Donald Trump

[Selene]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/august_2015/does_america_need_new_immigration_laws?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DailyNewsletter

[Peter]

Michael wrote: Think about O-Land. How many narrow-view Objectivists hate the Brandens (even till today) more than they ever could hate a bloody dictator? They would never admit it, but look at what they do and who they spit their venom at.

end quote

I promise naught to bite.

The Black Adder

Now the name Trump Change is funny Adam.

From Rasmussen: Our latest national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely Republican Voters now think Trump is likely to be the Republican presidential nominee next year, with 25% who say its Very Likely. That compares to 27% who felt a Trump nomination was likely two months ago when he formally announced his presidential bid, a finding that included just nine percent (9%) who said it was Very Likely. At that time, Trump ran near the bottom among the 12 declared GOP candidates. Now he leads the pack of Republican hopefuls which has grown to include 17 prominent contenders. Among all likely voters, 49% think Trump is likely to be the Republican nominee, including 17% who say its Very Likely. That compares to 23% and seven percent (7%) respectively in the earlier survey. Forty-eight percent (48%) now say Trump is not likely to win the nomination, with 21% who feel it is Not At All Likely. Forty-two percent (42%) of Republican voters say Trump is unlikely to be their partys standard-bearer next year, but that includes just 15% who say its Not At All Likely. Thats down from 29% who said a Trump nomination was Not At All Likely two months ago.

end quote

If Trump wins the first two (Iowa and New Hampshire) there will be some drop outs. How will Trump stack up then? No one knows and no ones nose stuck in a crystal ball can tell us. Evidence will appear as the dominoes topple. In the meantime we wait for position papers, gaffs, polls, and great speeches. I wonder if Trump could give a great speech? Or Carly for that matter. Oh, and world events. Don't forget the coming crash, war with Iran, and America's next top model.

Peter

[Brant Gaede]

If you hate the Brandens today and have had no direct experience with them or were not around in the late sixties early seventies involved however tangentially with things you could hate them about, you're a cultist. Your hate is contrived. Perhaps you ate a ten year old book that was crap then and dried out crap now and if you weren't a cultist you'd never have eaten that crap. Cultists can even drink the Kool Aid. Once I ate some of that crap--and then spent two years throwing up.

--Brant

life's too short now to fuck around with the truth--at least for me--so I straight arm when maybe I might be nicer (so some innocents or not so guilty stagger to the sidelines--they'll recover)

[Selene]

If you hate the Brandens today and have had no direct experience with them or were not around in the late sixties early seventies involved however tangentially with things you could hate them about, you're a cultist. Your hate is contrived. Perhaps you ate a ten year old book that was crap then and dried out crap now and if you weren't a cultist you'd never have eaten that crap. Cultists can even drink the Kool Aid. Once I ate some of that crap--and then spent two years throwing up.

--Brant

life's too short now to fuck around with the truth--at least for me--so I straight arm when maybe I might be nicer (so some innocents or not so guilty stagger to the sidelines--they'll recover)

To quote Michael..."drip...drip...drip" again you are an excellent writer - write more...

[Brant Gaede]

STRIKE! STRIKE! STRIKE! STRIKE!STRIKE!

(Atlas Shrugged finally got through to me: I'll only write on my own terms! Society must bow down to me Zod! [reality])

[Mikee]

So...bowing is it, no more knelling? You're a fickle finger of fate..

I preferred "blowing one's nose loudly".

[Peter]

I don't think anybody on this list hates BB or NB, certainly not anyone with the name of Peter. Personally, I think they were the embodiment of good Objectivists, minor gaffs not withstanding.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't think anybody on this list hates BB or NB, certainly not anyone with the name of Peter. Personally, I think they were the embodiment of good Objectivists, minor gaffs not withstanding.

Peter,

If you had the impression I think Pete Reidy hated the Brandens, I don't know what caused it, but I don't think that. And if I said anything to cause that impression, apologies.

OL-wise, I didn't (and don't) let people who hated the Brandens express their hatred of them here. This condition is even in the posting guidelines.

I put it there because OL started back when Valliant's book came out and a small group of activists went everywhere the Brandens were discussed online and filled the discussions with anti-Branden poison. They also used sockpuppet accounts galore to make it look like a major purge was happening in O-Land. Valliant himself and his wife even got busted for sockpuppet accounts on Wikipedia.

Now that particular time has passed, but I still like the idea of restricting Branden-hate on OL. I loved both Barbara and Nathaniel. Barbara more, but still it was all love. (Still is.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(And I love Trump. )

[Marc]

If Trump wins POTUS...

Marc,

Ahhh...

The sweetness of the English language...

That's how the crack in the dam starts...

Michael

lololol , good one !

[Marc]

Michael wrote: Think about O-Land. How many narrow-view Objectivists hate the Brandens (even till today) more than they ever could hate a bloody dictator? They would never admit it, but look at what they do and who they spit their venom at.

end quote

I promise naught to bite.

The Black Adder

Now the name Trump Change is funny Adam.

From Rasmussen: Our latest national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely Republican Voters now think Trump is likely to be the Republican presidential nominee next year, with 25% who say its Very Likely. That compares to 27% who felt a Trump nomination was likely two months ago when he formally announced his presidential bid, a finding that included just nine percent (9%) who said it was Very Likely. At that time, Trump ran near the bottom among the 12 declared GOP candidates. Now he leads the pack of Republican hopefuls which has grown to include 17 prominent contenders. Among all likely voters, 49% think Trump is likely to be the Republican nominee, including 17% who say its Very Likely. That compares to 23% and seven percent (7%) respectively in the earlier survey. Forty-eight percent (48%) now say Trump is not likely to win the nomination, with 21% who feel it is Not At All Likely. Forty-two percent (42%) of Republican voters say Trump is unlikely to be their partys standard-bearer next year, but that includes just 15% who say its Not At All Likely. Thats down from 29% who said a Trump nomination was Not At All Likely two months ago.

end quote

If Trump wins the first two (Iowa and New Hampshire) there will be some drop outs. How will Trump stack up then? No one knows and no ones nose stuck in a crystal ball can tell us. Evidence will appear as the dominoes topple. In the meantime we wait for position papers, gaffs, polls, and great speeches. I wonder if Trump could give a great speech? Or Carly for that matter. Oh, and world events. Don't forget the coming crash, war with Iran, and America's next top model.

Peter

Anyone know the results of candidates who win Iowa and new Hampshire and how they failed after ?

[Selene]

Anyone know the results of candidates who win Iowa and new Hampshire and how they failed after ?

The most recent one in 2008 was the current President of the United States.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Watch it and weep, Trump critics.

 

This is just in from Mobile, Alabama.

 

 

 

Michael

[Selene]

[Ellen Stuttle]

I am waiting for this type of onslaught soon...

Donald Trump: Randian archtype?

Posted on 8/11/2015, 11:04:11 AM by Truthsearcher

Had a discussion with a friend who is a big Ayn Rand fan who proposed the idea that Donald Trump as the archtype Randian hero who is the amalgamation of Howard Roark and Hank Rearden. [....]

Adam,

I am waiting, too. Unlike what some people think, that's not a bug to Trump's core supporter. That's a feature.

[....]

I'm thinking, too, that comparisons to Rand characters might actually turn out to be a "feature," not a "bug."

Has Trump himself commented on such comparisons, does anyone know?

Ellen

[Peter]

Ellen wrote: I'm thinking, too, that comparisons to Rand characters might actually turn out to be a "feature," not a "bug." Has Trump himself commented on such comparisons, does anyone know?
end quote

I don’t think he has won that comparison yet. I just went to the Trump For President site and under positions, they ONLY HAD ONE on immigration. I wonder why? Let’s listen in to Foxy News. . .

Frank Lutz to his studio audience: Could it be that Trump is all over the board on most issues and never seriously thought about them except to be able to bloviate?

Audience member one: I think so Frank. I watched his Alabama rally last night and his solutions are I will fix that. You know I will do it. Because I can. I, I, I, me, me, me. But it actually sounds like more government intrusion.

Audience member two: Exactly! When asked about improving the economy he never once said get the government out of business’s way, he just always said HIS GOVERNMENT will fix everything.

Audience member three: And by *fix* I think Trump is saying government meddling and governing by edict. Sort of when a crony capitalist boasts about his contacts on The Hill and says the fix is in with Senator Fogbottom.

Audience member four: Yeah. Fixed like the mafia or Mussolini would fix every business they corrupt . . . . the end.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The following Wapo article (not a vehicle supportive of Trump) gave me a few things to think about:

Trump’s audacious Southern spectacle is part of his strategy
By Robert Costa and David Weigel
August 22, 2015
The Washington Post

From the article:

The crowd — sprawling and boisterous, though filling perhaps half of the 40,000-seat stadium — was anything but silent. People pumped their fists in the air as the ruddy-faced man with an iconic corn-silk coif took one shot after another at former Florida governor Jeb Bush ® and Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

. . .

Trump fans came by the thousands, driving from the Florida panhandle, from Mississippi, from Tennessee and Texas. Traffic was backed up for more than a mile.

On the street, Olaf Childress, a neo-Confederate activist, gave out copies of “The First Freedom” newspaper, which had headlines about “Black-on-white crime,” “occupied media” and “censored details of the Holocaust.”

. . .

Trump’s campaign claimed that more than 35,000 people had applied for tickets, but by the time his speech began, the stadium was full of empty patches of AstroTurf and grandstands.

How's that for a frame? The liberal media still doesn't get it. Three points:

1. Even trying to downplay the number of people, there were still, by Wapo's own estimate, "perhaps" 20,000 people there (half of "perhaps" the 40,000 the stadium holds). There were probably more, but the verbiage was framed to downplay the size of the crowd. WaPo may fool some out-of-focus readers with this, but I think readers are catching on. This damages WaPo more than Trump. After all, who believes in the mainstream media anymore?

2. And the nature of the crowd? Obviously for WaPo, it's redneck yahoos, idiots and "AstroTurf" (this last word thrown in strategically to make the crowd appear like padding, even though the reporter was referring literally to plastic grass). Look at the way they focused on the right-wing neo-confederate bigot.

3. When WaPo talked about other people who attended, they did not characterize ordinary people with any images except to say they worked in a department store and things like that. And even when presenting these kinds of people, the WaPo article did not mention the wealthier people, the more intellectual people and so on that attended. The subtext was that Trump attracts the stupid American lower middle class, with emphasis on "lower." The unwashed masses.

Like I said, these snooty morons don't get it. If you want to see a really bad example of the kind of snarky clueless attitude I'm talking about, see the recent Rolling Stone article, Donald Trump Just Stopped Being Funny by Matt Taibbi, where this moron actually said: "America has been trending stupid for a long time. Now the stupid wants out of its cage, and Trump is urging it on." Out of its cage?!! Good Lord! I guarantee this idiot, through this snarky article, garnered some voters for Trump and doesn't even realize it. And I am almost certain Mr. Moron convinced no one against Trump. His article is pure singing to the dwindling choir.

Here is another point, one I find far more interesting from a marketing view:

Many attendees said they had never attended a presidential campaign event.

In other words, the people attracted to Trump are not the people the media is used to manipulating. Trump fans are people who have tuned out. They gave up on politics. They are bored with the manipulation that never gets any better. They are tired of choosing fancy new words for ice-cream and still getting plain vanilla. But now that Trump has appeared, they are tuning in.

One of the marketing terms for this is "creating a niche audience." Trump is not targeting predefined audiences. He set his own criteria and addressed this persona. He even said openly what he is doing when he drudged up Nixon's old term: "silent majority."

And then there's this, one of the most fascinating points of all:

As the sun began to set, the sweaty throngs in the stadium snapped their heads toward the sky as the roar of a jet engine pierced the air. Here it was, gliding toward them above the Friday night lights: a gleaming Boeing 757 with “T-R-U-M-P” stretched across its navy blue body, circling twice and dipping its wing toward the sloped stadium bleachers.

The crowd roared its approval to Trump as his jet tilted away to land at a nearby airport. Minutes later, he was whisked in a caravan of SUVs past sleepy neighborhoods and the shipyard-lined coast of the Deep South to the surreal political festival.

“This is history happening right before our eyes,” said Laura Teague of Mobile, one of the few black attendees at the rally. “I’m going to help Trump make history.”

This, with some changes of details, is like the beginning of Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl. The god descends from the air over the crowd of adoring worshippers. Pure reenactment of mythology. Zeus in the sky on a chariot of fire. Behold, the Avenging Angel comes from the clouds.

Obviously, I don't compare Trump to Hitler (I bet some people would ), but the subconscious ripples of this image is powerful no matter who uses it. For the record, rock stars like Mick Jagger and many celebrities and event promoters study and emulate Triumph of the Will. There is so much in it that works that they hold their nose about Hitler and learn from the techniques Riefenstahl used.

It is inconceivable to me that Trump is unaware of the principles and implications behind all the marketing stuff he uses, especially as he gets one thing right after another. He has a growing supporter base to prove it. This is not by accident, although if you listen to the morons, they will tell you it is. They will say Trump "struck a nerve" or something like that, as if this were a lucky find.

And they go back to characterizing Trump supporters as "low information" voters who are easily manipulated by superficial appeals and characterizing Trump as one lucky bastard, or an evil businessman, or a reality show host.

Like I said, they don't get it.

Morons.

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote: And they go back to characterizing Trump supporters as "low information" voters who are easily manipulated by superficial appeals and characterizing Trump as one lucky bastard, or an evil businessman, or a reality show host. Like I said, they don't get it. Morons.
end quote

If only half of the stadiums seats were filled but 15 thou more were supposed to be coming it was probably because of the lack of traffic control. The travelers couldn’t get close to parking. Trump plans on *being there* but he does not plan on controlling the traffic or providing a good sound system for the reporter’s questions.

I just watched Ted Cruz (Yeah! Cruz for Prez) at The Fair eating a chicken sandwich and helping with the broiling, as he fielded questions from a CBS, B level talking head. Even with their boom microphone the sound was terrible but then it suddenly got better. That is the kind of detail Trump, with his *get it done* attitude and money should remedy. Cruz was for freedom in the case of a florist refusing to send flowers to a gay wedding or gays refusing to frequent that florist. Laws restricting freedom even if the people are bigoted is essential for our Constitutional way of life.

This is a somewhat personal question for Trump supporters. Are you voters who are easily manipulated by superficial appeals? Are you POSITIVELY overreacting to Trump because you want change no matter what? Are you euphoric about a candidate before you know his stand on limited government? I ask because I think a true litmus test will be coming about

Trump, and I just don’t know about him. Would Trump support the following?

George H. Smith wrote: John Locke (like Ayn Rand) believed that all rights belong to individuals. There are no special "group rights" that exist in addition to individual rights. The rights of all groups (including the group that calls itself a "government") must be based on, and in some way derived from, the rights of individuals. I call this approach political reductionism, because it maintains that the sovereign rights of a (legitimate) government are reducible to the rights of individuals. Political reductionism stands in opposition to political emergence theory, which argues that at least one right (usually the right to enforce the precepts of justice) does not originally belong to individuals, but emerges only in civil societies under government.
end quote

Is it too soon to support Trump?

Michael wrote on this thread on July 5th: I want to leave a comment on record, too. I would not want to be one of the businesses who cancelled contracts with Trump over PC bullshit should he become president. I wonder how many government contracts would fly out the window...
end quote

Michael? Is that your gut feeling about Trump? It is mine. Isn’t that crony capitalism or fascism both of us are wondering about when it comes to Trump?
Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm thinking, too, that comparisons to Rand characters might actually turn out to be a "feature," not a "bug."

Has Trump himself commented on such comparisons, does anyone know?

Ellen,

I don't know if Trump has ever addressed this. I admit, I have only looked superficially.

The image has been in the back of some people's minds, though. Here are a couple of posts from the beginning of this very thread.

I'm glad RR opened this thread.

I had considered opening one on Trump and calling it "Hank Rearden for President."

People are currently reacting to Trump in the same manner they did Rearden in Atlas Shrugged. Here's a passage that captures some of it. Passengers are on a train.

An office building appeared, close to the tracks. The big neon sign on its roof lighted the interiors of the coaches as they went by. It said: REARDEN STEEL.

A passenger, who was a professor of economics, remarked to his companion, "Of what importance is an individual in the titanic collective achievements of our industrial age?" Another, who was a journalist, made a note for future use in his column: "Hank Rearden is the kind of man who sticks his name on everything he touches. You may, from this, form your own opinion about the character of Hank Rearden."

It is scary that I was contemplating starting a Trump thread also and making that link to Rearden.

Here is an interesting "fact" that has been referred to by a number of media folks:

It seems that Trumps employees never leave and their loyalty to him is unquestioned.

I have been reading The Art of the Deal by Trump and Tony Schwartz (published in 2004). I'm only halfway through and it's impressive how many parallels there are between Rand's fiction and Trump's deal-making.

Granted, Trump is a real-estate developer, not an architect, but still...

Here is just one. Remember the scene in The Fountainhead where Gail Wynand tried to pull his "one last project only for me" stunt on Howard Roark? And Roark responded by sketching a mediocre house?

Trump used this tactic twice so far (by the middle of the book). Once was when he wanted to get the air rights from the Tiffany flagship store next door to where he wanted to build Trump Tower. He had his artists make a model of his huge flashy skyscraper, and then a model of a really ordinary ugly building he would be forced to build without the air rights. He presented both to Walter Hoving of Tiffany and it was a no-brainer.

The other time was to influence some government committee or other when the press was hot for a solution. I'm listening to the audiobook so I don't remember the names (I have a terrible memory for names) and finding the reference is taking too much time right now. I will try to find it later if a third (or more) time comes up because this merits some attention.

Here is another. Some might find it a stretch, but I don't.

I believe the following characterization of a bureaucrat could have been written by Rand (p. 130). Granted, there would have to be some allowances for a change of wording and style, and maybe a little more contemptuous withering description by Rand, and I see Atlas Shrugged all over this.

On one occasion, we found a bank that seemed ready to say yes. Then, at the last moment, the guy in charge raised some trivial technical issue that just killed the whole deal. This guy was what I call an institutional man, the type who has virtually no emotion. To him it's purely a job, and all he wants to do is go home at five and forget about it. You're better off dealing with a total killer with real passion. When he says no, sometimes you can talk him out of it. You rant and you rave, and he rants and raves back, and you end up making a deal. But when a machine says no, it's very tough. We gave this guy every argument in the world, and after listening, he didn't flinch and he didn't move. He just said very slowly and steadfastly, "The answer is no, Donald. No. No. No."

I didn't think I would enjoy this book as much as I am. I thought it would be a self-help book, but it's a memoir. I can't say it could have been written by a Roark or a Rearden (should they have been real people), but I definitely see a lot of Rand in it. Too much to dismiss as coincidence.

Was Trump influenced by Rand? I can't say for sure, but, to me, it is more than just plausible.

Michael

[Backlighting]

There are things about Trump I like.

His stance on defeating ISIS, repealing Obamacare, strengthening our military & dealing with Mexico, China & Japan come to mind.

Having said that, something he said Friday night in Alabama really sets off an alarm. Referring to businesses that have either moved or are considering moving their manufacturing out of the country, his solution is to threaten them with an additional tariff/ tax. The Punisher.

I would have loved to hear him say the solution would be to create a more robust business environment with less regulation and lower taxation so businesses choose to stay here. No, he goes with the hammer, which leads me to believe he's never digested the works of

Von Mises, Rand, Friedman, et al.

-J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Isn’t that crony capitalism or fascism both of us are wondering about when it comes to Trump?

Peter,

I don't wonder whether Trump is a fascist.

I am certain he is not.

Power corrupts, so he might become that once in office, but that temptation applies to anyone. I don't see where our previous presidents have been moral giants as compared to a Trumpian moral midgetry.

As to playing favorites and denying favors to enemies, my view of crony capitalism goes a bit deeper than that. Besides, where, pray tell, is the saintly politician who does not tilt toward friends and exclude enemies in his/her administration?

Heaven?

Parallel universe?

Because here on earth, I can't find one...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's how "fascist" Trump is:

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Boston incident is terrible. We need energy and passion, but we must treat each other with respect. I would never condone violence.</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="

21, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

Michael

[Peter]

Las Vegas wrote: Referring to businesses that have either moved or are considering moving their manufacturing out of the country, his solution is to threaten them with an additional tariff/ tax. The Punisher. I would have loved to hear him say the solution would be to create a more robust business environment with less regulation and lower taxation so businesses choose to stay here. No, he goes with the hammer, which leads me to believe he's never digested the works of Von Mises, Rand, Friedman, et al.
end quote

That is what I heard. I hope his supporters will re-listen to that speech and remember who and what they were before they fell under the spell of The Trumpster. Objectivists are not idolaters. Is that the word I am looking for?

And Michael responded to me: I don't wonder whether Trump is a fascist. I am certain he is not. Power corrupts, so he might become that once in office, but that temptation applies to anyone. I don't see where our previous presidents have been moral giants as compared to a Trumpian moral midgetry. As to playing favorites and denying favors to enemies, my view of crony capitalism goes a bit deeper than that. Besides, where, pray tell, is the saintly politician who does not tilt toward friends and exclude enemies in his/her administration? Heaven? Parallel universe? Because here on earth, I can't find one...
end quote

I am not here to praise or bury Caesar . . . I mean Trump. Do any of you see any of Trump’s political philosophy in Jefferson or Rand? And Is Trump comparable to Machiavelli? You’ve got to see these criticisms coming. Sorry, for the jumble. I have to work for my supper today. Some quotes to illuminate. Bye.
Peter

George H. Smith wrote: . . . . A *detailed* comparison of Ayn Rand's political theory with that of America's Founding Fathers is long overdue. Perhaps the most interesting difference pertains to the hypothetical "state of nature" (or society without government). Rand adopts a position that is eerily similar to that of Thomas Hobbes, who held that life in a society without government would be "nasty, brutish, and short" -- whereas most (though not all) Founding Fathers agreed with Locke that government is a "convenience" rather than a necessity; and that life in a state of nature, though by no means optimal, could nevertheless attain a fairly high degree of civilization.

The difference between Hobbes and Locke on whether social order is possible without government had far reaching implications (e.g., for the right of revolution), and it was often discussed by Jefferson, Paine, and others. Jefferson, for instance, once divided society in three basic forms. The first is "society without government"; the second is a representative form of government; and the third is "governments of force," a type that includes any government that rules without the consent of the people.

Jefferson regarded the first type -- society "without government" – as morally preferable, while also viewing it as impractical for any society "with any great deal of population." Thus, although anarchism worked for Indian tribes and other small societies, it was inappropriate for a larger society like the United States. (See Jefferson's letter to Madison, Jan. 30, 1787)

On Machiavelli.

George H. Smith quoted A. D. Smith: Machiavelli had a central role in articulating the central ethical teaching of republicanism, which was centered around his conception of "virtu." Machiavelli's definition of "virtue" as selfless service to state (either on the battlefield or in the council room) was shared by later classical republicanism thinkers. This definition of virtue has had a poisonous effect on Western culture--- almost as bad as the Christian definition of virtue."
end quote

Ghs then wrote about Machiavelli:
Like many Renaissance writers, Machiavelli used the term "virtue" loosely, but in general its meaning was distinguished from "fortune." Those things within our control depend on our virtues (powers, abilities, etc.), whereas those that are beyond our control are a matter of fortune, whether good or bad. Where Machiavelli writes "virtu" modern translators will typically use words like "willpower," "efficiency," etc., depending on the context.

Only occasionally does Machiavelli use the term "virtue" in its traditional sense to mean moral goodness. And I am not aware of him ever using it to mean "selfless service to state" (though there may be some instances of this). On the contrary, Machiavelli often speaks of the "virtues" of the Prince, and here -- in radical contrast to the Republican tradition -- he had a purely instrumentalist conception. The virtues of a ruler consist of his willingness and ability to use whatever means -- however murderous or unjust by conventional standards -- that are necessary to achieve and maintain political power. This was about as far from the Republican conception of virtue as it is possible to get.

Pocock's treatment of Machiavelli stresses the element of time, specifically, the tendency of republics to degenerate and become corrupt over time. (This is found in his *Discourses Upon Livy,* not *The Prince,* and it raises the age-old problem of the relationship between these two books.) And although the problem of republican corruption did indeed become a dominant theme in Radical Republican thinking, Pocock over-emphasizes Machiavelli's influence even here, for Aristotle discussed the same problem in his *Politics.* When 18th century Republicans discussed the virtues that are necessary to maintain a republic and save it from corruption, they relied far more on Montesquieu (*Spirit of the Laws*) than they did on Machiavelli.

. . . . This account of self-interest is very misleading. Radical Republicans generally defined a "tyrant" or "despot" as ruler who betrays his public trust and uses his immense power for personal gain rather than for the common good (i.e., protecting individual rights and liberty). And the Radical Republican critics attacked the corruption" of the Walpole administration for precisely this reason. Walpole was notorious for appointing friends and relatives to lucrative political offices, thereby stealing (via taxes) from the many in order to benefit these privileged few. Is the official who grows rich from money coercively expropriated from others to be praised, because he is motivated by self-interest? Is Bill Clinton admirable because he used his high office to further his own financial fortune?

Radical Republicans did not condemn self-interest; they simply believed that self-interest should be pursued within the parameters of justice.
end quotes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Do any of you see any of Trump’s political philosophy in Jefferson or Rand?

Peter,

Sure. I've said several things several times, but you never comment on them.

Here's a simple one: Nat Taggart.

This is a guy who bribed politicians, killed, bullied, and did all kinds of bad things to others to build his railroad. Rand could have had Dagny repudiate him as a scoundrel, swindler, evader, intrincisist, fascist, crony capitalist, and so on.

But, instead, she had Dagny periodically stop at the statue of Nat Taggart and feel one of the closest feelings she came to religious worship.

So there it is.

Nat Taggart. A guy who played the system a lot worse than Trump ever did to build a larger-than-life project.

A Randian hero.

Worshipped by a Randian heroine.

Will you deal with it this time or ignore it again with anti-Trump blinders?

Don't forget, some libertarian or other said Trump was a fascist. He even wrote an essay on it. Must be true if someone in our neck of the woods said it, huh?

btw - I don't mind what you say about Nat Taggart. Agree or disagree. But saying something would be nice if you want to complain that I never bring this stuff up--seeing that, if I understand you correctly, I am now different than the apparently wise non-idolater person I used to be before falling under the spell of Trump, so much so I need to re-listen to Trump's words to correctly understand them.

However...

(drum roll..)

Just a word or two about my Nat Taggart comparison would be nice...

Even a half a word...

Michael

[Peter]

I tried the link but it only got to the part about Trump being a jingoist before it said I had to subscribe. I have heard Trump supporters COMPARE him to different people but I don't take that as proof, nor do I expect him to pontificate like a scholar or a philosopher. What I do expect of a candidate I will vote for is a respect for the Constitution, no crony Capitalism, and no destructive jingoism (though Rand was great for that but she was not running for President, though it sounded at times she would not mind sleeping with a President, when she was younger of course . . . .)

I will keep my eyes open for what Trump says. Unfortunately, like Las Vegas, I think Trump could be another Teddy Roosevelt, and not a Ronald Reagan. Time will tell. I won't give you any advice about being a moderator and carrying a big stick.

Peter