Peikoff on the coming election

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Peikoff on the coming election (October 19, 2006)

I think Dr Peikoff is essentially correct in his estimate. What's your opinion?

I agree with Dr. Peikoff.

Do you agree with Peikoff that Objectivists are immoral if they vote Republican or refrain from voting? Do you agree with Peikoff that unless we vote Democratic that we do not understand Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world? In other words, do you agree that there is no room for honest disagreement among Objectivists on the issues of this election, and unless we vote Democratic, as Peikoff asserts, that we are immoral and do not understand the philosophy of Objectivism?

Creationism is now being taught along with ... Sixty years ago, people were religious, but they still had common sense and believed in science.

Do you know what percentage of schools are teaching creationism today? Do you know what percentage of schools did not teach evolution sixty years ago? I'll give you a hint. The former percentage is an itty-bitty, teeny-weeny number, whereas the latter percentage is huge. In the 1940s perhaps less than half of all high schools taught evolution because of antagonistic rulings and regulations. The teaching of evolution was shunned throughout our nation. Take a look at the texts from the 1940s if you want to see what scientific censorship consisted of.

Religion was not a part of the curriculum in the schools.

You think that religion is entrenched in schools today, but not 60 years ago? The truth is exactly the opposite. In the 1940s classes in religion were taught in public schools during the regular school day, where students were segregated for denominational studies based on their faith. It wasn't until the late 1940s that court rulings and legislation began expelling religious curricululm and religious practices from public schools. (See the 1948 Supreme Court case of McCollum v. Board of Education for example.) It is only in the past two decades that non-curriculum religious activities have gained any favor, and there in the form of things like student religious clubs if other student clubs are permitted. Establishment Clause litigation in recent times has created a pale reflection of the earlier presence of religion in public schools.

We were able to fight and win W.W. II. We did not have the fawning, religion-inspired altruistic, kind and gentle approach to war that the Republicans push today.

As bad as that is -- and I have railed against Bush for the wimpy way we are fighting -- is the Democratic approach of surrender preferrable? Altruism is rampant for Republicans and Democrats alike, and the only fix for that is a proper philosophy.

[Paul's Here 0]

----------

And the mainstream Republicans are increasingly accepting an ideology based on the Bible.

-------

Please demonstrate with some examples.

[Paul's Here 0]

--------

Just because the Republicans aren't trying to establish Bible-based censorship (except in matters of sexuality), does not mean they won't try it if they think they have a chance say 20-30 years later.

They have had chances over the last 250 years and have not established a theocracy. Non-objective laws of the right or left are just that: non-objective laws. They are not a theocracy.

[Paul's Here 0]

I agree with Dr. Peikoff. The Democrats are incapable of holding any ideology due to their inability to be certain about anything. It is impossible for them to hold any long-term view. They are environmentalists today, and who knows what, tomorrow. They are less dangerous because they can't act on conviction.

-------------

What inability to be certain about anything are you talking about? The Democrats have held on to the philosophy of altruism and collectivism for 80 years now. Is that not long enough to be considered long-term?

[Mercury 0]

If you don't mind, could you briefly indicate, say, the top two questions that you would like to ask him?

My style, which is sometimes misunderstood, is to provide the context to a question (or response) before I pose it. I have used this style here in my questions to Dr. Peikoff.

I would ask:

1) You have identified Iran as the fountainhead of modern Islamic terrorism. Russia is supplying arms to Iran, a country desperate to possess nuclear weaponry. Communist China is providing arms, as well as a moral shield, to North Korea, which has just successfully tested a nuclear device. Osama bin Laden, one of the leading spokesmen for Islamic terrorism, and executor of the 9/11 attacks on America, is at large in Pakistan, a country with nuclear weaponry. Pakistan's secret service has close ties with bin Laden's al-Qaeda, raising the chances of his acquiring a nuclear device. These are all immediate, mortal threats.

The Republican party, led by George Bush, has planned and initiated a long-term war against the spectre of Islamic terrorism. Yes, the Republican strategy (and execution) may be flawed but, at least, it identifies the major threats and has the US military ready to enter any necessary theatres.

The Democratic party has put forward no such plan, and its leaders have all spoken out against ANY war in defence of American interests. The mild exception, Hilary Clinton, is being shut out of her party.

Finally, we observe that the governments of Western Europe, like American Democrats, are largely secular. Owing to the secular idea of multiculturalism, these nations have allowed their infiltration by evil religious ideologues (Islamic fundamentalists) seeking to do European citizens great harm. They have been unable to effectively counter the moral righteousness of radical Islamists, and have been unwilling to defend free speech - a primary element of Western civilization - from its destroyers.

It is safe to say that Islamic fundamentalism, via multiculturalism, may destroy Europe before socialism (a construct indigenous to Europe) does.

In the face of the immediate threats I have outlined above, could you kindly, by direct reference to these particulars, indicate how the long-term (30-years if that) possibility of a theocracy could be considered a more serious danger?

2) You have said that George W. Bush should be considered the Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) of the religious state (being sought by the religious conservatives).

On this view, Bush's potential religious state would be the equivalent of FDR's actual welfare state, these two being statist points on the political continuum.

FDR's New Deal was, and probably still is, the farthest-reaching Big Government initiative made by any American leader. In his inaugural address, he likened the Great Depression to a war situation and declared: "...in the event that Congress shall fail to take these courses and in the event that the national emergency is still critical I shall not evade the clear course or duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact to be invaded by a foreign foe."

FDR's New Deal programs, which destroyed millions of American lives, are listed here.

Although these programs have greatly harmed the nation, 70 years on, they have not turned the United States into a socialist state. Sixty years after FDR, America is still freer than its neighbour, Canada. As a matter of fact, we are witnessing a very small but growing wave of resistance to these Big Government programs.

The Christian political agenda may be very broadly described as the enactment of any legislation that upholds and protects "God, Family, and Tradition." Chief among George Bush's action items are:

(i) The abrogation of legalized abortion;

(ii) The eternal abolition of gay marriage;

(iii) The arrest of stem-cell (or any other abortion-like) research; and

(iv) The institution of "faith-based initiatives."

Although Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act and vetoed a very important stem-cell research bill, we should note that the latter was passed by a Republican congress.

Bush has failed to accomplish (i) and (ii), and he is unlikely to achieve success in his last 2 years in office. This is because the man's religiosity and opposition to science are being challenged by members of his own party (Bruce Bartlett and Bill Frist are notable in this respect) as well as the Democrats.

Bush has, however, been successful in one area: the faith-based initiatives program. However, it seems this Constitutional violation is yet to become explicitly Christian. From all indications, the program is broadly mystical. Former Director, Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives, Jim Towey wrote on the White House website: "We don't collect data on which groups are Christian, Jewish, etc. and I don't think it would be appropriate to do that. Our Office seeks to have a level playing field where the best application -secular or sacred- wins"

He also wrote: "The greatness of America is found in our religious pluralism, and how Americans are free to worship as they wish or not worship at all. It is important that America maintains its strong respect for all faiths so that we don't see our country divided along lines of religious rivalry. Christians, Muslims and Jews, and other faiths, work well together, and are united in a focus toward reaching out to those in need in our society."

From the above, we can conclude that George Bush does want a faith-based America, preferably a Christian one. He is active in his pursuit of this objective. But, he has not been able to win over the secular branch of his party and the secular Democrats in Congress.

Furthermore, the prominent Republican contenders for the presidency, John McCain, Bill Frist, and Rudolf Giuliani, are not particularly religious men. They are in fact, very much like Democrats in many ways.

By the foregoing, I have demonstrated that Bush is not his party, and that, even if he were, a religious state is a long way off going by Roosevelt's results.

My question is, could you, by direct reference to the facts I have stated here, advance your position that the Republican party poses a greater threat than the Democratic party?

[Carlos 0]

I agree with Dr. Peikoff. The Democrats are incapable of holding any ideology due to their inability to be certain about anything. It is impossible for them to hold any long-term view. They are environmentalists today, and who knows what, tomorrow. They are less dangerous because they can't act on conviction.

The religiously ideological Republicans are much more likely to come in with guns, break down your door and put you in chains, or worse, for not believing in spirits or the correct spirit. They are as bad as the democrats and worse. They are for the welfare state, environmentalism and most everything else the democrats are for. But worse, they are against individual rights, science, and medical advancement, for mystical reasons. Bush and his team have rigorously courted the religious fundamentalist right. This is a huge organized movement across the U.S. There is a resurgence of religion on college campuses and the "praise & worship" movement is re-invigorating the churches.

I strongly disagree:

I have been one of the strongest doom'n gloomers on THE Forum on the issue of Christianity and the future of America, even going so far as to one point literally state that I thought Christianity was a greater threat than Islam.

After a huge amount of critical thinking on the issue and observing and evaluating the world I live in I realized that my paranoia about the Christian-Republicans was totally unfounded in reality, so I completely retract my prior position on Christianity being a dire threat to us all.

And frankly, we should be glad that there has been a Christian-revival in the Republican Party during the last 30 years, because it means that these people in America are dying of hunger for proper values and a moral compass, and right now their options are between the Nihilist-Left and the "Christian"-Right. Given a lack of knowledge of Philosophy, much less Objectivism, and a strong desire to be moral and live a life of proper values, which of the two would you choose?

Yes, some of the particularly awful Christians want abortion, gay-marriage and evolution-theory banned, but they are a marginalized and politically weak group. From my experience, the majority of Christians in the South are only Christian because they were raised Christian, and they more or less just go through the motions of being one.

[Jason Fowler 0]

Jason,

Did you intend to convey the idea that only those who engage in "ravenous and indiscriminate use of violence" are a "real threat"? That is how your statement reads.

Perhaps you meant that American Christians "do not engage in a ravenous and indiscriminate use of violence" unlike Islamists. If that is what you meant, then I would say that this is a non-sequitir. It does not follow from the fact that few American Christians are likely to bomb people that they are not a "real threat"; in fact, they may be an even greater one. Certainly that is Peikoff's claim.

I was unclear due to a omitted word. I do not regard Christians as an equal or even greater threat to the United States than Islamic-fascists. There is no comparison between the two, and to claim otherwise is an injustice to the majority of Americans.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

For either side in this debate: Following is a website which might be a convenient place to start in a search for evidence, if any, of Republicans in the U. S. moving toward a theocracy: http://www.theocracywatch.org/

The leftist sponsors of the site are highly motivated, partisan-wise, to dig up the most theocratic dirt they can find about Republican politicians and their supporters. In an initial and very selective look through it, I am not impressed with the evidence that theocrats are prominent among current elected Republicans or among Republicans in general. I welcome correction by those who are willing to invest more time into an investigation.

One area to focus on might be the site's discussion of the meaning of "theocracy" ("What is a theocracy?"). From a cursory exam, it appears that they hold -- as I do -- that a theocracy can be established without having even a single priest, rabbi, or mufti in office. What counts is the ideas that cause the government to do what it does. A government manned by priests is one kind of theocracy, a hierocracy.

I also suggest the Homophobia menu item. That is a litmus test. I note, after scanning through it quickly, there was a lot of guilt-by-association material. I also note that some of the supposed evidence of homophobia actually consisted of conservative opposition to left-wing legislative favorites, such as gay marriage -- rather than rights-violating proposals such as returning to sodomy laws or censoring homosexual publications or closing gay bars.

Of course, it is also true that when a bad movement comes along it is usually not outspoken in announcing its worst ideas at first. That comes later as successes build up. Still, if the question to be answered is how strong genuinely theocratic Republicans are right now, then the answer -- judging from this site -- is: "Not very."

Again, I offer this site only as a convenient place to start for anyone pursuing further the issue of the theocratic religious right in the Republican Party.

[PhilO 0]

The issue that concerns me, however, is to what extent religious people (left and right) are a threat to the marketplace of ideas. If religious people -- left and right -- assault the marketplace of ideas as a free arena of discussion, then Objectivists are threatened -- with censorship, in its direct or indirect forms.

One major factor that is commonly ignored in censorship discussions is the internet. There are some Objectivist intellectuals who openly think that the internet is a good-for-nothing garbage-filled wasteland, and little else (nobody on this board as far as I know). The would-be censors around the world, e.g. China, know otherwise, and are fighting a losing battle against the ability of the internet to convey information they want to suppress.

Another factor is standalone PCs. An innocuous 1 ounce CD-ROM that can easily be masked as something else (e.g. put into an audio CD case or the contents copied straight to hard disk) could contain the essentially complete corpus of Objectivism. (It's possible ...) Rumor has it that one of the motivations for developing something like that would be to make it almost impossible for the ideas to be suppressed or eliminated, unlike paper books.

[Carolyn Buby 0]

IThe religiously ideological Republicans are much more likely to come in with guns, break down your door and put you in chains, or worse, for not believing in spirits or the correct spirit. They are as bad as the democrats and worse. They are for the welfare state, environmentalism and most everything else the democrats are for. But worse, they are against individual rights, science, and medical advancement, for mystical reasons. Bush and his team have rigorously courted the religious fundamentalist right. This is a huge organized movement across the U.S. There is a resurgence of religion on college campuses and the "praise & worship" movement is re-invigorating the churches.

Creationism is now being taught along with what little actual Science that is being taught in the schools. But the main dangerous thing about the Bush-Republicans is that they are highly organized and pushing a religious agenda. They are religious zealots.

Sixty years ago, people were religious, but they still had common sense and believed in science. Religion was not a part of the curriculum in the schools. We were able to fight and win W.W. II. We did not have the fawning, religion-inspired altruistic, kind and gentle approach to war that the Republicans push today.

Excellent point, GMartin.

Over the last 5 or 6 decades, Christianity in particular has become increasingly irrational. I grew up in a religious Protestant family, but am appalled at how far current Christianity has departed from any Enlightenment influence. It is suffering a brain drain particularly since the first appearance of Objectivist ideas in the culture. Christianity is deteriorating to cult groups, and has produced "jesus camps," Creationist museums and research, faith healing as more respectable, etc. There is even a college (Patrick Henry College) almost exclusively devoted to inculcating young, largely home-schooled students with its own literal "biblical world view" and then providing them with political internships and suggesting careers in Christian advocacy in government.

In the 60's, I attended a church supported college where the biology department taught evolution as highly substantiated by evidence. Religion (apparently) was about finding meaning in your life, not sacrificing; and not about guilt, but pride in your work and your life. Now I see that was simply the influence of Enlightenment philosophy: that influence has disappeared, and what you have left is increasingly irrational and aggressive religiosity. In about 1960, I attended a lecture on Aristotle's philosophy at the Catholic student center at the U. of Fla. But now, Aristotle has been pushed out of the picture, as evidenced by the increasingly irrational trends in Christianity. Augustine and Kant are becoming the main philosophical basis for Christianity.

I would not count on Christianity remaining non-threatening and benign. Remember the association of Faith and Force. We are facing a world with the lights being turned out, one by one.

However, I conclude with the words of John Galt: "...hordes of savages have never been an obstacle to men who carried the banner of the mind."

[Paul's Here 0]

----------

One area to focus on might be the site's discussion of the meaning of "theocracy" ("What is a theocracy?"). From a cursory exam, it appears that they hold -- as I do -- that a theocracy can be established without having even a single priest, rabbi, or mufti in office. What counts is the ideas that cause the government to do what it does. A government manned by priests is one kind of theocracy, a hierocracy.

----------------

Do you have any examples of theocracy without religious leaders in charge of the government? Who would formulate the ideas of a theocratic government if not a religious figure? Do you mean by "in office" someone who holds an official office within the otherwise secular government?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

The argument has been made several times that the U.S. had more religion-inspired laws in the past a few more so in the future would not push us into a theocracy.... In my opinion, this argument is wrong on two levels. Firstly, although the US had more Christianity inspired laws in the past, the American people were generally rational.

And you know this how? What measure did you use to to determine that Americans now are generally irrational as compared to the periods in the past when the "religion-inspired laws" that you now fear were actually enacted? In this post I outlined those past religious effects for you, yet statistics show that belief in God from then till now has remained essentially the same. Overall, despite a little drop in the 1960s and 1970s, church attendance is much the same since the 1930s. What measure of irrationality do you use? Do less rational societies usually advance science, production, and technology to unprecedented heights, as our supposedly less rational society has done? If you have not based your judgment of more irrationality now than then on church attendance or belief in God, or on scientific achievements, advanced technology, or the accumulation of the greatest wealth man has ever known, all this in spite Democratic socialism eating away at the core of human achievement, then on what fundamentals is your judgment based?

Today there is no organized movement for socialism in the US - not like there was in the 30s or the 50s or the 60s. There is however an organized movement for the entrenchment of Christianity into the laws of the country. .

And exactly where do I find the results of this fearful organized movement that is entrenching Christianity into the laws of the country? Where exactly are those laws? I pointed you to enumerable instances of actual laws of substance -- like abortion, banning of literature, and the religious forbidding of business -- that have been enacted in the past, so where are their equivalent today?

And that movement is becoming increasingly popular.

At one time there was just one Objectivist in the world, and then suddenly when there were two that represented a 100% rate of growth. Just what percentage of religious epople, the actual voters, does this "becoming increasingly popular" actually represent? Considering that since 1965 there has been a drop from 70% to 55% of people who say that religion is a very important part of their lives, I truly wonder what facts you base your concern on?

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Do you have any examples of theocracy without religious leaders in charge of the government?

What do you mean by "religious leaders"? Do you mean individuals who hold office in a church organization separate from a government? Or do you mean individuals who are religious and are influential among other religionists? I will assume you mean the former.

I haven't made a special study of any of the following examples. I offer them as subjects of possible further investigation, if that is what you are looking for.

Calvinist Geneva is an example of a theocracy not manned by "priests." The ruling body of the church -- I recall it was named "consistory" -- included ministers (formal office-holders in the local churches) and non-ministers (laymen, apparently, but I am not sure). However, the actual government, I recall, was made up of city councils (a big one and a little one) that colluded with but sometimes fought against the consistory. The councils, like the consistory, sought to apply God's law to life in the city.

Here is a convenient, if not validated, link to a book written apparently by a Kansas University professor, Gilbert, who died just after finishing it. I haven't read the whole Ch. 14, but I note that beginning c. paragraphs 5 and 6 there is some discussion of the organizational separateness but ideational connection of the Church and State. Anyway, this is one place to start if you are pursuing more information.

The government of Iran now is another example of a theocracy with varied personnel. Some of the office-holders were originally and primarily the Muslim equivalent of ministers. Others are not.

Generally, and in principle, the Roman Emperors -- both pagan and Christian -- were theocrats. The idea was that the pagan gods and then the Christian God ruled through the emperor. The emperor was not primarily and originally a priest, though he may have held an additional ceremonial title once he became emperor.

The main point is that the vocational origins of the personnel of government are not an essential distinguishing characteristic of a theocracy. Instead, the appropriate essential here is the idea that whoever holds office is doing God's work in applying God's law to society as a whole (and hence is totalitarian, in intent).

I talked about similar issues here: http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s...t=0entry37955

Who would formulate the ideas of a theocratic government if not a religious figure?

What do you mean by "figure"? Religious intellectuals form religious ideas, by definition. Many religious intellectuals may have also been priests or the equivalent, but the two don't necessarily go together. Not all priests are intellectuals and not all religious intellectuals are priests (or other ordained ecclesiastics). One of the great defenders of religion -- in its essential ontology, epistemology, and ethics -- was Immanuel Kant, who was not a religious official in the Lutheran church, which was the church of the sometimes theocratic Prussian state.

Do you mean by "in office" someone who holds an official office within the otherwise secular government?

I do not know what you mean by "official office." Further, what do you mean by "secular"? Do you mean simply "outside a formal, exclusively religious organization such as a church, synagogue, or mosque"?

A government whose rationale is theistic is not "secular" even if no employee is a priest. The peculiar underlying ideas, not the employment policies, are the essential characteristic of a theocracy.

For a theocracy, which do you think is the essential (causal) and therefore explanatory factor -- the original priestly vocation of the politicians and bureaucrats who might run it -- or the idea of God's dominion over man here on earth via the government? Holding as I do that philosophy (even in the form of theology) causes history, I will go with the latter as the cause (explanation) of a government being a theocracy.

That is about all I can do in the time I have available.

Thanks for your questions. They have stirred my interest in wanting to read more about Calvin in particular. I will add that to my stack of subjects to investigate. If I live another 40 years, I might read books on all these subjects. I have long had a fantasy about being able to eat books. It would be so much faster.

Signing out,

[khaight 0]

What do you mean by "religious leaders"? Do you mean individuals who hold office in a church organization separate from a government? Or do you mean individuals who are religious and are influential among other religionists?

I offer the British monarchy after the Protestant Reformation as another example worth pondering. At that time, England was ruled by a monarch who was also the head of the official church. Was England at this time theocratic? Why or why not?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I have been one of the strongest doom'n gloomers on THE Forum on the issue of Christianity and the future of America, even going so far as to one point literally state that I thought Christianity was a greater threat than Islam.

After a huge amount of critical thinking on the issue and observing and evaluating the world I live in I realized that my paranoia about the Christian-Republicans was totally unfounded in reality, so I completely retract my prior position on Christianity being a dire threat to us all.

I find your change of position to be encouraging. Christianity, like religion in general, is certainly a threat, and it is a destructor of humanity, but the immediate threat pales in comparison to the Islamic jihadists. And I think the notion of some impending theocracy in our country is just bizarre. I wonder to what degree the following comments by Ayn Rand some forty-two years ago, apply today.

The political ignorance and intellectual disintegration of our age become appallingly evident in a major election year. They range from the lethargic passivity of those who ignore elections as of no consequence -- to the frantic hysteria of those who believe that the life or death of a nation is determined on a single Tuesday in November.

(The Objectivist Newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 3, March, 1964, "Check Your Premises: How to Judge a Political Candidate")

[Paul's Here 0]

-----

That is about all I can do in the time I have available.

Thanks for your questions. They have stirred my interest in wanting to read more about Calvin in particular. I will add that to my stack of subjects to investigate. If I live another 40 years, I might read books on all these subjects. I have long had a fantasy about being able to eat books. It would be so much faster.

Signing out,

I agree with what you've said. I was mainly wondering how you related what you stated to the issue of a theocracy being established in this country, which was mentioned in the thread you provided. I found that thread to be filled with a lot of fear-mongering that is typical of the left in this country: create false alternatives by forming package deals. The example that I was looking for was an example of how the current Evengelical Christians could be viewed as forming a theocracy in this country, since they do not hold any political office. I agree that it is the ideas governing a society that would define whether it is classified as theocratic or not. But how does not wanting legalized abortion, gay marriage, etc. constitute the formation of a theocracy?

[PhilO 0]

I've had an idea for a long time that a resurgence of activity on both the Left and Right in various ways might well be related to the spread of the ideas of Objectivism. Kant was motivated by a desire to destroy logic and science because he saw the mounting cultural revolution that was overturning millenia of religion, particularly Christianity in Europe. I think that it's possible that the worst (i.e. most consistent and most mystical) of American Christians, as well as the worst of the Left, are making a last ditch effort to carry on Kant in the face of the implacable threat of Objectivism to their philosophy. That is not to say that most of those involved are even explicitly aware of Ayn Rand or Objectivism; I think they're reacting to the cultural influence that Objectivism has had in an often unspoken way. For example, the latest issue of Wired magazine has, right on the cover, what appears to be an open full bore assault on religion. I haven't read the article yet, but I think that it's likely that there's some Objectivist influence at work, indirectly or even directly.

If my hypothesis is true - and it is backed up by the fact that about 30 million of Ayn Rand's books have sold so far, and media references to Ayn Rand continue to steadily grow - then these intensifying irrationalist efforts on both the Left and Right are actually encouraging signs. It means that the enemy realizes that their time is drawing to a close, and they're desperate to roll back the clock to "their time". But this time, unlike in the time of Kant, they've met their match and way beyond.

The real question, which can only be answered by the passage of time, is whether civilization can persist long enough for Objectivism to have a dominant influence.

[Paul's Here 0]

I offer the British monarchy after the Protestant Reformation as another example worth pondering. At that time, England was ruled by a monarch who was also the head of the official church. Was England at this time theocratic? Why or why not?

Of course. The Devine Right of Kings.

[Paul's Here 0]

--------------

If my hypothesis is true - and it is backed up by the fact that about 30 million of Ayn Rand's books have sold so far, and media references to Ayn Rand continue to steadily grow - then these intensifying irrationalist efforts on both the Left and Right are actually encouraging signs. It means that the enemy realizes that their time is drawing to a close, and they're desperate to roll back the clock to "their time". But this time, unlike in the time of Kant, they've met their match and way beyond.

The real question, which can only be answered by the passage of time, is whether civilization can persist long enough for Objectivism to have a dominant influence.

I'm glad you brought this up. It's something I've thought of for a long time as being the main motivation for the Intellectual of Conservatism, Wm. F. Buckley and his completely irrational, out of context, attacks on Rand.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

If my hypothesis is true - and it is backed up by the fact that about 30 million of Ayn Rand's books have sold so far, and media references to Ayn Rand continue to steadily grow - then these intensifying irrationalist efforts on both the Left and Right are actually encouraging signs. It means that the enemy realizes that their time is drawing to a close, and they're desperate to roll back the clock to "their time". But this time, unlike in the time of Kant, they've met their match and way beyond.

Hang around here and you're likely to turn into an optimist.

The real question, which can only be answered by the passage of time, is whether civilization can persist long enough for Objectivism to have a dominant influence.

The strikers in Atlas knew that civilization would not survive without them, but they also knew how to protect themselves and their values. They left the mess and the dangers taking civilization with them. I don't think things will ever get that bad, but even if they do, we can see it coming and deal with it.

As for the current mess and threat to my values, I live prudently in one of America's safest cities, buy insurance, have a good lawyer and CPA, etc. Life is good anyway.

[Free Capitalist 0]

[A]lthough the US had more Christianity inspired laws in the past, the American people were generally rational. Religion in the past was mainly an after-effect of the Dark Ages and was a dying force. There was no organized movement for entrenching religion into the government at that time. There was an organized movement for entrenching socialism into our laws. The American people themselves were different at that time.

How would you explain the famous Scopes "Monkey" Trial of 1925? I find it hard to compare it with today's tepid and irresolute attempts to combine creationism with evolution in some states -- "combine"! No one has the guts to outright ban evolution, unlike 1925.

Today a large number of Americans have lost their sense of life. Just as an example, do you think that the American people of the 40's would have stood for the kind of altruistic warfare which is being fought now after a direct major attack by the enemy?

How would you explain the Korean War, waged in the 1950s, with an extraordinarily tied-down military? McArthur was on the verge of rolling over North Korea, and even into China, if not for our brilliant politicians who not only restrained him but stripped him of all military command altogether.

If the Republicans are elected, then it is pretty much a guarantee that we will continue the way we are doing today.

A half-war can still win. That's what matters.

[Ed from OC 0]

A half-war can still win.

Well, that is the question. A half-war is necessarily half-surrender. What matters is whether America as a whole can find enough self-respect in time to stand up for itself unapologetically and end things, or slowly give up its gains until either terrorists smuggle in and use WMDs or we give up our freedoms willingly out of fear and moral cowardice.

Time will tell which side will win out.

[Ed from OC 0]

It'll be interesting to see how Democrats develop their war policy heading into 2008. Some anti-war pacifists get the headlines at the moment, but I suspect a growing number of Democrats will take up the war banner. Joe Lieberman, passed over by the Democratic Party's elite for Ned Lamont, the candidate of leftist bloggers, is speaking out loudly for war -- and taking the lead as an independent.

From the article:

"Sen. Lieberman says the troops he has spoken to want to see the job finished in a way that honors their service and sacrifice: "We owe it to them not to give up and walk off the battlefield before the job is done."

He proposes forming a "bipartisan Iraq working group" when Congress reconvenes in January made up of senior members of the relevant committees who would meet regularly with the president. It could happen. If the Democrats take the Senate, Sen. Lieberman is in line to chair the committee on homeland security."

As I wrote earlier in another thread, my 2008 vote is up for grabs to whichever candidate convinces me they have the best foreign policy -- mainly to deal with Muslim terrorists, but also with a nuclear Iran, a possible coup in Pakistan (which would give dozens of nukes to Islamic fundamentalists), a Russia stepping back into dictatorship, conflicts with China, and a possible full-scale attack on Israel.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Well, that is the question. A half-war is necessarily half-surrender. What matters is whether America as a whole can find enough self-respect in time to stand up for itself unapologetically and end things, or slowly give up its gains until either terrorists smuggle in and use WMDs or we give up our freedoms willingly out of fear and moral cowardice.

Time will tell which side will win out.

Ed, I'm puzzled by your statement that a half-war means a choice between eventually finding "enough self-respect in time to stand up for itself unapologetically" and "slowly give up its gains". I don't see half-war as a conflict of two principles (e.g. total war vs pacifism) one of which must eventually win out. A half-war means that out of 10 enemies we kill 5 or 6, instead of 8 or 9. Nothing more.

[Ed from OC 0]

Ed, I'm puzzled by your statement that a half-war means a choice between eventually finding "enough self-respect in time to stand up for itself unapologetically" and "slowly give up its gains". I don't see half-war as a conflict of two principles (e.g. total war vs pacifism) one of which must eventually win out. A half-war means that out of 10 enemies we kill 5 or 6, instead of 8 or 9. Nothing more.

I disagree. What we have today is a half-war in the sense that sometimes we fight terrorists and other times we help them. The symbol of this was dropping bombs and food packets in Afghanistan. The policies we have in place that aid terrorists have been documented on The Forum and elsewhere in great detail.

A half-war is not simply a war waged ineptly; it is a war lacking committment to victory.