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 9.
  • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Wrong on all counts.

    ”Knowing that ideas precede politics means that it doesn't make sense to run a party for decades in advance pretending to run for president.”

    If early 20th century socialists had adopted this view, they would never have formed the Socialist Party or run candidates for President. Their relentless political activism paid off big time when their ideas were gradually absorbed by the Democratic Party, which today has an influential and growing socialist component.

    When the LP launched in 1971, its organizers had no way of knowing how long it would take to achieve legitimacy in the eyes of the voting public. (The same is true of the Objectivist philosophy in relation to the wider culture.) The LP gradually achieved a significant level of recognition and respect, due to its participation in the political process. (Just as Objectivism gradually achieved a level of recognition and respect through public outreach.) Would you say “it doesn’t make sense to promote Objectivism for decades in advance pretending to be a meaningful philosophy”?

    ”It is worse that the Party is both unprincipled and stuck with unelectable platforms, both being disreputable for capitalism.”

    The LP’s principles are clearly stated in its platform. Its platform may be “unelectable” at the moment (although some Libertarians do get elected), but it is equally true that, at present, the Objectivist philosophy is “unimplementable” in the wider culture. Neither the LP platform nor the Objectivist philosophy is “disreputable for capitalism” (whatever that means).

    ”After the Dewey landslide victory disappeared over night no one trusted polls for a very long time. Even if Goldwater could be believed in advance to lose, that implies there was no longer an alternative of two viable candidates to vote for and voting for Goldwater made no difference to the outcome.”

    By Goldwater’s time polls had regained a substantial amount of trust. Anyone following his campaign was aware that it was losing badly, including Ayn Rand, who said so. (I was a volunteer in Goldwater’s campaign and was also a subscriber to The Objectivist Newsletter in 1964, so I was able to follow both the events and Ayn Rand’s comments in real time.)

    So again, please explain why you think Ayn Rand took the political action of voting for Goldwater in 1964, knowing that he was going to lose. Again, do you think she “squandered” her vote “for a different purpose that detracts from the voting and accomplishes nothing in the election”?

    ”The Libertarian Party has remained a fringe publicity-seeking organization for 40 years.”

    The LP is a “fringe” party only in the same sense that Objectivism is a “fringe” philosophy – neither has achieved “major” status in its field. Of course it is “publicity-seeking” – so is Objectivism. Promotion of any philosophy or ideology requires publicity. Would you say Objectivism “has remained a fringe publicity-seeking organization for 60 years.”?

    ”Objectivism is a serious philosophy, not politics. It's no wonder that most of the public doesn't know the title.”

    Really? That’s the excuse, after 60 years and millions of copies of *Atlas Shrugged” sold? Even in academia Objectivism has not achieved much of a toehold. Meanwhile, the LP’s influence and recognition are light-years ahead of what they were just a few decades ago. This is proof that political activism can and does work, that it can actually help spread “proper ideas”, and that it makes no sense to defer political activism until the wider culture decides to adopt such ideas.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Compared with an objectivist standard, yes they all have flaws. But, we have to deal with the candidates at hand.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Exactly. I will vote for him in 2020. I am so DONE with the left and their convoluted thinking and obstruction. Same thing applies to the RINO contingent too. But, that said, we have to deal with the cards that are dealt.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree actually, but I am hesitant to say that he doesnt know what he is doing. He DID get elected after all in 2016. I do think that the dems have learned from 2016 and this time around his tactics might not work as well. On the other hand, the dems have really terrible candidates, at least so far.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The parasite position would make an interesting and ugly thread all on its own.

    I know you aren't a leftist LOL but that is the usual recipient of the label.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I suspect the rational explanations would go over the heads of the populace unfortunately at this time. Trump’s attraction is more of the working person’s gut understanding. That’s what got him elected. The alternative was not John Galt, but Hillary Clinton in 2016. In 2020 the choice will be trump as he is, or a heavy duty socialist
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree there's much more and it wasn't my intent to be simplistic. It was just one example of voicing the proper identification of an important concrete, something that hasn't existed in the general political arena for over a generation. The fact that he spews his thoughts neither make them correct or intellectual, but I don't believe they are deceitful.
    Early on I realized he was the consummate salesman who plays to his audience. Many times his rhetoric and style is confused with his underlying substance and goal (don't take that for more than it's meant). His retorts in the primaries are not the way you or I would reply, but they were all retaliatory, even if crude and childish. He played the cards he was dealt and navigated the field varying his strategy with each. I was closer to the situation than you might know.
    And with regards to "extolling murderous dictators," do you really believe he admires their fundamentals? He uses a twist of the Machiavellian/Godfather phrase of "keeping your friends close and your enemies closer." And I know that first hand.
    There are many big government underlying ways we should continue to be aware of, calling them out as they appear with the proper context and explanation of principles. We do it with all we encounter. I am not some blind Trump idealogue.
    I have hosted book signings, and seminars with both groups, and VERY EARLY on (when he was characterized as a joke) an intellectual position had been taken and any further discussion was closed.
    A disappointing example of the display of the "official position" was when Hoenig appeared and the last Stossel show. He was asked "you must be happy that a number in his circle have read or admired Rand" (not exact but you get the gist). Keep in mind that he had several minutes with a national audience to respond. His general answer was a terse "they are not Objectivists, they lack the moral center needed and just because they read her books doesn't mean they understand her principles." He finished by wrapping it with an anti-Trump message. He had turned off many viewers that may have wanted to inquire further on Rand. A better answer might have been something like, it's good to see Rand emerging at these levels. Her ideas are coming to fruition on the world stage, and for those of you that want to understand how we got here, read Atlas, Capitalism, etc. I have other examples, but I think you get the idea.
    I even did my own little experiment (which I shared with Craig) when Biddle published his article on Trump and Kim. You would be surprised by the comments I received re who they were from and the thoughtfulness (or lack) of the responses.
    I just observe why and how people react in varying situations, social or intellectual, and I've even expressed it on this thread, including the integrity you've tried to keep.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Knowing that ideas precede politics means that it doesn't make sense to run a party for decades in advance pretending to run for president. It is worse that the Party is both unprincipled and stuck with unelectable platforms, both being disreputable for capitalism.

    After the Dewey landslide victory disappeared over night no one trusted polls for a very long time. Even if Goldwater could be believed in advance to lose, that implies there was no longer an alternative of two viable candidates to vote for and voting for Goldwater made no difference to the outcome.

    The Libertarian Party has remained a fringe publicity-seeking organization for 40 years. That is getting nowhere. Objectivism is a serious philosophy, not politics. It's no wonder that most of the public doesn't know the title. Ideas of this kind spread from a small group of intellectuals, not publicity campaigns. Whether or not it ever spreads, spreading proper ideas is a requirement, with very bad results otherwise no matter what political publicity seekers do.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 but may have come from Brooklyn. He had also been a friend of Ayn Rand before she dumped him for good reason (long before the Libertarian Party).

    There were many student organizations against the New Left campus riots who were Ayn Rand supporters and some of them turned into Ayn Rand clubs after the fires went out, some good and some not, turning into libertarians. Are you sure the Libertarian Party started at that one group and not a national coalition?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I understand that, but meanwhile the personal attacks are escalating and becoming more viciously intense with abandon. "Welcome to Galt's Guch". Really?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No exams yet. Still too early in the term.
    Both universities I attended had the usual protesters. Delaware had some, but Michigan had a lot more. We have a lot of Caribbean students, more than any university in the Caribbean, and so our students are generally happier than most students at most universities.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Unless a hurrican hits on an exam day?

    I'm glad your campus has been spared. My undergraduate engineering campus was like that, but when I got to graduate school at a major university the world turned upside down with Leninists, "strikes", building takeovers and more everywhere.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 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. It's true that his support of statism as the status quo in many ways are being overlooked by his fans, particularly the Trump idolizers who are generally populist collectivists anyway.

    But the premise in #1 is false: "Arguing against Trump in an overwhelming manner improves the position of the other potential to be elected, the Democrat." What is "overwhelming" and what does it have to do with discussions here or with intelligent people elsewhere?

    This isn't about trashing someone in campaign hit pieces; analysis and arguments about Trump should be principled and apply to the Democrats, Republicans, and the whole political situation, identifying general features as well as differences. They provide understanding necessary to assess the state of the whole political culture and what to watch out for. Intellectual integrity and practicality require this, and should not be muzzled out of fear for someone's political campaign out of anti-intellectual Pragmatism. It doesn't imply voting for Elizabeth Warren.

    Whether this ultimately results in advocating voting for Trump or not voting (which I don't think it does), objectivity requires accepting the results, not deciding in advance that it isn't in one's self interest to not support Trump.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You can't possibly be this lacking in self awareness.
    The "little" gangs here are the ones that downvote ewv's comments, along with anyone else actually putting forward Objectivist positions, not those of the utterly lost conservatives.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Apparently downvotes are given to the very few people who actually understand and support Objectivism while upvotes are given to the overwhelming horde of religious and conservatives leftists that seem to be very dominant on what is advertised as an Objectivist blog.

    shrugs
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Perhaps I am insulated from the leftist drivel because I attract producers, but I have never seen a student protest at Florida Tech. The only time the students are not happy is during hurricane evacuation - which will start after classes end today!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't think this is a logical argument.
    This is random statements and wishful thinking at best.
    Your points 1 and 2 make no sense since Trump is no better than any Democrat. You maybe could've made these claims before he was elected, but not now.
    The only reason you're supporting Trump is because he has the (R) next to his name and you'll say anything to not have to move from this superficial view. But you need to realize that both the Republicans and Democrats are as bad as each other. Often Republicans are even worse than Democrats if for no other reason than they end up moving people to vote Democrat.
    Sadly the best option for any kind of short term, time buying, is to have a Democrat President with Republicans in control of at least congress.
    That's the only way we slow the growth of statism.
    But both Republicans and Democrats need to be opposed as the leftists that they are, with conservatives held in particular contempt for their all-round political illiteracy, anti-intellectualism and destruction of political discourse.
    All they do is make opposing dems harder than it needs to be.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There is much more to assessing Trump's statements and actions than his "calling it like he saw it" on the "fake news" and "witch hunt" pseudo investigation. That those criticisms by Trump (and many others) are true doesn't make it the "most essential point", elevated to the level of "a metaphysical fundamental".

    It's True that Trump is far more open about what he really thinks than the typical carefully (and cynically) crafted political statements we are supposed to accept as intellectually superior. His being so open doesn't mean that what he says and thinks identifies "what is". Part of the problem is that thinking is often "isn't" -- sometimes being shockingly amateurishly irrelevant or abhorrent, like debating in the primaries to be considered as President of the United States by mocking the size of his opponents hands or after being elected extolling murderous dictators. There are many more, filled with self-inconsistencies. This legitimately raises a lot of questions.

    What in your opening post did you mean specifically by ARI's and TOS's "complete disdain for President Trump"? I have heard some of the criticisms, but haven't followed it systematically.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A stream of personal attacks is not educating people. The personal attacks are what should be booted off the forum, in accordance with its guidelines and integrity.

    But there are no GS13s or legislators in his faculty senate, which is the name of part of the governance of a private university.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They are but there are significant differences. The issue in this thread is the nature of the differences versus the bad aspects in Trump's Pragmatism, anti-intellectualism, and statist actions, and all of it in contrast to the Democrat radical egalitarians. That is what must be objectively analyzed and assessed.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo