Another reason why Objectivists should not vote for Ted Cruz
Clearly Cruz does not understand that Objectivists do not respond favorably to either sacrifice or altruism.
From Cruz's fundraiser letter:
I've asked my team to put together these secure links below so you can make an instant and secure sacrificial gift -- it can be done in just five minutes or less:
I CAN SACRIFICE $35 TO RESTORE AMERICA »
I CAN SACRIFICE $100 TO RESTORE AMERICA »
I CAN SACRIFICE $250 TO RESTORE AMERICA »
I CAN SACRIFICE $1000 TO RESTORE AMERICA »
From Cruz's fundraiser letter:
I've asked my team to put together these secure links below so you can make an instant and secure sacrificial gift -- it can be done in just five minutes or less:
I CAN SACRIFICE $35 TO RESTORE AMERICA »
I CAN SACRIFICE $100 TO RESTORE AMERICA »
I CAN SACRIFICE $250 TO RESTORE AMERICA »
I CAN SACRIFICE $1000 TO RESTORE AMERICA »
One might ask oneself if there are degrees of evil. We all know that there are. I don't want to use examples, I have enough stomach problems. So, one must ask oneself, what are the degrees of evil among the candidates? So, I've rated them on a scale of 1 to 5. 5 being the worst. Keep in mind, all are evil in one way or another.
5 -- Sanders
4 -- Clinton
3. -- Kasich
3-- Trump
2 -- Cruz
3 -- Not Voting
Not much of a choice, is it?
We all must vote or not vote according how we see it.
Friends:
This article is directed toward Objectivists in response to a recent post on the "Galts Gulch" site, wherein the author summarily dismisses Ben Carson as worthy of political consideration.
Several years ago, as Sarah Palin had become thrust onto the national stage, I was asked by a fairly liberal friend, "you wouldn't really vote for her would you?" I stared at him replying, "as opposed to whom?" Caught somewhat off guard he responded, "Well I mean, she is little more than an attractive idiot." I replied, "what if she were running against an ugly moron?"
Ayn Rand's influence on my values, specifically how they must be derived, leading to what they will therefore become, has been of incalculable benefit. I say this because she taught me the importance of ideas! She did so through rationally forcing me to understand that “non-contradictory identification” and the proper (pro-life as she termed it) embrace of values, leads to consistent actions that produce happiness and fulfillment. In summation - and fundamental to the value of excitedly, joyously, passionately, filling-in the rest of the blanks in the endless crossword puzzle of life, that this was the purpose of philosophy.
Though her impact on many of us was equally profound, she was, despite the early worship of her by many of her students - myself included, neither a god nor always wise in her actions. She made errors. Her incessant focus on God and religion when wading into politics, rather than maintaining the focus on individual freedom was one such example. (Please choose NOT to remind me of Rand’s epistemological rigor and her ruthlessly logical tracing of the issue to its metaphysical roots. I am dwelling “contextually” in politics, specifically NOT in absolutes.) Nonetheless, she will one day be judged as one of the greatest intellectual minds in history. Meanwhile…….
One manifestation of said error, not coincidentally, subsequent to her shameful treatment by William F. Buckley and most conservatives, was her vocal criticism of Barry Goldwater. She was adamant in her condemnation and rejection of him.
Here is a quote of Senator Goldwater’s, circa early 60’s.
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."
Rand was certainly correct of course regarding Goldwater, in that as an inconsistent advocate of freedom he would invariably undermine his own arguments. However, will anyone seriously argue that our nation would be similarly down the destructive road it has taken had the electorate instead chosen Goldwater rather than Lyndon “Guns & Butter/Great Society” Johnson? Barring nuclear exchange, it is almost unimaginable we would be.
Carson will not likely get the nomination. His responses to both the war on drugs, which he indicates he would “intensify,” and his strategy for dealing with political correctness in education (he wishes to appoint some sort of conservative “overseer” within the Department of Education to “correct” current “incorrectness”), have helped assure that he will unceremoniously fade.
However, if faced with a choice between Hillary and Ben, what would you do?
I’ll close with two recommendations, specifically directed at Objectivists,.
1. Lead with your life and not your mouth. As is the case with a picture, an example is worth 10,000 words. When you choose to lead with the latter, skip to number 2.
2. KNOW your audience! We live in a society that, in significant measure, is dominated by Judeo-Christian philosophy. Therefore there is a tendency for many of us to become pessimistic and caustic. While I do at times lapse into pessimism, I try, though not always successfully, to never become caustic.(Keep in mind, the virtue of pessimism is that most of your surprises tend to be favorable.) Always remain benevolently open to such surprises. Depending on YOUR virtue(s), favorable surprises come more often than you might imagine – as long as, through the exercise of rational virtue(s), you EARN THEM!
Dave
Voting Libertarian is not exactly the same as a non-vote. The establishment parties pay close attention when a significant number of voters break with the two-party system, and they will often modify their stands on certain issues to protect their base and prevent further defections. Non-votes are just chalked up to voter apathy.
as you are. . BHO has done so much damage that
we absolutely must take a turn away from the edge. -- j
.
A perfect way to describe the situation.
.
Until you act in accordance with your principles it will continue. (Not to single you out Herb, the same reason applies to everyone.)
You vote for slavery, you must take responsibility for your consent to it.
Resistance is imperative, regardless of how unlikely the apparent probability.
Probabilities change with every person who votes for principle instead of in fear.
I would rather vote my convictions than be pressured by fear into always voting for "more of the same" as the only alternative to Armageddon.
My vote won’t make any difference in the outcome of the presidential election. Therefore, I should vote for the person who best represents my views. (For me, that’s always the Libertarian candidate.) By doing so, I am adding in a small way to his/her vote totals. The more votes the Libertarian candidate receives, the more the Libertarian Party’s reputation and influence will grow.
Gary Johnson polled at 11% in a recent survey. Although that’s merely a placeholder vote for now, it indicates that many people are dissatisfied with the two “major” parties and are looking for alternatives. Every vote for a Libertarian raises the legitimacy of the LP in the eyes of the public, while voting for either major party candidate just helps solidify the two-party system’s hold on America.
However, it doesn't change my view that the issues in this election are so crucial, that everything that can be done, even in the smallest way, should be put forth to stop Clinton. If that happens, and the situation in Washington shows a change in the proper direction, I might modify my attitude. But for now, we must stop Clinton or I truly believe it's over - or will be in 8 years.
VITW member #***
You may well be right. That is, in the case of the USA today. It wasn't always that way.
Quit enabling the left
Take control
then make changes
same thing they did but without the whining we hear these days....
Especially the whining.
Suck it up and get to work, we are at a crucial crossroad.
Of course this was done by someone else.
Should of said...would you INVEST in the restoration of America...cause that's exactly what your doing.
often incorrectly used!
Hoooray!
When I first came to the Gulch I was always correcting. After a while it became embarrassing so I stopped. Nice to see folks who care about our beautiful language.
stated in the past about ending your correc-
tions and you came through!! YAY!!!
Just based on that, he lost my vote long ago. Adding to this his ideals of "begging" for a handout (over and over), his demand we give for his personal greater good, his belief we should be our brother's helper (in this case, the "brother" being his political machine")...
I am SO grateful Kasich came in second in NY yesterday, and buried this guy.
Getting to the physical... He looks like "that uncle" you wouldn't want babysitting your kids. Sorry... but yeech. Does anyone else look at him and react similarly? I think Trump's hair has nothing on his smarmy smile...
He must be getting darned desperate, to keep spamming people like this. Maybe he realized he's not a chance in hell of winning? Maybe that the American people are finally fed up... they see the next dolphin (eg Flipper) for what he is.
Now if they'd only open their eyes to the travesty that comes from Little Rock, er, New York.
Appearance? Sorry, we all can't be Ryan Reynolds. Very shallow.
He does look a little like the vampire uncle in the Munsters, though.
Why does that in turn cause me to think of sacrificing $$$ against Climate Change?
I'm also thinking some dude with a conservative group who twice a month snail mails me donation requests for help getting out of deep debt so they can return to spreading their message.
Also in File 13 are requests from every candidate there is with the exception of Sanders.
I never hear from Sanders even in email donation requests that I delete, delete, delete, delete, delete ad nauseum.
Really now, seeking justification for voting for a moocher because you are a Objectivist is just too lame. Be honest, you are a atheist first and last of all and reject any candidate who holds any christian viewpoint because you are a religious bigot. I'll take a person who is honest about their Christian faith and is asking for funding for their campaign over a lieing moocher who will not make any stand about the subject.
Hillary hides the fact she is in the pockets of her contributors. She just tells us what she thinks will get the votes, but its not what she would do anyway.
I dont believe in the various versions of "god" that are out there. You are right about that. BUT, I have no problem with others believing in whatever they want, so long as they dont try to enforce those beliefs on me through violence- be it direct violence or government sponsored violence.
I do have a problem with religion being intertwined with government, as it has been so much in past years. I think government should protect everyone's rights, and thats IT. No blue laws, no illegality of prostitution, no illegality of drugs or alcohol. Those are moral questions for each of us to decide, and I respect all persons' decisions on things like that.
It did bother me that Cruz was big into bible thumping, and it made me uneasy that he could separate how he would use his presidential powers when it came to what his "god" told him to do. Thats all...
If Cruz thinks that the First Amendment entitles politicians to display the Ten Commandments on public property and deny marriage licenses to couples not approved of by the “Christian Right,” I don’t think much of his ability or willingness to separate his religious beliefs from his Constitutional duties.
The other day I was surprised that he mentioned atheists as though they might actually be worthy Americans. Must be hard up for more votes.
Too much thinking in terms of trillions and billions none of them are in touch with reality.
Cruz, or his moneygetters, are doing just that. -- j
.