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 4.
  • 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.

    ”Corruption helps keep itself in power. It does not cause the course of a culture.”

    Your second sentence contradicts the first. By keeping itself in power, corruption maintains the continuing course of a culture for its own benefit. Voting for one of two massively corrupt parties, which actively employ the legal system to squash any alternatives, enables the corruption to continue its dominance of the course of a culture.
    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."

    Courruption helps keep itself in power. It does not cause the course of a culture. Repeatedly blaming the cultural and political trend towards collectivism and statism on "corruption" is an anti-intellectual 'evil man' 'conspiracy theory' of history.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 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.

    Ayn Rand's ideas have had a major impact on the culture (which the left periodically attacks), but obviously not enough, mostly because even where it is influential it is not sufficiently well understood. We do observe that Objectivism as a philosophy has no major role in universities and the media. Unlike well publicized politics, "everyone" does not know that because most people don't know about the state of philosophy in universities and the culture at all.

    "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." https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Who in the fringe coined the term "alt right" isn't related to who has been swept up under the smear from the left."
    The point is that the Trump administration made these people not the fringe, at least for a little bit.
    They did not get swept up in a smear from the left, they are rightly called out for associating with racists and Trump to date refuses to concede this point and officially distance himself.

    "When large numbers are illegally crossing the border the military should be used to stop it."
    When large numbers of people are going about their business without violating anyone's rights, it should neither be considered illegal, nor require military intervention.
    Immigration is the greatest non-issue of all time. Conservatives are clinging to it because they have nothing else. No ideology, no understanding of politics, no understanding of philosophy. It's just "stop da immigants!" then profit. The early 21st century sees the conservative movement resemble the anti-immigrant, anti-trade leftists of the early 20th century only with much more confusion about everything.

    "Trump uses a lot of emotional anti-intellectual rhetoric but he isn't Alex Jones."
    I didn't say he was Alex Jones, but he plays to the same crowd, uses the same appeal to conspiracies and victimhood and fear. The idea that the whole world is out to get you so you better vote for him and he'll save you from the whole world by building a wall to keep it out.
    This appeals to today's "right" who have no clue and are therefore scared of everything.
    Actually an Alex Jones caricature is not that far off now that I think about it...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Goldwater was in no way a "viable" candidate by the time the election rolled around. And reality does not neatly divide into "causes" and "consequences". Corruption is both a cause and a consequence of today's political landscape, including the two-party system. Google "feedback loops".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You mean, you disagree with my position on Trump, don't have any counter arguments, so are going for an ad hominem instead.
    Fair enough, I guess...
    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.

    Fringe candidates now are on the ballot and it makes no difference to their fringe status because of the ideas they represent. The role of basic ideas driving politics cannot be rationalized away with a half century of repetitious claims of "corruption". There is a lot of corruption, but it's a consequence not a cause.

    But the Libertarian Party's perpetual fringe status is not the only reason to not support it, as discussed previously.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think presidents have little real power, so trump has very limited things he can do. Tariffs is one of the very few actions he can take without pushback from congress and courts. Maybe that’s because government gets more tax money. Trump lies about the source of the tariff money. It’s paid as a tax by Americans, not by the Chinese and will not convince the Chinese to give in until the tariffs ratchet up to 200-300%. Current tariffs are just a warning to the chinese
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I will not take the bait. Much of your articulate repetition is proper, while some appear emotionally driven. As to why you would benefit from it? As the quote goes, "For those who understand no explanation is necessary, for those who don't none will do."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 7 months ago
    The “difference” Ayn Rand made in voting for Goldwater was in voting her convictions and slightly adding to Goldwater’s vote totals. The “difference” Libertarians make in voting for their candidates is in voting their convictions and slightly adding to their party’s vote totals (and occasionally winning a local or state legislative election).

    By going to great lengths to prevent “minor party” candidates from appearing on the ballot, the corrupt two-party system blocks the “role of ideas” from having any say in “determining what kind of government we have.” Just because most people lack the “proper standards” to make better choices does not mean that they should be denied any choices other than those the corrupt two-party system permits them to make.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 7 months ago
    Okay, using the same criteria, would you endorse the observation that Objectivism is a fringe philosophy by observation of its proponents’ attempts to change the culture and the results? I wouldn’t.

    Ayn Rand used as an example of “argument from intimidation” the sentence: “But everybody knows that capitalism is outdated!” To me this indicates that she considered such a formulation to be an improper form of argument
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I had taken just the basic philosophy courses in Brooklyn College at the time and don't have much of a recollection. 67-68 were also the years I was working at NBI and attended almost all the lecture series. But Rand was very parsimonious with her support of most groups.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    He's using the same kind of vague and hyperbolic rhetoric with every country where he's threatening or imposing tariffs. None of it implies a superior hidden strategy. I don't hear quacking, but it looks and sounds like Trump. It's Donald Trump, not Donald Duck.

    If there is something better behind it maybe it will leak out some day.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I say that because:
    1). He has said if we don’t like the tariffs, buy from another country or make it here
    2 tariffs historically make trading decrease
    3) he floated the idea he is “ordering” usa companies to stop buying from China, even knowing the congress would overturn it
    4) he has tied a trade deal to China dealing with Hong Kong “humanely”
    5) he has been very vague about what he requires China actually do to “make a trade deal”. Almost to just keep the tariffs until trade with China decreases and companies change their supply chains away f Rh I’m China
    6). He has said China wants a deal but he isn’t ready for one yet

    If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... maybe it IS a duck
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They don't take long to read. One aspect you will notice is how nihilisticly unphilosophic they are, yet you will see the usual philosophic fallacies in some of the language.

    Hillary's thesis was harder to find in the past when I first hunted it down because the Clintons had gotten Wellesley to block access. A scan eventually surfaced anyway. They were well aware of what they did not want people to see.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Who in the fringe coined the term "alt right" isn't related to who has been swept up under the smear from the left. According the left, you too are the "alt right". Trump didn't do that. Of course most of the right knows it is "distant" from the racist so-called white supremacists; it has always been "distant" from it, having nothing in common with it.

    When large numbers are illegally crossing the border the military should be used to stop it. The border patrol is overwhelmed, but in part because it is tied up by the left controlling it. Trump tried to use the National Guard, but the source of the problem is bad US policy full of loopholes and being further undermined and obstructed by the left in Washington, including by leftists in the courts.

    Trump uses a lot of emotional anti-intellectual rhetoric but he isn't Alex Jones. Caricatures of Trump are no way to analyze an election.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago
    He has shown no sign that that is what he is doing. Everything he says contradicts it. Beware the magic 3D chess explanation.

    I don't think tariffs will change China either.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ayn Rand did not squander a vote on Goldwater, there was no other choice against Johnson and nothing to not squander it on. That's not a "double standard" for ignoring the fringe party and voting where it makes a difference.

    Blaming the current state of politics on "corruption" is the same anti-intellectual ignoring of the role of ideas in determining what kind of government we have. Everyone wants "better choices", but most don't understand the proper standards for what is a better choice and have accepted some bad premises. That is why we get the choices we do.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • CBJ replied 5 years, 7 months ago
  • -1
    Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "The "alt-right" is so ambiguous that no knows what it actually refers to."
    That's not true. Alt-right was a term coined specifically by Richard Spencer in an effort to re-brand neo-nazis. An effort that was remarkably successful thanks to the efforts of the Trump administration.
    It was Bannon who brought them "into the fold" by declaring his media arm the voice of the alt-right and thereby bringing white-nationalists into mainstream politics for the first time in a long time.
    Whether he did this intentionally or because he is clueless doesn't really matter.
    This is one of those examples of where conservatives can be much worse than democrats.
    This is also why Trump is quite rightly associated with racists. The left didn't need to smear him. Requiring him to distance himself from these people is not unreasonable and he has failed to do so, often even doubling down as is his way.
    Meanwhile large swathes of the conservative movement have quietly distanced themselves from the alt-right, having at first embraced them and demonstrating they are all pretty clueless too.
    They are hoping no one noticed, but people like me noticed.

    "Referring to the flood of illegal border crossings as an "invasion", which in many respects it is, is not conspiracy."
    If you honestly believe that we have an invasion then you should be calling for military action, because that is the only appropriate response to an invasion.
    Unless you are prepared to do that, then you know quite well that there is no invasion, there isn't even a "flood" of anyone, that these are just hyperbole and exaggerations meant to incite hatred of immigrants and justify rights-violating regulations.

    "Neither are Trump's deals in the name of "unfair trade" about "conspiracy"."
    All of Trumps rhetoric is tinged with conspiracy, he is an Alex Jones-style president. Playing the victim and appealing to the victimhood of people to win their votes is part of his overall strategy.
    This is in addition to viewing politics as business deals because he has no grasp of the former.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's an observation, not an argument, let alone "argument from intimidation": Everyone (almost) knows that the Party is a fringe party by observation of the "campaigns" and the results.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • CBJ replied 5 years, 7 months ago
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You don't read Rules for Radicals as rational entertainment. But you read it if you want to know first hand what is meant when you constantly see it referred to and how the left thinks in its dishonest activism.

    If you read Rules for Radicals you will see that Alinsky was using his nihilistic methods against everything he went after, not conservatives letting him get away with it, and he got away with it by exploiting the media. Likewise for when the New Left picked up the methods and mentality and used them against universities, which were mostly not run by conservatives.

    The liberals were manipulated and allowed themselves to be manipulated as they pandered. Conservatives have been more likely to in practice defend civilization against the nihilism, but most of society has frequently caved in, in part because of the media manipulation to smear the targets. Ayn Rand described what should have been done in her "The Cashing In: The Student Rebellion".

    Then there's Hillary. If you read her fawning thesis you will see that she endorsed Alinsky enthusiastically. Her advisor made her include criticism, so she criticized Alinsky for not going far enough -- she said he had kept to local community organizing when he should have gone national (written with elaboration as she rushed the writing at the end). They became friends from the interviews and Alinsky offered her a job as an organizer trainer after graduation, but she wanted to go to Yale law school.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The "alt-right" is so ambiguous that no knows what it actually refers to. For a while it was being used to refer to everything from Trump to anyone not on radical left. Banon being associated with it no more means racism than anything else branded as "racist" by the left. Why wouldn't you "blame" the left for its own race mongering?

    Referring to the flood of illegal border crossings as an "invasion", which in many respects it is, is not conspiracy. It has many causes, though according to Trump they seem to change sides depending on his praise of the latest "deal" with Mexico. But it's not about race.

    Neither are Trump's deals in the name of "unfair trade" about "conspiracy". All kinds of laws and treaties governing international trade and taxes between all kinds of countries affect different people in different ways as countries everywhere manipulate their own currencies and taxes on top of the treaties. Trump treats these as if they were business deals in which it is his job to strike a better "deal", with tariffs as a major tool he has the authority to use, instead of trying remove taxes and controls. But it isn't racism. Obama liked the lopsided arrangement because he wants this country drained for the third world.

    At least Trump's unprincipled dealing is out of love of his country. Obama has great love of country, too, but it's every country except this one, and "love" is not the right word.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo