with a long official-sounding title is a joke, not serious discussion. "14 in, 80" out of what is meaningless. What damage has been done with the "14 in" and exactly what was eliminated? You would think that people on an Ayn Rand forum would not be so gullible and have more common sense than to dramatically quote Washington hype as a supposed justification of Trump idolatry.
I’m no fan of conservatives, but for the most part they weren’t responsible for shutting down Trump’s agenda; that was the work of the Republican “moderates”, aka RINOs, in the Senate.
Regarding Obamacare, you stated in response to my posts that Trump did not repeal Obamacare, when I never claimed that he did.
So who did you vote for in 2016, if you voted at all
But it was done by some of the better conservatives through the House, using legal knowledge and analysis from organizations like Pacific Legal Foundation. Trump did not seem to be involved at all. It was not widely reported and most of the public knows nothing about this.
Other regulatory reforms have been done through agency rule-making processes, not Congress or Executive Orders. Accomplishing it is non-trivial because of bureaucratic procedures that allow pressure groups to intervene, delay and obstruct changes to regulations. Some good administration officials would like to have done more but could not.
Considering the extent of the progressive regulatory state now, it's accurate say that even that is "fiddling around the margins". It is. And it only rolls some controls back to what they were not very long ago.
But it matters a lot to those impacted by the regulations, and is more than has been done in 30 years. Politically it is a big deal in the context of what is possible and recent history. Sadly, even that much is very temporary, with the progressively increasing controls resuming with the next administration or Congress.
The problem is "what is possible", and neither Trump nor the Republicans in general are challenging the premises of the regulatory state, let alone trying to remove its authority that is obstructing broader reforms. Anti-intellectuals railing against the "Deep State" as if the problem were no more than corruption and conspiracies are not enough.
Some of the better conservatives are beginning to talk about the problem of Congress delegating its constitutional legislative power to executive agencies, but even that has not reached the level of legislation or court challenge -- after conservative and Republican complicity in statist growth for a very long time creating and entrenching the problem.
And almost no one is challenging the premise that no branch of government should be imposing such regulations, or addressing the question of how highly technical legitimate laws should be handled with Congressional boobs who understand nothing of it.
That puts the Trump regulatory reforms in context. Some individuals have worked very hard in Washington to temporarily "reform" some regulations to some degree. It does not absolve Trump of his statism and collectivism.
“It is hard to view xxx as upside”.
An improvement is an improvement. A problem is a problem.
Maybe you have other pearls of Objectivist dogma to explain how blue is red. Please extoll. I doubt your ability to defend it.
OK, what was the point of claiming that? Which of my points was that addressing?
"As for rolling back regulations, I linked to a website that clearly shows numerous instances of his cabinet appointees doing so."
I never disputed that Trumps appointees are changing things somewhat for the better at the agency level. My point is that doesn't equate deregulating anything and will be undone as soon as democrat appointees are in there instead. Maybe even by other republican appointees.
True deregulation requires actual bills to be passed. This requires political literacy and the ability to make deals and negotiation skills, etc, etc. All the things that we are not getting from the Trump administration.
"Of course he “passed no bills” doing so, Congress passes bills, not Trump."
That's not in dispute, but the President can use his bully pulpit to get his agenda through. But Trump has no agenda aside from old-school, leftist nationalism.
When he won office republicans had historic control of all the branches of government and a mandate to do something about the state of affairs, but because conservatives have no clue, they did nothing. Trump certainly didn't drive any agenda.
As such this administration cannot be celebrated as a deregulatory administration.
Trump is a big government leftist, passing trillion dollar spending bills, regulating trade and immigration beyond even the levels of the Obama administration and assaulting the rights of tech companies beyond the levels of any democrat administration. In terms of his personal life he is also a complete disaster. All of this has already been said so your post doesn't make any sense given all these facts.
Sorry but if you support Trump you have no grounds to oppose any of the democratic candidates.
You love big government leftists.
Regulations created by agencies are indeed a problem, but they can change like the wind as the government changes.
To achieve REAL deregulation requires an ability to advance a politically literate agenda, persuade people, get the votes required and pass bills. This is not happening under Trump, who claimed to be a great negotiator but has done less than Obama, who managed to get Obamacare through.
I don't disagree that there has been some easement because of some of Trumps better appointees, but that's not REAL deregulation and should not be celebrated the same way you would celebrate if a bill was passed doing something like repealing Obamacare.
Regulations are essential rules created by agencies, commissions, and departments in the federal government's executive branch based off of authority granted to it by Congress.
Load more comments...