Trump and Ojectivism
Posted by Tavolino 4 years, 9 months ago to Government
Trump and Objectivism
I’m puzzled by the formal Objectivist movement (ARI, TOS) and their complete disdain for President Trump. From the beginning they have never missed a chance not only to distance themselves, but also follow with a pompous negative certainty, without having the necessary relevant facts. Ironic, considering our foundations are based on proper identification (metaphysics) and validation (epistemology) before passing judgment or taking action (ethics). While I agree principles should never be compromised, context and perspective need to be objectively evaluated and applied, rather than a blind intrinsic repetition. Regarding Trump, there some broad hierarchal recognitions that I believe are very consonant with our philosophy.
Our fundamental basis is metaphysics, which is the proper identification of the nature of something. More than any past politician, however brash, Trump calls it like he sees it within his known knowledge. Be it the emotional motivations of political correctness, the lies of the “fake news,” the imbedded corruption, the recognition of the good and bad on the world stage (Israel, China, North Korea, Iran), the parasitical nations that feed off our teat, etc., etc.. The transparency of his thoughts have been unmatched and not hidden behind political speak, spins, alternate agendas, backroom deals or deceit. It is what it is.
As Dr. Jerome Huyler noted, “Trump has the sense of life of an individualist. His common sense - born of decades of experience as a businessman and dealing with politicians - tells him that taxes and heavy-handed regulations destroy economies. It is true, as Rand said that common sense is the child's method of thinking. But it is born of empirical experience,” the basis of knowledge acquisition.
His “America First” mantra should be championed by us. Rand had always said America will never regain its greatness until it changes its altruist morality. America First is just that. It’s not some blind German nationalism, but an attitude that America’s interests need to be selfishly upheld. This is a necessary fundamental to our ethics. He has attempted to keep open discussions with all, based around trade and fair exchange. Rand had said, “The trader and the warrior have been fundamental antagonist throughout history.” His movement away from aggressive wars, political globalism and multi-lateral agreements keep our own self-interests as paramount. It’s the application of the trader principle.
Lastly, his counter-punch mindset and approach is completely in line with our moral rightness of retaliation. He may prod or poke, but does not pull the proverbial trigger until he’s attacked, either with words or actions.
There is a dire threat that’s facing our country today with the abuses and power of the ingrained bureaucracy utilized for political purposes. It's imperative that all Americans unite, led by the voices of reason to identify and expose this fundamental threat to freedom. It's not about the false alternative of Trump or never Trump, it's about the American system and the fundamental role, purpose and responsibilities of government, regardless ones political persuasion.
As Objectivists, we need to continually apply our principles in the real world of what is, slowly moving it to where it should be. We need to descend from the “ivory tower” to the first floor of reality. Trump may not be able to articulate the principles, but are not what’s mentioned above consistent with our most basic and fundamental beliefs as Objectivists?
I’m puzzled by the formal Objectivist movement (ARI, TOS) and their complete disdain for President Trump. From the beginning they have never missed a chance not only to distance themselves, but also follow with a pompous negative certainty, without having the necessary relevant facts. Ironic, considering our foundations are based on proper identification (metaphysics) and validation (epistemology) before passing judgment or taking action (ethics). While I agree principles should never be compromised, context and perspective need to be objectively evaluated and applied, rather than a blind intrinsic repetition. Regarding Trump, there some broad hierarchal recognitions that I believe are very consonant with our philosophy.
Our fundamental basis is metaphysics, which is the proper identification of the nature of something. More than any past politician, however brash, Trump calls it like he sees it within his known knowledge. Be it the emotional motivations of political correctness, the lies of the “fake news,” the imbedded corruption, the recognition of the good and bad on the world stage (Israel, China, North Korea, Iran), the parasitical nations that feed off our teat, etc., etc.. The transparency of his thoughts have been unmatched and not hidden behind political speak, spins, alternate agendas, backroom deals or deceit. It is what it is.
As Dr. Jerome Huyler noted, “Trump has the sense of life of an individualist. His common sense - born of decades of experience as a businessman and dealing with politicians - tells him that taxes and heavy-handed regulations destroy economies. It is true, as Rand said that common sense is the child's method of thinking. But it is born of empirical experience,” the basis of knowledge acquisition.
His “America First” mantra should be championed by us. Rand had always said America will never regain its greatness until it changes its altruist morality. America First is just that. It’s not some blind German nationalism, but an attitude that America’s interests need to be selfishly upheld. This is a necessary fundamental to our ethics. He has attempted to keep open discussions with all, based around trade and fair exchange. Rand had said, “The trader and the warrior have been fundamental antagonist throughout history.” His movement away from aggressive wars, political globalism and multi-lateral agreements keep our own self-interests as paramount. It’s the application of the trader principle.
Lastly, his counter-punch mindset and approach is completely in line with our moral rightness of retaliation. He may prod or poke, but does not pull the proverbial trigger until he’s attacked, either with words or actions.
There is a dire threat that’s facing our country today with the abuses and power of the ingrained bureaucracy utilized for political purposes. It's imperative that all Americans unite, led by the voices of reason to identify and expose this fundamental threat to freedom. It's not about the false alternative of Trump or never Trump, it's about the American system and the fundamental role, purpose and responsibilities of government, regardless ones political persuasion.
As Objectivists, we need to continually apply our principles in the real world of what is, slowly moving it to where it should be. We need to descend from the “ivory tower” to the first floor of reality. Trump may not be able to articulate the principles, but are not what’s mentioned above consistent with our most basic and fundamental beliefs as Objectivists?
I also agree with your thoughts re the purpose of Objectivism, and it has been my continued effort to widen our audience for over 50 years, since the days I worked at NBI. At times it’s intellectually from the top down, but mostly with the uninformed I try to find common ground to build from there. In addition, over the years I’ve come across many that have become disenchanted, not with “established” Objectivism, but the “formal” proponents, for a variety of reasons. In recent years I’ve had personal interaction at the highest level of both the mentioned organizations, and have made some keen observations that I have not discussed on this thread. Thank you again for your comments.
I’m posting in support of the Libertarian Party only in response to repeated attacks on it, including posts denouncing the fact that the party even exists. I did not initiate this topic, but I think it’s important for members of the Gulch to know that there is another side to the story.
The LP is not “pragmatist” any more than Objectivism is. We put forth a principled defense of individual liberty within a clearly delineated context, that of politics. It is arguably more “pragmatist” to attempt to implement a philosophy of individualism by participating in a rigged game masquerading as a two-party system.
We did not form the LP to “copy socialists”, we did it to provide a home base for those who wish to promote liberty in the political realm. I used the Socialist Party simply as an example of a “third party” that was effective in implementing its agenda. The spread of the “counter-enlightenment” was aided in part by the political activities of the Socialist Party and the adoption of many of its ideas by the Democratic Party.
Libertarians also have “an intellectual base already established within the culture”, including a vast array of thinkers and philosophers other than Rand.
A philosophical revolution requires continuous engagement of our opponents within all branches of philosophy, including politics. Logical priority does not imply temporal priority. Objectivists, at least when they’re effective, provide the public with a vision of a rational universe. Likewise Libertarians, at least when they’re effective, provide the public with a vision of a politically and economically free society. A philosophical revolution cannot succeed by leaving out an essential branch of philosophy.
“Mimicking political action without regard to the ideas that make it possible to succeed” refers to your advocating copying the socialist activists of a century ago without regard to the fact that they had an intellectual base already established within the culture, thanks to the counter Enlightenment already long underway.
Whatever conflicting ideas that motivate different activists in the Party, and whatever legitimate political goals some of them such as you have (not reflected in the national candidates we were told to support), political freedom will not be supported and implemented in a cultural that increasingly embraces the collectivism, altruism and irrationalism which we are seeing.
The requirement for an intellectual, philosophical revolution before political acceptance does not mean political ideas such as those in Hospers' book and it does not mean that the spread of the better more philosophical ideas has always been done effectively.
Americans can't support a reasonable administration foreign policy for China until he articulates what one is. Trade deals don't describe it.
Yes there is a threat that the Democrats will win in 2020. The number of states likely to vote against them is steadily shrinking. The ideology and anti-American sense of life has moved so much farther to collectivism and statism that we can no longer count on Democrats ruling themselves out by being as nutty and extreme as they now are. This isn't 1972 when almost every state rose up, without having to be told, against McGovern, who was far less radical left than this crowd of nihilists.
I said Report me to the Admins or leave me Be
But since you can't accept that, I took care of it for us both.
Political philosophy is a branch of philosophy. Libertarian party activism is not, and worse, is anti-philosophical.
That politics is a legitimate arena for activism does not make any action whatsoever appropriate, fruitful or not destructive. You can do a lot better and I think you have the ability. But you of course can do what you want.
Report me to the Admins or leave me be
I did not put quotes around "The vicious personal attacks are not from me, let alone the 'sustained abusive taunting behavior of personal attacks' you refer to."
That was a response to your false personal attack claiming I should be "muted" as "obvious".
Load more comments...