Donald Trump

[Robert Campbell]

On April 15, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Selina Scott does a hit piece on Trump, he doesn't like it and they get into a long feud in public, both calling each other sleazy.

Michael,

From your point of view, can an article or program that is critical of Donald Trump in any way ever not be a hit piece?

Can article or a program that is critical in any way of one of Donald Trump's opponents (say, Ted Cruz) ever be a hit piece?

Robert

Edited April 17, 2016 by Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

24 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

From your point of view, can an article or program that is critical of Donald Trump in any way ever not be a hit piece?

Can article or a program that is critical in any way of one of Donald Trump's opponents (say, Ted Cruz) ever be a hit piece?

Robert,

Sure.

But a hit piece is a hit piece when it's a hit piece. Like the National Enquirer with Ted Cruz. That's a hit piece.

The lady did a hit piece on Trump, but over time, that transformed in her brain to Trump was hitting on her. I think she got confused by the word "hit."

 

Let me ask you, is any article critical of Trump ever a hit piece for you? Or article critical of Cruz ever NOT a hit piece?

  

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Schwartz claims Trump lacks self-esteem.

Michael,

Peter Schwartz is a hack and a sleazeball.

His hackery and sleazeballishness rely heavily on borrowed ideas.

One of his borrowed ideas, in the Puffington piece just linked, is the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion, courtesy of Leonard Peikoff.  Of course, this borrowing is approved, even mandated, where Schwartz operates.  (The date on Schwartz's piece also tells us how Greg Salmieri may have gotten his inspiration for claiming that Trump constantly indulges in arbitrary trains of non-thought.)

But the bigger idea he borrowed (without attribution, which is also approved, if not also mandatory where Schwartz operates) is Nathaniel Branden's notion of pseudo-self-esteem.

Schwartz isn't a psychologist, and his persistent practice of noncitation is intellectually dishonest.

However, actual psychologists have been known to consider Donald Trump a poster boy for narcissism.  Further, some actual psychologists take a narcissistic personality, like Trump's, as a manifestation of pseudo-self-esteem.

Do you really think that Nathaniel Branden, were he still with us today, wouldn't have viewed Trump in pretty much the same fashion?

Or would he have appreciated Trump as truly magnificent, and unfairly maligned?

Robert

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Do you really think that Nathaniel Branden, were he still with us today, wouldn't have viewed Trump in pretty much the same fashion?

Or would he have appreciated Trump as truly magnificent, and unfairly maligned?

Robert,

I can't speak for Nathaniel Branden, but I seriously doubt he would blank out Trump's massive productive achievements and loving beautiful family in his evaluation, neither of which are characteristic of hardcore narcissists.

Nathaniel spent his life counseling oodles of winners and losers, achievers and underachievers, alike. So I feel confident if he were alive, he would try to render a rational evaluation to the best of his knowledge and ability and not rely solely on mainstream press storylines or political biases.

Michael

[Peter]

I don't know if any of my quotes are helpful but they are interesting.

Peter

Robert wrote: However, actual psychologists have been known to consider Donald Trump a poster boy for narcissism.  Further, some actual psychologists take a narcissistic personality, like Trump's, as a manifestation of pseudo-self-esteem. end quote

Michael responded: I can't speak for Nathaniel Branden, but I seriously doubt he would blank out Trump's massive productive achievements and loving beautiful family in his evaluation, neither of which are characteristic of hardcore narcissists.  Nathaniel spent his life counseling oodles of winners and losers, achievers and underachievers, alike. So I feel confident if he were alive, he would try to render a rational evaluation to the best of his knowledge and ability and not rely solely on mainstream press storylines or political biases. end quote

From: LilahKerrug@cs.com. To: atlantis@wetheliving.com Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Barbara's "Humanoids"Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 21:32:40 EDT

 EllenMoore wrote: >...maturity is the exercise of reason in making objective judgments. That's the key to knowledge and a happy life -- and it applies at any individual's age.

Literally speaking, that cannot be true. Newborn babies are individuals, and they do not engage in reason nor form objective judgments. Not any of the babies ~I~ have known or heard about, anyway!  :-)

Also, I think maturity is much more than Ellen has described in her brief comments quoted above. In his 1969 classic work on self-esteem (which reiterated points he made in earlier articles in The Objectivist and The Objectivist Newsletter), Nathaniel Branden said that a human being is mature (i.e., fully grown or developed) when he or she is functioning on the "adult" level appropriate to that of a rational being.

Consequently, Dr. Branden talks more specifically about the concept of ~psychological~ maturity, which he says pertains "to the successful development of man's consciousness, to the attainment of a level of functioning appropriate to man ~qua~ man. In particular, there are a number of indicators of one's having reached psychological maturity, among which Dr. Branden includes:

1. (the most basic one) the ability to think in principles, especially about oneself.

2. the acceptance of responsibility for one's own life and actions, as evidenced among other things by one's having a policy of planning and acting long-range.

3. the willingness to defer immediate pleasure or rewards, when and if necessary, and to tolerate unavoidable frustration.

4. emotional stability, the ability under the pressure of stressful emotions of preserving one's ability to think.

5. a refusal to resign oneself to the permanently unknown, when and if the knowledge is available and is relevant to one's activities.

(The preceding material was paraphrased and digested from the section of ~The Psychology of Self-Esteem~ entitled "Psychological Maturity," which is found on pp. 98-101 of the anthology version of Dr. Branden's first three books.)

Best regards and heartiest cheers!

Roger Bissell

From: Walter Foddis <wffoddis@uwaterloo.ca> To: objectivism <objectivism@wetheliving.com>,   PSY <psychology@wetheliving.com>

Subject: OWL: Self-Esteem and its Measurement Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:20:59 -0400

On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, on objectivism@wetheliving.com, Timothy Shell wrote:

>Has anyone seen the Bushman/Baumeister test?  It would be interesting to see what exactly they are measuring and calling self-esteem.

Before answering Tim's question, I would like to give a little background on what I consider to be a major problem with the history of self-esteem research. Traditionally, self-esteem has been measured using a self-report questionnaire. You are given a set of statements that ask you how you feel about your sense of worthiness. In addition, depending on the self-esteem instrument, you may be asked about self-evaluations in other domains such as your competence, moral self-worth, and interpersonal competence. For example, an instrument may give you a statement like, "I believe I am a person of worth." Then on a scale of 1-to-5, you are asked how much you disagree or disagree with the statement. A big problem with self-report is that people, for various reasons (e.g., not wanting to leave a bad impression and self-deception) tend to bias their self-reported self-esteem in a positive direction. Thus, we have most people reporting on the "high" end of self-esteem. On the face of it, I don't buy it. Everyday experience tells me otherwise. Do most people have high self-esteem, or do most people ~report~ they have high self-esteem?

Herein lies the problem: Self-report cannot tease apart people with genuinely high self-esteem from those with pseudo self-esteem (Branden's term) or defensive self-esteem, which is the term used in the empirical literature. Defensive self-esteem can be defined as a person who presents as high self-esteem, yet underneath the presentation the person feelings insecure or inadequate. Arguably, narcissists (and psychopaths, to the extent they are also narcissistic) are prototypical examples of defensive self-esteem. Narcissists are primarily characterized by a grandiose sense of self-importance. The theory is that they present themselves as having high self-esteem (scoring high on a self-esteem self-report), but underneath this mask their self-esteem is fragile.

Any challenges, such as a criticism to their feelings of competence, are more readily perceived as self-esteem threats. In response to the threat, the person feels the need to defend him/herself. These self-esteem defenses, especially for narcissists, can take the form of hostile reactions. (An excellent paper by Morf & Rhodewalt[4} summarizes the empirical findings on narcissism, as well as offering a coherent theory to explain these findings. I highly recommend it to anyone who might be interested.)

Unfortunately, Sullivan[5] doesn't indicate which Bushman and Baumeister study he is referring to, but I suspect it's their 1998 study[1]. In it they found that narcissism, not self-reported self-esteem (as measured by the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; to answer Tim's question :-), predicted a person's hostility toward an evaluator who gave them negative feedback. Basically, participants were told in harsh terms that they wrote a poor essay. Participants were then given the opportunity to "blast" the evaluator using a fake high-intensity sound device. It was the narcissists (people scoring high on BOTH self-reported self-esteem and a narcissism scale) who used the highest settings on the mock device. It's important to note that not all people who scored high on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale scored high on the narcissism scale. As well, low self-esteem scores did not predict hostility. So if the authors' equated narcissism with "high" self-esteem, then I can see how they would make statements that bullies and street thugs have "high" self-esteem.

Due to this problem of positive bias in self-reported self-esteem, researchers have developed other ways of measuring self-esteem. One of the more interesting ways is a measure of "implicit" self-esteem. There are various measures of implicit self-esteem, but the most fruitful so far has been the Implicit Association Test (IAT). The IAT is a computer-based stimulus association task. For the self-esteem IAT, you are presented a pair of words and then depending on the word-pair, asked to respond with a certain key depending on which word-pair you are shown. Your reaction times are recorded. The IAT also uses other stimuli, including pictures.

If you would like to get a feel for an IAT, and see whether you have any implicit biases, go to:

http://www.tolerance.org/hidden_bias/

[There's a link toward the bottom of the page that says, "Select a test."]

Apparently, I have a very strong implicit preference for white faces over black faces, which means I make subconscious positive associations with pictures of white people more quickly than with faces of black people. I found this to be rather interesting because I grew up in a isolated town without black people. I would never have imagined that I would have had this bias. Anyway, try not to read too much into your results. At the very least, you'll see the latest measurement technology for assessing attitudes. It is believed these tests are tapping into non-conscious processes. I would argue for subconscious processes. In any case, implicit association tests have shown some interesting results, especially in the stereotype research. It has also proven useful in teasing apart secure from defensive self-esteem[3].

Some unpublished research[2] I've been involved in seems to support this notion of defensive self-esteem as well, except our focus has been on measuring sources of self-esteem. We found that people who endorse internal sources of self-esteem, such as those proposed by Branden, and score high on a self-report, have a more secure, non-defensive self-esteem than those who endorse external sources of self-esteem (e.g., approval from others). People who score high on a self-report measure, but endorsed external sources of self-esteem, were labeled as "defensive" self-esteem. Secure self-esteem participants (scoring high on the self-report and endorsing internal sources of self-esteem) produced more adaptive and fewer maladaptive responses to criticism. When we examined the more extreme groups of defensive self-esteem (i.e., people who scored extremely high on self-reported self-esteem and more external sources of self-esteem), this group generated more defensive-hostile responses. As well, secure self-esteem participants produced more accepting responses to words of love than those with defensive self-esteem. I have a brief paper that explains the study in more detail, if you're interested.

Based on my experience, for those who wish to counter claims by people like Baumeister, if you attempt to argue theoretically, you will not "win." They have research to support their conclusions (albeit self-report measures), but nonetheless, it is evidence. This battle needs to be fought empirically. Once more studies come out that clearly differentiate defensive self-esteem from genuine self-esteem, the nay-sayers will have to yield. Some research does exist, but more needs to be accumulated in order to turn the tide.

Walter

References

[1] Bushman, B.J. & Baumeister, R.F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219-229.

[2] Foddis, W.F., Vander Veen, S., Silverthorn, N., & Reddon, J.R. (2002, June).

Defensive self-esteem: A form of low self-esteem? Poster presentation at the

American Psychological Society Annual Convention, New Orleans, LA.

[3] Jordan, C., Spencer, S., & Zanna, M. (2002). "I love me...I love me not":

Implicit self-esteem, explicit self-esteem, and defensiveness. Chapter article.

(Please ask me for the full citation. I don't have it at this time. -Walter)

[4] Morf, C.C. & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism:

A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, pp.177-

196.

[5] Sullivan, A. (2002). Self-esteem: Why we need less of it. TIME Magazine

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20021007

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is the work of a so-called narcissist.

If that's what narcissists do, we need more narcissists in America. (Of course, that's not what narcissists do.)

#MakeAmericaGreatAgain #NYPrimary https://t.co/x0smlMCWau

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 17, 2016

Flamboyant is not a synonym for narcissism.

It's a lifestyle, not a psychological pathology.

 

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Nathaniel Branden on psychological diagnosis: pre 1968, a fair amount. Post 1968, little. That's working with people. He thus tended not to offer up such on public figures too. He did, I think reluctantly, describe Greenspan as a Keynesian. Nothing psychological about that. I think he would be much more interested in people's reactions to Trump and why.

In his therapy the client told Nathaniel, not vice versa. Rarely he might if asked if he thought it might help or as a courtesy. (I can't comment about the kind of work he did at the end of his professional life.) In his individual therapy in a group context, after someone worked he might give a short apropos talk that could be generally valuable to the group--up to who would/could make use of it. The "Intensives" he gave starting in 1977 around the country were the closest he came to actual group therapy. They were in great and positive contradistinction to what I understood was the crap (my word--I have no recollection of Nathaniel actually dumping on Erhard's approach or even the man himself) being put out then by Werner Erhard with his EST.

If you dislike Trump--I do--it's okay to call him a narcissist. After all, he is likely is one. But both Robert and I are much more into politics than Nathaniel ever was. And this year Robert's a lot deeper than me. What's disjointing here is Michael isn't deep into politics at all. And not is Trump himself or most (I suspect) of his supporters except disliking what the politicians have done.

Trump will not be nominated. The convention could be very damaging to the fall campaign.

--Brant

[Roger Bissell]

It doesn't matter whom the Republicans nominate this year. There's no one who can or will stand up to Hillary. Once the candidates get to the fall televised debates, and she unleashes the full force of her horrid, abrasive, righteousness behind the morality of altruism - welfare statism, politically correct statism, etc. - the GOP candidate will fall all over himself to prove that he isn't as cruel and heartless as Evita's smear attacks paint him as being. All of his planned attacks on her character and record will boomerang, as she "proves" how much she wants to do to unite an already great country, and how "greatness" without unity (and loads of redistribution and forced acceptance of the differences of others) can never bring us together or keep us great.

And then, in November, the GOP would-be POTUS will fall into the electoral ditch, dazed and bleeding from a landslide defeat, wondering what happened to his hopes to beat this lying, corrupt, malevolent witch in the race for the White House. And then the rest of us will have to put up with 4-8 years of her. And no, she isn't just a little worse than Bill. She's a lot worse. And she will have a Democratic Congress to work with. And the golden opportunity to nominate 2-3-4 Supreme Court justices, ensuring liberal-leaning decisions for the next generation.

Our only hope, if there is one, is that Trump's bull-in-the-china-shop machinations will have succeeded, one way or another, in destroying the Republican Party, so that a new, better, more individual liberty oriented party can emerge that will push for more economic freedom, civil liberties, and non-interventionistic foreign policy. And no, there is no "transition" candidate who can get us there, only some who might have slowed the progress toward the cliff, while others in unguarded moments give indications that they would be little different from the turkey presently in the White House.

REB

[Roger Bissell]

2 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

Peter Schwartz is a hack and a sleazeball.

His hackery and sleazeballishness rely heavily on borrowed ideas.

 

Just curious - would you also say that Tara Smith is a hack and a sleazeball? In her book on Rand's ethics, she relied heavily on borrowed ideas, including especially self-esteem, which she hilariously attributed to Leonard Peikoff. 

For that matter, what about Leonard Peikoff? 

I'm just trying to clarify whether the uncited borrowing of ideas by ARI writers is the sign specifically of sleazeballishness and hackery, or if there are other syndromes or character flaws that such intellectual stealth point to instead (or as well).

REB

[Brant Gaede]

8 hours ago, Roger Bissell said:

It doesn't matter whom the Republicans nominate this year. There's no one who can or will stand up to Hillary. Once the candidates get to the fall televised debates, and she unleashes the full force of her horrid, abrasive, righteousness behind the morality of altruism - welfare statism, politically correct statism, etc. - the GOP candidate will fall all over himself to prove that he isn't as cruel and heartless as Evita's smear attacks paint him as being. All of his planned attacks on her character and record will boomerang, as she "proves" how much she wants to do to unite an already great country, and how "greatness" without unity (and loads of redistribution and forced acceptance of the differences of others) can never bring us together or keep us great.

And then, in November, the GOP would-be POTUS will fall into the electoral ditch, dazed and bleeding from a landslide defeat, wondering what happened to his hopes to beat this lying, corrupt, malevolent witch in the race for the White House. And then the rest of us will have to put up with 4-8 years of her. And no, she isn't just a little worse than Bill. She's a lot worse. And she will have a Democratic Congress to work with. And the golden opportunity to nominate 2-3-4 Supreme Court justices, ensuring liberal-leaning decisions for the next generation.

Our only hope, if there is one, is that Trump's bull-in-the-china-shop machinations will have succeeded, one way or another, in destroying the Republican Party, so that a new, better, more individual liberty oriented party can emerge that will push for more economic freedom, civil liberties, and non-interventionistic foreign policy. And no, there is no "transition" candidate who can get us there, only some who might have slowed the progress toward the cliff, while others in unguarded moments give indications that they would be little different from the turkey presently in the White House.

REB

Oh, Cruz can. The problem is I don't think enough voters want that much of a conservative as POTUS. I think the popular vote will be 52/48 against him and the electoral worse. Another problem--like I said before--is his face can't keep up with his brain so he tends to keep it too much in neutral. Not good for a politician.

--Brant

[merjet]

What justifies Peter Schwartz writing for the leftist rag The Huffington Post? He was a central figure in booting David Kelley from the Objectivist elite in the 1980's for giving a speech to the wrong kind of audience. Is it simply that The Huff Post pays Schwartz?  

By the way, it seems more than one Peter Schwartz writes for The Huff Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peterschwartz/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-schwartz/

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Man, such pessimism.

It sounds like you guys been down on humanity for so long, when you look up, it still looks like down.

So you think Hillary Clinton's preaching of altruism will be the puppet-master pulling the covert strings of the American people?

Really?

Heh.

I have a lot more "cup half full" perspective of Americans. And so does Trump.

Rand called it the "American sense of life."

The hidden resonance you seem to be unable to grok with Trump and his supporters is what Barbara used to say about Ayn, a "command to rise." Trump supporters hear Trump issue a command toward excellence in all they can be in life. As individuals. And they love it. They are inspired by it. They believe this is what life is about. Also, Trump leads that message by example and no anti-Trump person pointing to his shortcomings can even get heard, much less drown that message out in their minds.

When pushed to the wall, this "command to rise" message has beat altruism every time in America. That was Reagan's real appeal, not conservatism per se. That's why he was called "the great communicator."

In fact, I claim the only way altruism has made major gains in the government is when it has been couched in "command to rise" terms and seasoned with a liberal dose of shaming. And if there is ever the wrong messenger for that this time around, it is Hillary Clinton. Obama was a great "rags to riches" messenger for it, although his "rags" were cultural and racial, not monetary, but Hillary has a "hags to bitches" image.  The message that the world is made better when the other is more important than oneself doesn't live in the Clinton shell very well. Not anymore.

(btw - It's interesting that Trump, a billionaire, wears this "rags to riches" story well. Which goes to show you, the core of this message is not monetary. It's spiritual.)

Despite all the hidden garbage Trump is going to unveil about Clinton and dump on her during the campaign, he has an undeniable advantage over her with the "command to rise" message. He can always say, "I did it myself. You didn't."

What that means is hard work, playing fair, improving yourself daily, having a large loving family, being proud about earned wealth, and so on. Trump critics try to pick at this, but this is the main message Trump supporters hear from him. And, like it or not, there are a hell of a lot of people who are starving for that message right now. Each one votes.

I predict Trump will bury Clinton in the general election.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

15 minutes ago, merjet said:

What justifies Peter Schwartz writing for the leftist rag The Huffington Post? He was a central figure in booting David Kelley from the Objectivist elite in the 1980's for giving a speech to the wrong kind of audience. Is it simply that The Huff Post pays Schwartz?  

Merlin,

That hypocrisy is an excellent point. But I don't believe it's because The Huffington Post pays Schwartz.

It's because he is a "Distinguished Fellow" and David Kelley was not. (Remember SNL? "I'm Chevy Chase and you're not.")

The rules are different for "Distinguished Fellows." 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I didn't mention the following when it happened because I'm not too impressed with a newspaper endorses a political candidate. The New York Times endorsed Kasich. So what? (yawn). And now the New York Post endorsed Trump. Ho hum...

Thank you, @NYPost! #Trump2016https://t.co/KzGweIxaEo

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 15, 2016

However, there was a nuance that I totally missed.

Rupert Murdoch owns the New York Post.

See this from CNN Money:

How Rupert Murdoch warmed up to Donald Trump's candidacy

That starts to explain a few things in my head... things I have been seeing around Fox recently, including Megyn Kelly's visit to Trump Tower...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Some people find this scary.

Other people say, "Hell yeah!"

 I'm in the second group.

It's about time.

Michael

[PDS]

9 hours ago, Roger Bissell said:

It doesn't matter whom the Republicans nominate this year. There's no one who can or will stand up to Hillary. Once the candidates get to the fall televised debates, and she unleashes the full force of her horrid, abrasive, righteousness behind the morality of altruism - welfare statism, politically correct statism, etc. - the GOP candidate will fall all over himself to prove that he isn't as cruel and heartless as Evita's smear attacks paint him as being. All of his planned attacks on her character and record will boomerang, as she "proves" how much she wants to do to unite an already great country, and how "greatness" without unity (and loads of redistribution and forced acceptance of the differences of others) can never bring us together or keep us great.

And then, in November, the GOP would-be POTUS will fall into the electoral ditch, dazed and bleeding from a landslide defeat, wondering what happened to his hopes to beat this lying, corrupt, malevolent witch in the race for the White House. And then the rest of us will have to put up with 4-8 years of her. And no, she isn't just a little worse than Bill. She's a lot worse. And she will have a Democratic Congress to work with. And the golden opportunity to nominate 2-3-4 Supreme Court justices, ensuring liberal-leaning decisions for the next generation.

Our only hope, if there is one, is that Trump's bull-in-the-china-shop machinations will have succeeded, one way or another, in destroying the Republican Party, so that a new, better, more individual liberty oriented party can emerge that will push for more economic freedom, civil liberties, and non-interventionistic foreign policy. And no, there is no "transition" candidate who can get us there, only some who might have slowed the progress toward the cliff, while others in unguarded moments give indications that they would be little different from the turkey presently in the White House.

REB

This is right as rain, as they say.

I read an amazing book a few months ago that is implicitly consistent with this scenario:   The Accidental Superpower.

The upshot is that this country is going to be one of the last civilized countries "standing", over the next 20-30 years, and that we will be a largely self-sustaining and prosperous society while the rest of the world goes full "Mad Max", more or less.   If the author is right, this country will need an actual non-interventionist, pro-liberty political party to make it work.   

The wild card in the scenario is whether a pro-liberty Republican Party will matter if there is a 7-2 collectivist/statist Supreme Court.   

[BaalChatzaf]

42 minutes ago, PDS said:

This is right as rain, as they say.

I read an amazing book a few months ago that is implicitly consistent with this scenario:   The Accidental Superpower.

The upshot is that this country is going to be one of the last civilized countries "standing", over the next 20-30 years, and that we will be a largely self-sustaining and prosperous society while the rest of the world goes full "Mad Max", more or less.   If the author is right, this country will need an actual non-interventionist, pro-liberty political party to make it work.   

The wild card in the scenario is whether a pro-liberty Republican Party will matter if there is a 7-2 collectivist/statist Supreme Court.   

I read a portion of the book on the Amazon page.  It explains sufficiently why the U.S. will not collapse regardless of the economic and political woes we are currently suffering.  The U.S. is one of the main girders of the technology-industry structure of the world.  If we go down,  civilization will take a hit globally.  In a word, the World needs us.   That is why China lends us money.  They produce goods and we buy them using borrowed money and this we keep their pot boiling.  To a certain extent the U.S. is necessary for European prosperity and stability.  Since the U.S. took the military role in Europe (by way of NATO), the Europeans had money freed up for industrial investment. 

We have a large pool of talented folks ready and willing to innovate, build, and trade.  We also have the talent for restoring our infrastructure to a proper state. Compare what we have to cultural deserts such as N. Korea,  Iraq,  or any of the Sub Saharan African nations.  So it looks like the U.S. will be around for some time to come.  We may not like the political situation much but our  technological strength will keep us going.  This is quite different from the pessimism expressed by Rand in "Atlas Shrugged"   Loosing a few hundred leading industrialists to the Colorado Rockies  will not even register as an economic glitch.

[Peter]

Roger wrote: It doesn't matter whom the Republicans nominate this year. There's no one who can or will stand up to Hillary. end quote

But Ba’al in a coronet, trumpet, French horn, trombone, and tuba counterpoint noted: So it looks like the U.S. will be around for some time to come. end quote

Queue the theme to Star Trek. I like Ba’al’s ballyhoo, and optimism. Roger? Imagine you are running Trump’s or Cruz’s campaign. There are a myriad ways the Demoncrats can be defeated. What advice would you give them? Trump is obsessed with winning. So is Ted. They want it so bad they would give a year of their lives for it. (The American Presidency ages you badly)

One possibility? Those naughty Beatles said money can’t buy you love, but OH Almighty Dollar, please grant me my wish. I want to see Trump and Cruz running on the same ticket against Old Hickory Clinton and / or Bernie. There could and should be a reconciliation between an inconsistently ideological and political Donald Trump and a mostly libertarian and consistently political Ted Cruz (political in a good, experienced, competent way. Veep Cruz can be the workhorse as Trump’s legislative advisor and proxy after the nomination).

IF neither can get to the threshold needed for nomination before the Convention, they should unite, maybe after California, and form a united front. If this scenario is fulfilled, it would be a President Trump and a VP Ted Cruz. Imagine that. They will stop undercutting each other and become a united force against the dark side. Together with an inspired America they could trounce Hillary.

Let's have some ideas. 

Peter (I thought about editing the following lyric but I just excised the Bernie-ish ending.) 

"Imagine" by John Lennon.

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one . . . .

[Peter]

How do we get Trump and Cruz elected? Firstly, get them united. We on OL and others must convince them of our wisdom. I am awed at how good they could be as NOT ONE, but TWO gigantic points of view, on one ticket. They could even, good naturedly disagree, like a tag team, on some points and laugh it off. Can you see it? They would speak for the entire Republican Party except for the RINO'S who would, eventually and joyously, come along for the ride. If you can imagine it, you can help to invent that possible future. Make it happen, ye kindred spirits.

Peter

Notes.

Some excerpts. John Hawkins | Apr 16, 2016: There’s just something about the swamp gas of D.C. that seems to turn diehard conservatives wimpy, out-of-touch and punishingly dull the moment they get into the GOP leadership. Maybe it’s something the lobbyists are sticking in the hors d'oeuvres at all the fancy cocktail parties they attend. Whatever’s causing it, movement conservatives are entirely justified in being furious at the way the GOP Leadership has behaved over the last few years. The grassroots wanted conservatives who’d represent their interests and they got pod people who spend most of their time servilely catering to Obama and a business lobby that doesn’t have the best interests of the American people at heart. 

Unfortunately, for far too many people on our side, this is where their critique of Republicans begins and ends. They start with the premise that the establishment is bad, which is true, but then they go haywire and attribute all bad things to the establishment. I wish that were true. I wish all we’d need to do to fix the Republican Party, the conservative movement and the country would be to flush Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, John Cornyn and a few other guys along with all their orbiters and everything would be fine. But, it’s not. That’s because the problems the conservative movement has go a lot deeper than the establishment. Until all of us in flyover country start behaving differently, we’re not going to turn this country around.  

For one thing, we need to stop supporting conservative PACs that waste most of the money we give them. Is every conservative PAC doing the wrong thing? No, but you might as well flush money down your toilet as to give it to many of the organizations that are out there . . .

As the late, great Andrew Breitbart said, “Politics is downstream from culture.” So what are we doing to change that culture? Are we boycotting musicians, actors and companies that trash conservative values? Not really, which makes no sense because the Left is very effective at doing that and conservatives used to be good at it, too . . . .

It’s conventional wisdom that the Tea Party movement had a big impact in a couple of elections, brought in some new Republicans and then mostly faded away. Did we do all we could have with that big national movement? In some areas, the Tea Party made a huge difference, but in too many other places, the Tea Party broke apart into factions, each run by a little Indian who wanted to be a big chief . . . .

Many of us also have a horrible tendency to make “perfect the enemy” of the good. We primary members of Congress with ACU ratings over 90; we accuse people of being RINOs for disagreeing on anything and we are generally impossible to please. It’s fine to go after the establishment with hammer and tongs, but is there EVER a time when we’re willing to say, that’s not ideal, but that’s the best deal we can probably get right now? If we’re never going to be satisfied, isn’t the message people are going to get out of that, “There’s no point in even trying?” If movement conservatives want to change the country, we can’t just wait for the establishment to change; we must change, too.

[BaalChatzaf]

While the Republics are in power, the interests of the Mega-Corporation are borne up by the best government money can buy. 

[Robert Campbell]

12 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

He thus tended not to offer up such on public figures too. He did, I think reluctantly, describe Greenspan as a Keynesian. Nothing psychological about that. I think he would be much more interested in people's reactions to Trump and why.

Brant,

I don't recall Nathaniel Branden often making such comments on public figures.

I do recall him saying, in 1996, that Bill Clinton was still an adolescent, psychologically.  I'm pretty sure he said this more than once.

I see a comment about Trumpian narcissism coming to him as easily as a comment about Clintonian adolescence.

Robert

[Backlighting]

Well we have The Punisher, who has said he's read The Fountainhead, and The Preacher, who quoted & promoted Atlas Shrugged on the Senate floor. If they could only abandon the punishing and the preaching I think the little Russian lady might have liked them both...for different reasons.  -Joe

 

[Robert Campbell]

11 hours ago, Roger Bissell said:

Just curious - would you also say that Tara Smith is a hack and a sleazeball? In her book on Rand's ethics, she relied heavily on borrowed ideas, including especially self-esteem, which she hilariously attributed to Leonard Peikoff. 

For that matter, what about Leonard Peikoff? 

I'm just trying to clarify whether the uncited borrowing of ideas by ARI writers is the sign specifically of sleazeballishness and hackery, or if there are other syndromes or character flaws that such intellectual stealth point to instead (or as well).

REB

Roger,

The judgment that Peter Schwartz is a hack and a sleazeball is evidentially overdetermined.

The evidence is wherever one looks, whether it be "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty," or his one-page notice dismissing the entire contents of The Passion of Ayn Rand as arbitrary assertions, or his unsupported claims to expertise in several fields not his own... There are plenty more; take your pick.

As a hack and a sleazeball in the orbit of the Ayn Rand Institute, Schwartz also necessarily fails to credit the precise origins of many of the ideas he borrows.

But he would be a hack and a sleazeball even if he hadn't borrowed Nathaniel Branden's theory of self-esteem without attribution.

Unlike Peter Schwartz, Leonard Peikoff actually accomplished something, once upon a time.  But his actions since founding ARI have been almost entirely on the negative side of the ledger.  Pretending to an expert on self-esteem, which denying his borrowings from Nathaniel, makes for one of the smaller negative entries.  (Not nearly on the level, let's say, of unleashing Jim Valiant.)

Tara Smith has published three books that provide a decent exposition of the Objectivist ethics.   She might have done a lot more, had she not had to obey Leonard Peikoff and Harry Binswanger at virtually every step.

Robert

[Robert Campbell]

15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

But a hit piece is a hit piece when it's a hit piece. Like the National Enquirer with Ted Cruz. That's a hit piece.

Michael,

And here I thought that it was supposed to reveal Ted's true essence.

If more people believed it, would you still call it a hit piece?

I've seen writings about Donald Trump that are hit pieces.  The Puffington declaration, that it would not be covering Trump under politics, only under entertainment, was a running hit piece.

Can you name one book, article, TV segment, whatever, critical of Donald Trump in any respect that you do not deem a hit piece?

Robert

[Robert Campbell]

4 hours ago, merjet said:

What justifies Peter Schwartz writing for the leftist rag The Huffington Post?

Leonard Peikoff lets him.

Robert