Peikoff on the coming election

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Nobody can prove theocracy can't happen because you can't prove a negative. The principle of the onus of proof states that it is entirely up to the person who asserts the positive -- in this case that a theocracy will or possibly might happen in less than 50 years -- to prove his case.

This misinterprets the principle of the onus of proof.

Not at all. Here it is, again:

]I want to elaborate here on a venerable rule of logic: the rule that the onus of proof is on him who asserts the positive, and that one must not attempt to prove a negative.

The onus of proof rule states the following. If a person asserts that a certain entity exists (such as God, gremlins, a disembodied soul), he is required to adduce evidence supporting his claim. If he does so, one must either accept his conclusion, or disqualify his evidence by showing that he has misinterpreted certain data. [Emphasis min.]

So, if a person asserts that a certain entity exists (such as an imminent theocracy) he is required to adduce evidence supporting his claim. If he does so, one must either accept his conclusion, or disqualify his evidence by showing that he has misinterpreted certain data.

Just as I don't have to -- and can't -- prove that God doesn't exist, so I don't have to -- and can't -- prove that theocracy will not occur in less than 50 years. If someone does provide evidence, and those making the claim have, then I have to disqualify it by showing he has misinterpreted the data. That is what I have been doing.

Every statement is a claim to knowledge that must be justified,

... by the person asserting the positive.

including the statement that theocracy "will not and cannot happen" (post 49).

No! That's a negative assertion and I don't have the burden of proof.

If you think you can prove a negative, try this: God exists because -- here's my evidence -- 95% of all the adults in the US say that he does. Prove that they are all wrong.

The epistemological "negative" of "theocracy is possible" is not "theocracy is impossible" but "there is no evidence that theocracy is possible" -- and this is what one has no need to prove beyond stating it, when it is true.

That is my position. There is no valid evidence that a Christian theocracy is possible in the US within 50 years.

But it's not true. The reason no one can prove theocracy cannot happen within 50 years is because such would deny the volition of hundreds of millions of people, half of whom have not yet been born.

I would think that the fact the everyone has free will tends to counter any positive claims about a Christian theocracy happening in less than 50 years.

The bottom line is that those asserting that theocracy is imminent have to prove their case. All I have to do is disqualify their evidence by showing that they have misinterpreted certain data.

[Vespasiano 0]

This misinterprets the principle of the onus of proof. When a claim is arbitrary (has no evidence), then there is no way to give evidence *that* is has no evidence -- that's the meaning of this principle. It most certainly does not mean that the *opposite* claim is true. Every statement is a claim to knowledge that must be justified, including the statement that theocracy "will not and cannot happen" (post 49). The epistemological "negative" of "theocracy is possible" is not "theocracy is impossible" but "there is no evidence that theocracy is possible" -- and this is what one has no need to prove beyond stating it, when it is true.

But it's not true. The reason no one can prove theocracy cannot happen within 50 years is because such would deny the volition of hundreds of millions of people, half of whom have not yet been born.

Regards,

Brad Williams

Bradw2k:

I'm not a philosopher, but acknowledge that you make a valid point in the first paragraph of your post. For my own part at least, suggested possibilities were not the focus of my attention.

However, in my view, possibilities were also NOT the focus of Dr. Peikoff's election statement (and the subsequent statements of some others). On the contrary: the assertion proferred was NOT that "theocracy is possible", but that "theocracy is IMMINENT" (I define "imminent" as "about to occur"). This latter is a claim to certainty. Furthermore, in my judgment nobody has provided any credible evidence to prove that claim (I will not address the DIM Hypothesis even if, in fact, it is the source for this claim because it has, in my mind, yet to be validated). Finally, that claim to certainty with respect to the imminence of theocracy appears to me to be premised precisely upon the very denial of, amongst other things, "the volition of hundreds of millions of people, half of whom have not yet been born" you criticize in the second paragraph of your post.

It is the explicit emphasis upon imminence with respect to, in my view, a misconception of the word "theocracy" that is the source of my disagreement with Dr. Peikoff here.

And with that, I have made my final remarks with respect to Election 2006 specifically, and to the issue of "imminent" theocracy" in America generally.

[Vespasiano 0]

PS: I did not mean that last sentence in a dismissive or mean-spirited way. It's just that my brain is literally exhausted, I'm firm in my position, and I have nothing more to add at this time.

[Matt Miklautsch 0]

Mr. Speicher,

I will heed your warning and either take the time to read through the varies threads where this issue may have been discussed or not post on this topic further. I certainly understand that you would not want to go over the same issues again and again. Further, I will respect your forum rules. However, since I was responded to I hope you will not take offense to my brief reply before I disappear from this thread (at least for awhile - whether I am replied to or not).

I agree that my definition was too vague as dictatorship is an essential characteristic of a theocracy and should therefore be included in the definition.

Mrs. Speicher,

The difference between the threat of theocracy today and that of the past involves how much Christianity is taken serious in the various periods, along with the strength of the various counter forces that were present. For example, the founding fathers generally believed in either a watered-down version of Christianity or deism. The counter forces were the ideas of the enlightenment which respected individual rights and reason. The founding fathers therefore did not want their belief in God to enter their politics and government, thus the seperation of church and state. Likewise, While I'm sure President Kennedy was influenced by Christianity I do not think it influenced his policies and defense of said policies as much as President Bush. And three strong counter forces come to mind regarding President Kennedy's era:The nihilism perhaps best seen in the hippes, Socialism/Communism, and Goldwater conservativism.

President Bush and his ilk take Christianity seriously and are actively working to give these ideas political power. The counter forces of today (with the exception of Objectivism) are no where near as strong as in eras past. Goldwater conservatives are small in number and are much less vocal within the Republican Party. Much greater in number and influence are President Bush and his ilk. Communism and socialism, while still regarded by many as the ideal are rarely defended as practical probably mostly due to history. Instead, their ilk now advocates a mixed economy or like the nihilists are reduced to hugging trees and often openly admiting their haterd of man.

I'm off for now.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Mr. Speicher,

I will heed your warning and either take the time to read through the varies threads where this issue may have been discussed or not post on this topic further. I certainly understand that you would not want to go over the same issues again and again. Further, I will respect your forum rules. However, since I was responded to I hope you will not take offense to my brief reply before I disappear from this thread (at least for awhile - whether I am replied to or not).

That's fine, and please do not "disappear." My intent is not to chase you away. Quite the opposite. It's mainly that generally we do not like to let assertions or arguments stand unchallenged, as if doing so implied that they are unanswerable. So it is frustrating to confront at this late date, after weeks of detailed discussions, the same or similar arguments that have been dealt with before.

I don't want you to disappear. Just to do a little homework.

I agree that my definition was too vague as dictatorship is an essential characteristic of a theocracy and should therefore be included in the definition.

Okay. But the rebuttal I made went far beyond just a faulty definition. It went to the heart of the matter, to the standard of proof, demonstrability, or validation of inferences that is required, beyond mere assertion.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

The difference between the threat of theocracy today and that of the past involves how much Christianity is taken serious in the various periods, along with the strength of the various counter forces that were present.

That's very true. In fact, that issue was addressed by me and other posters earlier in this thread and in other related threads. Check it out.

[ewv 0]

While I'm sure President Kennedy was influenced by Christianity I do not think it influenced his policies and defense of said policies as much as President Bush. And three strong counter forces come to mind regarding President Kennedy's era:The nihilism perhaps best seen in the hippes, Socialism/Communism, and Goldwater conservativism.

The early 1960's "hippies" were a social oddity with no influence in government at all. The progressive New Left and the viros are far more powerful today and they are entrenched within government and the universities far more than socialists/communists were in the early 1960's. The notion that "Goldwater conservatives" have been replaced with theocrats is also a myth. Very few Republicans could plausibly be accused of being "theocrats" despite their religious background, which the Goldwater conservatives also had.

President Bush and his ilk take Christianity seriously and are actively working to give these ideas political power.

Even Bush is not trying to create a theocracy.

These repeated assertions that theocrats are taking over show an appalling factual ignorance of both history and what Republicans have actually been doing more recently, whether good or bad, as well as a disturbing lack of factual knowledge of the left and what it is doing.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

To those who voted Democrat in the last election -- in the words of Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian D'Anconia:

BROTHERS, YOU ASKED FOR IT!

Rep. Rangel will seek to reinstate draft

[Paul's Here 0]

Maybe we need to split this into a new thread: BROTHERS, YOU ASKED FOR IT!

Tax breaks for big oil companies are on the Democrats' chop list

House Democrats are targeting billions of dollars in oil-company tax breaks for quick repeal next year. A broader energy proposal that would promote alternative energy sources and conservation is expected to be put off until later.

Hot-button issues such as a tax on the oil industry's windfall profits or sharp increases in automobile fuel economy probably will not gain much ground, given the narrow Democratic majorities in Congress.

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in an outline of priorities over the first 100 hours of the next Congress in January, promises to begin a move toward greater energy independence "by rolling back the multibillion-dollar subsidies for Big Oil."

Topping the list for repeal are:

• Tax breaks for refinery expansion and for geological studies to help oil exploration.

• A proposal passed two years ago primarily to promote domestic manufacturing. It allows oil companies to take a tax credit if they choose to drill in this country instead of going abroad.

Democrats say that neither tax benefit should be needed for an industry reaping large profits at today's high crude-oil prices.

Over 10 years, the production tax credit saves oil companies $5 billion and the refinery proposal and exploration credit a total of about $1.4 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.

Nothin' like that good ol' time religion!! Tax Tax Tax

[Free Capitalist 0]

I too am noticing a whole host of evils that plan to descend upon the US in the next couple of years because of the Democratic victory. But I also can't help but think that the new Republican leadership has properly recognized that the American people kicked them out because of wishy-washy policies and wobbly rhetoric. This, I hope, leads to a much more outstanding Republican leadership in 2008, just as people on the "other" side here predicted. I am still not saying I would have voted Democrat, but that there's a silver lining to the torrent of evils that are going to come out of the current Democratic Congress. I also note that the Democrats have tried to stay moderate and did not take Murtha (though they did accept Pelosi). Hopefully this too is a sign of stemming our century-long slide towards the left.

[Paul's Here 0]

I too am noticing a whole host of evils that plan to descend upon the US in the next couple of years because of the Democratic victory. ------------

Hopefully this too is a sign of stemming our century-long slide towards the left.

I have trouble integrating your first sentence with your last sentence. Can you elaborate some more on this?

[Free Capitalist 0]

I have trouble integrating your first sentence with your last sentence. Can you elaborate some more on this?

Democrats bring with themselves a certain host of evils, which we are seeing now descend upon the country. At the same time, it is nevertheless true that the current Democratic majority, at least for now, is trying to be extremely moderate, was elected on moderate issues, etc. That is the reason why Howard Dean categorically rejected Jon Stewart's intimations that Bush be impeached, though he himself is a radical and would probably like nothing more than that; the currently elected Democrats would not support such a measure. That is also why Jack Murtha was not appointed, and a more moderate Democrat was put into a leadership position in his place, even though Murtha's staunch supporter Nancy Pelosi, herself propelled to great power, ardently tried to get him appointed.

So in one sense the Democrats seem to be trying their darned hardest to be as moderate and restrained as possible, realizing that the country did not elect them for any of their own virtues. But on the other hand, Democrats are Democrats, and they still have very rabid members among them, Rangel being a clear example, Kerry, Kennedy, Hillary too (though she's spectacular at covering it up). And as such we can still expect plenty of bad things to come out of the current Democratic leadership, though they will not destroy the country as much as if the radical left completely seized power and went crazy upon the country. That's at least my take on current events. It's bad but (hopefully) not as bad as it could have been, while the Republicans have (hopefully) learned their lesson and will get a landslide in 2008.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Oh, sorry, in regard to the "century-long slide towards the left", I mean that even for the Democrats the long-lived lustre of statism seems to be somewhat wearing off, and they are not trying to rabidly push their agenda as they once did. We can still expect shenanigans from Hillary about healthcare, and other things from respective politicians (hike on taxes, etc), but the majority of the Democrats at least for now seem afraid, for the first time, to engage those issues directly and publicly. The right appears to begin taking the moral upper hand here (in their stance on self-reliance, personal responsibility, assertive nationalism, etc), while the left is afraid to be too public about its agenda. I think that's wonderful, and has historic implications, though of course things shouldn't be overstated, and more time will be needed for the issues to clear up.

[Ed from OC 0]

Back in October, I wrote:

The other reason why I personally am open to voting for a Democrat in '08 (maybe Joe Lieberman) is that it is possible their candidate will be even more pro-war than the Republican candidate. I'm not saying I necessarily will vote that way, just that I am willing to wait and see.

Today I read this:

Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Sunday the United States should consider a military strike against Iran because of Tehran's involvement in Iraq.

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

That's one small step in the right direction. If the Dem ticket goes to Hillary (as I think it will), she can't win without taking a similar stance. Too bad Lieberman isn't running for President this time.

[JRoberts 0]

You are saying that Hillary will start talking about bombing Iran? I have no hope (as history has shown) that the Democrats will do anything other than talk. Lieberman, however, is an oddball. Consider that he lost the primary for Senate to someone else of his own party...and then ran for Independent and won. If anything, Lieberman is an old fashioned Democrat.

[Ed from OC 0]

You are saying that Hillary will start talking about bombing Iran?

I'm saying if she doesn't at least talk tough, she won't win. And given her history, she needs to be very convincing.

[bborg 0]

I'm saying if she doesn't at least talk tough, she won't win. And given her history, she needs to be very convincing.

I agree. This is a phenomenon that Craig Biddle explained in

Notes on the Coming Election:

Today's politicians don't act on their words; they act on their motivations. Consider the case of Bill Clinton and healthcare, which he promised to socialize. Once in the White House, he did no such thing; rather, he instituted relatively few new government controls and even signed into law major welfare reforms. Why? Because the American people demanded it. While Republicans are motivated by religion, Democrats are motivated by power, and they will say anything to gain it (they'll even quote scripture). Once in power, however, they will also do anything to stay there—and that means doing what the American people tell them to do.

This is also why in the 2004 election, even though Kerry was against the war, he promised that if elected he would not pull out the troops but would finish the job (and better than Bush). Despite this, he still lost, meaning that the American people wanted someone more committed to the task of defending our freedoms.

[JRoberts 0]

You are saying that Hillary will start talking about bombing Iran?

I'm saying if she doesn't at least talk tough, she won't win. And given her history, she needs to be very convincing.

Ahh sorry. I was confusing political talk with actual action. Thank you for clearing up your position .

[ewv 0]

This is a phenomenon that Craig Biddle explained in Notes on the Coming Election:

Today's politicians don't act on their words; they act on their motivations. Consider the case of Bill Clinton and healthcare, which he promised to socialize. Once in the White House, he did no such thing; rather, he instituted relatively few new government controls and even signed into law major welfare reforms. Why? Because the American people demanded it. While Republicans are motivated by religion, Democrats are motivated by power, and they will say anything to gain it (they'll even quote scripture). Once in power, however, they will also do anything to stay there—and that means doing what the American people tell them to do.

I agree that you have to look at the actions of a politician and not just take his campaign rhetoric at face value, and so do most properly cynical voters today, but you also have to know what the actions are, their context, and what caused them for what purpose.

Bill Clinton (and Hilary) did in fact try to take over the health care system early in his reign and almost pulled it off, but they were stopped by conservatives who legally forced the commission to release its records, went through an enormous amount of material to find where the skeletons were buried, and then distributed and exposed what they found until the whole scam became so controversial that it couldn't even get through a Democrat dominated Congress. It was not a matter of Clinton ignoring a campaign goal simply because "the American people demanded it" -- the Clintons and other Democrats fought to impose it in an intense and lengthy battle but were stopped politically by intelligent conservatives who knew how to fight them and won.

Likewise, Clinton opposed welfare reforms which after a long battle were passed by a Republican Congress after a long battle with Clinton and other leftist politicians in power and the dominant media spin. Only after losing the battle did slick Willie sign the legislation and then loudly take credit for what was then a popular initiative he had fought to stop.

The interpretation of these events portraying Republicans as doing nothing good while Democrats did not really mean what they tried to do and who primarily "listened to the American people" is simply mind boggling. These were both classic political power struggles.

Almost any elected politician will do what the people tell him to do if there are enough of them and they are getting so much favorable publicity that the politician risks losing his power if he continues to oppose it. That does not mean that Democrats only want to be in power and are content not to exercise it, doing only what they are told once there. Democrats, especially the progressive viro leadership, have an extremely dangerous agenda they try to impose on the country whenever they can get away with it using means that can't even be guessed by those with no real knowledge of how politics works. It is usually a handful of conservatives who find out what they are up to and expose and fight it against tremendous odds.

Simple objectivity precludes characterizing Republicans vs Democrats in stereotypical terms such as Republicans are all religious fanatics and Democrats will do whatever the people want, with no effort from their opposition required. Such sweeping beliefs are very naive and have no basis in fact.

This is also why in the 2004 election, even though Kerry was against the war, he promised that if elected he would not pull out the troops but would finish the job (and better than Bush). Despite this, he still lost, meaning that the American people wanted someone more committed to the task of defending our freedoms.

As for Kerry in the 2006 election, he did not promise to "finish the job" better than Bush, he vaguely claimed to have a "plan" for Iraq which he never specified, while his actual statements all pointed to 'outsourcing' our foreign policy to the UN for unspecified ends. Kerry did not lose "despite" his plan for Iraq but in part because he didn't have one and would not state what he intended to do.

[bborg 0]

I agree that you have to look at the actions of a politician and not just take his campaign rhetoric at face value, and so do most properly cynical voters today, but you also have to know what the actions are, their context, and what caused them for what purpose.

I agree, and thank you for your candor. It's clear I've been lax in my reading of articles from other Objectivists. I was 15 when Clinton proposed universal healthcare, so when I read Craig Biddle's assessment my memory didn't set off any "alarms". You're right that this was an example of a political struggle, rather than a compromise a Democrat made based on the demands of the American people.

However, this does bring up a point about the bipartisan system. The Democrats and Republicans each accept some general values that sets the context for their platforms. The Democrats are socialists and work to enlarge the welfare state and increase government controls on the market. The Republicans claim to stand for more "traditional" American values, which often puts them at odds with Democratic policies. It is their inability or unwillingness to define those values, though, that has made the Republican party susceptible to influence from the Christians, who would take credit for America's success. That is how both parties have now come to accept altruism.

What are the dangers, then, of each party? The danger from the Democrats is socialist policies. But when the Democrats are in power and they rail against the free market, the Republicans fight back (as you demonstrated in the example of Clinton's universal healthcare). Even when in control of the Executive branch and Congress, they failed when faced with Republican resolve. From "The Anatomy of Compromise":

When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

The first you can see clearly. When a Democrat attempts to push this country toward Socialism, people see it for what it is and the rational side has the advantage.

What of the second, that when principles are not clearly defined they work to the advantage of the irrational side? Well the Republicans are anti-Democrat, but what else? They do not stand for any defined values, which has been to the advantage of the religious right. No, not all Republicans are religious fanatics, but the party has become the tool of Christians to erode the separation of Church and State. In order to win the party's nomination for Presidential candidate, a Republican must kowtow to this group. How large of a threat does this religious influence pose?

Well, consider that today we fight a war not to defeat terrorism, but to "sacrifice for the liberty of strangers". We are in Iraq not in order to neutralize a threat against America, but to bring "democracy" at the expense of the lives of our soldiers. In fact, we have promised to respect the wishes of the Iraqis to erect a government based on Islam, even though state Islam is the force that threatens us. There are two reasons why the war is being fought in this way. First, the administration has accepted the morality of altruism, and believes that self-sacrifice is a primary American duty. Secondy, the administration is Christian and a believer in religious values, which is why they claimed that Islamists have "hijacked a great religion". These two reasons mean that Bush is both unable to see who the enemy is, and unwilling to act in America's self-interest to defeat them.

What has been the response from the Democrats? They don't want a just war, they want to avoid war at all, even if it means compromising with the enemy. The Democrats offer no rational alternative to a self-sacrificial war, because what they themselves offer is also self-sacrifice. Their implicit position has been that to harm a single civilian in enemy territory is worse than to allow ourselves to be attacked.

The difference is that the Republican party claims to stand for American values, for protecting freedom and making us safe. Bush does use some altruistic rhetoric, but he promises that in the end it will achieve "victory". He is known as a "warmongerer" even when dropping care packages on our enemy and hampering our soldiers with irrational rules of engagement. The Republicans are altruists, but have the reputation of being pro-American. That's why so many people who oppose Bush only know that what's going on is wrong and end up supporting the Democrats or the Libertarians. Again the lack of clarity is to the advantage of the irrational.

That's why I think the Republicans are more dangerous, and it was a similar argument in one of John Lewis' articles last year that persuaded me to this opinion. In Why I Will Not Vote for Any Republican, he wrote:

In my view, if our choice is between two forms of welfare redistribution and military timidity, we would be best off with a president who openly espouses these ideas, and makes no claims to support the opposite. This would not lead to better policies, but it would result in clarity, a point of focus for an opposition, and a better chance for a true alternative to take hold.

Suppose that Al Gore had been elected in the fall of 2000. The 9/11 attacks would have occurred, but there would have been no confusion about what caused them: democratic weakness, not Republican "offense." Gore would have been forced to look strong, in the face of Republican opposition. Welfare-state spending could be blamed on Democratic welfare-statism, not the Republican "free market." Persecution of businessmen could be blamed on Elliot Spitzer, not the "pro-business" philosophy of Alberto Gonzales.

The problem is that the Republicans in the eyes of the public stand for Capitalism, even though they often stand against it. Opponents blame Capitalism for the bad results, which means the alternatives they propose are necessarily worse than the mix of freedoms and controls the Republicans offer. At least while the Democrats are in control, there is the clarity of blaming the ideas that are actually the cause, and while they're in office they face a more principled opposition than that Republicans do.

As for Kerry in the 2006 election, he did not promise to "finish the job" better than Bush, he vaguely claimed to have a "plan" for Iraq which he never specified, while his actual statements all pointed to 'outsourcing' our foreign policy to the UN for unspecified ends. Kerry did not lose "despite" his plan for Iraq but in part because he didn't have one and would not state what he intended to do.

Well you're thinking of the 2004 election, but what I was referring to was one of the two objections against the Bush administration at the time, regarding the handling of the war. One objection was that we shouldn't even be in Iraq, and the troops should be pulled out. The other was that Bush was mismanaging the war and the troops were not being given the equipment support they needed to do the job. Although Kerry opposed the war, he addressed the second point and said that if elected he would see that the troops got what they needed. He recognized that he would not get the votes he needed at the time if he ran a platform against the war in Iraq.

However I think you'd be right in saying that this compromise was not necessarily a characteristic of the Democratic party, but politicians in general.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

It is important to realize that everyone in the world except Objectivists holds some form of altruism and self-sacrifice as their moral ideal. The only countervailing force is that aspect of the American sense of life that holds an individual's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as a moral goal.

The Democrats and Republicans each accept some general values that sets the context for their platforms. The Democrats are socialists and work to enlarge the welfare state and increase government controls on the market.

... which they justify on altruistic grounds.

The Republicans claim to stand for more "traditional" American values, which often puts them at odds with Democratic policies. It is their inability or unwillingness to define those values, though, that has made the Republican party susceptible to influence from the Christians, who would take credit for America's success. That is how both parties have now come to accept altruism.

The altruism was there on both sides long before the Christians.

Well the Republicans are anti-Democrat, but what else? They do not stand for any defined values, which has been to the advantage of the religious right.

Some Republicans have defined their values and some have not, but Bush's failure to define his values has worked to the advantage of the Democrats. See the 2006 election.

No, not all Republicans are religious fanatics, but the party has become the tool of Christians to erode the separation of Church and State.

How and where? While religious fanatics have tried to be influential, I see their attempts and few and futile and nothing compared to the influence and success of the socialists, environmentalists, and multiculturalists.

In order to win the party's nomination for Presidential candidate, a Republican must kowtow to this group. How large of a threat does this religious influence pose?

Well, consider that today we fight a war not to defeat terrorism, but to "sacrifice for the liberty of strangers". We are in Iraq not in order to neutralize a threat against America, but to bring "democracy" at the expense of the lives of our soldiers. In fact, we have promised to respect the wishes of the Iraqis to erect a government based on Islam, even though state Islam is the force that threatens us. There are two reasons why the war is being fought in this way. First, the administration has accepted the morality of altruism, and believes that self-sacrifice is a primary American duty.

Those are goals that the Left endorses as well -- and much more consistently. Where the Left differs is that they object that we might get something for ourselves, such as oil or influence and control in the Middle East.

Secondy, the administration is Christian and a believer in religious values,

Yes, Bush is a Christian -- like every other U.S. President -- most of whom were much more openly and publicly religious than he has been.

which is why they claimed that Islamists have "hijacked a great religion". These two reasons mean that Bush is both unable to see who the enemy is, and unwilling to act in America's self-interest to defeat them.

Is that the reason or could it be that Bush has absorbed the multiculturalism and moral relativism in the culture?

What has been the response from the Democrats? They don't want a just war, they want to avoid war at all, even if it means compromising with the enemy. The Democrats offer no rational alternative to a self-sacrificial war, because what they themselves offer is also self-sacrifice. Their implicit position has been that to harm a single civilian in enemy territory is worse than to allow ourselves to be attacked.

The Left is more consistently altruistic and, as Ayn Rand observed in her essay, "The Anatomy of Compromise," "In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins."

[bborg 0]

It is important to realize that everyone in the world except Objectivists holds some form of altruism and self-sacrifice as their moral ideal. The only countervailing force is that aspect of the American sense of life that holds an individual's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as a moral goal.

The altruism was there on both sides long before the Christians.

Selfishness may never have been the explicit American moral code, but I think it would be a mistake to say that the Christian right simply continued an altruistic culture. It was a Democratic president, Harry Truman, who ordered the nuclear attacks on Japan in WWII in defense of American freedoms. He also issued the Truman Loyalty Oath to government employees, requiring “complete and unswerving loyalty to the United States”. Look at foreign policy today. Never in America’s history has altruism been accepted so eagerly and explicitly. The only reason we have not already lost the war against Islamists is because they are so laughably backward and weak, and we are only as powerful as we are today because, despite their faults, leaders in the past acted on the principle of American self-interest.

I think one of the reasons for the influence of altruism is that, when the Democrats embraced socialism, others turned to religion for defense. It’s much the same as the American objection against Communism, that they were atheists. Without an explicit rational philosophy, people turned to the only moral code they knew of, which turned out to be just as bad as what they were fighting. The result is they accepted the moral code of the socialists, which gave them the support to institute massive market regulations that otherwise could have been fought off.

How and where? While religious fanatics have tried to be influential, I see their attempts and few and futile and nothing compared to the influence and success of the socialists, environmentalists, and multiculturalists.

Their influence is demoralization, not policy itself. Republicans represent the only significant political opposition to the Democrats, but religious values have all but disarmed them in the fight for ideas.

Those are goals that the Left endorses as well -- and much more consistently. Where the Left differs is that they object that we might get something for ourselves, such as oil or influence and control in the Middle East.

They are more consistently selfless, yes. However the Left doesn't pretend that this will benefit us in any way, while the Right does.

Is that the reason or could it be that Bush has absorbed the multiculturalism and moral relativism in the culture?

In Bush's case I'm not sure. The one thing I have to give him credit for is the "axis of evil" and recognizing that state sponsors are the source of terrorism. He does not seem to fully subscribe to the idea that all cultures are equally valid. I think his reasons for approving of an Islamic theocracy are more religious.

The Left is more consistently altruistic and, as Ayn Rand observed in her essay, "The Anatomy of Compromise," "In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins."

The keywords here are "same basic principles". If the Democrats and Republicans were simply competing to see who could be more selfless, I would agree. However the Republicans are a contradiction in that ultimately they are trying to fight for American values and for Individualism, even if they are tragically mistaken about what these things mean and how to defend them. Their misrepresentation of Capitalism is a betrayal that gives opponents a straw man to attack. So long as these people are the defenders of the free market, the free market stands no chance. Since the altruistic influence can't be routed out, the best thing rational politicians in the party could do is leave and run as Independents. Maybe that would break the bi-partisan system and finally allow a chance for 3rd party candidates.

[Jack Wakeland 0]

...The keywords here are "same basic principles". If the Democrats and Republicans were simply competing to see who could be more selfless, I would agree. However the Republicans are a contradiction in that ultimately they are trying to fight for American values and for Individualism, even if they are tragically mistaken about what these things mean and how to defend them. Their misrepresentation of Capitalism is a betrayal that gives opponents a straw man to attack. So long as these people are the defenders of the free market, the free market stands no chance. Since the altruistic influence can't be routed out, the best thing rational politicians in the party could do is leave and run as Independents. Maybe that would break the bi-partisan system and finally allow a chance for 3rd party candidates.

The basic intellectual problem we Objectivists face is that there is no "Objectivist" political party to vote for and -- in today's culture the Objectivist cause is so small it cannot sustain a political party.

If we are to vote, then, we are to vote for Democrats, Republicans or others. In over 99% of the offices up for election, voting for an independent candidate not associated with the Democratic or Republica party is purely a protest vote, a "no" vote.

When you're opposed to the program of both of the two major political parties, it is perfectly valid to "send a signal" by casting a protest vote for an independent candidate. The signal sent in a vote for an independent candidate, however, depends on who that candidate is. Often the independent candidates are worse than either the Republican or the Democratic Party alternatives.

...thus, the rational alternative is to not vote at all.

However, the elections in which we're casting votes aren't over conventional peacetime issues. This is a time of war. One party favors surrender in the central front of the conflict -- a surrender that will injure the entire effort from the reconstruction of Afghanistan (which is new construction, actually) and anti-terrorist police actions from East Africa and Indonesia. The other party has had troubles -- both in terms of some important aspects of its strategy and in most of its tactics -- executing its war policy in Iraq.

Elections within the two party system, right now, are as clear a choice of values as you're going to see in your lifetime. If you can't vote for the party that -- despite contradictions and some self-defeating premises -- actually wants to fight and win the global conflict against Islamo-fascism...then who can you vote for? The party that is a coalition of those who believe our current partial and contradictory efforts come from an "over-simplified" view that the United States has mortal enemies in the world, those who believe the current policy is an overly pro-military "shoot first ask questions later" mentality applied to a conflict that could easily have been resolved by better communications, or -- in some individuals in the Democratic Party -- a corrupt scheme to expand the evil American system and extend its influence further across the globe.

Is there really any question of which of the two major parties one should look to for the vast majority of candidates for national office?

If you're waiting for a third party to emerge to challenge the existing two, you don't "get" how James Madison engineered the whole system to eliminate representation for small factions...and you don't "get" how the two major political parties work in present day practice.

There have been major third parties in whole states and regions of the country before that obtained "second party" status in their areas. But all of these state and regional parties have been swallowed up either piecemeal or whole by the two major parites. If there a new third party were to emerge again, it would be split up and swallowed up by one of the existing major parites or it would come from the ideological splitting up of one of the major parties and the scavenging up of independents from both parties.

This possibility of splitting up exists in the Republican party. between the Secular (or Libertarian) Conservatives and the Religious Right. It also exists in the Democratic party between the decendents of the New Left and the decendents of the old Liberals.

A major internal party crackup recently occured internal to the Democratic Party. In the early 90s, Bill Clinton led a post-Communist rebellion of the unprincipled pragmatists and old Liberals (a supposedly "Third Way" between welfare statism and pure socialism) against the New Left establishment that was discredited when their moral ideal and international ally, the Soviet Union, collapsed.

Since the late 90s, the grass roots activists who form the base of the Democratic Party have pushed the party in the other direction. With their fundraising and their public rabble rousing, the grass roots activitsts have elevated the now old and grey New Left establishment into all of the top leadership positions in the party and in government, leaving the more centrist politicians to fill lower-level offices. If the New Left establishment gains control over the national government and most state and local governments -- a goal that appears (but may only "appear") to be within their grasp since the 2006 wave election victory -- they will drive this country relentlessly towards international and domestic ruin. If the old New Left leadership of the Democratic Party has their way, they will crack up the country and, when the American people react against the consequences of their self-consciously evil policies, the old New Left will either lose possession of or splinter their beloved Democratic Party into pieces. (Pieces that will pick themselves up to form new party without the New Left.)

Much of American politics happens within America's two major political parties. If you want to see incrementally better American politics, look to the reform of the existing two political parties. Whether a change occurs incrementally within one or both parties or a volcanic splintering and recombination of the factions within the two parties establishes two new major political parties, the system engineered by James Madison will move inexorably to the formation of two major political parties.

(In a far more fluid, chaotic, historionic, and unstable process the same thing happens, on an ad-hoc basis, in coalition politics within the parliamentary systems of government...there always is a ruling coalition and some kind of an opposition coalition. It's in the nature of political power.)

[bborg 0]

However, the elections in which we're casting votes aren't over conventional peacetime issues. This is a time of war. One party favors surrender in the central front of the conflict -- a surrender that will injure the entire effort from the reconstruction of Afghanistan (which is new construction, actually) and anti-terrorist police actions from East Africa and Indonesia. The other party has had troubles -- both in terms of some important aspects of its strategy and in most of its tactics -- executing its war policy in Iraq.

Elections within the two party system, right now, are as clear a choice of values as you're going to see in your lifetime. If you can't vote for the party that -- despite contradictions and some self-defeating premises -- actually wants to fight and win the global conflict against Islamo-fascism...then who can you vote for? The party that is a coalition of those who believe our current partial and contradictory efforts come from an "over-simplified" view that the United States has mortal enemies in the world, those who believe the current policy is an overly pro-military "shoot first ask questions later" mentality applied to a conflict that could easily have been resolved by better communications, or -- in some individuals in the Democratic Party -- a corrupt scheme to expand the evil American system and extend its influence further across the globe.

Is there really any question of which of the two major parties one should look to for the vast majority of candidates for national office?

The Republican party does profess to wanting to fight and win the conflict against “Islamo-fascism”. However does this commitment earn them the vote even if their actions accomplish the opposite of their goals?

How has the war in Iraq made America safer, and according to the goal of establishing a “democracy” there (under Islamic law), at what point will it make America safer? The Republicans fight terrorists by sacrificing US troops to give the amenities to civilians in enemy territory while “respecting” their religious beliefs. This is the reason why 6 years out, the Taliban in Afghanistan is back and insurgency is growing. They are undoing our “victory” there in 2001. Similar policy is backfiring in Iraq, which has become a battlefield between Iran-backed Islamists and US soldiers who the BA has left vulnerable on the ground to safeguard the Iraqis. For the sake of argument, let’s say that establishing a “free” and secure Iraq will further the war against Islamic Fundamentalism. Will the current strategy ever succeed?

This brings up the following point. Is the war in Iraq one that will help to defeat the enemy? In order to crush the Islamic “jihad” against America and the West, we have to prove that their cause is unwinnable. We have to show terrorist bombers, their families and their governments that this dream of an Islamic world order will never be realized and that any attempts to act on it or support it will lead to their own destruction. Victory means completely demoralizing the enemy so that they lack the will to fight.

What have we done to accomplish this? We have told the Middle Eastern world that Islam is a noble religion and acknowledged the right of a democracy to oppress the minority under Islamic law, by respecting the wishes of the Afghanis and Iraqis in selecting their own government. We have sent the message that we are more concerned for the welfare of enemy civilians than we are for the safety of our troops, by establishing self-sacrificial rules of engagement. Just recently we lifted the embargo against the Palestinian government, acknowledging their legitimacy in the conflict against Israel. Worst of all, we have done everything we could to avoid military conflict with Iran, the largest ideological and financial supporter or Islamic Totalitarianism with nuclear ambitions. In short, we have led them to believe that we are afraid and they can win.

What is the alternative that the Democrats would offer? Suppose that tomorrow a Democratic President was elected and he did all the things you fear: withdrawing our troops, trying to engage in diplomatic discussions with Muslim leaders, etc. How would that be worse than foreign policy today? In some ways it would be identical, however it would not be done under the pretense of protecting American interests.

Furthermore, I don’t think an actual surrender would happen. No politician, for example, believes that we should stop searching for bin Laden or Al Qaeda members. Intelligence would continue to reveal plots against us and as concrete-bound as politicians are, they would continue to search for specific terrorist threats. The difference is our soldiers would not be out there dying for someone else’s freedom to stone their neighbor. Government inaction would be interpreted as Democratic weakness and the administration would be pressured to confront state sponsors of terror. This is in contrast with the current situation, where the BA is accused of “warmongering” and is pressured to respect the “rights” of totalitarian governments and captured terrorists. In other words, while the policies would not be much different, their motives would be clearer and would produce more rational opposition.

Also, I would point out that not all Democrats are pacifists who oppose the war. Just look at Joe Lieberman.

If you're waiting for a third party to emerge to challenge the existing two, you don't "get" how James Madison engineered the whole system to eliminate representation for small factions...and you don't "get" how the two major political parties work in present day practice.

Much of American politics happens within America's two major political parties. If you want to see incrementally better American politics, look to the reform of the existing two political parties. Whether a change occurs incrementally within one or both parties or a volcanic splintering and recombination of the factions within the two parties establishes two new major political parties, the system engineered by James Madison will move inexorably to the formation of two major political parties.

You could be right that we will always have a bi-partisan system. However what I am hoping for (I wouldn’t say waiting, I’m not so naïve) is not so much a viable third party as the withdrawal of support from the current parties by rational politicians. They cannot be reformed by votes alone.

[Carlos 0]

I'm sympathetic to many of your points bborg, unfortunately though, I think Joe Lieberman has about as much support amongst his fellow Democrats for a Presidential bid as Hillary has amongst the Republicans!