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 8.
  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "But the most essential point has been overlooked. He called it like he saw it with the “fake news” and the witch hunt of an investigation."
    That's the most essential point?
    Trump doesn't call anything like he sees it. He is a showman playing to a crowd and booing the mainstream media gets him big applause from conservatives who equate "owning libs" with "political discourse."

    "Had Hillary been elected there was a much great danger that transcends this entire conversation."
    Great danger like what? Trade wars? Cowardly appeasement of the worlds worst dicators like Putin, Kim and Xi? Leftist assault on the rights of tech companies, the last semi-free industry?
    Sorry, but given how bad the Trump administration has actually been, it's no longer possible to argue that we avoided some danger with Hillary losing. You're still discussing this like the election is happening and we don't yet know if Trump will be all that bad.

    "Under the Obama administration (and others) along with the embedded bureaucratic establishment, the rule of law was abandoned and its powers utilized to threaten, lie and spin its political adversaries, both pre and post-election. "
    And that's exactly what's happening under Trump, often even more brazenly than anything we've seen from democrats.
    For example: https://www.rawstory.com/2019/08/trum...

    This is without his normalizing authoritarian-like behavior from the Presidents office, endless executive orders because he can't actually make any deals, normalization of nationalists and racists in our discourse and coming to the end of the first Trump term, we have moved much further left than we would have if we had a democrat president with republicans in control of congress.

    Nothing has been averted by this disastrous administration.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 8 months ago
    But it shouldn't be puzzling why groups like ARI and TOS are rightly anti-Trump.
    The rhetoric is with those trying to pretend Trump is something he very much is not.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "I have enumerated freedoms Trump continues to support (lower taxes, particularly the ridiculous AMT, less executive Dept “legislation”, etc)"
    But we've already covered this. Trump hasn't lowered taxes, he has greatly increased them as we see with tariffs. As to corporate tax cuts, they mean nothing because gov spending has exploded, so we will end up paying much more in the long run. He has also passing executive order left right and center. It's the only thing he can do because The Great Deal Maker can't seem to make any deals.
    In short nothing you've listed has actually happened. It's a fantasy you have of Trump and his government, not reality.

    "Please enumerate freedoms a likely democrat will support, or otherwise explain how a Democrat’s will be better"
    For example they won't be banning abortion. They certainly haven't started any economically illiterate "trade wars." So quite a few.
    Also, they will not be destroying the political discourse by claiming to be "right wing" while advancing leftism, unlike today's hopeless conservatives.

    So the practical approach is case-by-case, but ideally doesn't involve a republican president.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "I don't think it's true that Trump is no better than any Democrat. He has flaws in thinking and communicating that even some Democrats don't have, but the policies of his administration are at least in part better."
    I agree with this. But I think it misses the bigger damage that Trump is doing which is to the political discourse itself. His help to normalize authoritarian-like dialogue, nationalism, racists, etc all helps shift everything further left.
    In fact he has been so bad that I would say given what we know now it would've actually have been better for Hillary to be president with conservatives controlling congress and the senate.
    In any case, Trumps actions and the conservatives lack of any ideas with which to counter them is doing enormous damage to the over all discourse and this will result in not only more democrats, but more republicans pretty much running, winning and legislating like democrats.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The most vicious personal attacks here are coming from a sustained psycho vendetta by a Trump supporter and a couple of his buddies who like smearing Ayn Rand's philosophy as "religious dogma". He's brought the psychology of the politics of personal destruction in the form of schoolyard taunting to "Galt's Gulch" and it hasn't been stopped by the moderators. An "imperfect world" doesn't explain that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I confirmed that Hospers taught philosophy at the University of Minnesota before Brooklyn College, then moved from Brooklyn to the University of Southern California where he became chairman of the philosophy department there in 1968.

    Hospers published his book Libertarianism in 1971 and the Party was officially founded following meetings in someone's home in Colorado in 1971. I don't know about the history of prior discussions by people wanting to start a new party that you observed at Brooklyn or elsewhere.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Re: ”The pretense was that it was in no way a meaningful run for the office.”

    Please re-read the definition of “pretend”, above. Did Hospers intend to deceive people into thinking he was going to win? Were his voters duped when they voted for him?

    Every political party has to start somewhere. The Socialist Party did not “meaningfully” make several runs for the presidency either, but their activism resulted in the Democratic Party eventually adopting many of their policies (which it continues to do).

    Interesting that you consider my quote from Atlas Shrugged, that “words have an exact meaning", to be irrelevant. Words such as “pretend” and “vote”. And I see you still have not answered my question from an earlier post: Please explain why you think Ayn Rand took the political action of voting for Goldwater in 1964, knowing that he was going to lose. Do you think she “squandered” her vote “for a different purpose that detracts from the voting and accomplishes nothing in the election”?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Trump himself may not be a racist, though tweeting and having rallies where simpletons chant "send them back" puts a question mark over that, but that's not the biggest problem.
    The biggest problem is that racists see him as "their" president. Trump has done nothing to distance himself or dissuade anyone from this perception because he likes how they flatter him.
    This is helping to normalize the racists and their primitive ideas in our discussions.
    No one knew who Richard Spencer was until Trump was elected, now everyone is interviewing him because his ideas are associated with Trump's ideas. And by extension this mess is then associated with "capitalism."
    This is a perfect example of what I mean when I talk about the damage republicans and conservatives do to the discourse and why they can be worse than democrats.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "If early 20th century socialists had adopted this view, they would never have formed the Socialist Party or run candidates for President."
    But that's not true. Early 20th century was RIPE for socialism. Thanks to two thousand years of Christian altruism and the work of anti-enlightenment philosophers like Kant, the battle of ideas was already won for socialists. They were able to move into the political arena relatively quickly. Even then it took them about a century to truly overrun everything.
    Objectivists on the other hand have a massive fight on their hands. Objectivists need to undo two thousand years of Christian damage, undo the work of anti-enlightenment thinkers and only then will they be in a position to begin political activism.
    Until people discover that rational self interest is moral and why that is, there's no way forward for a political movement. You're not going to get any votes. You will be a kooky fringe party.

    "The LP’s principles are clearly stated in its platform."
    I'm not sure that it's clear that Libertarians even understand what "principles" are so this isn't saying anything.
    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. Probably a symptom of Libertarians not being very philosophical and not being familiar with the conceptual hierarchy.
    In other words, not only are Libertarians a fringe party, but they are so philosophically and politically illiterate that they can't be anything else.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by tdechaine 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It is ethnic racism as Trump uses the term wrt immigration; and it is against other countries who don't cooperate on trade (which they should not have to do).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Still don't know about down voting, but any policies positive or negative should be discussed. It's just that "terrible aspects" creates confusion between facts and opinions, and substance vs. rhetoric. As I said in a previous post, no matter any other policy, the exposure of the highest order of corruption would not have occurred with anyone else. And the importance of that should not be overlooked.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • PeterSmith replied 5 years, 8 months ago
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The pretense was that it was in no way a meaningful run for the office. Getting on two state ballots did not make it something other than what it was as a publicity stunt.

    The Libertarian Party constantly confuses and equivocates between technical requirements and doing something politically meaningful (such as "voting"), then rationalizes a political significance it does not have -- including irrelevant (to them) dramatic quotes such as from Atlas Shrugged here. Observing this pattern is not "making up definitions". Equivocation and rationalization are the opposite of "words have an exact meaning".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Which has to include being able to discuss the terrible aspects of Trump without getting downvoted.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As you and I have pointed out, there are two definitions of pragmatism. For the purposes of any continued rational discussion, let's keep that distinction clear.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Nationalistic (in the collectivist sense) does not always imply racism. This country, for example, has a diverse mixture of races (all irrelevant). I haven't heard anything in his rhetoric that suggests racism against immigrants -- that is coming from the left that finds "racism" everywhere. His erratic imprecise (to say the least) style makes it easier for them to do "find" what they want, after which they insist it's what he meant.

    It's important to identify Trump for what he is and not "overlook" some very serious and threatening problems, let alone fall into the false dichotomy of Trump idolatry versus the leftist sustained demonization, both of which we see constantly.

    It's equally important to identify all of the candidates in the same terms of analysis of Trump, and after doing that, assess what is left that is best to do in the limited choice of an election between them. One of them is going to win, we have no choice about that.

    There are many "yes, but"s about Trump that we can't say about the others: The "buts" are all there but the "yeses" are not, and the "but's" are worse.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Sacrificing to a worse government in the name of clarity of ideas is a destructive strategy similar to the desires of some to crash the country as a means of reform."
    To be clear, that is not what I'm advocating but I probably needed to be clearer.
    I'm trying to say that often conservatives present us with even WORSE government than democrats, if for no other reason than they will actually push more people in the democrats direction.
    The way I look at it is something like this:
    Democrat president with democrats controlling the other branches of government = massive statism. Worst option.
    Republican president with republicans controlling the other branches of government = also pretty massive statism
    Republican president with democrats controlling the other branches of government = also pretty massive statism
    But democrat president with republicans controlling at least congress and you find you'll suddenly have a slow down. We saw this with Obama who never passed anything else when losing congress after Obamacare and we saw it even more clearly during the Clinton years.
    This was not because conservatives have any ideas or principles, but they tend to remember they should be opposing whatever it is the democrats are trying to do when in opposition.
    The bottom line is that to minimize damaging government it seems that we need a democrat president with republicans slowing him down via congress.
    Seems like the only practical solution given the intellectually bankrupt times we live in.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As I said it was a long time ago and I do remember them wanting to create the party. Whether it was part of a national coalition I could not say for sure, but I do believe Hospers was teaching philosophy there at that time.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Let’s just start with the basic, a Democrat is no better than Trump as president.

    I have enumerated freedoms Trump continues to support (lower taxes, particularly the ridiculous AMT, less executive Dept “legislation”, etc). Please enumerate freedoms a likely democrat will support, or otherwise explain how a Democrat’s will be better (and note, the house isn’t switching back, so forget about your Clinton history).

    You have no basis for asserting I vote straight R. This is a baseless assertion, and you should withdraw it. I have made my social freedom positions clear in this forum. However, I will say I get less abusive responses from religious people when I refer to a fetus as a parasite, than I do from you two when I use “pragmatic”.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What's wrong is the media is pushing a false reality, as the political and bureaucratic establishment, along with the upper levels of the intelligentsia, fear being exposed and having their power collapse. As I've said in the past, emotion has replaced reason and TDS has become a true psychological issue, throughout society to the highest levels, including some on this forum.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Re: John Hospers was head of the philosophy dept at some place like the U of S. CA by the time he pretended to run for president . . .

    pretend[ pri-tend ], v.
    To appear falsely, as to deceive; feign:

    (dictionary . com)

    You can’t just make up your own definitions when it suits you. As Ayn Rand says in Atlas Shrugged, “words have an exact meaning.”

    John Hospers actually did run for President in 1972 and appeared on the ballot in two states. He received one electoral vote from a Republican elector who was (understandably) fed up with Nixon. His running mate, Tonie Nathan, became the first woman ever to receive an electoral vote. Pretty impressive for a “pretend” candidate of a brand new party.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This isn't a matter of "perfection". The standards here are not supposed to be "the rest of the world". Others at their worst in the past have not gotten away with anything like such sustained behavior here. Something is very wrong.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo