Paul's Here

Dr. Peikoff says "Vote Republican" to kick out Obama

59 posts in this topic

I have no comment. Just bizarre.

Although I continue to disagree with Dr. Peikoff on his views both with respect to an essential synonymy between "religious" and "Republican" as well as his long-range concern for an inevitable political ascendancy of the explicitly religious in the U.S., his remark here makes sense to me. After specifically referencing the uniquely destructive nature of the Obama regime and, even more important, the haste with which it is legislating the death of the United States both internally and abroad (something he admits he did not foresee), Dr. Peikoff said something with which I can wholeheartedly agree: given the imminent, mortal danger posed by Obama et al., "there is no long range to wait for or work for". I read his remarks as an acknowledgment that the time for a vigorous protest and response is NOW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After specifically referencing the uniquely destructive nature of the Obama regime and, even more important, the haste with which it is legislating the death of the United States both internally and abroad (something he admits he did not foresee),

Other Objectivists, including Ayn Rand, did foresee -- and warned us about -- exactly what is happening now. Although Ayn Rand despised Reagan because of religion, she wrote it would be mandatory to vote for him if the Democrats ran a Leftist.

Dr. Peikoff said something with which I can wholeheartedly agree: given the imminent, mortal danger posed by Obama et al., "there is no long range to wait for or work for".

Four years ago some Objectivists did speak out and did warn of the imminent, mortal danger posed by the election of Democrats in 2006 and Obama in 2008. Perhaps it would be a good idea to reread their arguments to better understand what they saw that others missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The important thing is not just to "elect Republicans." Any old Republican will not do. It is more critical than ever to find and support the right Republicans,

That means Republicans who best understand, are most sympathetic to, and are open to learn even more about individualism and individual rights. The time is now until the caucuses and primaries. The battlegrounds are local Republican organizations, tea parties, newspaper web sites, op-ed pages, blogs, and Facebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
she wrote it would be mandatory to vote for him if the Democrats ran a Leftist.

Betsy, this is very interesting. You mean that even in the 1960s, there was even the slightest possibility that a Democrat would NOT be a leftist?

I've always associated the movement with varying degrees of socialist corruption, but cannot think of a single Democrat I have heard of who was less than left/centrist since at least the 1900s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although I continue to disagree with Dr. Peikoff on his views both with respect to an essential synonymy between "religious" and "Republican" as well as his long-range concern for an inevitable political ascendancy of the explicitly religious in the U.S., his remark here makes sense to me. After specifically referencing the uniquely destructive nature of the Obama regime and, even more important, the haste with which it is legislating the death of the United States both internally and abroad (something he admits he did not foresee), Dr. Peikoff said something with which I can wholeheartedly agree: given the imminent, mortal danger posed by Obama et al., "there is no long range to wait for or work for". I read his remarks as an acknowledgment that the time for a vigorous protest and response is NOW.

That it took Obama, and not just Obama, but more than a year into his presidency with a Democratic dominated House and Senate, for Dr. Peikoff to put 2 and 2 together about the threat of the Democratic party is no credit towards him. If anything it is more embarrassing than if he had continued his staunchly anti-Republican position, because after directing vitriol at other Objectivists who disagree, even going as far as to say they aren't real Objectivists if they vote Republican, to suddenly look at Obama and say "well this is a concrete that is an exception" makes him look like the grand arbiter of the arbitrary.

No one deserves credit for a few sparse sentences about the threat of the Democratic party after hundreds of intelligent people had already thoroughly and eloquently detailed this in the past. This is like one of the climate centers that, after making ten years of failed scaremongering global warming predictions suddenly gets a prediction right, and everyone praises the "wisdom" and "insight" of their predictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one deserves credit for a few sparse sentences about the threat of the Democratic party after hundreds of intelligent people had already thoroughly and eloquently detailed this in the past. This is like one of the climate centers that, after making ten years of failed scaremongering global warming predictions suddenly gets a prediction right, and everyone praises the "wisdom" and "insight" of their predictions.

My comment must not be construed as "praise" for Dr. Peikoff for finally "getting it". It is merely a statement of fact: what Dr. Peikoff said on this recent Podcast (minus those "religion" points I mention) is true. Of course, as Betsy points out, what he said was also true in 2008 and in 2006 (I would add to the list 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, etc., etc.). Not a few Objectivists, including myself, "got it" then, even if Dr. Peikoff did not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The important thing is not just to "elect Republicans." Any old Republican will not do. It is more critical than ever to find and support the right Republicans,

That means Republicans who best understand, are most sympathetic to, and are open to learn even more about individualism and individual rights. The time is now until the caucuses and primaries. The battlegrounds are local Republican organizations, tea parties, newspaper web sites, op-ed pages, blogs, and Facebook.

Absolutely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one deserves credit for a few sparse sentences about the threat of the Democratic party after hundreds of intelligent people had already thoroughly and eloquently detailed this in the past. This is like one of the climate centers that, after making ten years of failed scaremongering global warming predictions suddenly gets a prediction right, and everyone praises the "wisdom" and "insight" of their predictions.

My comment must not be construed as "praise" for Dr. Peikoff for finally "getting it". It is merely a statement of fact: what Dr. Peikoff said on this recent Podcast (minus those "religion" points I mention) is true. Of course, as Betsy points out, what he said was also true in 2008 and in 2006 (I would add to the list 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, etc., etc.). Not a few Objectivists, including myself, "got it" then, even if Dr. Peikoff did not.

Ok, sorry for misunderstanding you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any links or sources for Leonard Peikoffs explicit views in regard to the 2008 election?

I remember being disappointed by his 2006 comments(specifically the one in which he said that anyone who votes Republican, doesn't understand Objectivism) so I am wondering if he maintained that view explicitly through to the 2008 election, or if it applied to the 2006 election only?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one deserves credit for a few sparse sentences about the threat of the Democratic party after hundreds of intelligent people had already thoroughly and eloquently detailed this in the past. This is like one of the climate centers that, after making ten years of failed scaremongering global warming predictions suddenly gets a prediction right, and everyone praises the "wisdom" and "insight" of their predictions.

My comment must not be construed as "praise" for Dr. Peikoff for finally "getting it". It is merely a statement of fact: what Dr. Peikoff said on this recent Podcast (minus those "religion" points I mention) is true. Of course, as Betsy points out, what he said was also true in 2008 and in 2006 (I would add to the list 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, etc., etc.). Not a few Objectivists, including myself, "got it" then, even if Dr. Peikoff did not.

I knew Obama was far left the first time I heard him say 50 words or so. This must have been sometime in 2007 and I recall thinking I would never vote for the guy even in protest against a horrible Republican. If I, a reasonably well educated guy but no philosopher, can identify this, why on earth couldn't someone like Dr Peikoff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone have any links or sources for Leonard Peikoffs explicit views in regard to the 2008 election?

I remember being disappointed by his 2006 comments(specifically the one in which he said that anyone who votes Republican, doesn't understand Objectivism) so I am wondering if he maintained that view explicitly through to the 2008 election, or if it applied to the 2006 election only?

With respect to the 2008 election, try THIS for both a YouTube link and discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
she wrote it would be mandatory to vote for him if the Democrats ran a Leftist.

Betsy, this is very interesting. You mean that even in the 1960s, there was even the slightest possibility that a Democrat would NOT be a leftist?

What she actually said was:

If, which is very doubtful, Mr. Reagan gets the Republican nomination, there is only one group of people that could make it necessary to vote for him: the Democrats—by nominating some equivalent of Senator [George] McGovern, such as Senator [Ted] Kennedy.

Since the last two Democrat Presidential candidates -- John Kerry and Barak Obama -- were to the left of McGovern and Kennedy, I'm pretty sure Ayn Rand would have voted against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
she wrote it would be mandatory to vote for him if the Democrats ran a Leftist.

Betsy, this is very interesting. You mean that even in the 1960s, there was even the slightest possibility that a Democrat would NOT be a leftist?

I've always associated the movement with varying degrees of socialist corruption, but cannot think of a single Democrat I have heard of who was less than left/centrist since at least the 1900s.

Let's not forget that the left/center/right is not a specific location along a political line of thought but a moving line relative to the positions of the left. As the left moves left, the center and right move along to the left too. If you've ever listened to some of President Kennedy's speeches, especially on foreign policy, he seems like a radical right winger by today's standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I, a reasonably well educated guy but no philosopher, can identify this, why on earth couldn't someone like Dr Peikoff?

His DIM hypothesis, used to rationalize conclusions about a subject he doesn't know much about? In one of the podcasts not too long ago he acknowledged that some Objectivists have told him he does not understand politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If, which is very doubtful, Mr. Reagan gets the Republican nomination, there is only one group of people that could make it necessary to vote for him: the Democrats—by nominating some equivalent of Senator [George] McGovern, such as Senator [Ted] Kennedy.

Since the last two Democrat Presidential candidates -- John Kerry and Barak Obama -- were to the left of McGovern and Kennedy, I'm pretty sure Ayn Rand would have voted against them.

But didn't she also say that she sat out the election between Reagan and Carter, who was a 'born again' religious leftist? Carter tried to campaign as a 'moderate', but by then couldn't anyone see what he had been in fact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. Peikoff said something with which I can wholeheartedly agree: given the imminent, mortal danger posed by Obama et al., "there is no long range to wait for or work for".

Four years ago some Objectivists did speak out and did warn of the imminent, mortal danger posed by the election of Democrats in 2006 and Obama in 2008. Perhaps it would be a good idea to reread their arguments to better understand what they saw that others missed

Some of us tried, but it was undercut by those like Phil, who sloughed over the danger of Obama as no worse than a mere "unmitigated disaster". What can you do in the face of such over-optimistic political naivete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an active member of the Tea Party movement, every day I receive around 20 e-mails from groups I support, such as Tea Party Patriots. For all of this year we Tea Partiers have been spending less time on protesting, and more on political action: training as precinct officials, holding seminars on the Constitution, and supporting new political candidates. Across the country, a whole new wave of candidates who explicitly endorse free markets, limited government and obeying the Constitution is emerging. Not at all like most of the Republican establishment in Washington.

There's a real possibility that, after next November, we'll have not one Michelle Bachmann in Congress speaking out against gangster government, but thirty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I, a reasonably well educated guy but no philosopher, can identify this, why on earth couldn't someone like Dr Peikoff?

His DIM hypothesis, used to rationalize conclusions about a subject he doesn't know much about? In one of the podcasts not too long ago he acknowledged that some Objectivists have told him he does not understand politics.

Why do PhD climate scientists at the most elite institutions in the world assert as fact that small amounts of manmade CO2 drive temperature when it is stated as fact in their own climate literature that the radiative warming of CO2 is too small to account for the temperature change? Because with enough rationalism one can "prove" anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I, a reasonably well educated guy but no philosopher, can identify this, why on earth couldn't someone like Dr Peikoff?

His DIM hypothesis, used to rationalize conclusions about a subject he doesn't know much about? In one of the podcasts not too long ago he acknowledged that some Objectivists have told him he does not understand politics.

Don't suppose you have a citation for that, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As an active member of the Tea Party movement, every day I receive around 20 e-mails from groups I support, such as Tea Party Patriots. For all of this year we Tea Partiers have been spending less time on protesting, and more on political action: training as precinct officials, holding seminars on the Constitution, and supporting new political candidates. Across the country, a whole new wave of candidates who explicitly endorse free markets, limited government and obeying the Constitution is emerging. Not at all like most of the Republican establishment in Washington.

There's a real possibility that, after next November, we'll have not one Michelle Bachmann in Congress speaking out against gangster government, but thirty.

I've been wondering about the activity this year. Living as far from the US as I do, it's somewhat difficult to gauge what's going on. Can you provide me a sense for how this is coming together?

There is so much pessimism out there that it can be like a smokescreen. If some really good things are percolating, I'd love to see some concretes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I, a reasonably well educated guy but no philosopher, can identify this, why on earth couldn't someone like Dr Peikoff?

His DIM hypothesis, used to rationalize conclusions about a subject he doesn't know much about? In one of the podcasts not too long ago he acknowledged that some Objectivists have told him he does not understand politics.

Don't suppose you have a citation for that, please?

This was discussed on the Forum a while back. One of his recorded lecture series on DIM, which was available on the web for free at the time, had a long segment on applying DIM to politics where he made a lot of his statements about theocracy and Republicans. I don't remember which podcast had his statement about other Objectivists telling him he doesn't understand politics. I heard it at least a few weeks ago, but I'm always behind because I listen to them in the car on long trips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As an active member of the Tea Party movement, every day I receive around 20 e-mails from groups I support, such as Tea Party Patriots. For all of this year we Tea Partiers have been spending less time on protesting, and more on political action: training as precinct officials, holding seminars on the Constitution, and supporting new political candidates. Across the country, a whole new wave of candidates who explicitly endorse free markets, limited government and obeying the Constitution is emerging. Not at all like most of the Republican establishment in Washington.

There's a real possibility that, after next November, we'll have not one Michelle Bachmann in Congress speaking out against gangster government, but thirty.

I've been wondering about the activity this year. Living as far from the US as I do, it's somewhat difficult to gauge what's going on. Can you provide me a sense for how this is coming together?

There is so much pessimism out there that it can be like a smokescreen. If some really good things are percolating, I'd love to see some concretes.

Bill will have to tell you about his experience, but it is the nature of politics that the general public never sees but a very tiny portion of what goes on behind the scenes to make things happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone have any links or sources for Leonard Peikoffs explicit views in regard to the 2008 election?

I remember being disappointed by his 2006 comments(specifically the one in which he said that anyone who votes Republican, doesn't understand Objectivism) so I am wondering if he maintained that view explicitly through to the 2008 election, or if it applied to the 2006 election only?

In 2008 he was still denouncing Republicans en masse and still is despite the specific advice in the recent podcast. In a podcast before the 2008 election he said not to vote for anyone for president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites