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 23.
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That was a very rational and well thought out post. The left is beginning to scare me actually. They are about 1 mm away from outright violence
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In general I agree.

    Discussing the merits and downsides rationally is fine. Discussing them here (not really public) is really fine. Writing an public article with a general set of downsides is unfortunate.

    There will be another election soon, and the options will be limited to Trump, with his downsides, but generally reducing government, and a person very likely to be hell-bent on increasing government control.

    In this election all the media will be misleading the world. Fox will be blindly pushing Trump. Extra negativity, without including the swaying clarity of counterpoints (e.g. however, he is the best choice). does not help Trump get elected.

    Not helping Trump get elected is counter to freedom. Therefore, it is counter to our stated self-interest. Therefore, it is not in line with Objectivist thinking.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    We don't need a strawman recitation on how bills pass, which is non-responsive to the policy points raised. Everyone knows that Congress, not the President, votes on bills. The President typically has a legislative agenda that he tries to get through Congress.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Rational evaluation of Trump as president is not "throwing him under the bus to the lemmings", does not mean that the Clinton socialist mafia would have been better, and rational discussion is never "self defeating". It only upsets the emotions of the idolatry.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    He's standing in their way, but some of it is only standing in the way of the rate of imposing more statism, and almost all of anything good is very temporary. The left had expected an accelerated and intensified Obama term 3, are doubling down on that for 2020, and it's much worse than collectivism only "spilling over" into programs. It's the real thing in its essence.

    Trump is in general doing what we hoped for given the choice in the election, or in some ways more than anyone could have expected despite other big negatives, but we knew during the election that it would be no utopia. There were no illusions. He is not intellectually capable of more than he is.

    The left's non-stop, vitriolic smear campaign against Trump is unprecedented. The intensity of the hatred is more than over his standing in their way. They have gone nuts because he doesn't sanction them, particularly the establishment intellectuals, in the way they are accustomed, properly showing them no respect. But it's a shame that he isn't capable of a more articulate, principled approach himself than the typical schoolyard taunting.

    The result is that while we can appreciate his standing up to the left, there is no rational, principled explanation in terms of individualism -- which he never invokes even for proper policies -- and he is continuing and setting some very bad precedents.

    The irrational conservative Trump idolatry that has replaced the Tea Party movement with an anti-intellectual populist national statism recognizes none of this. Hence the mindless, cowardly 'downvoting' we see here against it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "You seem to be incapable of critical thinking" is another personal attack.

    That was the entirety of a response to a lengthy post explaining important ways in which Trump is collectivist, not "a bunch of subjective opinions or false characterizations". This is a thread about Trump versus Ayn Rand's principles. Contradicting the campaign talking points bandwagon is not the standard and far from proof of "incapable of critical thinking".

    The Trump idolatry here and elsewhere emotionally following political campaign slogans does indicate a lack of intellectual independence and/or rational standards. That has been pointed out many times on this forum, even while advocating voting for Trump against Clinton as the narrow electoral choice before us at the time (and probably again in 2020 given what the Democrats are offering).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your assertion is non-responsive. He said Howard Roark was "not an Objectivist", which is false, along with a cryptic "Dynamite hidden in plain sight". That is not about Clinton being worse than Trump.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, we don't know who "they" are on this forum who are "led around by the fake news". Why don't you tell us and try to prove it?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Man I love Rush! Great band. Ayn Fans, at least Neil Pert!

    Brazil is like testosterone ready to be harvested!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Spiderwilliams 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Brazil is awesome. I saw footage from a few years ago when Rush went there for the first time. You would have thought it was the Beatles the way they responded to Rush. 38 years after they were formed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Spiderwilliams 5 years, 8 months ago
    Ok first, tariffs. Don't work never have and we pay the cost as well as businesses. Can't be for free trade if you are for tariffs. Second, last I heard no bases overseas have been shut down. 800 countries now? I lost count at 175 in 2008. And he's as much a war hawk as John McCain ever was. Listen to Congressman Will Hurds high school commencement address. I was at one and he made me sick with 'How well public schools have prepared you for the future and get ready to be involved in a war zone in OUR hemisphere." Besides that I still haven't heard from him if he's a liberal, conservative or what? Bernie Sanders says he's a Socialist and he is. Sean Hannity says he's a Conservative and he is not. Rand Paul a Libertarian. That's it. No one on those two parties will identify their ideology so asking for their philosophical root premise is a waste of time. Trump wouldn't know what it means anyway. I heard the stuff he made up on Nopolitano and they were friends. At least he's not a Clinton even though he's given them money. So did George Soros her mentor along with Sal Alinsky. I wouldn't judge him if he were not so crude cursing like a juvenile.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Tariff reasons, and my determination that China isnt gong to blink and tariffs will go on for a long time. Its also USA citizens pay for tariffs, NOT China. I have cancelled checks to prove that. We are investigating Cambodia, Vietnam, and others for a nnew supply chain along with design modifications to eliminate the need for tariff'd parts
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I can tell you that my small company has cut purchaes from china to $80,000 this year from $200,000 in 2017
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Could be.... I think china is being somewhat short sighted in fighting trump and sticking with the lack of intellectual property security. The supply chains with china, once broken, wont come back easily. Other countries should step up their efforts to snatch the business lost by the chinese.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    My taxes are lower. No AMT. education is backing off reverse discrimination. No gun control.

    Things are better than they were.

    Someone is going to be president. It is better that someone who steals less money and tramples fewer right be the president. He may not be the lesser evil, but he is better
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But irrelevant to Trump being better than the alternative in the last election or the next.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Any fighting between objectivists and libertarians is misplaced. It is like arguing about a common global language while being attacked by aliens. From where Pocahontas, the Bern, Hilldebeast, Joe, et al stand, one can not tell them apart...at all!

    We need to be thinking of how to educate and persuade others to want to be of the same mind, not fighting about Ayn disliking Libertarians for co-opting her message.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Could be. Brazil has some pretty savvy people. Their Petro guys are more innovative than the others.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo