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 11.
They mostly don't think or understand where the money comes from, only that people should be "provided" for and taken care of as a vague statement of altruism and collectivism, which quickly surfaces when welfare statism is challenged.
In many ways by failing to provide a coherent alternative to the left, conservatives not only barely slow our descent towards statism but they destroy the discourse, which I think might speed things up even more.
For example, take Silicon Valley. Why are they so "left wing?"
Aside from the fact that conservatives launched their assault on this sector of our economy when they took Microsoft away from Bill Gates for failing to pay protection money in the form of lobbying, what have they offered as an alternative to democrats?
Banning abortion? The idea that our civilization is somehow Christian? Generic religious/traditionalist gobbledygook in place of political literacy?
When you look at politics today from the point of view of an average punter, you see socialists and then you see confused-socialists-who-also-don't-believe-in-dinosaurs.
Faced with this choice a lot more people are "democrats" simply because they are "not-republicans." And who can blame them?
In this way republicans are helping push more people towards the democrats because the latter represent a more consistent and less kooky version of the same thing anyway.
In other words, things may actually have not been as bad with Gore or Hillary, because if nothing else the policies they enact and their consequences cannot be confused for "free market capitalism" which today is associated with religious kooks. And Donald (Trade War) Trump!
If nothing else, the political discourse would be clearer if leftists are in office instead of leftists-pretending-to-not-be-leftists-but-who-don't-actually-have-any-ideas-except-leftism-with-more-jesus.
Higher vote totals in elections follow and reflect the spread of the proper ideas. It’s not an overnight process. Objectivism is not suddenly going to become America’s dominant philosophy, and neither is the Libertarian Party suddenly going to become America’s dominant political party. It’s a gradual process, one that in both cases is headed in the right direction.
”Ayn Rand knew that the ideas come first and that political action without that is futile.”
Then explain why Ayn Rand took the political action of voting for Goldwater in 1964, knowing that he was going to lose. Again, do you think she “squandered” her vote “for a different purpose that detracts from the voting and accomplishes nothing in the election”?
”The Party's ‘case’ does show why for 40 years it has gotten nowhere.”
Not true, as I pointed out at length previously. And even if it were true, then by your logic what does Objectivism’s “case” show? The public is far more familiar with the word “libertarian” than with the word “objectivist”. Internet search engines return 10 times as many hits for “libertarian” as they do for “objectivist”.
My post followed yours in which you used the word- 'undermining'.
I do not agree with the implication that other postings on the Gulch undermine Trump even when they condemn Trump.
Perhaps 'undermining' meant what msm, the D.party, etc are doing - but that is not how I read it.
Your five points- I agree,
that no one has taken these on, could mean agreement.
The reference to 'what evw lied' I do not follow unless it means that if I disagree with evw I should do so replying to his statements rather than following yours - Yes of course.
I also suspect people in general.are tired of the division created by the democrats and mistakenly think that elimination of trump is the only dolution
I -
1. agree Trump has issues (enumerated some);
2. assert he is better than the alternatives;
3. agree that discussing Trumps issues (and strengths) is of value;
4. provided specific evidence for freedoms expanded by Trump;
5. assert that undermining his election is self-defeating because the alternatives are worse.
No one has taken these on directly. We just argue in circles and generalities.
If you want to discuss them, pick one or more, be clear which one(s), and lets have a discussion.
I NEVER said, criticizing, and certainly not analyzing, Trump was fundamentally wrong, and in fact offered criticisms of my own.
I did say undermining his election is self defeating. I maintain that undermining Trumps election is self-defeating.
You have not addressed this, simple, logical, well-supported assertion in 20-30 comments.
Here again, you take my statements out of context.
"Massive pile of disinformation" refers to the discussions bantering about everything but the simple argument.
"Stupid" refers to the behavior of arguing among ourselves, surrounded by socialists, an not working on addressing this issue.
Narrowing my logical basis to a single issue, AMT, is a Red Herring fallacy.
This last post you made it Ad Hominem.
You have taken my statements out of context, right here. You have offered written two fallacious statements.
In your version of Objectivism, is lying to manipulate people ok?
The particular strength of Trump is that he attacks negativity so well it helps him.
So to say that comments on here about Trump, even the negative ones, are undermining, is wrong. They could be helping. (writing small- a pragmatic argument)
As well, it is possible to comment and to criticize without condemnation.
With that kind of cultural shift there isn't any means of voting that would work to preserve the country. All that is left is the remnants of the American sense of life that is being buried by the intellectuals, so its progressively harder to appeal even to that for voting.
Load more comments...