Jump to content






Photo

WHOA!! - ARI exhibiting at CPAC2013

Conservatives abortion rights conservatives and religion Peikoff Ayn Rands legacy

  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Jerry Biggers

Jerry Biggers

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,284 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland
  • Interests:Interested in Objectivism and libertarianism since the mid-1960's.; Other philosophy, science, history, Siamese (and other) cats. .

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:45 AM

Yes, you read that right. The "Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights" - the Washington voice of ARI, is exhibiting at CPAC2013.

This is a complete change for ARI to take in its relationship of Objectivism to conservatism.

 

And just who and what is CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference)? CPAC is a yearly conference started by the American Conservative Union (primarily composed of Young Americans for Freedom - YAF retirees).They attract several thousand conservatives every year with multiple speakers - usually highly prominent nationally known conservatives (examples: Limbaugh, Gingrich, Santorum, Pat Buchanan, Sarah Palin, and in the 1980's even  President Ronald Reagan). Many organizations of a conservative bent pay handsomely to have display tables to hand out their literature or attract new followers. However, ACU screens exhibitors - and Birchites, radical libertarians, any type of atheists, are not permitted.

 

Except for a few years when the Atlas Society had a table, Objectivism was not represented at CPAC. Lately, TAS has not displayed (or were not allowed to). Now, certainly, the orthodox Objectivists as personified in Leonard Peikoff and in ARI have never been represented. And never wanted to, until now. For all the reasons given by Rand in her many non-fiction books. She hated Buckleyite/National Review-type conservatives (and with very good reasons). CPAC is the creation and personification of Buckleyites. They run it.

 

In the past, and I'm sure now, many religious-oriented conservatives have had booths and many speakers at CPAC. In fact, the issue of legalized abortion is by far the most represented topic of interest at CPAC. In fact, they are over-represented.

 

Now, we have a problem here. Ayn Rand made her view of religious-oriented conservatives quite clear. And her views on abortion  are best represented by her essays in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (see "Of Living Death').

In the past, Leonard would not touch these people with a ten-foot pole. Wanted nothing to do with them. ARI has essays on its web sites condemning conservatism.

 

And yet, now we find ARI (thru its Washington office) participating.  Ayn Rand must be revolving in her grave. I'm surprised that Peikoff would allow this. Is he on life-support or something? If he did not know about this, and he finds out, he will need life support. Or somebody will.

 

Wow,...



#2 william.scherk

william.scherk

    William Scott Scherk

  • Members
  • 1,979 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Interests:Fringe beliefs, pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy, fringe psychology, moral panics, cognitive neuroscience, Dusty Springfield, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, satanic ritual abuse/recovered memory therapy controversy, True Believers, cult dynamics, urban planning, 80s music, urban transportation, Grand Guignol, snarkiness . . .

Posted 21 February 2013 - 07:23 PM

Except for a few years when the Atlas Society had a table, Objectivism was not represented at CPAC. Lately, TAS has not displayed (or were not allowed to).

 

Oi. Which was it? Who is our mole in The Atlas Society?

 

Now, certainly, the orthodox Objectivists as personified in Leonard Peikoff and in ARI have never been represented. And never wanted to, until now.

 

Which notion brings me to ask, Who amongst the annointed ARIanites have attended or spoken at CPAC, albeit not in official ARI role/s?

Finally, is there a sometimes whiff of the wingnut at CPAC  (think Pamela Nutterzone Geller)? If yes, help or harm? If no, will this splash of ARI bring, this splash into a pond of giant conflab,  big-video/blogosphere/right-wing-radio-Rodeo Meetup-of-the-Year -- will it  bring good attention, will it bring objectivish rah rah contingents from far and wide? Will near OL folks have infiltrated the venue/s? Will Dr the 9th visit the proceedings with his ready wit? Will doctors Campbell and lesser take that junket to DC. Will Doctor Mrs Dr Diana Hsieh, PhD be there ... in spirit or flesh, peddling her vanity radio or yam spread or not?

 

It brings on stomach feelings in me to contemplate, but will it be good or bad for Objectism and its tributaries. Should the rest of you celebrate as I and Jerry are doing, with giant  bottles summoned from the cellar, swords cutting off the hock bottle tops, almost drowning in the foam from expensive sparkling wines?

 

Silly questions, yes, but almost anything could happen with the Ayn Rand Instititute instituting itself and joining all the conservative call-girls, rent-boys and lap-dancers in one general area (the Watergate this year, yes?)?

 

*********************************

Hope you are on this case all the way, Mr Biggers. I also hope we might fund and equip a guerilla-type Objectivist Living rapporteur at the ARI appearance. (view here the type of guerilla tactics I foresee)

It's like the Pope coming to Poughkeepsie. Who gets more ink, the graceless catholic drag queen or the decaying rust-belt shithole?

 

[kindly forgive the multiple add-on edits.; WSS has drank five magnums himself alone and is now staggering and singing loudly/ He will post anon,. gawed willing]


Edited by william.scherk, 21 February 2013 - 08:28 PM.

WSS on OL: Friends and Foes(blog) "The Google People"(video) Emotion BOFF: Jonathan
I haunt Twitter @wsscherk see also Facebook Youtube Soundcloud Syria Comment; Banned on SOLO
2013 Wikipedia pick Cognitive Biases | Dream Wet Lunch with Carol & Brant Phil Coates & Christopher Hitchens | Mood low to mid 50s | Weather Dire | Meyers-Briggs Indicator: Priestess

Book of the Year: A Tale of Two Metropolitan Statistical Areas


#3 Mark

Mark

    $$$$

  • Members
  • 424 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2013 - 10:05 AM

From "Birds of a Feather" on ARI Watch:

 

Yaron Brook was happy to be photographed with Pamela Geller and Caroline Glick at David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend 2008:

 

BrookGellerGlick.gif

 

Original at:

http//:www.atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/11/14/brook_geller_glick.jpg



#4 Jerry Biggers

Jerry Biggers

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,284 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland
  • Interests:Interested in Objectivism and libertarianism since the mid-1960's.; Other philosophy, science, history, Siamese (and other) cats. .

Posted 22 February 2013 - 07:21 PM

Yoo hoo, OLers!  Hell-loo? Two comments? Two, from Bill and Mark (excellant posts, I might add!),...but that's it?

You do realize that Ayn's ghost may, at this moment, be rising-up, flaming sword in hand (having just locked-up together, the quarelsome spirits of Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal),   in hot pursuit of these whim-worshippers!  Don't they have their psycho-epistemological heads on straight? I mean, jeez, consorting with the Keepers-of-the-Flame-for-Bill Buckley, her avowed enemy? 

 

Maybe, everyone else knew about this and I'm the last on board? Could be, but I couldn't find any posts about this on OL.

 

Anyway, here's a few more tidbits. If the ARIans are sending out feelers to the CPAC crowd (composed of 70% born-again types,  25% cold-warriors, 5% economic libertarians,...not official, but an informed guess from one who has mingled in this tribal event), then where are the Cato-ites, now in the capable hands of the former Chairman of ARI?  There is no exhibitor booth from The Cato Institute at this CPAC, and apparently no presenters. This seems odd. But then, none of the ARIans are listed on the CPAC Agenda as giving any presentation, not even as panelists. Zip. Nothing. Nada.



#5 Jerry Biggers

Jerry Biggers

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,284 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland
  • Interests:Interested in Objectivism and libertarianism since the mid-1960's.; Other philosophy, science, history, Siamese (and other) cats. .

Posted 22 February 2013 - 08:03 PM

Bill, thanks for your post, brimming with mischeivous sarcasm. Here are my replies, inserted in boldface within this copy of your post:

Except for a few years when the Atlas Society had a table, Objectivism was not represented at CPAC. Lately, TAS has not displayed (or were not allowed to).

 

Oi. Which was it? Who is our mole in The Atlas Society? 

 

Umm, me. Having manned a table at 2005 CPAC with Ed Hudgins. I don't really think that TAS was not allowed to be a future CPACs. A response that I received here on OL from Ed, indicated that they did not find the meager results from those past exhibits to be worthwhile.

 

>>Now, certainly, the orthodox Objectivists as personified in Leonard Peikoff and in ARI have never been represented. And never wanted to, until now.

 

Which notion brings me to ask, Who amongst the annointed ARIanites have attended or spoken at CPAC, albeit not in official ARI role/s?

 

Answer: No one. Ever. Such trips into hostile territory would have likely gotten a strict reprimand from ARI.

Finally, is there a sometimes whiff of the wingnut at CPAC  (think Pamela Nutterzone Geller)? If yes, help or harm? If no, will this splash of ARI bring, this splash into a pond of giant conflab,  big-video/blogosphere/right-wing-radio-Rodeo Meetup-of-the-Year -- will it  bring good attention, will it bring objectivish rah rah contingents from far and wide? Will near OL folks have infiltrated the venue/s? Will Dr the 9th visit the proceedings with his ready wit? Will doctors Campbell and lesser take that junket to DC. Will Doctor Mrs Dr Diana Hsieh, PhD be there ... in spirit or flesh, peddling her vanity radio or yam spread or not?

 

Pam Geller? er, check the post from Mark. She may have been at past CPACs, but her comments were not Objectivish, and more devoted to attending to her,...well,...demons   Portions of CPAC presentations have been shown before by C-Span. They may also show up on  Youtube and/or the CPAC website. Anyone can attend CPAC,  provided that they fork out the attendance fee. So manifestations from previous incarnations of Dr. Who might be there, Tardis, and all.  Can't say.   Professor Campbell would surely find it an interesting display of group psychology/crowd behavior.    As for Diana, I can't think of anything at past CPACs that would have interested her.  But, then, I would not have thought that she would have mooned the Brandens as she defected to the Darkside., so who knows?

 

It brings on stomach feelings in me to contemplate, but will it be good or bad for Objectism and its tributaries. Should the rest of you celebrate as I and Jerry are doing, with giant  bottles summoned from the cellar, swords cutting off the hock bottle tops, almost drowning in the foam from expensive sparkling wines?

 

Well, attending calls for a stiff drink. Or two. Or recreational drug of your chioce.

 

Silly questions, yes, but almost anything could happen with the Ayn Rand Instititute instituting itself and joining all the conservative call-girls, rent-boys and lap-dancers in one general area (the Watergate this year, yes?)?

 

No, the Gaylord Hotel at National Harbor. It will be even wilder next year, as The Gaylord will be opening up a casino. But as comedian Steve Martin would say,  "These are a bunch of wild and crazy guys!"

 

*********************************

Hope you are on this case all the way, Mr Biggers. I also hope we might fund and equip a guerilla-type Objectivist Living rapporteur at the ARI appearance. (view here the type of guerilla tactics I foresee)

I enjoyed the link. Maybe I could go incognito, in something suitably inconspicuous. Like a gorilla suit.

It's like the Pope coming to Poughkeepsie. Who gets more ink, the graceless catholic drag queen or the decaying rust-belt shithole?

 

[kindly forgive the multiple add-on edits.; WSS has drank five magnums himself alone and is now staggering and singing loudly/ He will post anon,. gawed willing]

 

I think you have all the fun!

 



#6 Jonathan

Jonathan

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 3,170 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 23 February 2013 - 01:32 AM

Yoo hoo, OLers!  Hell-loo? Two comments? Two, from Bill and Mark (excellant posts, I might add!),...but that's it?

I think it's just that you're late to the party. A couple of months go, the ARI, when asked if it has changed it's position on libertarianism, stated:

"No. But the meaning of the term libertarian has been changing over the decades. Consequently, individuals or organizations that today call themselves libertarian may or may not hold the ideas we oppose."

So it's no surprise that today their position has been updated again, apparently to:

"The meaning of the term conservative has been changing over the decades. Consequently, individuals or organizations that today call themselves conservative may or may not hold the ideas we oppose."

Next month, don't be alarmed to discover that their new position is:

"The meaning of the term murderous communist dictator has been changing over the decades. Consequently, individuals or organizations that today call themselves murderous communist dictators may or may not hold the ideas we oppose."

J

#7 Jerry Biggers

Jerry Biggers

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,284 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland
  • Interests:Interested in Objectivism and libertarianism since the mid-1960's.; Other philosophy, science, history, Siamese (and other) cats. .

Posted 23 February 2013 - 10:53 AM

Yoo hoo, OLers!  Hell-loo? Two comments? Two, from Bill and Mark (excellant posts, I might add!),...but that's it?

I think it's just that you're late to the party. A couple of months go, the ARI, when asked if it has changed it's position on libertarianism, stated:

"No. But the meaning of the term libertarian has been changing over the decades. Consequently, individuals or organizations that today call themselves libertarian may or may not hold the ideas we oppose."

So it's no surprise that today their position has been updated again, apparently to:

"The meaning of the term conservative has been changing over the decades. Consequently, individuals or organizations that today call themselves conservative may or may not hold the ideas we oppose."

Next month, don't be alarmed to discover that their new position is:

"The meaning of the term murderous communist dictator has been changing over the decades. Consequently, individuals or organizations that today call themselves murderous communist dictators may or may not hold the ideas we oppose."

J

Hilarious! Let's hope that this latest chapter in ARI "revisionism" does not go as far as "re-branding" communist (or other) dictators!

 

Regarding their somewhat facile reinterpretation of the meaning of libertarianism, it just won't do.  Since their reference is to the modern libertarian movement (say, since the 1940s-1950s), there has been relatively little change in its basic principles. When Ayn Rand launched off in her ill-considered attacks of libertarians as "hippies of the right," in the 1970s, she was wrong then, as an examination of John Hospers' Libertarianism: The Coming Political Philosophy (Nash: 1971) would show. And I doubt if many changes in the basic principles could be found in current libertarian works. If the ARIans dispute that, they could have consulted The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, edited by Ronald Hamowy and published by The Cato Institute (Memo to John Allison, in his new role as Director of Cato: Turn around at your desk and look at the bookshelf. I am sure that a copy of that work is sitting right there). 

 

What is changing is ARI's view of libertarians, and maybe even of conservatives; not the other way around!.

 

It is possible that what is motivating this new "glasnost" policy at ARI, is that in viewing the results of the last national election, and the alarming acquiesence of the voters to the programs of Mr. Thompson, er, I mean Obama, the ARI leaders may be feeling that all of the right is being "backed-up against the wall" (metaphorically speaking, I hope), and that it is time to consider our similarities and agreements, rather than our differences. That is, if we (the right) do not wish to become totally irrelevant. Or extinct.



#8 Stephen Boydstun

Stephen Boydstun

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia
  • Interests:Metaphysics; Theory of Concepts and Predication; Philosophy of Science and Mathematics; Philosophy of Mind; Foundations of Ethics; Physics; Mathematics; Biology; Cognitive Science

Posted 23 February 2013 - 04:05 PM

Jerry,

 

I don’t think it’s a change to banding together with other libertarians or with conservatives, mum on differences, saying only commonalities, and engaging in the iron-stomach political compromise required for united fronts. It’s the usual sensible business of using a space to possibly attract some individuals to become better acquainted with your philosophy and possibly persuade them of its correctness and its social and personal benefits. Some Objectivists have participated in Tea Party activism for that purpose. Similarly, I have a cousin who participates in Tea Party activities mainly to insert the idea that Jesus is Lord into the political arena as much as possible.


Yaron Brook has a realistic idea of how small a following there is thus far for the philosophy of Ayn Rand as well as how far away is a people sufficient to effect government whose sole function is the protection of individual rights. He spoke about this in an address at OCON 2011. It was evident too that he has good sense about how to converse with people holding ideas seriously opposed to your Objectivist ones, converse to some possible productive results.
 

Stephen



#9 Jerry Biggers

Jerry Biggers

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,284 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland
  • Interests:Interested in Objectivism and libertarianism since the mid-1960's.; Other philosophy, science, history, Siamese (and other) cats. .

Posted 23 February 2013 - 05:41 PM

Jerry,

 

I don’t think it’s a change to banding together with other libertarians or with conservatives, mum on differences, saying only commonalities, and engaging in the iron-stomach political compromise required for united fronts. It’s the usual sensible business of using a space to possibly attract some individuals to become better acquainted with your philosophy and possibly persuade them of its correctness and its social and personal benefits. Some Objectivists have participated in Tea Party activism for that purpose. Similarly, I have a cousin who participates in Tea Party activities mainly to insert the idea that Jesus is Lord into the political arena as much as possible.


Yaron Brook has a realistic idea of how small a following there is thus far for the philosophy of Ayn Rand as well as how far away is a people sufficient to effect government whose sole function is the protection of individual rights. He spoke about this in an address at OCON 2011. It was evident too that he has good sense about how to converse with people holding ideas seriously opposed to your Objectivist ones, converse to some possible productive results.
 

Stephen

Stephen,

 

Well, of course! And if you had been running ARI and had instituted that very reasonable policy, we, me, everyone else, would have been better off!

 

Unfortunately, ARI's leaders (until very recently - but  NOW, a welcome breath of fresh air)  had to play games, pretending no criticism of Objectivism was worth answering. Pretending that all conservatives (which vastly outnumber bona fide Objectivists and libertarians) had signed some sort of loyalty oath to Bill Buckley and therefore were unreachable. Slamming the door shut on any academics who did not pass a loyalty test. No matter if they agreed with most, or even 90+%,  of Objectivism - Even the slightest disagreement would make you persona non grata (and especially, if the words "Kelley" or "Branden" was ever said in a complementary way).

 

Great. Glasnost. Perhaps the end of internecine squabbling. There are some things that most conservatives, libertarians, and Objectivists can agree upon.  So, let's see what happens.



#10 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 8,008 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 24 February 2013 - 02:34 PM

You always knew it would happen.  Yaron has run away to join the circus.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Conservatives, abortion rights, conservatives and religion, Peikoff, Ayn Rands legacy

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users