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 12.
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think it's more likely that Trump himself will do something to lose confidence in him and that too many -- who don't understand either the best of what he has done or the radical egalitarians -- will turn to the Democrats without knowing what they are doing.

    That wouldn't take much, partly because of his inability to be an articulate intellectual spokesman for himself, partly because the Republican leaders can't either, and partly because of the unprecedented sustained attacks on him from the establishment intellectuals, including almost the entire media.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ayn Rand saw that any political party based on a proper political philosophy could not be practical because ideas precede politics and it was (and still is) far too soon for that kind of politics. The Libertarian Party doesn't provide even that.

    She had it right when she said that we can properly forge political alliances with different kinds of people on specific issues, which some of us do and which is not Pragmatism, but not in a form of compromising principles or else you give them away.

    If she had endorsed the Libertarian Party despite her evaluation of it and the libertarians at the time she would have destroyed her own intellectual reputation and the meaning of her ideas while accomplishing nothing (which they have confirmed over and over).

    The same is true today, as especially illustrated by the intellectually unserious nature of the Party leaders and their choice of the Johnson-Weld clown team to speak for the so-called "party of principle" in order to get "big names". Pragmatism does not 'work'.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    We may think it is one of the most important for national defense reasons, but whatever Trump thinks about it which he can't articulate, Pragmatism is entrenched in his thought processes regardless of different risks. We can't change what he is, but he's all that stands between us and much worse, for as long as that lasts.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are entitled to be anti trump. I get it. You will have a choice of trump or a real dyed in the wool leftist in 2020. I suspect the country may choose to swing wildly collectivist if people like you vote against trump and pay the same price as Venezuelans have
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago
    It's not what this forum was supposed to be. If the forum owner won't put a stop to it all we can do is reject the personal attacks for what they are until they either get tired of it or the forum collapses entirely into Galt's Zoo. It has been getting worse, first especially from religious conservatives, and now this.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    He is trying to use "pragmatic" in an alternate, legitimate sense of practical, in which principled and practical are the same because principles are established for the 'practical' of living. Unfortunately there isn't much "common sense" left on what is practical. So called 'common sense' today is no longer sense and is confused with Pragmatist rejection of principle. But that is not what he was endorsing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This has nothing to do with the issue you raised about acting on principle which I responded to. You just changed the subject and returned to a demand that we not "undermine" Trump by analyzing what is wrong with him. You continue to ignore that I explicitly advocated keeping the criticism in the context of the Democrat alternative that is worse, which I have repeatedly done. That was not a difficult conclusion and you did not cause it. It does not have to be repeated in every post. Analyzing the fundamental problems with Trump for better understanding of the state of the country is not "stupid" and not a "massive pile of disinformation". Some of us are interested in a broader perspective than someone's AMT tax.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes there's no rolling back government in the foreseeable future. An ideological Democrat in the White House only makes growth of government power much worse faster while simultaneously doing more damage to the citizens under existing laws and regulations. It's been that way for a long time.

    Some Republican presidents are not much better than Democrats, if at all, but there have been differences even while government becomes larger and more powerful overall under all of them. Republican Bush-1 was closer to Clinton than Reagan, but can you imagine what it would have been like under Gore instead of Bush-2?

    What one can aim at with voting today is what we have to live under for the next few years at a time while the statist and cultural trends continue downward. There is a zig-zag pattern superimposed on a net downward slide. The zig-zag reflects temporary backlashes in some areas that rarely result in any major reform but at least reduce some problems we have to face on a daily basis. Electing ideological Democrat presidents precludes even that.

    Better to have a relatively more prosperous private economy under a Trump statist than stagnation and worse constantly. But the ideas that Trump caused a better economy -- as opposed to eliminating some punishment on private actions that actually are the economy -- and that he represents some major trend change for the better are myth.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You're right it's far from very effective, but there's nothing else that one can aim for with their voting today.
    There's no rolling back any government in the foresee-able future.
    Unless you know something I don't.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There's lots wrong with what you've said here, but that is quite different to the OP suggesting that there is a schism over Trump in Objectivism, or that there's some confusion as to why ARI or TOS are rightly anti-Trump.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Let me let you in on a little secret. There were many in the original "collective" along with close peripheral groups that displayed "psychological problems, resentment, and anger issues" regardless of their intellectual brilliance.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thank you. I simply call out what is. It hadn't occurred to me to feel defensive. But a lot of effort went into building this forum as a place for enthusiastic, rational discussion of Ayn Rand's ideas following the movie, and what began as "passionate about Ayn Rand's ideas and hope to assist in their propagation" is turning into Lord of the Flies and resentful politically correct sneering at Objectivism and anyone found to be explaining and applying it.

    The nihilism isn't coming from the obsolete minority of people you describe; it's those who found some political attraction to Atlas Shrugged but who have little interest in or knowledge of her ideas that made it possible. But yes they are obviously displaying psychological problems, resentment, and anger issues.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As I've said I'm new to this, but I am disappointed in the continued back and forth with the underlying tones. I do think that some who might have been interested in learning and participating found this unfulfilling and that's a shame.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • ewv replied 5 years, 8 months ago
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have no "gang" of any kind. He's smearing again.

    The forum encourages 'voting' by rational assessment, not blanket voting to intimidate out of emotional resentment. Thoritsu's personal attacks should have been stopped by the moderator long ago as contrary to the guidelines and purpose of the forum. 'Votes' do not do that. All of his personal attacks are still there for anyone to see.

    It's Thoritsu who thinks in terms of gang voting and conspiracy (a practice also contrary to the forum guidelines): "some group can stop the cowardly wholesale downvoting to hide discussions anytime" and "Read this quickly, because cowards will obscure it as soon as the lights go off."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A proper leader not Trump could make such a difference now, but not on a platform of laissez faire capitalism even if sensibly presented. It would require appealing to the best in what is left of the American sense of life.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Victory in elections follows the spread of the proper ideas. They are not equivalent. Ayn Rand knew that the ideas come first and that political action without that is futile. The Party's "case" does show why for 40 years it has gotten nowhere.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't think Pete Smith has directed his comments to any particular individual. Anyone not part of the false alternative knows that he is not. Those who are don't have to stay there. Those who are don't necessarily shut down discussion, but we don't see much of them trying anything else.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Why I bother is beyond me.

    So, like I said several days ago:
    Undermining Trump is self-defeating and non-Objectivist, unless you are retarded and think The democratic candidate better supports freedom or your own objectives.

    God (lower case, except for beginning a sentence) knows why this was a difficult conclusion to establish in the first round of comments to this post.

    Further, in the opportunity cost wasted on this massive pile of disinformation, we could have swayed several other young people to really think. Stupid!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If and when the candidates make a difference the principle is that everyone vote who cares. Your vote matters because it is one of those counted, and you know it is only one. The system depends on voters acting on that principle. That is true for any election, regardless of the 'mob rule' status now.

    If everyone concluded that his vote "doesn't count" because it is only one of them, and didn't vote because of it, then there would be no election and we would have a much worse dictatorship.

    (Living in the here and now isn't the problem, it's required to exist!)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 8 months ago
    Objectivists and libertarians agree on many things … but Objectivists view libertarians as the pragmatists that they are and would rather be divided from everyone else than united with those they agree with on most things. Objectivists are entitled to their opinions.

    I am not an Objectivist. I am also slightly pragmatic.

    A nation divided against itself cannot stand. - Abraham Lincoln quoting Sam Houston
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You wrote "Being principled is not always practical" as illustrated by being forced at gunpoint (or being punched) to say something you don't believe, but being coerced into saying it doesn't make you violate your principles, the perpetrator does that and no one believes what you were forced to say. You then referred to two ambiguous "hard one" examples that you said I didn't address. They were vaguely something about free lunches and being in a baggage compartment. What did you mean?

    In the realm of elections in particular, regardless of what is on the ballot it doesn't require us to be unprincipled in order to be practical. A proper election process does not mean at least one candidate on the ballot must embrace all that anyone prefers. We make choices from among the alternatives or don't vote -- our voting for a candidate less dangerous to us does not mean we are acting against our principles; it's how in self defense we deal on principle with the political context we are in.

    There are all kinds of principles being violated, but a finite ballot choice does not mean we are immorally reduced to an unprincipled "practicality"; the principles are violated by the perpetrators and our principles include self defense.

    If in your hypothetical example there is a choice between a socialist and an ex felon who personally cheats but claims to support reducing government, then you'd better determine if the felon can be trusted at all before deciding on a vote!

    You may decide you can't find a significant difference between different kinds of evil and therefore not vote for either.

    Or you may decide to risk the ex-felon. If you vote for him you are not endorsing his character and his crimes, and you don't have to like them to vote; the votes only decide who will be power and that is all you vote on.

    You can only make moral choices within what is possible. That's no bad reflection on your principled actions and integrity.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo