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 3.
  • -1
    Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 7 months ago
    If you didn't want to engage then you don't respond.
    Your original statement was an ad hominem not a "light-hearted suggestion."
    Don't double down on your lack of arguments with dishonest too.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Because I do not wish to engage does not logically lead to that I have no argument. I just choose my battles. My original statement that was more of a light-hearted suggestion to soften your approach and not meant to be insulting. As the saying goes (and please don't misinterpret my intentions) I could explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • PeterSmith replied 5 years, 7 months ago
    • ewv replied 5 years, 7 months ago
  • Posted by 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's not what I said or the parameters used. Within your posts you just inject more opinion (be it proper or emotional) than ewv. Don't be defensive, it was an observation and not meant to question your thoughts.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You're correct that the application is important. I do not use any of those "general lessons" to deceive (either others or myself). If I see a heavyset woman walk into my establishment but dressed with a stylishly, I don't say "you're fat" but rather "the top is very pretty." I interact by bob and weaving (a la Ali) as I understand the context, timing and importance, continually adjusting my response appropriately, but always staying within striking distance, whether trading harmless joking banter or having to smash him with a hammer. It's that simple.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    “If there are two viable candidates in a race, the outcome between them will always make a difference. How much of a difference is for each voter to decide. Furthermore, the implication of your first paragraph above is this: if a voter decides the difference isn’t significant, it’s perfectly acceptable, even logical, to vote for another alternative that is not going to win, just as Ayn Rand did for Goldwater.”

    I eagerly await a “gradual but fundamental change in ideas” rejecting the subjectivist/collectivist ideology around 1500 years from now.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are correct sir. It was off the top of my head and meant to be a lighthearted comment rather than intellectually cutting, which I try to stat away from. but I do love your exactness.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I’ll leave it to others to decipher that last sentence. Regarding your first point, how can a culture or a political system be changed without engaged activists, and how can ideas be applied to politics without political debate?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There is no parallel between Ayn Rand's philosophy and premature, garbled politics trying to bypass the role of ideas in cultural change. The method of change does not reduce to "engaged activists" and the ideas do not reduce to "political debate".

    The sentence is not convoluted. The structure is: "Dismissing observation of [...] because that observation is [...] is part of the Libertarian Party's rationalizing of its rationalizing.”

    The rationalizing away of obvious facts together with the intellectual requirements for fundamental change in politics has become so endlessly circling that even rationalization as a method is being rationalized.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    " "You left out that the vote was between Goldwater and Johnson; voting for Goldwater did not ignore a race between two other, viable candidates where the outcome between them made a difference. This has been explained several times now." "

    That corruption helps to keep itself in power does not mean it determines the long term course of a culture and its politics. Corruption in the Catholic Church did not stop the eventual overthrow of Catholic ideology and power for the Enlightenment; the Enlightenment required a gradual but fundamental change in ideas rejecting the Catholic ideology.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Given his premises, I would be very selective when applying lessons 1, 2, 4, 7, 9 and 10. In many situations, they could conflict with certain values we have come to associate with Objectivism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That is part of it. Built on that are further injunctions for pandering and patronizing for emotional manipulation. For honest thinkers it leads to distrust. Browbeating versus Dale Carnegie is a false alternative.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No explanation is possible for those don't already understand? How does one understand without explanation?

    The common quote is "To those who understand no explanation is necessary, for those who don't none is possible", which is the common translation from Acquinas' "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." It was a rejection of the possibility of explaining the impenetrable, which must be believed on faith for which no explanation is necessary.

    It's probably not what you intended to say.

    Understanding anything requires explanation -- including a recommendation that someone spend the time to read a book.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, an ad hominem is an insult in place of an argument, like telling someone to read How To Make Friends and Influence People, when you have no argument.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's strange, but as I read the back and forth it appears, at least to me, that the talk sometimes passes each other. Many valid points made by all, but Peter integrates more opinion, while ewv stays on principles. Just my observation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "That is a leftist smear."
    Immigration laws originate and are based on racism and economic protectionism and it was leftists advocating this. It is not a leftist smear.
    Today these reasons haven't changed, except the racists have become a bit more "softer" and advocate homogeneous culture, nationalism and white identity, word games meaning the same thing. These positions are now being advocated by conservatives as they move further and further left.
    There is no rational reason to oppose immigration, just like there's no rational reason to oppose anyone's activity that doesn't violate rights.

    "Today criminals, some in horrendous gangs; welfare indigents; and the diseased are violating rights"
    What has that got to do with immigration?
    All these things should be opposed anyway.

    "Conservatives do object to both immigrants getting taxpayer subsidies and the criminals."
    Don't they oppose they for citizens too?
    That's why this argument amounts to grasping at straws.

    "The issue of numbers of immigrants that can be assimilated at one time is significant in the face of "open borders" and multiculturalist leftists wanting people from the third world to come for our wealth and to replace capitalism."
    It's true that the left want to import welfare recipients in an attempt to create a permanent voting bloc for themselves.
    The problem with this is that humans are not deterministic, so this is likely to backfire, and also that the way to fight it is by fighting the welfare state. Not immigration.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There's no question I agree with your fundamental assessment when viewed in that context. The take away from the book is basically social interaction and the 10 basic lessons form a good framework. When I re read the book several years ago I didn't scrutinize as for philosophical consistency, but viewed the general lessons and applications within my own context and values as an Objectivist, as all knowledge (which will lead to civil and productive action) is contextual.

    1.Do Not Criticize, Condemn or Complain
    2. Be Generous With Praise
    3. Remember Their Name
    4. Be Genuinely Interested In Other People
    5. Know The Value Of Charm
    6. Be Quick To Acknowledge Your Own Mistakes
    7. Don't Attempt To "Win" An Argument
    8. Begin On Common Ground
    9. Have Others Believe Your Conclusion Is Their Own
    10. Make People Feel Important

    Read into each your own interpretation. To me, it was just about the method of communication, no more.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    ”Dismissing observation of the Libertarian Party's fringe status in politics because that observation is widespread as an "argument from intimidation" is part of the Libertarian Party's rationalizing of its rationalizing.”

    When it takes a sentence this convoluted to make a point, the point itself is open to question. You can call any statement you disagree with “rationalizing”, but in fact I drew an exact parallel between Ayn Rand’s description of an “argument from intimidation” and your use of similar terminology.

    ”There is no parallel in requirements for progress between Objectivism and Libertarian Party politics.”

    Sure there is. Progress in both endeavors requires engaged activists working to promote their viewpoints. In terms of public awareness and respect Libertarians have been more successful because they have been active in participating in political debate (which, incidentally, is part of the culture), and not waiting for an Objectivist renaissance that may take centuries to arrive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In that case, what is your take on the Dale Carnegie quotes below? It appears to me that he is fundamentally an advocate of altruism, using Ayn Rand’s definition of the term:

    “Even god doesn't propose to judge a man till his last days, why should you and I?”

    “If you do something for someone else, never remember. If someone does something for you, never forget.”

    “Talk about your own mistakes before criticizing the other person.”

    “The world is so full of people who are grabbing and self-seeking. So the rare individual who unselfishly tries to serve others has an enormous advantage. He has little competition.”
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo