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

[ewv 0]

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.

And he still doesn't. Despite the true statement about the immediate destruction and the threat to him personally from the death panels that he (understandably) wants to stop, he is still promoting the same theme and says it will stand in his forthcoming book.

How does he decide what is immediate "enough" to constitute a dire enough threat to change his immediate actions? How is it that these threats were not anticipated? Direct threats are in place and known all the time for people who follow what is actually going on in politics and know what is happening to them instead of trying to deduce it without having to know. You have to know who is doing what and how, and what difference it makes as to who is in power that makes possible or thwarts the efforts of the best and worst people in positions of enforcement and influence over policy. It cannot be deduced or ignored in favor of "long term voting", let alone with false premises about the Republican Party being the voice of theocracy -- not if you want to survive long enough for there to be a long term. This didn't start with Obama.

No Objectivist advocates the Republican Party as an ideal. It is always in terms of real world factors of what are the means to effect worthwhile change or stop the acceleration of the worst in order to buy time. He denounced people with such a reality-centered view as not understanding Objectivism and then when confronted with "here now threat" which he did not anticipate, changes his actions while still endorsing the original strategy. Carlos' initial reaction -- "bizarre" -- is, unfortunately, correct.

[Ed from OC 0]

I still find I disagree with Peikoff on the nature of the Republican party. There is a strong religious component to it, but look where the momentum is. The tea parties rejected the STATISM of both parties; it was not a rejection of the secular socialist state in favor of a theocracy. The victory of Rand Paul for instance was a big step forward for those of us who advocate a small government.

Our ideological conflict in national politics is open, consistent socialism (Obama - Reid - Pelosi) vs. a leaderless, grassroots tea party movement that is explicitly pro-liberty, pro-America, and in many ways influenced by Ayn Rand. The GOP and the Dems are pretty much caught in the middle. The evangelical right is actually silent at the moment.

If the tea parties didn't exist, I'd say our safest move in elections is to gridlock, allowing both forms of statism to expend their energy fighting each other. With the tea parties and several good candidates (like Orange County's Chuck DeVore, running for CA Senate vs Boxer) I say we really do, for the first time in at least one generation, have POSITIVE, PRO-LIBERTY candidates to vote for. This is a rare and wonderful thing. Let's make the most of the chance we have and get these guys in office!

[alann 0]

And he still doesn't...

...

How does he decide what is immediate "enough" to constitute a dire enough threat to change his immediate actions? How is it that these threats were not anticipated? Direct threats are in place and known all the time for people who follow what is actually going on in politics and know what is happening to them instead of trying to deduce it without having to know. You have to know who is doing what and how, and what difference it makes as to who is in power that makes possible or thwarts the efforts of the best and worst people in positions of enforcement and influence over policy. It cannot be deduced or ignored in favor of "long term voting", let alone with false premises about the Republican Party being the voice of theocracy -- not if you want to survive long enough for there to be a long term. This didn't start with Obama.

No Objectivist advocates the Republican Party as an ideal. It is always in terms of real world factors of what are the means to effect worthwhile change or stop the acceleration of the worst in order to buy time. He denounced people with such a reality-centered view as not understanding Objectivism and then when confronted with "here now threat" which he did not anticipate, changes his actions while still endorsing the original strategy. Carlos' initial reaction -- "bizarre" -- is, unfortunately, correct.

This is an excellent description of the problem, both the political one and the epistemological one.

I -- as many who have a fundamental disagreement with Dr. Peikoff in the matter of politics -- have long had great respect for him, for his work as a teacher of philosophy and history and, in that regard, I certainly still do. But I, as Ed, evw, Paul, Carlos, and others, was one of those people who apparently "doesn't understand Objectivism," because I immediately perceived the threat from the Left, both in 2006 and 2008 and knew it to be far more immediate, dangerous, and long-reaching than any supposed threat of theocracy. Dr. Peikoff, at the time, claimed that the principled threat was from the Christian Right, whereas the Left was Nihilist and therefore rudderless and, therefore, of no serious concern. As if a definition can stand in for reality; there was and has been nothing aimless about Obama and the rabid Left running Congress. The DIM hypothesis says nothing about the threat posed by Obama: It is construct removed from reality. It failed. It should be discarded, not the reality that shows it to be meaningless as a guide to action. Nihilism can be very goal-oriented. Obama may be self-destructive, may ultimately fail, ultimately be discarded, reviled, and impotent, but he can take a lot of good people down with him, ruin a lot of lives, to say nothing of an entire system of government which that same Left has been attacking and weakening incrementally for over a Century. And, though Rand taught that the struggle for a truly rational government and society is long-term, it starts now and deals with what is in front of us. Reality matters. Now matters. The "long-term" is an abstraction of many days and years and lives. It starts NOW.

I am not particularly happy to have been right. This man Obama and his minions and fellow travelers have messed with my life and hurt me financially and personally. The fact that I saw it coming, saw how dangerous and destructive he was going to be doesn't do anything to lessen that damage that I couldn't prevent.

To a far lesser egregious extent, Dr. Peikoff owes a lot of people an apology for his mistaken and insulting disparagement. Ultimately, reality wins, but a lot of good Objectivists had their time wasted arguing against nonsense and many who otherwise might have trusted their own judgement and possibly changed some political outcomes were out fighting the phantom Christian Theocracy, while a far greater evil gained ascendancy.

Enough already.

[ewv 0]

Our ideological conflict in national politics is open, consistent socialism (Obama - Reid - Pelosi) vs. a leaderless, grassroots tea party movement that is explicitly pro-liberty, pro-America, and in many ways influenced by Ayn Rand. The GOP and the Dems are pretty much caught in the middle. The evangelical right is actually silent at the moment.

The evangelists don't have much influence in the Republican Party for their position other than on specific policies like abortion, but they are not silent. They have been given a loud voice to a daily audience of millions on the Glenn Beck show as shown in this thread, with details in this post. There is much to be done in countering this.

[Vespasiano 0]

This man Obama and his minions and fellow travelers have messed with my life and hurt me financially and personally. The fact that I saw it coming, saw how dangerous and destructive he was going to be doesn't do anything to lessen that damage that I couldn't prevent.

To a far lesser egregious extent, Dr. Peikoff owes a lot of people an apology for his mistaken and insulting disparagement. Ultimately, reality wins, but a lot of good Objectivists had their time wasted arguing against nonsense and many who otherwise might have trusted their own judgement and possibly changed some political outcomes were out fighting the phantom Christian Theocracy, while a far greater evil gained ascendancy.

Enough already.

Hear hear!!

[Bill Bucko 0]

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.

Sign up for their mailing lists:

http://teapartypatriots.org/ [my favorite organization, the only one to which I contribute financially]

http://libertyfirstpac.com/ ["Liberty First PAC is a committee of tea party organizers, activists and liberty minded bloggers. We believe the liberty movement is shifting into campaign mode, and we want to help direct some of the focus into a carefully chosen slate of races that we believe we can have significant success in."]

http://taxdayteaparty.com/ [an affilliate of Liberty First PAC]

http://www.thepatriotcaucus.net/ [ditto]

http://americanlibertyalliance.com/

http://www.reteaparty.com/

http://www.teapartyexpress.org/

Those are all NATIONAL organizations. If you'd like to see examples of LOCAL organizations:

http://medefco.ning.com/ [Metro Detroit Freedom Coalition]

http://mitcot.ning.com/ [Grassroots in Michigan]

http://www.rattlewithus.com/ [western Detroit suburbs]

[Thales 0]

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.

But Michelle Bachmann is far too religious! A secular Michelle Bachmann would be what we're looking for.

[bborg 0]

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.

But Michelle Bachmann is far too religious! A secular Michelle Bachmann would be what we're looking for.

Compared to some other Republicans Bachmann seems pretty secular. Something I'm missing?

[Thales 0]

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.

But Michelle Bachmann is far too religious! A secular Michelle Bachmann would be what we're looking for.

Compared to some other Republicans Bachmann seems pretty secular. Something I'm missing?

I saw her give a talk at a tea party rally on tax day. She was standing near the Washington monument. She was great saying that they will repeal the Obama health care bill, but then at the end of the talk she pointed toward the monument and emphasized religion.

Here is the key part of the talk I'm referring to:

I've read/heard things from her prior which also made me think this of her, but I don't recall specifics.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I saw her give a talk at a tea party rally on tax day. She was standing near the Washington monument. She was great saying that they will repeal the Obama health care bill, but then at the end of the talk she pointed toward the monument and emphasized religion.

Here is the key part of the talk I'm referring to:

Actually, she was making a political point that Objectivists can agree with: that our rights and freedoms come from our nature as human beings and not from the government.

The disagreement is over where human nature comes from. That is a scientific/philosophical issue which we can -- and should -- distinguish from the political issue.

[ewv 0]

I saw her give a talk at a tea party rally on tax day. She was standing near the Washington monument. She was great saying that they will repeal the Obama health care bill, but then at the end of the talk she pointed toward the monument and emphasized religion.

Here is the key part of the talk I'm referring to:

Actually, she was making a political point that Objectivists can agree with: that our rights and freedoms come from our nature as human beings and not from the government.

Actually, she was not. After a couple of explicit invocations of "praise be to God" she said,

Freedom comes from our Creator. That's liberty. Government doesn't give us our freedom. And government's not going to take it away, it comes from our Creator. And if it was good enough for the founders it is good enough for us.

Her contrast between freedom coming from God versus the government as the alleged source is a false alternative and a misrepresentation of the founders, who knew that rights are based on the nature of humanity regardless of the source of humanity.

The disagreement is over where human nature comes from. That is a scientific/philosophical issue which we can -- and should -- distinguish from the political issue.

Religious conservatives typically bypass the "human nature" part and mysteriously attribute rights as direct gifts from God, thereby also leaving natural rights themselves as mystical and undefined.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Religious conservatives typically bypass the "human nature" part and mysteriously attribute rights as direct gifts from God, thereby also leaving natural rights themselves as mystical and undefined.

Quite true which is why, when dealing with such conservatives, the first thing I do is to explicitly make the distinction.

I think we can work to together on [common political cause] even though we disagree on 'God-given rights.'

We both agree that rights are built-in to what we are. We have rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness because of what we are. We can disagree as to why we are that way. You say God made us that way and I say that we evolved to be that way, but we both agree that is the way we are.

Since we agree that rights are inherent in human nature and don't come from government or other men, let's get busy on [common political cause].

[ewv 0]

Religious conservatives typically bypass the "human nature" part and mysteriously attribute rights as direct gifts from God, thereby also leaving natural rights themselves as mystical and undefined.

Quite true which is why, when dealing with such conservatives, the first thing I do is to explicitly make the distinction...

Yes, you have to. And it provides a positive explanation showing further how irrelevant and useless (and ultimately, destructive) the mystical version is, helping it to die on its own. But Bachman herself was not doing that, even implicitly, in that part of her speech that Thales objected to.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Quite true which is why, when dealing with such conservatives, the first thing I do is to explicitly make the distinction...

Yes, you have to. And it provides a positive explanation showing further how irrelevant and useless (and ultimately, destructive) the mystical version is, helping it to die on its own. But Bachman herself was not doing that, even implicitly, in that part of her speech that Thales objected to.

That's because she hasn't met up with someone like me yet.

[ewv 0]

Quite true which is why, when dealing with such conservatives, the first thing I do is to explicitly make the distinction...

Yes, you have to. And it provides a positive explanation showing further how irrelevant and useless (and ultimately, destructive) the mystical version is, helping it to die on its own. But Bachman herself was not doing that, even implicitly, in that part of her speech that Thales objected to.

That's because she hasn't met up with someone like me yet.

Maybe so, but the fact remains that Thales was right about that speech. Also, don't assume that an intelligent person like Bachman would follow and agree with your rational explanation. People with an entrenched, compartmentalized 'faith' can be impenetrable for even simple basic ideas and no matter how logical you are. But please try if you ever get the chance. She has a lot of good in her and could be a lot worse. You might very well succeed.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Maybe so, but the fact remains that Thales was right about that speech. Also, don't assume that an intelligent person like Bachman would follow and agree with your rational explanation. People with an entrenched, compartmentalized 'faith' can be impenetrable for even simple basic ideas and no matter how logical you are. But please try if you ever get the chance. She has a lot of good in her and could be a lot worse. You might very well succeed.

I often do. I generally don't change their minds about religion and, if I eventually do, that usually takes years. What I can do, with frequent success, is convince them to argue for their issues in totally secular terms.

[Vespasiano 0]

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.

But Michelle Bachmann is far too religious! A secular Michelle Bachmann would be what we're looking for.

Compared to some other Republicans Bachmann seems pretty secular. Something I'm missing?

I saw her give a talk at a tea party rally on tax day. She was standing near the Washington monument. She was great saying that they will repeal the Obama health care bill, but then at the end of the talk she pointed toward the monument and emphasized religion.

Here is the key part of the talk I'm referring to:

I've read/heard things from her prior which also made me think this of her, but I don't recall specifics.

Betsy has already addressed eloquently my issues with this exchange. However, I did want to address in another way the issue of premises. After watching the clip to which Thales linked, I thought that perhaps the wrong one had been referenced. In that clip, Miss Bachmann no more emphasized Religion than did Mr. Jefferson when, in composing the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence, he referred to the "self-evident" truth of men having been "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," etc. Irrespective of the mentions of God or "Creator", the emphasis in both cases is not upon Religion per se but, properly, upon the facts that Man's rights both precede the establishment of government (as opposed to being bestowed upon him by other men via government), that Man's rights limit the legitimate powers of proper government, and that Man's liberty includes the freedom from coercion by government.

Miss Bachmann strikes me as one of the pitiable few Republicans today who not only understands (even if imperfectly) these points but who visibly and forcefully advocates for them. There are no Democrats of whom one can say the same. Consequently, this makes Miss Bachmann a tremendous value to me irrespective of the fact that, like Mr. Jefferson, she sadly misidentifies the source of Man's rights.

[Thales 0]

Betsy has already addressed eloquently my issues with this exchange. However, I did want to address in another way the issue of premises. After watching the clip to which Thales linked, I thought that perhaps the wrong one had been referenced. In that clip, Miss Bachmann no more emphasized Religion than did Mr. Jefferson when, in composing the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence, he referred to the "self-evident" truth of men having been "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," etc. Irrespective of the mentions of God or "Creator", the emphasis in both cases is not upon Religion per se but, properly, upon the facts that Man's rights both precede the establishment of government (as opposed to being bestowed upon him by other men via government), that Man's rights limit the legitimate powers of proper government, and that Man's liberty includes the freedom from coercion by government.

Miss Bachmann strikes me as one of the pitiable few Republicans today who not only understands (even if imperfectly) these points but who visibly and forcefully advocates for them. There are no Democrats of whom one can say the same. Consequently, this makes Miss Bachmann a tremendous value to me irrespective of the fact that, like Mr. Jefferson, she sadly misidentifies the source of Man's rights.

Jefferson was far more secular and in line with natural law. He was a Diest, at most, and was passionate about reason and science. Also, I think John Locke should be given credit for looking to nature to identify rights. The text throughout his "Second Treatise of Civil Government" is full of arguments based on observations of nature. John Locke continually emphasizes that the "law of reason" is important. Jefferson was hugely influenced by Locke.

I think Miss Bachmann was emphasizing the god point because she is religious. In this link she is leading a prayer:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/michelle-ba...ical-relevance/

That's someone who is serious about religion. Also, the Washington Monument was designed in the 1840s, when the founders were no longer around. In that clip she said it was created by the Founders, which doesn't sound right.

[Mac 0]

Dr. Peikoff podcast

What am I missing? Do we in America not still live in a secular society? Certainly America is not a Utopian Objectivist culture. Take your religious friends, who go to Mass on Sundays, and spend the rest of the week in guilt over producing a livelihood, to heart. If they're not killing you, show them their good--and if you can, the error of their ways. You can't talk about selfishness today. Translate it for them. We do not have an atheist America. Not NOW. And, as hippie as it makes me feel, NOW is the time in which we live. I'd sooner fight for Christians than have to lose all to the immediate enemy--Islam. Then let the religionists fight it out when the war is over. Christianity has a "decent" intellectual (and I might add, Aesthetic) history. Islam is truly evil. After the war, Objectivism will be there to settle it once and for all.

[Ed from OC 0]

What am I missing? Do we in America not still live in a secular society? Certainly America is not a Utopian Objectivist culture. Take your religious friends, who go to Mass on Sundays, and spend the rest of the week in guilt over producing a livelihood, to heart. If they're not killing you, show them their good--and if you can, the error of their ways. You can't talk about selfishness today. Translate it for them. We do not have an atheist America. Not NOW. And, as hippie as it makes me feel, NOW is the time in which we live. I'd sooner fight for Christians than have to lose all to the immediate enemy--Islam. Then let the religionists fight it out when the war is over. Christianity has a "decent" intellectual (and I might add, Aesthetic) history. Islam is truly evil. After the war, Objectivism will be there to settle it once and for all.

We face three big threats to freedom, but they are not equally immediate. The leftists push for fascist/socialist control of our lives is by far the most immediate threat. After that, Islam is threatening massive violence against us, followed by a slide into a Christian theocracy.

Islam's threat is the most violent (and perceptually so), but the US is not in immediate danger of being destroyed by direct attack. More threatening is the self-induced crippling of our way of life in the face of this threat, rather than directly confronting it.

[Mac 0]

What am I missing? Do we in America not still live in a secular society? Certainly America is not a Utopian Objectivist culture. Take your religious friends, who go to Mass on Sundays, and spend the rest of the week in guilt over producing a livelihood, to heart. If they're not killing you, show them their good--and if you can, the error of their ways. You can't talk about selfishness today. Translate it for them. We do not have an atheist America. Not NOW. And, as hippie as it makes me feel, NOW is the time in which we live. I'd sooner fight for Christians than have to lose all to the immediate enemy--Islam. Then let the religionists fight it out when the war is over. Christianity has a "decent" intellectual (and I might add, Aesthetic) history. Islam is truly evil. After the war, Objectivism will be there to settle it once and for all.

We face three big threats to freedom, but they are not equally immediate. The leftists push for fascist/socialist control of our lives is by far the most immediate threat. After that, Islam is threatening massive violence against us, followed by a slide into a Christian theocracy.

Islam's threat is the most violent (and perceptually so), but the US is not in immediate danger of being destroyed by direct attack. More threatening is the self-induced crippling of our way of life in the face of this threat, rather than directly confronting it.

I read the arguments about asymmetric warfare in the Marine Corps Gazette in the 1990's. Led me to books like Van Creveld et all. But this is no more than an old/new religious war. Why give up a powerful ally in the war as the two great religions?

[toyohabu 0]

I still find I disagree with Peikoff on the nature of the Republican party. There is a strong religious component to it, but look where the momentum is. The tea parties rejected the STATISM of both parties; it was not a rejection of the secular socialist state in favor of a theocracy. The victory of Rand Paul for instance was a big step forward for those of us who advocate a small government.

Rand Paul is more religious than his father based on his views on abortion. I don't know about the tea party outside of the south, more specifically Alabama, but in this area it has a heavy religious contingent apposed to the separation of church and state. The creationist are also strong in the rallies I have been to. The tea party members seem to be an combination of libertarians and social conservative Christians united by a common enemy. I think Peikoff has a very cogent read on the Republican party. I find most of the reason given why it not a good idea to lend credibility to the libertarian movement also applies to the Republican and tea party, they still lack a philosophical base that will stand up to the socialist forces in this country.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Rand Paul is more religious than his father based on his views on abortion.

I don't know about Rand Paul, but Ron Paul has always been totally anti-abortion.

I don't know about the tea party outside of the south, more specifically Alabama, but in this area it has a heavy religious contingent apposed to the separation of church and state. The creationist are also strong in the rallies I have been to.

That's because it's Alabama and in the heart of the Bible Belt. I'll bet the Democrats are also religious fundamentalists.

The tea party members seem to be an combination of libertarians and social conservative Christians united by a common enemy. I think Peikoff has a very cogent read on the Republican party. I find most of the reason given why it not a good idea to lend credibility to the libertarian movement also applies to the Republican and tea party, they still lack a philosophical base that will stand up to the socialist forces in this country.

That's were Objectivists can make a big difference. We can supply that philosophical base to those who are open to our message. I find many are because we have an effective way of accomplishing our common political goals.

[ewv 0]

Rand Paul is more religious than his father based on his views on abortion.

I don't know about Rand Paul, but Ron Paul has always been totally anti-abortion.

Both of them are. You don't know anything about someone's religious belief or its significance and role in his life overall on the basis of a conclusion alone on the issue of abortion alone.

I don't know about the tea party outside of the south, more specifically Alabama, but in this area it has a heavy religious contingent apposed to the separation of church and state. The creationist are also strong in the rallies I have been to.

That's because it's Alabama and in the heart of the Bible Belt. I'll bet the Democrats are also religious fundamentalists.

The tea party members seem to be an combination of libertarians and social conservative Christians united by a common enemy. I think Peikoff has a very cogent read on the Republican party. I find most of the reason given why it not a good idea to lend credibility to the libertarian movement also applies to the Republican and tea party, they still lack a philosophical base that will stand up to the socialist forces in this country.

That's were Objectivists can make a big difference. We can supply that philosophical base to those who are open to our message. I find many are because we have an effective way of accomplishing our common political goals.

Leonard Peikoff's claim that the "Republican Party" stands for "theocracy" is factually not true. One has to know what a political ally is and what a philosophical ally is and the difference between them. The point of political action is not to "lend credibility" to anyone else's philosophy or lack thereof.

[alann 0]

<snip>

One has to know what a political ally is and what a philosophical ally is and the difference between them. The point of political action is not to "lend credibility" to anyone else's philosophy or lack thereof.

Yes! Exactly!

Rand Paul was not elected for any statements on abortion, even though abortion is a factor, as always, for those on the religious right. That is not what is driving the selection of Rand Paul or he would not have been able to have differentiated himself from the conservatives who make that a part of their platform. Chuck DeVore may or may not win his California primary race, but his high poll numbers against a Republican Party-backed Carly Fiorina are due to his anti-big-government stance.

That these candidates are not Objectivists is not news. With the exception of Steven Baily in Colorado, there are no Objectivist political candidates (it's so refreshing to have to qualify this phrase, even with only one exception -- "You'll know Objectivism is winning when..."). We need people who know that they were elected to block further attempts to seize power and control over the economy and abrogate individual rights, to block new taxation, and, ideally, to attempt to reverse some of the damage done, although with Obama in power, the most they can do is probably to stop further damage. The Left is the threat.