Principled action should dictate what we say and do, but I don't want all or nothing. I prefer America to most countries. I prefer her not because we speak English, but because of the sizeable number of adherents to reason. Whether implicit or explicit, a commitment to reason drives all innovation and excellence. Other nations are held back from a better life due to their governmental or cultural issues, but America still has the vestiges of reason in its cultural DNA. While I disagree with the emotionalism and latent nationalism in many of Trump's followers, I think we should leave it up to the man to do what he has been hired to do.

Hope so

Judging by his cabinet nominations and list of Supreme Court nominees, Trump respects some rights more than Clinton, who as far as I can see does not respect any rights at all.

If the Senate Democrats hang together, it would take only three renegade Republicans to block Trump's cabinet nominations. But I don't expect the Dems to hang together. Many vulnerable Democratic senators who rode in on Obama's coattails in 2012 face re-election in 2018. Their constituents may not be happy if these senators attempt to sabotage Trump this early into his presidency.

So Trump respects rights more than Clinton?

Re: " . . . there is little fundamental difference between the two parties." That may not be true for much longer. Thanks to Trump, the "establishment" wing of the Republican Party is losing most of its influence, strengthening the social conservative and libertarian wings. And the "progressives" are becoming increasingly dominant in the Democratic Party. Objectivists may not be able to find a true home in either party, but true differences are beginning to exist between them, and as a result we now have a vastly changed political landscape to deal with.

Hi There Rich,
I cannot speak for all Objectivists, but there is a critical difference between Objectivism and alt-right conservatism. We have to be careful not to fall into the trap of pragmatism with this president, who does not appear to know principles as well as he knows how to stir up a crowd.

The question of whether alt-right conservatism or liberalism is worse might have a legitimate basis or might be a moot point, depending on the specific question. As for me and, I am sure, some other Objectivists, there is little fundamental difference between the two parties. Each exploits and reduces individual rights in favor of something else. The Democrats reject the right to property and, in so doing, destroy the virtue of productiveness. The Republicans under Trump reject certain liberties, liberties such as abortion rights or the rights of foreign nationals; should the taxpayers of Mexico be held accountable for an expensive 3000-ish mile wall? With this, Trump threatens the virtue of integrity.

Richrobinson, hope should not be in the objectivist vocabulary. Trump is setting up cabinet nominee's that have a take no prisoner approach going into their prospective positions. My concern is that they are confirmed by Congress without any shenanigans. I don't trust Congress despite Republican majority. I would like to see them with a can do attitude also.

It is interesting that whenever Ayn Rand wrote
about "liberals" or "conservatives" she always (as
I recall) put those terms in quotation marks.

Who in the world would have mistaken Trump
for an Objectivist?!

I am not overjoyed that Trump has won, just re-
lieved (to an extent). As I said before, Russian
roulette over certain death. But if he makes statist
moves, perhaps we can stop him in those cases.
(If you're in a gerrymandered district represented
by a Democrat, and Trump comes up with a
statist measure, maybe you can get the Demo-
crat to vote against it, if only for spite).

Ayn Rand remarked on voting for candidates that
were imperfect; she said that (memory quote) Ford
"is not ideal, but he deserves great credit for his
courageous attempt to hold down government
spending, and cut government controls...." I also
heard her on tape advocating Daniel Patrick
Moynihan over Buckley, in spite of the reserva-
tion she had about national health care.

You are a profound and precise thinker. I wish I could give you a whole lot of points, not because they matter, but to show my appreciation. As you say, a person who has read and understood Rand's non-fiction would grasp things as you point out.

True, but a certain percentage will read Ayn Rand's books, understand them, and apply their principles. And that percentage, whether small or large, is vital. Exposing her books to a wider audience is an absolute precondition for the continued spread of her philosophy.

Of course you are correct Herb, but the "if" in your response is all-telling.

Do you not think that such things as "the nature of the society you are dealing with" is secondary to one's happiness? Do such concepts not represent far greater abstractions, embodying that which an individual can do little about, and depending on the importance of one's other values, seemingly becoming the object of one's existence? To the extent they do does it not become counter-productive, and if acted upon, an "out-of-context" focus that is potentially destructive of philosophy's primary purpose?

Yes it does take 5 minutes once you understand what Rand (and others) have taught, but that understanding is, more importantly, but part of the far greater understanding upon which one's happiness rests.

Those who would "save the world," whether rationally "natural" as Rand's imaginary Galt might conceive, or irrationally "supernatural" as the mystic's Jesus might construe and believe, it must be left to those among us desirous of such things. The rest of us must live our lives within the context of the world as it is. Our happiness, rationally derived, as our unerring goal.

Each of us, after spending whatever time is necessary to understand Rand, and then spending the 5 minutes "checking out the politics and the art" currently on display, should simply say "brother you asked for it," and emotionally move on. Any additional minutes added to the previous 5, should only be expended if we believe we might actually do something about what the initial 5 minutes brought to light.

Out happiness remorselessly depends on it.

Not all that have read her books have actually understood them. Not all that read books, understand them; seeing word, or hearing word, does not equal understanding.

my life is gradually ending, Rich, and I would rather
delay the collapse as much as possible. -- j
.

Bullseye for the K man.
I took me several readings of her non fiction when it became clear to me exactly what "check your premises" meant. Wrong premise, wrong route, wrong conclusion.

There are still many Bush-style Republicans who simply see Trump as a shallow clown. I think he'll surprise everyone. He won't turn back the Progressive agenda in its entirety because its been percolating since Woodrow Wilson was President, then FDR piled on, followed LBJ who dropped a mountain of crap on America, followed br Obama's dreadful presidency. But it looks as if he'll make inroads and hopefully another right leaning candidate will carry it on.

If you did believe that a Galt would magically appear, you'd be pretty much the same as the devout Christians waiting for (sometimes demanding) the 2nd coming. Of course, when a friend of mine became an evangelical I'd tease him by pretending that I thought the 2nd coming meant that he got lucky twice.

Ah, but you left out politics and art.
It is true that the first three are the most important because they give birth to the remaining two. But those two are an immediate reflection of the nature of the whole philosophical concept. If you want to know the nature of the society you're dealing with, check out the politics and art and you'll know in 5 minutes.

People have already compared Alan Greenspan with Rand, and Objectivism is still standing. I'm actually hoping that Ayn Rand's views will attract attention, even if initially for the wrong reasons, since such attention will encourage people to read her books and be exposed to Objectivist ideas from the source.

That speech brought tears to my eyes...Clean cool water for a thirsty soul.

It depends on context. Objectivism is "all or nothing" in terms of its philosophy (you can't validly call yourself an "Objectivist" if you pick and choose which bits you like); and it is all or nothing in terms of living by principles, because its basic principle is that doing otherwise is contrary to your own life.

However none of that means you can't trade with people of mixed premises (I don't care what the cabbie's political philosophy is), or that if there is a clear advantage to one bad path over a worse path, you shouldn't go with the former and try to make it even better.

If no compromise means the descent of civilization into another Dark Ages, then I say get what we can get if is leading, even by a crooked road, in the right direction. If Mrs. Clinton had won, there is no doubt in my mind that it would be a blow so strong to freedom that civilization's slide into collectivism would accelerate to the point where there would be no turning back. It is to old adage about why the mighty trees fall in a hurricane but the willows remain standing because they are willing to bend. However, if humanity is on the crooked road going the right way, there will be many times when a refusal to compromise will be the right course.