Sign in to follow this  
jts

ARI vs USA election 2016

Recommended Posts

Question:  What did the ARI (Ayn Rand Institute) accomplish?

What prompts the question is the options in the USA election in 2016. Hillary is a socialist. Trump is a pragmatist (perhaps worse than a socialist according to leading Objectivists). Is this the best that the USA can do as a result of ARI's efforts to educate the world about Objectivism from 1985 to 2016?

I would expect some progress. But the USA is going the other way.

-----------------------------------------

Maybe it's a matter of strategy. Or maybe not. The ARI way is purity. If you don't agree with Leonard Peikoff in a small detail you get disfellowshipped (as in cults). On the other hand, Kasparov put together an organization consisting of groups with strong disagreements among them but united by a common goal. Kasparov worked hard to get Yeltsin elected. Then after Yeltsin got elected, Kasparov immediately opposed him and Kasparov's supporters were puzzled. Kasparov explained that in chess after you improve your position you try to improve your position again. The ARI way and the Ayn Rand way is perfection from the git go.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Jerry,

Members of the socialist faction (left socialism) in the US a century ago would find what today in America is the status quo delightfully socialistic. Clintrump is well homogenized in both socialism and pragmatism.

There have apparently been a couple of impacts of ARI the last three decades on American individual lives and on American politics. In the last decade especially, ARI has facilitated some Objectivist scholarship in the academy and in academic publications. That impact may also reach to the general educated public. Be that as it may, the other impact of ARI has been the level of sales of Ayn Rand's novels they have boosted through their high school essay competitions which they have sponsored across these decades. I'm unsure whether the boost their project has given those sales is as large as they think. But the sales have been good, and I think that is a major reason there are so many voters today (running around 10% lately) who prefer the Libertarian ticket to Clintrump.

Bye the way, the impact of Objectivism on individual lives and on people's political ideals has been mainly, overwhelmingly, through books. That's what done it, and that impact may endure a while. Individuals amenable to philosophy, such as Objectivism, make their own judgments on political election choices. The philosophy they have taken for their own does not determine one same choice by all those individual minds. I'm pretty sure that Rand's philosophy has influenced her followers in their voting decisions, but that her say-so, or Leonard's, or Harry's, . . . on whom to vote for has not mattered a whit. 

I believe it was a recent PEW survey that reported that among millennials Johnson is tied with Trump. However, their support for Clinton equals Johnson and Trump combined. There is a 400-pound gorilla in the room, I would suggest, and his name is altruism. Discussing and debating only political issues is not going to move him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From ARI's page:

Quote

The Ayn Rand Institute

ARI fosters a growing awareness, understanding and acceptance of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, in order to create a culture whose guiding principles are reason, rational self-interest, individualism and laissez-faire capitalism­­ — a culture in which individuals are free to pursue their own happiness.

How? Our strategy, priorities and programs are informed by Rand’s distinctive view of what sets the direction of a society. It is not the latest election results or media celebrities but the philosophic ideas that shape men’s choices and actions.

 

12 hours ago, jts said:

The ARI way is purity.  If you don't agree with Leonard Peikoff in a small detail you get disfellowshipped (as in cults).

Is that conditional real?  I like the educational aspect of what ARI produces--does that typecast me into something?  I like the educational aspect of what the Brandens' produced--does that typecast me into something?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the mission of the Ayn Rand Institute? Is it to promote Objectivism?

I don't see that they are doing a very good job. I see the world going in the opposite direction.

Whatever you are trying to accomplish, having a metric helps. If you are trying to lose lard, having a scale to weigh yourself might help. Etc.

By what metric or metrics can you measure how well Objectivism is being promoted?

How much they are getting in donations? Nope.

How many essays in schools? Maybe. But I doubt that is a very good metric.

What metrics can you suggest to measure progress in promoting Objectivism?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ayn Rand Institute promotes 1. U.S. invasions of the Middle East, and 2. Third World immigration – invade the word, invite the world, a pithy phrase due to a Vdare.com writer.

A raft of other Jewish organizations advocate (for, if you want for) the same thing.  Altogether they have been extraordinarily successful but it is impossible to distinguish and measure the Ayn Rand Institute’s particular contribution.

ARI Watch shows that the Ayn Rand Institute hasn’t much to do with its namesake.  When ARI does promote something of Rand’s it is usually one of her mistakes or confusions which they magnify beyond recognition.
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jts said:

By what metric or metrics can you measure how well Objectivism is being promoted?

Uh, lemme think... Yaron Brook pockets $500,000 a year plus expenses.

Paul Ryan disavowed Rand when he became Speaker of the House, a measly $223K salary, but he has $6 million budget for staff, lifetime pension, free Cadillac health care, $10 million slush fund of campaign cash, and a $1.2 million Leadership PAC.

It pays better to forget about Objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Uh, lemme think... Yaron Brook pockets $500,000 a year plus expenses.

Paul Ryan disavowed Rand when he became Speaker of the House, a measly $223K salary, but he has $6 million budget for staff, lifetime pension, free Cadillac health care, $10 million slush fund of campaign cash, and a $1.2 million Leadership PAC.

It pays better to forget about Objectivism.

The more money they pay Yaron the less left over to spend on other things.

I say, pay him more.

--Brant

to understand Rand take out Objectivism

to understand ARI take out Rand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2016 at 11:57 AM, Guyau said:

.There is a 400-pound gorilla in the room, I would suggest, and his name is altruism.

I disbelieve this. People vote their interest, with ballots, donations, investments of time and money, retail purchases, love affairs. How rational depends on how they are situated or endowed. The Bell Curve is inescapable. At the moment there's a relatively new problem consisting of bluff. Call it tail wagging the dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wolf wrote: The Bell Curve is inescapable. At the moment there's a relatively new problem consisting of bluff. Call it tail wagging the dog. end quote

I am baffled myself about a lot of inexplicable thinking. Robert Tracinski is no longer associated with ARI, and I still support him and enjoy his essays, but he just wrote something about how he is now anti, anti, anti-Trump. That makes no sense to me. Trump is doing the right thing, finding free market solutions, and refusing to foot the bill for the world, and the markets are booming. Yet Robert cannot find even “cave man level” evidence that “Trump good, Trog!”

Peter      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Tracinski was at ARI he supported Bush Jr with the slogan, paraphrasing something Rand once wrote about Nixon:  “Anti-Bushites for Bush.”  Today with Trump, Tracinski’s three anti’s make an anti and there is no “for Trump” tagged on.

Now that Trump is President we should criticize him for breaking his campaign promises about immigration (for examples:  he didn’t stop DACA he extended it, he’s done nothing to end birthright citizenship, he appointed a past immigration cuck to the Supreme Court) – criticized not to take him down but to make him do what he promised.  (Despite the broken promises he’s a much better president that Hillary would have been.  Can you imagine?)  Anti-Trumpers for Trump.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Cuckservative", often shortened to cuck, is a neologistic term of abuse formed as a portmanteau of the word cuckold and the political designation conservative. Wikipedia

I did not know that word existed. Two photos show Huckabee and Karl Rove as examples.

My opinion of Donald is better than yours. I would like to see an objectivist essay that actually is objective and goes through his decisions point by point. Where would you folks reading this letter place Trump on a sliding scale of political value?

I think he is more “objectivist worthy” than the Bush’s, Ronald Reagan, DDE, Nixon, and maybe even candidate Barry Goldwater. And thank goodness he is not learning how to be a mealy mouthed politician. Would Ted Cruz be more successful as Prez and more in line with objectivist values?  

Peter  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wolf,

The phrase “pathological altruism” – “in which inclinations to benevolence and empathy turn self-destructive” (quoting Vdare.com) – has become mainstream with the publication of a book of that title.  Rand would call it simply “altruism.”  You’ve seen pictures of white German girls holding up signs that read “Refugees Welcome.”  I suppose on some level this makes their day but they’re making a bad day for themselves tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Uh, lemme think... Yaron Brook pockets $500,000 a year plus expenses.

How did you get that information?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Wolf exaggerated Brook’s current salary it was only slightly.  According to ARI’s Form 990 for FYE September 30, 2015, the latest publicly available, Brook’s salary was $415,018 and his benefits $26,700 for a total compensation of $441,718.  On top of that, when he travels to Europe, South America, Asia, etc. ARI pays his expenses.

As described in The Objectivist Gravy Train, Brook’s accumulated compensation since starting in 2000 comes to, in today’s dollars, $6 million.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mark said:

If Wolf exaggerated Brook’s current salary it was only slightly.  According to ARI’s Form 990 for FYE September 30, 2015, the latest publicly available, Brook’s salary was $415,018 and his benefits $26,700 for a total of $441,718.  On top of that, when he travels to Europe, South America, Asia, etc. ARI pays his expenses.

As described in The Objectivist Gravy Train, Brook’s accumulated compensation since starting in 2000 comes to, in today’s dollars, $6 million.

Not much money for the work he didn't do.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this