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 19.
  • Posted by 5 years, 8 months ago
    Hong Kong is the proverbial canary in the coal mine when it comes to China.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Trump could back down from the tariff war , saying he gave the Chinese an opportunity to save the trading relationship, but they rejected it and now we will essentially just slow down and stop trading with them. I think AR would actually agree that It’s self defeating for freedom living people to trade with totalitarian states
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree it’s a stupid move. He is not considering that foreign affairs politics with irrational collectivist countries is NOT like a business deal based on the making of money. China wants power and will not give in to trump. I did like his latest “order” that USA should look to not trade with China if they won’t be fair with us

    I think that is a more rational response. He should rescind immediately all tariffs with China before he loses the 2020 election.

    I wouldn’t buy from hitler no matter how low his price was. Given that China government is totalitarian, we shouldn’t trade with them
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The 40% number was more to indicate that people can be partially rational part of the time and not necessarily 100% rational or irrational. My estimate of 40% for trump was really not very scientific- particularly in view of his very irrational and ineffective Chinese tariffs.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 8 months ago
    There is no question that the ideas of Objectivism are the most cohesive, consistent, integrated philosophical system that’s ever been expressed. On that, all Objectivists agree. But they fail miserably in marketing those ideas to the misguided (who are searching for direction), misinformed (who fail to integrate properly), the curious (who have put a toe in the water) and all the others that truly want greater comprehension. We have the most beautiful car in the showroom, that runs with the precision of the finest race car, but those peering in the window need to be encouraged to take it for a test ride, and not told by some pompous salesman that they can’t afford it, or do not have the skill to drive it. Over my 50+ years of association, I’ve noticed the circle continually getting smaller rather than filling that showroom to positively explain the benefits of such a fine vehicle. Many that are on the Gulch have varying degrees of understanding on Objectivism, some none at all (not sure why they’re even on), but numerous comments that are posted, while intellectually correct even if context is sometimes not properly applied, reflect an emotionalism that has fostered the cult-like view on Objectivism. Objectivists and those who think they are, fall into two categories; those that want to be told what to think (how ironic) and those that truly comprehend the essentials and its applications. The Gulch is a great platform to expand our ideas. I suggest that every Objectivist read Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” We may get an A on intellectual content, but receive an F in Marketing 101. Let’s try to keep more people in that showroom.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 8 months ago
    "It's the last gasp of Republican Pragmatism in a futile attempt to survive the radical left without challenging basic premises."
    Exactly and well put.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Dobrien's "You seem to be incapable of critical thinking" as his response to a lengthy serious post was a personal attack, for which he was called out by the moderator, which he then proceeded to attack. No amount of repeatedly quibbling over to what degree Trump is collectivist excuses it.

    Criticism of conservative positions and poor reasoning is not a personal attack regardless of whether anyone feels 'triggered' by it. We see them reacting that way and personally lashing out here over and over as they misrepresent their target and play victim.

    Widespread conservative anti-intellectualism and swaggering emotionalism (which is certainly not true of all of conservatives) is a cultural problem that ought to be of concern for any supporter of reason and individualism. It is not to be banned from discussion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Then you and I will continue to differ regarding what constitutes a personal attack.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I haven't seen Objectivists thinking Trump is great, and don't see conservatives trying to rationalize anything with Objectivism. There are conservatives here who don't know what Objectivism is, associating it with the positions they found elsewhere following their attraction in some way to an Ayn Rand novel.

    But no one has to be an Objectivist to any degree to know better than to be so gullible over Washington press releases with official-sounding titles. You can go on from there to ask why someone is so gullible, relating it ultimately to education, or intelligence, or an emotional refusal be more critical even when explained to them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A lot has been done that Trump knows little or nothing about even though they are under his administration. At least he didn't stop them. There are a few in his Executive Orders that can properly called his reforms, but who knows how much of it he understood as opposed to some kind of emotional support for the moment. He's not dumb, but has poor understanding of principles and left to his own devices could just as easily have done the opposite.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your assertion that he contradicted himself is false. You don't seem to understand what Objectivism is; it is much more than a "point of view" that payrolls should be met and ideas and ambition are economically productive. Even conservatives, and liberals and many others, recognize that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There is no "Objective dogma" here and no one is using "CNN wording" or endorsing "blue is read" strawman contradictions. Your personal smears and hostility to Objectivism are not a contribution.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Some of the regulatory "reform" is worth celebrating by those who are being specifically clobbered, who don't find it trivial. Remember that statism in this mixed system impacts different people in different ways (i.e., short of outright totalitarianism).

    But for those of us here concerned with the national trend as well as particular injustices against individuals, this is a largely left wing government with 'trivial' reforms in the full context. Trump and his followers are trying to tinker with the establishment system to make it "work" under their nationalist collectivism. It's the last gasp of Republican Pragmatism in a futile attempt to survive the radical left without challenging basic premises.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • PeterSmith replied 5 years, 8 months ago
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The latest escalation in trade wars could be his undoing politically, especially if it continues to drive the stock market down. Whether or not it comes to that, it's an example of his use of the presidency to go after "deals" in any way he feels like as president, a clear abuse of power illustrating his authoritarian streak. It's the kind of crisis his unstable intellect could cause if his advisors can't reel him in.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Since when is it my responsibility to respond to every comment I don't agree with? As an individualist, I only accept responsibility for my own posts and don't attempt to place myself or anyone else in a "you guys" category.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Term2 meant it as some kind of ranking for what is acceptable in politics (which still overrates Trump). I don't think he meant literally "Objectivist".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The militant conservatives have no understanding or interest in Ayn Rand's ideas; they don't use her characters as a standard for Trump idolatry or anything else.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Dobrien's personal attacks do not belong on this forum and are a violation of the requirement to post here. There is no "service fee" buying irrational behavior.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Rules created by government are "essential" only to statists who want to "regulate" other people's behavior in contrast to protecting the rights of the individual. Congress has no Constitutional authority to delegate legislation in the form of rules to the executive branch, or to pass laws controlling people.

    In a free society the individual is free to do anything other than what is prohibited as a violation of the rights of others; while the government has no rights or freedom to pass whatever laws it feels like, it must pass and enforce laws protecting the rights of the individual.

    "Factoids" rationalizing statism are the conservative substitute for facts and rational principles.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This isn't about electing an Objectivist at all, only what is most tolerable to have to live under during the term of office. "Objectivist" means a lot more than semi-compatible political policies, and Trump is nowhere near "40%", starting with his emotional thinking and bad ethics at the root of his politics.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    True deregulation requires removing the framework that established and entrenched the regulations, and that requires legislation. Compared with today's scope of regulation the recent rollbacks, while mattering to those impacted, are so minor and temporary that they can't be called "deregulation" in any significant characterization of the system we have.

    It is not irrelevant "what happens after that". Without changing the system it is not deregulated. Legislation de-authorizing certain kinds of regulation would be far more significant than minor changes within the regulatory framework. Legislation has both authorized whole classes of regulation and established procedures for agencies to formulate or revise them.

    It is harder to "reform" them at the agency level than it is for the statists to use the procedure to impose them, and harder to change legislation authorizing them. (It is generally harder to pass legislation -- both authorizing and deauthorizing -- than to block it.)

    But as history has shown, such legislation is far from impossible and grows like a cancer under both parties. True deregulation requires getting rid of the whole mentality and conservatives aren't trying to do that, even in their own minds. It isn't just the Republican "moderates".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    OK you didn't personally say that.
    And since you don't believe such a nonsensical thing I'm sure you're going to respond to the comment suggesting that Trump is 40% Objectivist and call it out for the absurdity that it is...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not to mention the many regulations that have increased under Trump as we see with areas like trade, for example, that are simply being ignored.
    Or the slow but steady normalization of authoritarian talking points and tribalism in our discourse instead of politically literate arguments.

    Also, I don't think it's gullibility. Sadly I think a lot of people, even many Objectivists, think Trump is something great and are trying to rationalize their support for him with Objectivism.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo