List reasons why an Objectivist could NOT win a general election for president

Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 5 months ago to Politics
95 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I have also posted another thread for us to list reasons why an Objectivist could win a general election for president.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 4.
  • Posted by Technocracy 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Since cult itself is a term with mystic origin and connotations, "Cult of Selfishness" is incompatible with Objectivism on its face.

    Getting your opponents to understand that would make you a modern Tantalus however.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by WilliamRThomas 10 years, 5 months ago
    Objectivism, alas, is not generally regarded as a respectable and reasonable system of ideas. So an Objectivist candidate must explain that he or she isn't a nut job.

    In any case, because of this, once it because known that a candidate was an Objectivist, large swaths of the commentariat would attack. After all:

    --An Objectivist is an atheist! Heaven help us!

    --An Objectivist advocates greed and selfishness. Or that's what they would say.

    --An Objectivist, even if espousing a gradual set of pro-freedom reforms, would have to admit thinking it it would be a long-term goal to completely eliminate Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, SNAP,public schools, and Obamacare, along with many regulations and subsidies.
    .
    Most people are not (currently) looking for a revolution.They aren't looking to be told that their traditional morality is wrong in many ways.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 5 months ago
    Objectivists by definition use reason and thinking.

    That is not a trait of the general public. Unless it's found in the average 35% who register but don't vote in Presidential cycles and 50% who register and don't vote in the off year cycles or in the fifty plus percent who don't register.

    Put in perspective fifty percent don't register, thirty five percent don't vote is what? 32.5 voting divided currently between the two halves of the Government Party AND the splinters, thirds, write in, and independents and vote flushers. each about one third with the last group increasing.

    Call it 11 percent for each with 12 percent of the eligible voters needed to win.

    Given that dismal success rate I would seriously think about supporting the Anti Party Party.

    It really doesn't work out quite that way but it isn't far off I took the figures from the 2007 edition of Time Almanac.

    In real life that 12% to win in winner take all states gets the full 33. No matter who yoiu thought you voted for.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by SaltyDog 10 years, 5 months ago
    Oh, how about non-politicians generally have opposable thumbs and don't need to coax a mate out of a tree with a piece of fruit?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by minorwork 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No down votes from me though I've yet the score to do so. An Objectivist candidate needs a carefully crafted FAQ sheet so he doesn't have to keep repeating the reasoned arguments for Objectivisms policies. How will that FAQ handle charges of Objectivists being a cult of selfishness? Find me the man/woman who can leap that hurdle and run 'em for something.

    Her in Illinois, to replace my districts House Rep, Aaron Schock, LaHood got elected in the primary on less than 8% of the eligible voters and in the special election last week he nailed it with less than 9% of total eligible voters. Opportunity is in these special elections but are Objectivists ready to pounce? Certainly ready to talk about it, but to organize a plan to jump when it will be shorter odds to succeed? I don't see it yet.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by minorwork 10 years, 5 months ago
    What objectivist can give a well formed propositional logically valid account of the reality of individual DUTY to self as being of benefit to the totality of mankind should all be so self-reliant?

    Find that person that will satisfy me and persuade even the devil's advocate polemicists, they've my vote so run 'em for office.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 10 years, 5 months ago
    Reason #1 - Too much lying involved to win. An O would implode from the myriad ethical issues that would entail.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You missed as step ..is it useful is it practical... does it work? As opposed to we have to do something right now. There is nothing progressive about progressivism. Applied to taxes it's been, practically speaking, a failure unless, as I do, you consider the purpose to be more about as you mentioned control or fascism.

    Understanding the true purpose helps to define a proper premise.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think there are myopic mentalities in every ideology and philosophy; people who can't, or at least refuse to, see things outside the spectrum of that they choose to believe. I know Christians who are like that and I know Objectivists who are like that. Tolerance is (or at least has been) an American staple for a reason. We cannot be led by an ideologue, but we can be led by someone with an ideology.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 10 years, 5 months ago
    The minute a candidate would say, "Look, the government is too far into your lives. It is too involved and needs to be reduced in size and power." people would be very confused by that. They'd think the candidate was nuttier than Bernie Sanders.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by xthinker88 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually that's not Objectivism. That's pragmatism. And it's one of the key philosophical roots of both progressivism in the US and fascism in Europe.

    Objectivists ask is it true.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thats funny i view subjectivists the same way. Objectivists are poeple who see things clearly and apply them with the dictum Does this work is it useful
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by xthinker88 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Exacctly right. Objectivists could never have founded this country. They can't stand sitting in a room with somebody that doesn't agree 100% with them let alone compromise and create a workable constitution.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 10 years, 5 months ago
    here comes to the down votes but I'm going to be honest.

    The vitriolic tenancies of many Objectivists when it some to respecting people who do not believe ENTIRELY as they do.

    To be POTUS you have to lead everyone, not just those you mentally consider equal or those who subscribe to your way of thinking. I think an Objectivist would have immense difficultly with this very aspect and it would, if elected, destroy any progress he/she would make.

    You asked,
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by not-you 10 years, 5 months ago
    What true objectivist would waste years of his or her life climbing into bed with looters and moochers in a futile attempt to uncorrupt and/or repair that which has been damaged beyond repair? ...the whole theme of AS.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo