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 7.
He doesn't have racist dialogue, and the nationalism isn't new: Nationalist in the sense of putting America first in American policy is good -- the opposite of Obama and today's Democrats -- and nationalism as statist justification in place of appeals to individual rights is not new for Republicans, just more bombastic.
I can live under Trump's rhetoric -- I can turn it off -- but not under the far worse radical egalitarianism of the Democrats and their use of the agencies to punish, persecute and steal.
For all of Trump's rhetoric, it is not Hitler speeches mobilizing crowds to war under fascism.
His rhetoric is often bad in its implications, and his extolling murderous dictators is shocking, but he's not one of those dictators; the Democrats are getting there.
Trump's rhetoric is emotional sales talk as if ideas don't have meaning, which is very bad. The Democrat rhetoric coming out of the woodwork now is far more authoritarian than "authoritarian-like".
He's a symptom of the state of this culture, not the cause. Neither keeping him nor dumping him will stop the statist trend. He wasn't my choice to win the Republican nomination, but he is all that stands between us and the next step. The Republicans are not offering anything better, and the Democrats... Getting rid of Trump will get us to that "..." sooner.
Every party has to "start somewhere" does not justify any party or starting "anywhere".
The quote from Atlas Shrugged is not irrelevant. Dramatically quoting Atlas Shrugged in defense of the Libertarian Party is irrelevant.
On that base, in the 1880s the British Fabians still began as an openly intellectual socialist organization promoting socialism and infiltrating the professions for decades in Britain and the US before the British Labour Party began to have an impact in government. In the US the FDR administration was filled with collectivist intellectuals, employing collectivist slogans for popular support.
The Libertarian Party mimicking "political activism" without regard for the intellectual basis is Cargo Cult Politics (in an obvious parallel with Richard Feynman's "Cargo Cult Science" essay). After 40 years of predicted failure and politics becoming increasingly collectivist they still don't understand.
Ayn Rand worked politically with conservatives in the 1930s and 40s, but always understood the importance of ideas. She stressed individualism versus collectivism, knowing what was required to defend capitalism against communist ideas, but from observation became more disillusioned over the practicality of politics in a philosophically hostile culture.
After Atlas Shrugged became popular but had virtually no impact on the intellectual establishment she realized more clearly the magnitude of the intellectual battle ahead. By the time of the Goldwater debacle she was thoroughly disenchanted with the anti-intellectual conservatives, saw that supporting them in politics was futile and increasingly destructive, and realized that it was too soon for any politics to make major changes
She had voted, for the reasons she gave, for Goldwater knowing that one of Goldwater and Johnson had to win. Skepticism over pre-election poll reliability after Truman vs Dewey lasted much longer than that election, but more importantly her vote did not imply endorsement of abandoning real choices to fringe politics. There was no other electoral choice against Johnson.
All of her subsequent analyses of votes were in terms of which candidate still made some significant difference (as in anti-Nixonites for Nixon to stop the collectivist McGovern) or not voting at all. She emphatically rejected any support for the Libertarian Party as both premature and intellectually inept and a disgrace -- but as a side issue in answers to questions because the Party had so little significance. It's still like that with the bizarre claims to be putting "Objectivism" in a political platform while its own spokesmen and candidates routinely contradict even what little remnants there are.
There is no parallel in requirements for progress between Objectivism and Libertarian Party politics. Ideas precede politics and there are no shortcuts, despite those who wishfully don't want to "defer" . Significant change in politics waits for philosophy; spreading better ideas cannot wait for something else to pave the way -- other than those doing the spreading understanding the ideas.
As to Dale Carnegie's "timeless classic," I wouldn't recommend that terrible book to anybody. It's full of random assertions and misintegrations. Hardly a methodical approach to doing anything.
But why would you think I would benefit from it?
No, I'm saying that "tax cuts" while growing government spending will send incorrect market signals which will cost us more than if he had just raised taxes to pay for raised government spending.
"Economically illiterate trade war? This is worth a discussion. You have made an assertion."
One that I didn't think would need to be clarified.
Trade is what individuals do free from coercion.
If we haven't declared war on a country, then the government should not be meddling in trade. That's pretty much it.
There is no such thing as "economic war" or "trade war." These are economic and politically illiterate terms used to justify rights-violating and therefore leftist policies.
"Please explain how all this would be better under Hillary, or would be better under Warren or Biden."
Neither Hillary nor Biden were/are running on far-left anti-trade policies like the ones that helped Trump win, for one.
But like I said, a Hillary or Biden presidency would be a leftist presidency, opposed by conservatives in congress. As opposed to a Trump presidency which is also a leftist presidency, but is not opposed by anyone, other than the political theater created by democrats as they get everything they want without needing to control any part of the government.
I didn't say the country was ripe for socialism, that was my description of the culture in general when socialism started picking up, as a result of the intellectual battle for collectivism having already been won.
I'm saying we are heading back in that direction and a presidential candidate winning by running on leftist policies, almost verbatim, from the early 20th century is a pretty good indicator of that.
"Notice that your second statement contradicts the first."
There's no contradiction there. You need to understand that while a culture is collectivist you cannot run an individualist party and win.
On the other hand, if a culture becomes more individualistic then you won't need to run any new party because likely existing parties, like the republicans, will start running more individualist political platforms since they can actually win elections doing so.
What you must be saying is that he has not balanced the budget, and has increased some costs. Is that right. This is separate from decreasing revenue.
As to abortion, Trump has done nothing. He has not weighed in yet. Others have acted, inappropriately. I look forward to these actions being crushed, and another permanent precedent being set.
Economically illiterate trade war? This is worth a discussion. You have made an assertion. Clearly open trade with China is nothing of the sort. One could argue that China’s subsidation is good for the US, and we should welcome products being provided at sub market value. One (me) would argue the west has a completely inadequate stomach for long term investment, and once China has a market, the west will abandon it, and the barrier to reentry is almost infinite in our culture. The Chinese can set prices, and we are forced to pay them. The Chinese will use the money to fund an significant military.
We are already in an economic war. Whether Trump was smart and highlighted this, or just a pompous instigator is questionable. The Chinese are are war with the west. We just don’t know it.
You can assert, but we need to go back a few steps.
Your last statement, again, needs defending. Please explain how all this would be better under Hillary, or would be better under Warren or Biden.
Opposition to illegal immigration, cronyistic trade deals and interventionist foreign policy may have been part of the reason Trump won, but it doesn’t explain the 4,489,235 votes that the Libertarian presidential ticket received in 2016. This was more than three times the vote total for the explicitly leftist Green Party candidates. Hardly an indicator of a country that is “ripe for socialism”.
”Religious and secular collectivists are not going to be persuaded by individualists. The battle for the culture needs to happen first.”
Notice that your second statement contradicts the first. Politics is part of the culture, and political persuasion is an essential part of the “battle for the culture”.
”We are far, far from being ready for political activism.”
Maybe you are, but many of us are not. Nor do most of us spend significant time criticizing the efforts of others that are working to advance the cause of liberty in different ways.
Then why would they want to send them back?
Also, isn't the whole imagery of hoards of illegals flooding the border just a conservative talking point?
Most illegal immigrants arrive by legal means and then just overstay. In any case, immigration across the border has been steadily going down for over a decade so to the extent it's even an issue at all, it's one that is improving anyway without the need for the Trump presidency.
"There was never any reason to "link" Trump with Spencer and no reason for him to go out of his way to denounce him."
Then why did the Trump team do so? It was Bannon who ingratiated himself with the alt-right and made it very clear that Trump was their president, not "the left."
Spencer is the one who coined the term "alt-right" so he was linked to Trump by Trumps movement and elevated as a result, not the left in an attempt to smear him.
One could argue that the Trump team didn't really understand what they were doing or what the alt-right even was, but this is ANOTHER example of what I mean about the damage Trump and today's conservatives do to the political discourse.
In the meantime, the democrats, who are actual racists, get racism back into the mainstream, all the while claiming to be opposed to it.
None of this would be possible without the ignorance and incompetence of Trump, team Trump and conservatives in general.
"Alinskyite tactics" are so hopeless that they only work in the first place because conservatives are even MORE hopeless. I don't blame leftists for taking advantage.
Different parts of the world have different levels of mysticism and collectivism and so display different levels of susceptibility to communism. In Russia and China, largely Christian or the collectivist equivalent cultures that we see in Asia were completely consumed by communism.
Moving further West into Europe, communism was too primitive, so these "sophisticated" collectivists turned to fascism instead.
And finally in America, contrary to what conservatives will tell you, a country founded on perhaps the most explicitly anti-religious, anti-collectivist principles, both communism and fascism struggled to gain ground.
None of this is surprising.
"And the early 21st century may be “ripe” for libertarianism."
Then I think you're misinterpreting events completely.
The early 21st century is seeing a large return back to the rhetoric of the early 20th century.
Trumps entire election was about the anti-trade, anti-immigrant and nationalist collectivism that we may have expected from an old-school democratic presidential candidate. That's why he won. Not only did he get majority of conservative votes, but he also got many traditional democrat voters to back him. He was the more left wing of the candidates. And that's what most want today.
So the political movement is very much in the OPPOSITE direction to where you think it's heading.
"Sure there is. Political principles such as individual liberty and free market economics are being debated within the political mainstream every day."
I would say this isn't happening at all. No one outside of certain Objectivist circles even understands concepts like "individual rights" without which no serious political discourse is possible. All we have today are people debating various non-essential technicalities of leftist, rights-violating policies. No one is even aware there is an alternative. Meanwhile things slide back towards the intellectual level of what we had at the start of the 20th century as I've already described.
That quote you've provided from the LP platform is a good soundbite but if you read the rest of the page the glaring contradictions and superficiality of libertarian understanding of many of the concepts they espouse starts becoming very apparent.
But you're missing my bigger point: even if Libertarians were the Objectivist political party we'd all like to see, no one would vote for them anyway.
Religious and secular collectivists are not going to be persuaded by individualists. The battle for the culture needs to happen first. Rand did an amazing job when she was alive, but it is very much early days yet. We are far, far from being ready for political activism.
The leftists who call everything they don't like "racist" are obsessed with race. They look at a mob to see what its race mostly is, and accuse everyone else of being racist for objecting to the mob for reasons having nothing to do with its race.
That race-obsessed non-sequitur has been around since the SDS and New Left of the 1960s, and was the mentality behind Biden's recent "gaffe" saying the "poor" are just as good as "whites". The left thinks in terms of race without regard to concepts.
Richard Spencer is an unimportant racist, among a handful of racists, who does not represent anyone. He is being publicly elevated by the left, not Trump, in its smear campaign against most of the country as "white supremacist".
No politician is responsible for the views of everyone who supports him. There was never any reason to "link" Trump with Spencer and no reason for him to go out of his way to denounce him. Politicians do not run around denouncing individuals who vote for them in order to 'clarify' what they don't stand for, and they should not have to. Spencer's temporary support for Trump was Spencer's, not Trump's support for Spencer. (Where do you see Democrats dissociating themselves from Al Sharpton and many other racists -- whom they do collaborate and sympathize with?)
It's the left that is trying to artificially put Trump (and everyone else who opposes it) on the defensive as "racist". It's an Alinskyite tactic, not a reason to denounce Trump for allegedly supporting racism.
If the early 20th century was as “ripe” for socialism as you claim, then they could have infiltrated the Democratic Party directly instead of running their own candidates for several decades (which by EWV’s standards was an exercise in futility).
And the early 21st century may be “ripe” for libertarianism. The political, social and cultural world is undergoing a rapid and massive transformation. Some of it is in our favor, such as changing attitudes on sexual freedom and drug use. Some of it is showing up in a generalized revulsion against politics as usual, which led to the election of Trump and a threefold increase in Libertarian vote totals. A growing percentage of the population describes itself as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal,” and Libertarians fit right into that paradigm.
”Until people discover that rational self interest is moral and why that is, there's no way forward for a political movement.”
Sure there is. Political principles such as individual liberty and free market economics are being debated within the political mainstream every day. Objectivism is not only philosophy on our side in this particular endeavor, and rational self-interest is not the only valid argument in favor of individual freedom. If it were, all vestiges of human liberty would have been snuffed out long ago.
”The issue for Libertarians is that they 'borrowed' Rand's economics, arguably the least important part of all her ideas, then ignored everything else and have tried to reverse engineer a political movement out of half-understood, unprincipled economic ideas.”
If the LP “borrowed” anything from Rand, it was her political and ethical principles. The first few sentences of the LP platform read as follows:
”As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others. We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.”
Many leaders and other members of the Libertarian Party are well versed in economics, learned economic principles from authors other than Rand, and are primarily advocates of the Austrian school (which Ayn Rand endorsed in part).
The democrats are winning and they don't even need to control any branch of government to do so.
That's the biggest lesson the Trump administration...
Load more comments...