Robert Tracinski's article "What Went Right"

[Bidinotto]

Michael, Phil, Charles -- thanks all, for your kind comments.

Phil raises an interesting and absolutely valid point about the necessity of carving out a distinctive market niche. I happen to be a slavish acolyte of the outstanding marketing gurus Jack Trout and Al Ries, authors of such seminal books as Positioning, Marketing Warfare, and Focus. These authors stress the vital importance of "branding" your product by distinguishing it from all competitors, and "owning" a market niche that is unassailable even by potential competitors. I've drawn on their wisdom in some of my TAS seminar lectures, including "Marketing Objectivism" and "Guerilla Activism."

I've also applied their wisdom in developing the magazine's thematic focus, its style, its content, and its unique "voice." The New Individualist is unlike any other magazine on "the right," including not just conservative but also Objectivist and libertarian publications. No conservative or libertarian journal would or does take the philosophical positions we take, particularly on issues related to cultural values. And no other Objectivist publication is designed for outreach to non-Objectivists; is willing to publish non-Objectivists (as long as their positions within a given article do not contradict Objectivism); or -- to be blunt -- is capable of addressing non-Objectivists without self-righteously haranguing and boring them to tears with stale Objectivist catch-phrases, eye-glazing rationalism, and condescending pontification. You know which publications I mean. Frankly, I don't think that the people involved with those journals are constitutionally capable of producing anything like TNI; in fact, given their outlooks, agendas, and psychologies, I know that they wouldn't even want to try.

Which is fine by me. Their inability and unwillingness to produce an accessible, attractive Objectivist outreach publication surrenders to TNI, by default, sole proprietorship of a distinctive market niche: the market for those millions who still accept, implicitly or explicitly, the core values of American Enlightenment individualism.

Phil is exactly right: Objectivists have been terrible "salesmen" of their point of view, and this failure is tied closely to most of them living, thinking, and arguing within the movement bubble, where tedious debates about ever-more-attenuated chains of abstractions go floating off into the wild blue yonder, detached from the earthly values and concerns of actual humanoids.

I've tried with every new issue of TNI to move farther and farther from that sort of navel-gazing insularity. I hope that those of you who subscribe have taken notice, understood, and liked what you've seen.

[Ellen Stuttle]

And no other Objectivist publication is designed for outreach to non-Objectivists; is willing to publish non-Objectivists (as long as their positions within a given article do not contradict Objectivism); or -- to be blunt -- is capable of addressing non-Objectivists without self-righteously haranguing and boring them to tears with stale Objectivist catch-phrases, eye-glazing rationalism, and condescending pontification.

[....]

Phil is exactly right: Objectivists have been terrible "salesmen" of their point of view, and this failure is tied closely to most of them living, thinking, and arguing within the movement bubble, where tedious debates about ever-more-attenuated chains of abstractions go floating off into the wild blue yonder, detached from the earthly values and concerns of actual humanoids.

Hear, hear. I've thought for years and years, if Objectivism really is this beneficent, liberating philosophy for living on earth, then why is it simultaneously presented as so straight and narrow a way only the hardiest and bravest of souls can tred its path? Christianity has been sold (among its descriptions) as "A song of joy," and it's been heard to be such by enormous numbers of people. If Objectivism is a true "song of joy," then why doesn't it reach people at large as such? I do think that the salesmanship has had a lot to do with why not.

Ellen

___

[reason.on]

And no other Objectivist publication is designed for outreach to non-Objectivists; is willing to publish non-Objectivists (as long as their positions within a given article do not contradict Objectivism); or -- to be blunt -- is capable of addressing non-Objectivists without self-righteously haranguing and boring them to tears with stale Objectivist catch-phrases, eye-glazing rationalism, and condescending pontification.

[....]

Phil is exactly right: Objectivists have been terrible "salesmen" of their point of view, and this failure is tied closely to most of them living, thinking, and arguing within the movement bubble, where tedious debates about ever-more-attenuated chains of abstractions go floating off into the wild blue yonder, detached from the earthly values and concerns of actual humanoids.

Hear, hear. I've thought for years and years, if Objectivism really is this beneficent, liberating philosophy for living on earth, then why is it simultaneously presented as so straight and narrow a way only the hardiest and bravest of souls can tred its path? Christianity has been sold (among its descriptions) as "A song of joy," and it's been heard to be such by enormous numbers of people. If Objectivism is a true "song of joy," then why doesn't it reach people at large as such? I do think that the salesmanship has had a lot to do with why not.

Ditto.

RCR

[Rich Engle]

Well, as the resident religionist and such (what the fucq is a religionist...eh..whatever), this is right. O-world is a hard sell.

It's not dead, it just smells funny sometimes.

But to me, the real thing is that it promises the exact opposite of all typical pitches, which involve getting something for nothing. Objectivism is saying that you will get in measure what you make.

Objectivism teaches value-for-value. I find that beautiful, and right, but it's a hard pill for some to swallow. No free lunches and all.

It's not always liberating for people to realize that they are the author of their own actions.

Hard marketing job. I think the novels did the best job, still do.

Edited January 29, 2007 by Rich Engle

[Charles R. Anderson]

Rich,

There are many Americans and others who are enough in touch with reality to understand that values are best achieved when earned. They understand that fewer values are secure or come into existence when government seeks to take them from some and give them to others. But, the rules of the game have become so skewed that many have lost much of their hope for a better system for living. This is further cemented in their minds because they see so little intelligent defense of views consistent with reality and of the values of achievement and individuality. Objectivism as a philosophy has had almost no presence, due to the infighting and the second-handedness that has dominated the movement. Finally, with TAS and its TNI, there is a sane and rational voice talking to them.

Right now there might be 0.01% of Americans who are Objectivists. There must be at least 10% who basically believe strongly in the use of their minds, in productive achievement, in the importance of the individual, and that man should strive to achieve happiness on this earth. Wouldn't it be completely wonderful if most of these people could be brought to at least regard Objectivism as the best philosophy yet developed. Surely, with proper presentation at least 1 to 3% of Americans could be brought to identify themselves as Objectivists or at least neo-Objectivists.

In any case, TAS and TNI (and OL on a smaller scale) are doing the things that have to be done if there is to be any success in getting the attention of and then convincing large numbers of Americans to think about Objectivism. Too bad that they have such limited manpower to get things rolling!

[Bidinotto]

On January 21 on my blog (see Update #8), I wrote:

"Veteran ARI-affiliated Objectivist Steve Speicher [who runs a popular Objectivist discussion list, "Forum for Ayn Rand Fans"] is once again publicly defending Tracinski against unfair attacks from ARI muckamucks, such as [Robert] Mayhew</a>. History suggests that Mr. Speicher is thus skating on thin ice himself...especially for saying here that defenders of Peikoff have been 'moralizing, psychologizing, or epistemologizing....' (I confess: the last offense category is a new one on me.)"

Given decades of experience with that crowd, this was a safe prophecy. Now, for criticizing Peikoff's inane views on the election, and for mounting even qualified defenses of Tracinski, Speicher, his wife Betsy, and others on his forum are coming under increasing venomous assault from ARI pack animals.

Tempting as it is to want to rush to these people's defense, this is an instance of chickens coming home to roost. In the past, Tracinski and the Speichers have been snarling members of that pack of attack dogs themselves, launching vicious attacks against those of us who don't swallow whole the ARI-Peikoff party line. Well, I suppose that there's nothing more educational than being on the receiving end of such a feeding frenzy. I hope it opens their eyes to wider issues about the interpretation of Objectivism, and the true nature of its self-appointed "official" interpreters. Those interested in a deeper, comprehensive discussion of such issues should go here.

[Reidy]

Valliant is the excommunication I'm looking forward to.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

Be that as it may, there is a discussion going on over there at this very minute on the visibility principle called Psychological Visibility.

The second post mentions The Psychology of Self-Esteem, but the name of Nathaniel Branden is not mentioned in the entire discussion.

Old habits die hard...

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

The kind of extended agitating we've seen on the internet has replaced the pre-internet practice of simply shunning people and cutting them off from information. The more people that establish their own Objectivist communication platforms, the better. That way disputes can be contained and be about what they're about, not social standing, access to information, training etc.

Jim

[Ellen Stuttle]

Well, I suppose that there's nothing more educational than being on the receiving end of such a feeding frenzy.

One might like to think so, but it's been my observation watching these disputes (ever since The Original Split) that when those who have been on the dishing out end find themselves on the receiving end, they rarely learn the lesson that the whole attitude re "O'ist purity" is wrong. In the few cases in which to my knowledge people who were for a time on opposite sides of one of the divides did learn, and later patched up broken friendships, those people were ones who had never felt comfortable to begin with about the attitudes toward purity. A publicly known example -- I'm revealing no confidences in referring to this one -- was that of the Blumenthals resuming their friendship with Barbara after they themselves split with Ayn. But Joan and Barbara had been friends from way back; Barbara was the person who brought Joan into "the Collective." The break between them was the aberrant episode in their friendship. Neither was prone to that sort of thing characteristically. People who have made a long-standing habit of being moral watchdogs, however, I've not yet seen to change in that regard when they end up being the ones "hounded."

Ellen

___

[Bidinotto]

Ellen, I hope you're wrong. Sometimes it takes a 2X4 upside the head to wake people up. Then, it takes a few years for their ears to stop ringing and their eyes to focus on reality. It doesn't always happen, of course. Many people who experience such disillusionment with their old heroes become angry and bitter, and part ways from Objectivism entirely. But some try to discriminate the good from the bad, and eventually come around. We'll see if these people will.

[Dragonfly]

Tempting as it is to want to rush to these people's defense, this is an instance of chickens coming home to roost.

That was also my reaction when I read the recent turmoil on Solo: Perigo's Kass chickens had come home to roost, apparently he really thought he could have his ARI and eat it too. All those ARIans who always enthusiastically endorsed Perigo in his ravings against TOC, the Brandens, Ol, crowing: Kass! Kass! suddenly turned around when they got the same treatment. And Perigo discovered that you just can't dismiss Peikoff and still remain friends with ARIans and crypto-ARIans. As I said long ago: for those people he was just a useful idiot, to be discarded in time, and his time was now up and that grinning monkey disappeared from his site.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen, I hope you're wrong. [....]

I hope I am, too. Time will tell.

Best,

Ellen

___

[Bidinotto]

Dragonfly -- you nailed it.

Many moons ago, I predicted that exactly what you are now describing would come to pass in the movement, and, of course, it has. It took no special gift of prophecy -- only an understanding of the nature of these people. To them, repudiation = moral judgment = Objectivism. To be an Objectivist, then, one must engage in constant repudiations. They can't feel "moral" unless they are "passing judgment," i.e., repudiating somebody.

The only thing that can ever unite full-time repudiators like these is a common enemy to denounce. But when that enemy disappears, or simply stops directly engaging them, they can only turn against each other. It always happens, because it has to, given the equation of "morality" with moral denunciation.

This conduct is not Objectivism. And it's important to make that point publicly and repeatedly, so that newbies to Objectivism -- or people merely weighing its merits -- don't equate a philosophy of reason with that sort of fanaticism.

[sjw]

Many moons ago, I predicted that exactly what you are now describing would come to pass in the movement, and, of course, it has. It took no special gift of prophecy -- only an understanding of the nature of these people. To them, repudiation = moral judgment = Objectivism. To be an Objectivist, then, one must engage in constant repudiations. They can't feel "moral" unless they are "passing judgment," i.e., repudiating somebody.

You were right in your predictions but I don't think you nailed the cause. I think the true cause is a lack of purpose or the wrong purpose. Any time you get a bunch of people together working toward misguided ends then things are likely going to fall apart eventually. Certainly nothing great will get done.

What misguided purpose? Well it relates to this trickle down theory. The notion that the culture must be taught Objectivism in order to save it is misguided. The task at hand is not to spread Objectivism per se, but rather to spread the ideas individual rights and work to change government in that direction. The method of the Founders in forming a common cause is a far better model for what should be done than how Objectivists (or Libertarians) have set out to do it. Note that they didn't require that everyone adopt their philosophies, but they weren't anti-philosophical either.

It's true that you need philosophy for the end of stopping statism. But it's needed as a tool only. We don't need converts to Objectivism. We need fellow travellers who will keep their paws off our property and expect the same of everyone else--in the sense we mean given our philosophy (so I'm not talking about Libertarianism here). By expecting Objectivist converts, the enterprise takes on an inherently religious aspect. The next logical question becomes: what is Objectivism, who is a true Objectivist (and Robert your side does this too--if you're not a "tolerant" Objectivist then you're not one). We start contesting the Legacy of Ayn Rand and calling the other side sinners or some such. And corrupting the philosophy by eviscerating it from moral judgement--well it's not going to save the world by tip-toeing around evil and refusing to call it that (unless it's the "evil" of "intolerance"). What evil needs is a slap in the face not "tolerance".

With such a profound thing at stake as our rights to our bodies and our property, it's absolutely petty to quibble over such things. But we do anyway, since there's nothing else to do. Objectivist leadership has failed to set the right purpose, the purpose that would unify us in the obvious common, delimited cause we should be aiming at: destroying statism. So our energies are directed at the irrelevant.

Tracinski should be applauded. By demolishing this "trickle-down" theory and showing how the world can improve without getting converts, he's helping to lay the groundwork for a non-religious approach in changing the world. But it's not enough. We need leadership in this delimited but most important cause: the defense of our individual rights.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Shayne,

People who want less statism should vote with their feet as much as possible. The people who started this country first did that by crossing an ocean. You don't like regulation, work in less regulated industries. You don't like taxes, move to states or countries that tax less (with other considerations of maximum income, standard of living etc.).

We should push for legislation to have sunset provisions. We should also push for supermajority votes on tax increases. We should fight for Constitutional protections. What the Founding Fathers did was to erect principled structural barriers to statism and checks and balances. This is the kind of thing that when coupled with philosophical activism can make an impact.

Jim

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Tracinski mentioned the increase of representative government in his series as an important world barometer. We'll really know we're getting somewhere when Consitutional rights protections and separation of powers become more commonplace.

Jim

[sjw]

People who want less statism should vote with their feet as much as possible. The people who started this country first did that by crossing an ocean. You don't like regulation, work in less regulated industries. You don't like taxes, move to states or countries that tax less (with other considerations of maximum income, standard of living etc.).

We live in a world where more than half of our standard of living is either confiscated or destroyed by statists. Voting with your feet won't work. And that's not what the founders did. They were political activists who openly fought for revolutionary change. The primary thing needed now is a banner to rally around (individual rights), and then growth in numbers and activism on a variety of fronts. What you are talking about is to flail around groping for pockets of air while being suffocated by an unrelenting, murderous enemy. If that is all we do, then in the long run we are dead.

We should push for legislation to have sunset provisions. We should also push for supermajority votes on tax increases. We should fight for Constitutional protections. What the Founding Fathers did was to erect principled structural barriers to statism and checks and balances. This is the kind of thing that when coupled with philosophical activism can make an impact.

Who is this "we" you speak of? There is no "we". That's the very problem I'm talking about. We have no rallying point, we have no common banner, we just have petty factions squabbling about nothing of any importance when compared to having at least half of our living standard destroyed.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't have a forum specifically for Objectivist online foodfights (I thought of setting up one called The Outhouse, but it doesn't look right among all that other good stuff on OL), so this place here looks like as good a place as any for the recent bombastic developments in ortho-O-Land.

Hsieh has once again struck a mighty blow for the integrity of the Church of Rand, this time aided by Tore Boeckmann. They are slicing up the Speichers for lunch and having a grand old time. (You can find plenty of links there.) All because he did not bow before the whimsical pronouncements of the High Priest and actually said, "Huh? I don't get it."

How on earth can you instill obedience of authority when the High Priest tests his subjects with a blatantly irrational pronouncement and one of his finest (Spriecher) says, "Huh? I don't get it." And once the minions tell him nicely to get in line, he says, "Huh? I still don't get it."

Cheeearrrrge!!!!!!!!!!

Wipe him out for the sake of Rand and the love of Peikoff!

Incidentally, in the middle of this brawling, the valiant Warriors of Reason are floating the idea that they are the philosopher-kings (or represent the same) and Internet forums in general are not good places for Objectivism. The way I read this trial balloon, this includes ALL Internet forums, even ones where they have posted.

I wonder if this has something to do with the fact that they cannot control that particular environment with initiation and indoctrination rituals. How can you properly threaten a person with excommunication when he can set up his own forum and develop an audience? You can't.

Let these collectivists be a cult, I say! Let them isolate themselves in some dark and dank castle somewhere and get out of the way of serious people. There is too much work to do and all they do is embarrass themselves and anyone near them.

From what I have read, the Spreichers do not have much affinity with what I and other independent thinkers are doing on OL, but they are creating something productive and there are intelligent and decent people who post on their forum—and they post in good will. I do hope the Spreichers use this opportunity to see that reason is not enough—it is not an end in itself—and Objectivism is not enough. You need to choose the good with it. When you ally yourself with tribal people, even in the name of reason and Objectivism, and then you leave that tribe, matters get real nasty in an unreasonable, irrational way.

In short, the independent first-hand soul is the good. The tribal soul is the bad. Reason and Objectivism can be (and is) used by both.

That should be the end of it for me, but for some damn reason I find this spectacle entertaining in a Jerry Springer kind of way.

Michael

[sjw]

Tore makes a good point. In today's progressive-education corrupted world, everyone thinks that their opinion is worthy just because it's their opinion. Not very many people respect genuine erudition, on the contrary, they are offended by the idea that they ought to or that it even exists. The kind of people Tore is criticizing are indeed running amok in all these internet forums, especially at those with a more subjectivist bent, like OL. Tore is also right to underscore that if you really want to learn Objectivism, these forums aren't the place to do it. The books and tapes are far higher in quality. Actually no, the books and tapes actually teach you the philosophy--most of what goes on in these public forums is pontification having little to do with Objectivism. Sometimes something of value is said ("The FORUM" looks like it has a good value to noise ratio due to the fact that the members actually take Objectivism seriously). Usually it's ignorant children pontificating about their own cluelessness. Suffice it to say, these forums are more akin to a rowdy party where sometimes Objectivists come in but bums off the street wander in too.

On the other hand, I've had enough experience with these so-called Objectivist scholars to know that at least some abuse their position as experts. I have seen first-hand their using the above as a club to dismiss or beat good arguments down with. A scholar who uses the above reasoning to refute an argument is really revealing his lack of self-esteem and inability to deal with the argument on fair terms. It's argument from intimidation. Except in today's world, it's futile as an intimidation tactic.

I think the right approach is more complicated than Tore suggests, but a fundamental is that an expert is just as responsible for proving his points as anyone else. Another fundamental is that if you make wild claims and the expert takes the time to show you're wrong, then you'd damn well better fix yourself, and by that I mean you'd damn well better stop spouting off to that expert, treat him with more respect, give him more benefit of the doubt, and make a better effort to not spout nonsense. This is of course too much to ask of any progressive-educated idiot. Unfortunately, some of these Objectivist "scholars" fit neatly into this category too.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Terrific post, Shayne. There are many difficult concepts in Objectivism that are hard to understand at first and people need to make a rigorous study of the philosophy in order to see its interconnectedness and to understand concepts like context, hierarchy and integration. One of the big challenges for closed system Objectivism is how to properly convey the Objectivist virtue of independence. One of the big challenges for open system Objectivism is how to properly teach the philosophy.

I would say this:

To many of the advocates of the closed system approach, drop the psychological pressure, shunning and other tactics or you will lose your best and brightest.

To many of the advocates of the open system approach: learn to teach the philosophy and delegate or you will end up with few students, a cacophony of voices and your message will die with you.

As for Diana Hsieh's post, well, it's not hard to see the agenda and it's about as subtle as a 2x4 over the head. Most sensible people have simply learned to step out of the way and now she's preaching to the choir.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I personally have no problems with respecting an expert in questions of knowledge. I also tend to be a bit more respectful of such a person than I am of normal ones when I encounter them. I would not have had 3 years of free conducting lessons with Maestro Eleazar de Carvalho had I been otherwise.

I cannot respect Peikoff's positions, although I do respect a body of knowledge he has accumulated. But he gained knowledge and has consistently applied it poorly. Is that what a philosophy for living on earth is all about?

If you want to really learn Objectivism, read Rand.

Also, if Boeckmann's point is so clear about intellectual seriousness, could someone please tell me where the didactic part in his post is? Comments like this? (And I chose this practically at random.)

Now, there is a large scholarly controversy over this matter, of which Speicher knows nothing and Mayhew knows everything.

Sorry. I don't buy that method of showing who the experts are or proving anything. I seemed to have missed the didactic part in all the hog wrestling. (It was only a short while ago that Speicher knew quite a lot about everything for the ARI people. What happened? Were they all fooled by him?) I will say one thing. This kind of thing has been published in the right place. With a Rand book edited under Boeckmann's belt, I expected better from him.

I stand by my position that I will take an honest independent thinker any day over an indoctrinated "intellectual product." And I adhere to the fundamental principles of Objectivism as my intellectual basis. I ain't budging either. People don't have to like it.

Michael

PS - Any other insults about OL or OL members as a group will be deleted.

[sjw]

Thanks Jim. I was going to add that at least in one respect, the subjectivist-leaning forums deserve compliments in the respect that within broad limits they tend to let individuals be individuals. Apparently, that thought was premature. Sigh...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Something needs to be made clear. I completely reject your categorization of OL as a subjectivist-leaning forum. Nowhere is the idea promoted on OL that one opinion is as good as another or that one's opinions are just as valid as knowledge.

What is promoted is the idea that individuals are different and, with something as complex as the human mind, they will often come to different conclusions because of different perspectives, different experiences or different learning rhythms. If there are differences between a person's views and Rand's writings (or those of any other writer), her (their) works are available for consulting and people can read and compare. Quotes abound on OL in posts that do precisely that. This isn't rocket science and there are no esoteric mysteries to fathom. There are no elites of philosopher-kings around here to bestow their wisdom on the minions in secret rituals.

Also, I personally promote the idea that most all regular posters on OL present their best thinking in good will. I do that because that is what I have seen. I foster it when I can. When I detect a malicious agenda, I deal with it personally.

That is not equal to subjectivism. Not by a long shot.

I want to stress once again that OL is not a site for preaching Objectivism. Nobody is a guru around here. If you want to preach or read preaching, you have to go elsewhere. If you want collectives you can criticize, you have to go elsewhere. There are too many first-class individuals around here for collective grouping. This is a site where people—individuals—explore ideas, especially those parts that haven't settled in their minds, and hopefully create some good works (or just hang with creators).

I personally value their minds and independent thought, that little motor inside that keeps them thinking, more than trying to force them to agree to something they don't agree with after giving it their honest best. If I am firm in my knowledge, I keep trying through reason. I expect no less from everybody else.

That also is not equal to subjectivism. Not by a long shot.

Reason always wins out with honest people of good will. If you call all that subjectivism, the only thing I can say is that your evaluation is not objective at all—it is subjective.

Michael

[sjw]

Michael, what needs to be made clear is that I said subjectivist *leaning*. I didn't specify by how many degrees. I didn't call anyone a subjectivist.

It is my opinion that ARI intrinsicism has caused subjectivists and Objectivists alike to scatter. That's a hypothesis, backed by evidence, not an "insult": obviously if I think they've scattered, then there will have been a "where" that they scattered to. And the "where" is: wherever their subjectivism will be tolerated. Indeed, it's not "rocket science", nor is it an insult, it's just a deduction from my hypothesis. One that you in fact agreed with several months back.

Let me ask a question. I get to call ARI "intrinsicists" here on OL, right? So if they're "intrinsicists", then where are all the subjectivists? Hmmmm? Did you have a purge while I wasn't looking? Isn't it more likely that those very people who love calling ARI intrinsicists (or the equivalent) get all touchy and defensive when it's even hinted that they might have subjectivist leanings?

Edited February 6, 2007 by sjw