Cultural Capital

[Wolf DeVoon]

In conversation with someone much younger than I, skepticism about the future of America was answered confidently. She said that the US weathered its Vietnam debacle and powered ahead because "we are standing on the shoulders of our forefathers" whose achievements were so huge, so durable that it continues to inspire and indemnify our society. We can blunder and waste trillions with impunity.

I don't believe that, but it's best to discuss in detail. Thomas Paine and James Madison with dozens of other US aristocrats-of-spirit at the beginning of our political independence bequeathed much. A young person today is well served by reading Common Sense, The Rights of Man, and The Federalist Papers. Plain spoken and concise, their influence has never dimmed, viz: Monarchy is absurd. Faction is a perpetual challenge to liberty and justice. Power must be restrained by limits and checks (a written constitution).

Our forefathers were forward looking and shrewd. The Northwest Ordinance provided free education for all. Freedom of religion ended tax-supported churches and their dread grip on legislation. Jury trial, due process, abolition of the slave trade, global commerce, westward expansion, encouragement of inventors, you name it -- our Founding Fathers put America on its path to greatness.

Nothing lasts forever. That's why I'm skeptical about the future. Bush and Cheney bullied Congress into suspension of habeas corpus and big chunks of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. It remains to be seen what happens to civil lliberty in the wider sense. Severe recession is a looming possibility, which could conceivably put Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here scenario in play.

The survival of free speech is threatened, not by government, but by disuse. Facebook doesn't cut it. And we urgently need an antiwar protest equal to Vietnam -- specifically hundreds of thousands of protestors in the streets willing to brave National Guard and Marine Corps bayonets. Young people today are not likely to understand freedom of assembly and petition in that sense. But the United States did not leave Vietnam voluntarily. Antiwar protestors and Black Power radicals threatened mass insurrection. Publication of the Pentagon Papers, upheld by the Supreme Court, destroyed the credibility and prestige of our trusted warriors.

US civilians and military are one in the same, because we are a nation of citizen-soldiers. So the morale and moral integrity of our troops and civilians in Iraq will ultimately decide our future, as they did 40 years ago and 140 years ago and 240 years ago. The general staff and White House bosses are helpless to prevail if antiwar sentiment explodes, a natural consequence of wanton deceit and blundering by the top brass.

Americans expect Geo. Washington's frugality and truthfulness from the Pentagon. We're suspicious of defense contractors and mercenaries. Waste and war crimes are verboten in the American pysche. Congressmen and Senators have to answer to ordinary constituents. If they steal, lie, or fail to act in a timely and responsible fashion, they're certain to be tossed out of office. Incredibly, we're about to elect a woman or a black man as president, because neo-con nazis have piled lie upon lie endangering all.

I don't expect a Democrat to cure our escalating economic or military trainwrecks. Dems are likely to make matters much worse, like LBJ did a generation ago. Today, America is strategically trapped in a malevolent time machine: Vietnam and the '74 Arab oil embargo compressed and fused together. Vietnam was costly and reprehensible, but the price of oil wasn't a limiting constraint on military operations back then. Today it is. I think the reason that our military went along with occupation of Iraq was oil. They can't function without jet fuel, diesel, lubricants, etc. The US needs foreign oil primarily for the Pentagon and essential defense industry transport. Can't mobilize for general war without it -- and general war is, sadly, a distinct possibility. We are outnumbered 5 to 1 by true believer Islamic populations that span the globe in dozens of oil producing countries, and they are obliged by the Prophet to convert or kill all "infidels," namely us.

Our national heritage is also threatened by waves of Central American immigrants who know very little about our culture except American charity and vulnerablity. Too many of them see our prosperous middle class as prey. Pressure is building to shut the borders, suppress criminal gangs, stop "anchor baby" ploys to skirt immigration laws.

Can Thomas Paine and James Madison and two centuries of industrial progress save the Union? We all hope so, that's certain.

Hence, Americans are fervent in their patriotism, at least the honest sort that Ayn Rand wrote about. Fountainhead celebrated individualism and initiative; Atlas drew a line in the sand, this far and no farther. It will be an interesting election cycle, if the US general election proceeds as the Constitution requires. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the only party that matters -- one nation under constitutional law that no pretext of "national emergency" can justifiably suspend.

Wolf DeVoon

Edited August 22, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[Adrian]

In conversation with someone much younger than I, skepticism about the future of America was answered confidently. She said that the US weathered its Vietnam debacle and powered ahead because "we are standing on the shoulders of our forefathers" whose achievements were so huge, so durable that it continues to inspire and indemnify our society. We can blunder and waste trillions with impunity.

I don't believe that, but it's best to discuss in detail. Thomas Paine and James Madison with dozens of other US aristocrats-of-spirit at the beginning of our political independence bequeathed much. A young person today is well served by reading Common Sense, The Rights of Man, and The Federalist Papers. Plain spoken and concise, their influence has never dimmed, viz: Monarchy is absurd. Faction is a perpetual challenge to liberty and justice. Power must be restrained by limits and checks (a written constitution).

Our forefathers were forward looking and shrewd. The Northwest Ordinance provided free education for all. Freedom of religion ended tax-supported churches and their dread grip on legislation. Jury trial, due process, abolition of the slave trade, global commerce, westward expansion, encouragement of inventors, you name it -- our Founding Fathers put America on its path to greatness.

Nothing lasts forever. That's why I'm skeptical about the future. Bush and Cheney bullied Congress into suspension of habeas corpus and big chunks of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. It remains to be seen what happens to civil lliberty in the wider sense. Severe recession is a looming possibility, which could conceivably put Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here scenario in play.

The survival of free speech is threatened, not by government, but by disuse. Facebook doesn't cut it. And we urgently need an antiwar protest equal to Vietnam -- specifically hundreds of thousands of protestors in the streets willing to brave National Guard and Marine Corps bayonets. Young people today are not likely to understand freedom of assembly and petition in that sense. But the United States did not leave Vietnam voluntarily. Antiwar protestors and Black Power radicals threatened mass insurrection. Publication of the Pentagon Papers, upheld by the Supreme Court, destroyed the credibility and prestige of our trusted warriors.

US civilians and military are one in the same, because we are a nation of citizen-soldiers. So the morale and moral integrity of our troops and civilians in Iraq will ultimately decide our future, as they did 40 years ago and 140 years ago and 240 years ago. The general staff and White House bosses are helpless to prevail if antiwar sentiment explodes, a natural consequence of wanton deceit and blundering by the top brass.

Americans expect Geo. Washington's frugality and truthfulness from the Pentagon. We're suspicious of defense contractors and mercenaries. Waste and war crimes are verboten in the American pysche. Congressmen and Senators have to answer to ordinary constituents. If they steal, lie, or fail to act in a timely and responsible fashion, they're certain to be tossed out of office. Incredibly, we're about to elect a woman or a black man as president, because neo-con nazis have piled lie upon lie endangering all.

I don't expect a Democrat to cure our escalating economic or military trainwrecks. Dems are likely to make matters much worse, like LBJ did a generation ago. Today, America is strategically trapped in a malevolent time machine: Vietnam and the '74 Arab oil embargo compressed and fused together. Vietnam was costly and reprehensible, but the price of oil wasn't a limiting constraint on military operations back then. Today it is. I think the reason that our military went along with occupation of Iraq was oil. They can't function without jet fuel, diesel, lubricants, etc. The US needs foreign oil primarily for the Pentagon and essential defense industry transport. Can't mobilize for general war without it -- and general war is, sadly, a distinct possibility. We are outnumbered 5 to 1 by true believer Islamic populations that span the globe in dozens of oil producing countries, and they are obliged by the Prophet to convert or kill all "infidels," namely us.

Our national heritage is also threatened by waves of Central American immigrants who know very little about our culture except American charity and vulnerablity. Too many of them see our prosperous middle class as prey. Pressure is building to shut the borders, suppress criminal gangs, stop "anchor baby" ploys to skirt immigration laws.

Can Thomas Paine and James Madison and two centuries of industrial progress save the Union? We all hope so, that's certain.

Hence, Americans are fervent in their patriotism, at least the honest sort that Ayn Rand wrote about. Fountainhead celebrated individualism and initiative; Atlas drew a line in the sand, this far and no farther. It will be an interesting election cycle, if the US general election proceeds as the Constitution requires. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the only party that matters -- one nation under constitutional law that no pretext of "national emergency" can justifiably suspend.

Wolf DeVoon

Hi Wolf

I thought you might be interested in this recent article by the conservative English philosopher Roger Scruton. It's about the need (in his view) to preserve and transmit some aspects of traditional culture, almost regardless of demand for them.

I am not sure I wholly agree with him (I'm generally a bit sceptical about the idea of teaching people things they don't want to know, even if they're kids) but, as I say, I found it interesting.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol...icle2072331.ece

Best regards

Adrian

[Peter Grotticelli]

This is comprehensive: Harry Binswanger on Immigration

No draft = no subversion. But the Democrats will do one good thing: they'll withdraw us from Iraq. Still we would like subversion. Let us convert the men of the Fortune 500 to objectivism, and watch them buy up all of their own stock shares! Soon they'll have passed around the Kool-Aid as far as we'll know. For Stephen Hawking will save the world by shooting them away from the otherwise doomed earth!

[BaalChatzaf]

This is comprehensive: Harry Binswanger on Immigration

No draft = no subversion. But the Democrats will do one good thing: they'll withdraw us from Iraq. Still we would like subversion. Let us convert the men of the Fortune 500 to objectivism, and watch them buy up all of their own stock shares! Soon they'll have passed around the Kool-Aid as far as we'll know. For Stephen Hawking will save the world by shooting them away from the otherwise doomed earth!

Master Yodah says: Do not your breath old until to Objectivism converts the fortune 500 folk, else blue turn you will.

Here is a useful exercise: figure out why Objectivism is NOT catching on. If it were obviously correct and beneficial no further effort would be necessary. What is missing? What is wrong?

Here is my gloomy prediction (please don't shoot the Messenger kindly): after this generation of Objectivists dies off they will not be replaced. Partly because the philosophy is not generally appealing and partly because of the low birth rate among Objectivists. Objectivism will end up as an historical footnote like General Semantics. That is where all the empirical indicators point.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

industry transport. Can't mobilize for general war without it -- and general war is, sadly, a distinct possibility. We are outnumbered 5 to 1 by true believer Islamic populations that span the globe in dozens of oil producing countries, and they are obliged by the Prophet to convert or kill all "infidels," namely us.

The solution is obvious. Kill them before they kill us and God damn the collateral damage. We have the means. Do we have the will?

The Solution has been out there for 2000 years:

If he comes to murder you, rise up early and slay him first --- Talmud Babli, Sanhedrin 72a.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited August 17, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Peter Grotticelli]

Ba'al Chatzaf,

I had a quick look at General Semantics on Wikipedia. It is the polar opposite of objectivism, for it asks us to cast off the bias of our species, whereas objectivism exists because of how our specific species must think to live.

Kill them before they kill us and God damn the collateral damage.

You have chatzaf fervor in this conflict; it puts the chatzaf on the same level as the customer in the Lake Ronkonkoma auto store who says, "We should blow up the whole ****ing Middle East." The chatzaf has long been known, e.g., by the New York Times, to be wiser than this type of knuckle dragger. Let us not destroy this reputation with Israeli warrior nonsense.

The Solution has been out there for 2000 years.

They could kill Christ and we can kill all of bin Laden's associates, but as we have seen both times, we cannot purge the effect that they've had; well maybe John Galt could.

This reading justifies the chatzaf fervor of 2000 years ago: Crimes of Christianity Chapter 1 (1887). I've only scanned it, but it cites Gibbon and so ye can see that it's historically perspicacious. With this work backing us, we may say that the Romans and Jews should have purged the Christians right away, and we may say that the modern analog is right: that the monkey in the auto store is right. We may say it, but it's not right! Only the conversion of the men of the Fortune 500 can save us.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Peter Grotticelli

[Barbara Branden]

Wolf, it's very difficult not to feel pessimistic about America's future at times. But then I think of what this country has survived: the horrible carnage of the Civil War which split the country as it's never been split since; the Great Depression which dwarfed any recession since and any likely to come; the appalling loss of freedom at home during World War !! -- and the interning of Japanese who were American citizens; the cold war which sent us scurrying into bomb shelters in the 50s in terror of atomc war; the racial hatreds of the 60's when it seemed the universities soon would all be ablaze; the ignominy of the Vietnam War and America's first military defeat; Watergate, which seemed to mark the dead end of respect for government; and now, such new phenomena as political correctness which is turning us into a nation tiptoeing around every possible source of dissension except the unimportant ones -- and our shameful timidity in fearing to acknowledge the nature and the threat of Islam. When I think of what America has survived and is surviving, I am convinced that the people of this nation have qualities of character, of endurance, and finally and most importantly of a basic sanity, that will carry us through against all the odds.

Thomas Wolfe wrote: "I think the true discovery of America is before us. I think the true fulfillment of our spirit, of our people, of our mighty and immortal land, is yet to come. I think the true discovery of our own demoracy is still before us. And I think that all these things are certain as the morning, as inevitable as noon. I think I speak for most men living when I say that our America is Here, is Now, and beckons on before us, and that this glorious assurance is not only our living hope, but our dream to be accomplished."

Barbara

[Brant Gaede]

Barbara,

The United States did not suffer military defeat in Vietnam. The US won and withdrew and then the communists moved into the subsequent vacuum. The US gave up on and abandoned South Vietnam (and Cambodia). The US was defeated, but not militarily. It was political. The same thing is happening in Iraq right now. Two stupid, altruistic wars resulting in political fatigue. Support flags.

--Brant

Edited August 17, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

Barbara,

The United States did not suffer military defeat in Vietnam. The US won and withdrew and then the communists moved into the subsequent vacuum. The US gave up on and abandoned South Vietnam (and Cambodia). The US was defeated, but not militarily. It was political. The same thing is happening in Iraq right now. Two stupid, altruistic wars resulting in political fatigue. Support flags.

--Brant

Walt Kelly of -Pogo- fame had it right. We have met the Enemy and He is Us.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Wolf DeVoon]

industry transport. Can't mobilize for general war without it -- and general war is, sadly, a distinct possibility. We are outnumbered 5 to 1 by true believer Islamic populations that span the globe in dozens of oil producing countries, and they are obliged by the Prophet to convert or kill all "infidels," namely us.

The solution is obvious. Kill them before they kill us and God damn the collateral damage. We have the means. Do we have the will?

The Solution has been out there for 2000 years:

If he comes to murder you, rise up early and slay him first --- Talmud Babli, Sanhedrin 72a.

Ba'al Chatzaf

C'mon, dude, stretch your imagination. What's option B or C? I mean this sincerely. You're bright. Without prejudice to your oft-stated, clear-as-a-bell Doomsday option, what else might maybe make sense? I'm not talking about appeasement or compromise with lunatics. Surely the US can do something (or refrain from doing something) that would flummox the mullahs.

[Wolf DeVoon]

The United States did not suffer military defeat in Vietnam. The US won and withdrew and then the communists moved into the subsequent vacuum. The US gave up on and abandoned South Vietnam (and Cambodia). The US was defeated, but not militarily. It was political. The same thing is happening in Iraq right now. Two stupid, altruistic wars resulting in political fatigue. Support flags.

--Brant

I thought of you in particular when I wrote the piece above, referencing Vietnam. I always listen carefully and have great respect. Two million Vietnamese killed. Five million refugees. For what? Maybe we were trying to contain China. Maybe Ike wanted to help France and it snowballed from there. I honestly don't know. But I did everything in my power to stop it, and damn our government, along with millions of other young Americans. I don't think that rift will ever be healed.

W.

[Barbara Branden]

Brant, you are quite right in saying that the United States did not suffer military defeat in Vietnam, but that we withdrew. I misspoke. But I think the general sense of humiliation over our withdrawal, leaving our South Vietnam allies to be murdered, was almost as great as if we had been defeated.

Barbara

[Brant Gaede]

Brant, you are quite right in saying that the United States did not suffer military defeat in Vietnam, but that we withdrew. I misspoke. But I think the general sense of humiliation over our withdrawal, leaving our South Vietnam allies to be murdered, was almost as great as if we had been defeated.

Barbara,

You are truly innocent. A really defeated United States is its cities in radioactive ruins and its military destroyed. Absent that, the US cannot be defeated, except from the inside as in Vietnam, but first we might get an emperor and kick ass a la Bob for 500 more years. For you and me, that'd be victory too wrong, too much.

--Brant

Edited August 17, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a useful exercise: figure out why Objectivism is NOT catching on. If it were obviously correct and beneficial no further effort would be necessary. What is missing? What is wrong?

Here is my gloomy prediction (please don't shoot the Messenger kindly): after this generation of Objectivists dies off they will not be replaced. Partly because the philosophy is not generally appealing and partly because of the low birth rate among Objectivists. Objectivism will end up as an historical footnote like General Semantics. That is where all the empirical indicators point.

Bob,

Actually the empirical indicators are much better than that. Rand's book sales are strong (well over half a million a year, and the ARI give-aways are only a small part of this). See here for some 2005 and 2006 numbers.

If you are talking about an official Objectivist movement like ARI, I think it will become greatly reduced when all of the copyrights to Rand's works expire. To me, the empirical indicators are that Objectivism will morph into a whole bunch of different... er... denominations.

Here is an indication. Yesterday Kat and I were in STA Travel (in Evanston, IL). On the wall, covering half of it in big honking letters, was the following:

She sat at the window of the train, her head thrown back... The window frame trembled with the speed of the motion... and dots of light slashed across the glass as luminous streaks... She thought: For just a few moments—while this lasts—it is all right to surrender completely... She thought: Let go—drop the controls—this is it.

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957

I asked the lady who chose this quote and she told me that is is on the walls of many branches of STA Travel. It is only not present at offices where the wall space does not support it aesthetically. The quote was chosen and abbreviated by the head administration.

People, even travel agents, take from Rand what they want and leave the rest behind. I think they will continue to do so.

As to your question about what is missing and what is wrong, it is all the damn bickering among Objectivists. That turns people off and turns the official movement into a laughing stock for most of them.

EDIT: I forgot to mention the small but loud group of nasty mean-spirited Objectivist boneheads who make a point of being rude to people in general.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

Michael,

I had a sudden insight, after the rather pleasant thought that I very much enjoyed OL. It dawned on me that I enjoy the company of brainy people versed in Objectivism (Bob included). Now couple that with the strong probability that Objectivism will decline and maybe vanish in a couple centuries, like Aristotle, sort of. If true, then perhaps the cohesion and emergent purpose of OL is a think tank.

As I argued at the beginning of this thread, America needs creative intellectual leadership right now this minute, not generations hence. Maybe it's our turn to lead public policy.

W.

[Philip Coates]

> When I think of what America has survived and is surviving, I am convinced that the people of this nation have qualities of character, of endurance, and finally and most importantly of a basic sanity, that will carry us through against all the odds.

Barbara, my worry is that when we survived the wars, depressions, and even more recently racial hatreds (I don't think Watergate was a major crises, but I don't want to get sidetracked into th at), we were stronger philsophically, in terms of self-discipline and responsibility . . . and even in terms of basic education.

There is still "cultural capital" and sense of life and common sense to draw on, but it has been dwindling.

Does this mean optimism (your view) or pessimism (widespread) or something in between? It's a very complex question and I see reasons for both views.

[Barbara Branden]

> When I think of what America has survived and is surviving, I am convinced that the people of this nation have qualities of character, of endurance, and finally and most importantly of a basic sanity, that will carry us through against all the odds.

There is still "cultural capital" and sense of life and common sense to draw on, but it has been dwindling.

Does this mean optimism (your view) or pessimism (widespread) or something in between? It's a very complex question and I see reasons for both views.

Phil, I'm not at all convinced that the cultural capital and common sense of Americans is dwindling. You and I live in one of the two most intellectually corrupt cities in America: Los Angeles and New York.( I'm not certain that San Francisco still is an American city.) If we judge by these cities and by mainstream newspapers and television which attempt to imitate them, we are indeed doomed. But there is a huge country outside of these two centers, which doesn't read the New York Times, and about which we are given almost no information. For example -- and this is significant whatever one thinks of the Iraq war -- we keep being told by the mainstream media that our army, because of the disillusionment of the soldiers fighting that war, soon will be unable to continue fighting; yet the fact appears to be that the reinlistment rate among soldiers serving in Iraq is greater that any reinlistment rate in our history. I'm willing to bet that few of those soliders come from Los Angeles or New York. This kind of information tells us that perhaps American values have not changed all that much.

Most of America is not eagerly gulping down postmodernist ideas, or rushing to see exhibitions of Jackson Pollock's paintings, or believes that cannibalism is just another not-to-be-judged way of life. I don't accept the idea that academic philosophy alone determines the course of history; I think that the character and sanity of a people is at least equally relevant -- and that the American character, at least so far, appears still to be "the last, best hope of mankind."

Barbara

[Barbara Branden]

Michael,

I had a sudden insight, after the rather pleasant thought that I very much enjoyed OL. It dawned on me that I enjoy the company of brainy people versed in Objectivism (Bob included). Now couple that with the strong probability that Objectivism will decline and maybe vanish in a couple centuries, like Aristotle, sort of. If true, then perhaps the cohesion and emergent purpose of OL is a think tank.

As I argued at the beginning of this thread, America needs creative intellectual leadership right now this minute, not generations hence. Maybe it's our turn to lead public policy.

W.

Wolf, even if Objectivism doesn't vanish, I rather like the idea of Objectivist Living as a think tank.

Barbara

[Brant Gaede]

If I give up cannibalism can I achieve moral perfection?

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> I don't accept the idea that academic philosophy alone determines the course of history; I think that the character and sanity of a people is at least equally relevant [barbara]

Barbara, I agree. And that (plus volition) is why I'm not a definite or committed pessimist. But I have lived and spent time outside of NYC, LALALand, and SanFiasco and, for one thing, the anti-intellectualism and willingness to swallow absurdities, both mystical and otherwise is often frightening.

For another, the character flaw that I see most often (as a teacher, for example) is not a lack of honesty or justice or independence, it's a lack of self-discipline and responsibility and effort (directed properly). The recent immigrants have it more than the native-born Americans, parents and children.

It's not academic philosophy which exclusively moves us, true, but the elites in NY and LA and SF and DC -do- drive the direction we are going in, and its hard to see when or how there will be a sea-change in that.

[Philip Coates]

> If I give up cannibalism can I achieve moral perfection?

Brant, yes you can, but you have to develop a taste for it.

[Barbara Branden]

> I don't accept the idea that academic philosophy alone determines the course of history; I think that the character and sanity of a people is at least equally relevant [barbara]

Barbara, I agree. And that (plus volition) is why I'm not a definite or committed pessimist. But I have lived and spent time outside of NYC, LALALand, and SanFiasco and, for one thing, the anti-intellectualism and willingness to swallow absurdities, both mystical and otherwise is often frightening.

For another, the character flaw that I see most often (as a teacher, for example) is not a lack of honesty or justice or independence, it's a lack of self-discipline and responsibility and effort (directed properly). The recent immigrants have it more than the native-born Americans, parents and children.

It's not academic philosophy which exclusively moves us, true, but the elites in NY and LA and SF and DC -do- drive the direction we are going in, and its hard to see when or how there will be a sea-change in that.

Phil, I grant that the willingness to swallow absurdities outside of New York and Los Angeles can be almost as frightening as the willingness to swallow absurdities inside those centers. But at least in the hinterlands people seem to live with reasonable self-discipline and effort. And we still are very much a nation of immigrants; if that were to end, I would lose much of my optimism.

As for the elites driving the direction we're taking, it's true, but it could change very rapidly. Imagine if a George Washington or a Franklin Roosevelt or a Ronald Reagan were to come along today. I think he'd be elected President, probably by a landslide, and the whole direction of the country -- for good or for bad, depending on how one views these men -- would radically alter. Remember how many problems even in our recent history seemed as permanent and insoluble as the danger of Islamic fundamentalism seems today -- and vanished rapidly. No one believed that we would live to see Russia implode before our eyes, the Berlin Wall fall, many of the countries of Eastern Europe become the freest countries in Europe -- yet it all happened, and one lone man, Ronald Reagan, was a driving force behind its final phases.

My point is that that trends can rapidly change, that committed individuals have more inflluence and power than one might think, that unexpected events can bring out the strengths or the weaknesses in men and in nations. It's important to know -- and one cannot know it as an absolute -- what are the strengths of a country, of its people, before we can predict its future. I think it was predictable that France would cower before the might of Hitler, and that Russia would not; that Japanese internment camps duriig Wofld War II would be horrors of bestial treatment, and that Canadian internment camps would not; that Israel would fight to the death to survive, and that Lebanon would not, that in the final analysis America would come to its senses and finally destroy the last remnants of terrrorism...oh, well, that hasn't happened yet, but I believe there's good reason to think it will happen.

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

I had a sudden insight, after the rather pleasant thought that I very much enjoyed OL. It dawned on me that I enjoy the company of brainy people versed in Objectivism (Bob included). Now couple that with the strong probability that Objectivism will decline and maybe vanish in a couple centuries, like Aristotle, sort of. If true, then perhaps the cohesion and emergent purpose of OL is a think tank.

As I argued at the beginning of this thread, America needs creative intellectual leadership right now this minute, not generations hence. Maybe it's our turn to lead public policy.

W.

Wolf,

That's a really pleasant thought about OL being a think tank. I agree with Barbara and you on this. I have been trying to encourage a think-tank atmosphere, but this term never occurred to me until you just mentioned it.

The second part of your statement about us stepping up to the leadership plate, so to speak, is a good one with only one restriction. If there has been one overriding attitude I have been actively fostering on OL, it is for each person to think for himself. I love good discussion but I don't like preaching.

A preacher only cares about what you think. He isn't concerned about what he thinks anymore. He stopped thinking about that long ago. He is concerned about controlling how you think and that is his entire focus. He wants conversion, not intellectual trade. All his arguments are designed to ensnare you, trip you up, doubt yourself without questioning his approach, make you agree against your will, etc.

I am of the opinion that if a person is encouraged to think for himself and he engages others in goodwill, we have nothing to fear from him even when we strongly disagree with him. The guarantee of this comes from the fact that he is concerned with what he thinks. He is supremely selfish. His reason for engaging others is to test his ideas, refine them, even promote them because he loves them, not because he wants to control others and cram his ideas down their throats. He is not in the soul collecting business.

If we can get that kind of man and woman to lead, then yes, I would support that project without reservation. Just making another gang out in the world does not interest me. What would we call ourselves, anyway? The Freedom Flock? The Tribal Individualists? Rand's Wranglers? Galt's Gang? The Nation of Ego?

Heh.

Then what? Special handshakes? The dollar sign salute? Uniforms? Sermons? Witnessing? ("I used to be a dirty rotten scoundrel, lost and lonely and wretched, but then I read Atlas Shrugged and accepted Rand into my heart...")

Heh again.

But helping to create a group of active and interesting individuals who think for themselves... ones who are equally committed to fostering others to think for themselves, even in disagreement... that idea excites me. And it can be from an Objectivist angle. And that certainly would be good for the world.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> we still are very much a nation of immigrants; if that were to end, I would lose much of my optimism.

[ii] if a George Washington or a Franklin Roosevelt or a Ronald Reagan were to come along today. I think he'd be elected President, probably by a landslide, and the whole direction of the country ... would radically alter. Remember how many problems even in our recent history seemed as permanent and insoluble as the danger of Islamic fundamentalism seems today -- and vanished rapidly. No one believed that we would live to see Russia implode before our eyes, the Berlin Wall fall, many of the countries of Eastern Europe become the freest countries in Europe -- yet it all happened, and one lone man, Ronald Reagan, was a driving force behind its final phases.

Barbara, you make a couple excellent points. But on the last, yes, trends can change overnight and the Reagan Revolution did that. The country was in malaise and decline in the seventies. But the problem is that in previous years it would have had more of a lasting effect on people’s thinking, slowing of big government, stiffening the spine of big government, taking an aggressive hard line against foreign ‘evil empires’. But after ten years of Reagan, the conservatives have caved, the country has forgotten much of what he eloquently communicated, and so on.

So that’s the problem:

A George Washington today would have changes that are only temporary and not grasped all the way down . . . until the philosophical climate and the schools get better and stop producing retards and weaklings. Things don’t seem to stick when they go against the cultural grain set by the elites.

Education is a good example (and the most important, crucial area for the future):

Everyone knows and has known since Sputnik that the schools are in decline and there is talk about leaving no child behind, improving reading, etc. But changes make tiny and temporary gains, then fall back into the swamp. They even had to dumb down the SAT because students couldn’t answer the not so difficult questions I was asked when I took it.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Thinking about what Phil just said, it seems logical that we should address the best and the brightest, such as they are. Re Michael's questions about action, how about an OL radio chat show once a week? Maybe 25 stations in college markets (Ann Arbor, Madison, Boston). Take a while to organize.

W.

Edited August 19, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon