"Not remotely" means he isn't even close.

I will continue to spread the kind of philosophical influences that we want in academia as long as I see that doing so is in my best self-interest. As much as I like my current position, I am not gaining financially as much as I could.

As for Rand Paul's degree of public acceptance, it was predictable that it would not be very high. Sad but true.

I did not say Rand Paul was an Objectivist, nor an Objectivist candidate. As I said, he is probably the best that Gulchers could hope for. I stand by what I said.

The strident focus on religion together with status quo corporatism and shallow nationalism are killing the "tea party" revolt.

Rand Paul's degree of public acceptance was predictable -- hopeless to the extent he pursued "libertarianism" (let alone "Objectivism"), with attempts to put it across in "mainstream" terms combined with religion just as hopeless.

The political situation is, however, not a reason for those seeking to spread the kind of philosophical influences necessary to do nothing, particularly in academia, which is one of the only realms in which practical progress is possible. But that requires understanding what is necessary to do and why it doesn't start with politics.

Rand Paul is not remotely an "Objectivist candidate" and not philosophically an "Objectivist" personally. He is a libertarian religious-conservative who finds some aspects of Ayn Rand's ideas appealing.

I was raised by people you could describe as fatalistic. When I discovered Rand it took me on my first steps toward a view to something better Even if the most conservative of Republicans gets voted in, your attitude will be fully justified.

One of my areas of research is self-assembly and aggregation of Alzheimer's disease proteins. Point well made, Michael.

Galt's Gulch is the only forum I have time for. It provides at least as much value as I give it. I suppose I'll get a message from Scott or Rick about an increase in my yearly subscription rate. ;)

Being a relatively new visitor to the Gulch, from what I have read of your posted work, you are indeed "making a difference." I trust it provides you with a suitable "return." If so it is my hope you continue to do so in whatever venue(s) you choose to frequent.

Thanks, Herb. I want to be an optimist. I was raised that way, and I consider it my nature. However, I just can't be optimistic right now, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

True enough. I really enjoy my shrug job as a professor, so shrugging completely is not an easy choice. I will probably continue to do what I can to attack the cause in academia.

Well...believe it. What is even worse is when people argue with you attempting to prove how wrong you are. Most of them are so pitiful in their arguments that I'm undecided as to whether to scorn them, laugh at them or pity them.

Oh, and by the way, many of the comments I hear about Rand Paul have to do with his looks, his facial expression, etc. I think that the only reason they stop at the way he combs his hair is the expression on my face.

Only you jbrenner, can meaningfully engage in that which you characterize as "arguable."

Your point is well taken. Changing the beginning of the causal chain within my lifetime is no longer possible without starting a country from scratch, and it is arguable as to whether it would be in my self-interest to spend time trying to change the beginning of that causal chain.

We all make our choices jbrenner. You have my great empathy with respect to your father. Success, happiness, and ultimately fulfillment ought to be the purpose for whatever choice(s) we each make. My point in my response to your question(s) was to remind all who may read this thread that a focus on politics is one directed at the END of the causal chain. As such it represents a vacuous effort, as it will "slam up" against the moral ideals of the electorate from which said politics arises.

I am doing my part in the classrooms and lecture halls of academia. As I have said elsewhere in this thread, one of my reasons for starting this post is to resolve my difficulties in dealing with the fact that Rand Paul is doing as poorly as he is. I am somewhere between depression and acceptance in the five stages of grief. However, acceptance of this reality means that it is no longer worth doing my part in the lecture halls of academia. Acceptance of this reality means that my partial strike in relegating myself to academia rather than being a co-owner of a small business will change to full-blown strike. I am not sure I am ready for that reality yet, although if my father, who is in his third year of full-blown Alzheimer's, dies, I might be ready for that reality.

I have chosen to respond to both of your solicitations Mr. Brenner, because I wish to hone the focus. One of the more obtuse lessons Rand taught is the important point that politics flows from morality. Therefore, the battle to regain our individual rights as well as to raise them in actual standing to the status they should have initially been raised, will be fought and won - not in the corridors of power or conference rooms in Washington DC, but in the classrooms and lecture halls of academia; the newsrooms in NY; and the studios in Hollywood.

I am trying to deal with the reality that the closest to an Objectivist candidate that we could hope for, Rand Paul, is not doing all that well. Admittedly, Rand Paul is not an O. Rand Paul's lack of popularity is something that I wanted to deny. I think I am now at somewhere between depression and acceptance in the five stages of grief.

Rand Paul is probably as close to an Objectivist candidate as is ever likely to be taken at all seriously. One of the reasons that I asked this question is because of where he is in the polls right now. I am not dealing well with the fact that there are so few of us who think the way that we do.

I wasn't dishonest at all. I am making an honest attempt at learning about Objectivism. From what I had learned thus far, being president would require compromises that Objectivists would not want to make, work in a place amidst people they despise, and for people other than themselves (and probably more in others' interests rather than their own self-interest). Sometimes you ask a question to confirm what you think, but are not sure, you know. This was such a time.

Moreover, I know I cannot claim to be an Objectivist. Objectivists and I have almost everything in common, but I have my own philosophy.

Also two of the most dividing issues. Which is why every politician is forced to answer both, sooner or later. With a very irrational public on both sides of both issues. Still a lose - lose for an Objectivist.