Pamela Geller on Book TV

[Dennis Hardin]

This past week-end, C-SPAN 2/Book TV featured a program with Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer discussing their new book on Obama, The Post-American Presidency. Geller has a website called AtlasShrugs.com, and has obviously been strongly influenced by Objectivism and Ayn Rand.

For the most part, Geller was quite impressive, and I am eager to read her book. She began by underscoring the fact that America was founded on the principle of individual rights, then proceeded to demonstrate how Obama is systematically destroying that foundation. She and Spencer clearly did a lot of sound research, and her presentation was very convincing. The Q & A was also fascinating. The first questioner wanted to characterize the left’s evil in terms of godlessness, but Geller deflected that—“Can we leave God out of it for a second?”--steering the focus back to the topic of individualism vs collectivism.

I almost didn’t believe my ears when she quoted John Galt in defense of capitalism: “I will not live my life for the sake of another man, and I will not let another man live for the sake of me.” Unfortunately, she didn’t mention Atlas Shrugged or Ayn Rand as her source for those words.

Her presentation was far from flawless. She was much too admiring of Sarah Palin and George Bush, totally glossing over their respective failings as Governor and President. And then she quoted Plato, of all people: “The world is chaotic, and peace is a parentheses.” (Huh?) She then called Obama “anti-Platonic” because he does not understand America’s role in keeping “the forces of evil” in check. Something tells me she does not have a very good grasp of America’s philosophical roots.

Despite those drawbacks, she came across to me as a very strong and eloquent defender of capitalism and American exceptionalism.

The show should soon be available for online viewing at the Book TV website.

[Robert Campbell]

Dennis,

The book may be interesting.

From what I've seen of Pamela Geller's website, she's a bit of a wowser.

For instance, she takes the same line about Cordoba House as Leonard and Amy Peikoff.

Robert Campbell

[PDS]

Ms. Geller's heart might be in the right place, but, having watched her efforts for the past few years, I am afraid she is more Clown than not.

She is actually a good example of why Orthodox Objectivists take such a dim view of those who won't take the full plunge with them: i.e., Geller, by saying a little about Objectivism that misses the mark (even if only by implication), and by saying alot about other things that is otherwise foolish, smears the total of Objectivism. Objectivism, in this world view, is too delicate to withstand such a taint.

Orthodox Objectivists assume that if you are not one of them, you are, effectively, a Pam Geller. No middle ground and nothing in between. David Kelley is Pam Geller. Q.E.D. Unfortunately, Geller some times makes more sense than Piekoff, and thus Piekoff has the same (unintended)effect on Objectivism as Geller, but nobody seems willing to tell him. Irony, thy name is Leonard.

This, in a nutshell, is how one manages to squander the greatest intellectual achievement of the 20th Century, and without much effort at that.

But I hear has drives a cool car, so I guess he has that going for him.

[merjet]

The show is available for online viewing here.

[kiaer.ts]

Robert, can you define "wowser"?

Merlin, thanks for the link.

[Robert Campbell]

Ted,

"Wowser" comes from H. L. Mencken, who called Anthony Comstock the "Emperor of wowsers."

I would define a wowser as a person who orates flamboyantly for illiberal causes. Part mountebank, part demagogue.

Robert

[Dennis Hardin]

Dennis,

The book may be interesting.

From what I've seen of Pamela Geller's website, she's a bit of a wowser.

For instance, she takes the same line about Cordoba House as Leonard and Amy Peikoff.

Robert Campbell

Robert,

As I said above, I definitely have my reservations about her. Watching her defend Sarah Palin and George Bush (not to mention Plato) is a bit embarassing. On the other hand, she does seem to be saying a number of things that need saying, and doing it without the conservative baggage of religion and altruism. Since I have never heard of her, I thought other Objectivists and/or OL members would be as curious as I am.

As far as I know, she is leading a movement to stop the building of the Ground Zero mosque, not advocating bombing it. That puts her in a very different category from the Peikoffs. I count myself among those who believe that building it is a moral atrocity. I'm just not sure what legal/political basis there is for stopping it.

I haven't had much time to look at her website. If others discover material there that's contradictory to Objectivism, I would appreciate hearing about it.

[kiaer.ts]

I have been aware of her for years. You can usually read what isn't being said elsewhere on her website. She comes across as religious (Jewish) but doesn't justify her arguments based on faith. She will typically link to matters about, say, "honor killimgs" or attacks on Israel and so forth that the mainstream media wouldn't touch, since criticizing jihadists is obviously a "racist" thing to do. She linked to various people who claim that the Obama birth certificate provided to the media was a fake. I happen to think she has been vindicated on that, since Hawaii will not allow access to the original document. (My personal theory is that Obama Sr. is not listed as the father.) In any case, the burden is on Obama to prove his citizenship, just as the Democrats challenged McCain to prove his. Drudge and Breitbart link to her all the time, and I believe RCP has linked to her as well. She has never once said anything that males me cringe, although she is certainly no Objectivist.

[kiaer.ts]

Ted,

"Wowser" comes from H. L. Mencken, who called Anthony Comstock the "Emperor of wowsers."

I would define a wowser as a person who orates flamboyantly for illiberal causes. Part mountebank, part demagogue.

Robert

Kind of a weird thing to call Geller if you take Comstock as the exemplar. She's no prude or prohibitionist. She's a gadfly and a hawk and an opponent of political correctness. You might call her a Jewish blogger version of Ann Coulter. I find most of what she says spot on, and would love to have her as my congresswoman rather than Charlie Rangel.

[Jerry Biggers]

I've sort of had the feeling, after viewing Geller, that her enthusiasm exceeds her intellectual grasp (at least, of Objectivism). A "Jewish conservative version of Ann Coulter" may be the most accurate. Her views seem closer to conservatism and I wonder if she is just exploiting Atlas Shrugged for her website. These are my initial impressions. Maybe I have under-estimated her.

[kiaer.ts]

I don't read Geller to read Geller, the way I would read Hitchens or Paglia just to enjoy reading Hitchens or Paglia. When I read her it's for the facts and the links she posts, not the analysis. She is more to be enjoyed for the passion and the saying what others don't dare to say than the deep philosophizing. I only get the impression she thinks Rand's a cool Jewish chick. I never got the impression Geller was an Objectivist, just a Rand fan.