Why Objectivists don't do politics

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why Objectivists don't do politics

Several times recently I have seen on OL a discussion on why Rand did not encourage political activism. There is a lot of speculation and often speculation of wrong facts. In order to give the proper ones, I am presenting a section of Ron Merrill's book, The Ideas of Ayn Rand, which is the best analysis of the situation I have read so far.

Rand's final disenchantment with conservatism and political activism was due to the Goldwater election loss. The essay Merrill mentions "It Is Earlier Than You Think," which deals with this, was published in The Objectivist Newsletter in December 1964. The other essay, ""Extremism" or The Art of Smearing" was published in the September 1964 issue. This last is available in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Unfortunately "It Is Earlier Than You Think" is only available in The Objectivist Newsletter or on The Objectivism Research CDROM. I have both and the essay is quite interesting. I might do a summary of it in this thread since it impacted the Objectivist movement so profoundly. It is a shame it is not available in a mainstream compilation or online somewhere.

I am not saying Objectivists should be more or less politically active now. But at least the reason needs to be clear as to why things are as they are.

Here is the quote from The Ideas of Ayn Rand, pp. 131-132:

The Goldwater Debacle

In spite of her intellectual distaste for conservatism, and her personal distaste for Buckley and his minions, Ayn Rand continued to back conservative candidates. In the Objectivist Newsletter of October, 1963, Ayn Rand advised her readers to register as Republicans and vote in the presidential primary elections for Barry Goldwater. She based this advice primarily on the need to prevent an “intellectual coup d'état” by Nelson Rockefeller—a takeover of the Republican Party by welfare-state liberals. Her endorsement of Goldwater was tentative, though she cited his position on Cuba and his opposition to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty as encouraging.

A few months later (March, 1964) Rand endorsed Goldwater more strongly, explaining that “Freedom is his major premise.” She described him as “singularly devoid of power lust.”

One of the longest articles Rand ever published in the Objectivist Newsletter was '"Extremism" or The Art of Smearing' [sic] (September 1964). Provoked by the furor over Goldwater's refusal to repudiate the support of the John Birch Society, this essay analyzed the controversy at the Republican Convention in epistemological terms. Rand introduced the idea of the “anti-concept,” a useful tool in understanding political propaganda. Terms such as ‘extremism’ (or ‘isolationism’ or ‘McCarthyism’), she pointed out, are designed to fog out and obliterate real concepts, such as conservatism. She congratulated Goldwater on his handling of this attack.

But by October, Rand was sounding a warning to her students, predicting that Goldwater would likely be defeated because “his campaign has been conducted so badly”.

If Rand still retained any hope of a Goldwater victory at this late date she was far behind other political analysts. All but the blindness of Goldwater's partisans had written off his chances even before he was nominated. Still, many of the Objectivist movement's younger adherents had campaigned for him enthusiastically. They needed an explanation.

The December, 1964 issue of the Objectivist Newsletter carried an article which had crucial influence on the course of the Objectivist movement—and, perhaps, on the course of American politics. Entitled ‘It Is Earlier Than You Think’, this essay affirmed Rand’s analysis of the Goldwater campaign. She ascribed his defeat to the lack of any rational intellectual basis for conservative ideas. Rand went on to assert that the debacle had at least cleared away the old-guard conservatives, leaving the way clear for consistent supporters of capitalism to fight more effectively. But Rand warned that it was too early for direct political action. Instead, she urged her supporters to work in the intellectual sphere: “The Battle has to be fought—and won—in colleges and universities, before it can be carried to the voting booths.”

This article began a period in which the Objectivist movement became quite explicitly and self-consciously, hostile to the very idea of political action. Those who were unwilling to renounce activism were read out of the movement. There was an indirect effect on the conservative movement also. The young wing of conservatism had been heavily penetrated by Objectivist college students, resulting in a gradually escalating conflict with the ‘trads’. The sudden withdrawal of Rand’s followers settled this conflict decisively. Although libertarian elements hung on in organizations such as Young Americans for Freedom for several years, without the impetus of Objectivism behind them, they could make no progress and gradually diffused out. A threat to the traditional right’s control of the conservative movement was thereby averted.

Rand no longer indulged in any political activity. She reluctantly and with many qualifications endorsed the presidential campaigns of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford; she would not even do that much for Ronald Reagan. Ayn Rand had finally given up on conservatism. She had never accepted libertarianism. But—another Randian paradox—having retired from active political struggle, she wrote thereafter in increasingly political, rather than philosophical, subjects.

The two things I find most fascinating in this excerpt are:

(1) Had Objectivists persisted in the conservative movement, the history of America might have been different. Given Rand's contacts and prestige at the time, along with the activity of the young activists, this is quite plausible.

(2) Although Rand abandoned political activity, she still focused on politics in her writing.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Why Objectivists don't do politics

Several times recently I have seen on OL a discussion on why Rand did not encourage political activism. There is a lot of speculation and often speculation of wrong facts. In order to give the proper ones, I am presenting a section of Ron Merrill's book, The Ideas of Ayn Rand, which is the best analysis of the situation I have read so far.

Rand's final disenchantment with conservatism and political activism was due to the Goldwater election loss. The essay Merrill mentions "It Is Earlier Than You Think," which deals with this, was published in The Objectivist Newsletter in December 1964. The other essay, ""Extremism" or The Art of Smearing" was published in the September 1964 issue. This last is available in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Unfortunately "It Is Earlier Than You Think" is only available in The Objectivist Newsletter or on The Objectivism Research CDROM. I have both and the essay is quite interesting. I might do a summary of it in this thread since it impacted the Objectivist movement so profoundly. It is a shame it is not available in a mainstream compilation or online somewhere.

I am not saying Objectivists should be more or less politically active now. But at least the reason needs to be clear as to why things are as they are.

Here is the quote from The Ideas of Ayn Rand, pp. 131-132:

The Goldwater Debacle

In spite of her intellectual distaste for conservatism, and her personal distaste for Buckley and his minions, Ayn Rand continued to back conservative candidates. In the Objectivist Newsletter of October, 1963, Ayn Rand advised her readers to register as Republicans and vote in the presidential primary elections for Barry Goldwater. She based this advice primarily on the need to prevent an “intellectual coup d'état” by Nelson Rockefeller—a takeover of the Republican Party by welfare-state liberals. Her endorsement of Goldwater was tentative, though she cited his position on Cuba and his opposition to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty as encouraging.

A few months later (March, 1964) Rand endorsed Goldwater more strongly, explaining that “Freedom is his major premise.” She described him as “singularly devoid of power lust.”

One of the longest articles Rand ever published in the Objectivist Newsletter was '"Extremism" or The Art of Smearing' [sic] (September 1964). Provoked by the furor over Goldwater's refusal to repudiate the support of the John Birch Society, this essay analyzed the controversy at the Republican Convention in epistemological terms. Rand introduced the idea of the “anti-concept,” a useful tool in understanding political propaganda. Terms such as ‘extremism’ (or ‘isolationism’ or ‘McCarthyism’), she pointed out, are designed to fog out and obliterate real concepts, such as conservatism. She congratulated Goldwater on his handling of this attack.

But by October, Rand was sounding a warning to her students, predicting that Goldwater would likely be defeated because “his campaign has been conducted so badly”.

If Rand still retained any hope of a Goldwater victory at this late date she was far behind other political analysts. All but the blindness of Goldwater's partisans had written off his chances even before he was nominated. Still, many of the Objectivist movement's younger adherents had campaigned for him enthusiastically. They needed an explanation.

The December, 1964 issue of the Objectivist Newsletter carried an article which had crucial influence on the course of the Objectivist movement—and, perhaps, on the course of American politics. Entitled ‘It Is Earlier Than You Think’, this essay affirmed Rand’s analysis of the Goldwater campaign. She ascribed his defeat to the lack of any rational intellectual basis for conservative ideas. Rand went on to assert that the debacle had at least cleared away the old-guard conservatives, leaving the way clear for consistent supporters of capitalism to fight more effectively. But Rand warned that it was too early for direct political action. Instead, she urged her supporters to work in the intellectual sphere: “The Battle has to be fought—and won—in colleges and universities, before it can be carried to the voting booths.”

This article began a period in which the Objectivist movement became quite explicitly and self-consciously, hostile to the very idea of political action. Those who were unwilling to renounce activism were read out of the movement. There was an indirect effect on the conservative movement also. The young wing of conservatism had been heavily penetrated by Objectivist college students, resulting in a gradually escalating conflict with the ‘trads’. The sudden withdrawal of Rand’s followers settled this conflict decisively. Although libertarian elements hung on in organizations such as Young Americans for Freedom for several years, without the impetus of Objectivism behind them, they could make no progress and gradually diffused out. A threat to the traditional right’s control of the conservative movement was thereby averted.

Rand no longer indulged in any political activity. She reluctantly and with many qualifications endorsed the presidential campaigns of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford; she would not even do that much for Ronald Reagan. Ayn Rand had finally given up on conservatism. She had never accepted libertarianism. But—another Randian paradox—having retired from active political struggle, she wrote thereafter in increasingly political, rather than philosophical, subjects.

The two things I find most fascinating in this excerpt are:

(1) Had Objectivists persisted in the conservative movement, the history of America might have been different. Given Rand's contacts and prestige at the time, along with the activity of the young activists, this is quite plausible.

(2) Although Rand abandoned political activity, she still focused on politics in her writing.

Michael

I wouldn't say Objectivists don't do politics. I would say they don't agree on politics. It's often hard to know what a given candidate will do. It's also not like the Republican Party doesn't run attractive candidates like Steve Forbes occasionally. They don't win primaries and they don't win elections. We were fortunate to have Reagan. If Rand had lived to see the Berlin Wall come down, there would have been tears in her eyes.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

James,

By "do politics," I meant an organized political movement like what was started. And like the Libertarian party, which, whether you agree or not with what they do, "does politics."

You know. Registering. Delegates. Political party. Elections. Platform. Primaries. National conventions.

That kind of stuff.

Objectivists are great at issuing opinions on politics (and they are usually all over the place), but that is not what I meant.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

This practicably divorced AR and her Objectivism from libertarianism. It pretty much gave up politics for an ingrown toenail of a political philosophy. The sad fact of the matter is she could not--for she did not--have conceived what young Objectivists might have come up with of value politically so she cut them off on the implicit premise that they wouldn't. They went to libertarianism, if anywhere, and/or left Objectivism--or stayed outside from the get-go. (Speculations on my part.) If you throw away the energy of the young you throw away almost everything. This is what the US is doing right now, BTW, with taxes, inflation, unemployment, regulation , debt and war. If she couldn't have kept her mouth shut she should at least have cheereed them on. After all, Victor Hugo did in Les Miserables.

--Brant

Edited January 11, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[James Heaps-Nelson]

James,

By "do politics," I meant an organized political movement like what was started. And like the Libertarian party, which, whether you agree or not with what they do, "does politics."

You know. Registering. Delegates. Political party. Elections. Platform. Primaries. National conventions.

That kind of stuff.

Objectivists are great at issuing opinions on politics (and they are usually all over the place), but that is not what I meant.

Michael

How would they be able to differentiate themselves from the dealmakers when things go down the wrong road. Goldwater was Rand's type of candidate, was she wrong to get discouraged? She encouraged Greenspan into politics wasn't that sufficient. Even if she could have gotten 5 of him into various positions, the process itself forces people into compromises. I think in retrospect, she was right. She encouraged some people to be inside men if that was their aptitude, but why not create a lasting philosophical movement that would go into the future. I'm optimistic about the future of Objectivism. I think it's OK for Objectivists to leave the politics to CATO and the Libertarian Party. Politics is a shortcut and most of the gains are temporary.

Jim

[Backlighting]

AR “The Battle has to be fought—and won—in colleges and universities, before it can be carried to the voting booths.”

High School students, just a few years from being able to vote, is where I believe the basics of Objectivism need to be introduced. Upon entering college, they will at least have some of the seeds of rationality already planted and the ability to think more effectively.

[Chris Grieb]

Jim, Michael & Others; Please check my post about tending to your vineyard. Do what you think you can do and don't worry about what others are doing. If someone wants to help you or proposes another idea work with that person. In politics most of us can have only a limited effect. In philosophy we may reach only a few people with our ideas but reach those people. See Miss Rand's essay: "What Can One Do".

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

I honestly don't think anything can be done in politics with Objectivism as a formal presence. There are way too many schisms in the subculture.

Before doing high-schools, colleges, etc., Objectivists have to agree with each other on fundamentals, and especially have to clean up the contradiction of tribal behavior (displayed by far too many Objectivists) versus the principles of individualism.

I just don't see that happening any time soon.

Maybe once the AS movie comes out, the buzz will prompt something better.

I did not start this thread to encourage a political movement. The only reason I started it was to make it clear that Rand practically ordered Objectivists to leave the realm of formal politics. There seemed to be some doubt about this and people were getting the facts wrong, but it is documented by Rand's own work. Now the basic information is in a place more easily accessible for reference.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

My guess is that the schisms will sort themselves out. My guess is that ARI will soften proportionately to what is really becoming almost an open source, diffuse, totally nonhomogenized model of open system Objectivism. Are there really a lot of people who agree with everything in Truth and Toleration? There are a lot of separate, but sometimes related issues in there. David Kelley said at this year's Summer Seminar that he hadn't really seen a response to T&T. People should take him up on that open invitation and debate the issues. You won't be attacking him, you will be addressing the issues, although in the unlikely event you really do come to agree with Leonard Peikoff on all the major issues there would be certain natural consequences to that :-).

To me, the irony in all this is the amount of unqualified joining I still see in the movement given all of the issues involved. The schisms will stop when people stop giving groups unqualified endorsement and start really expressing their individual views. I think the antidote to conformity is individualism, not ecumenicalism.

Jim

Edited January 11, 2009 by James Heaps-Nelson

[James Heaps-Nelson]

In case anybody who knew me couldn't guess, it's hard for for me to stay angry at anyone for very long (except the real baddies Hitler, Stalin and to a much lesser extent, some of our own political minions), especially those who agree with or attempt to study Rand's body of work. About 2-3 years is my extreme limit. There's too much that's good in life for that.

Jim

[galtgulch]

Mike et al,

I think we can all agree that ideas move the world and that it is crucial if not imperative that those of us who are armed with the knowledge and perspective provided by Objectivism engage themselves as they each see fit to endeavor to voice their ideas so that others will hear them or read them.

www.campaignforliberty.com 98816

gulch

[Chris Grieb]

My guess is that the schisms will sort themselves out. My guess is that ARI will soften proportionately to what is really becoming almost an open source, diffuse, totally nonhomogenized model of open system Objectivism. Are there really a lot of people who agree with everything in Truth and Toleration? There are a lot of separate, but sometimes related issues in there. David Kelley said at this year's Summer Seminar that he hadn't really seen a response to T&T. People should take him up on that open invitation and debate the issues. You won't be attacking him, you will be addressing the issues, although in the unlikely event you really do come to agree with Leonard Peikoff on all the major issues there would be certain natural consequences to that :-).

To me, the irony in all this is amount of unqualified joining I still see in the movement given all of the issues involved. The schisms will stop when people stop giving groups unqualified endorsement and start really expressing their individual views. I think the antidote to conformity is individualism, not ecumenicalism.

Jim

Jim; Your last paragraph is great. The whole post is good.

I have not tried to take in all the issues in Truth and Toleration. I do want to reread it and Fact & Value.

To go to my earlier point. Tending your garden or vineyard is a metaphor for thinking and then acting in a way that is most profitable for you. I personally think TAS is doing great things. I wish they could do more. I have serious doubts about the LP and the Ron Paul movement. I was involved with the LP in the late 70ths & 80ths and saw it go nowhere. The Ron Paul movement suffers from a great problem in defending the people of the US from the real danger of the Islamics. I will disagree with those who support these efforts without I hope being disagreeable.

I think with this approach all of us can be very busy.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

My guess is that the schisms will sort themselves out. My guess is that ARI will soften proportionately to what is really becoming almost an open source, diffuse, totally nonhomogenized model of open system Objectivism. Are there really a lot of people who agree with everything in Truth and Toleration? There are a lot of separate, but sometimes related issues in there. David Kelley said at this year's Summer Seminar that he hadn't really seen a response to T&T. People should take him up on that open invitation and debate the issues. You won't be attacking him, you will be addressing the issues, although in the unlikely event you really do come to agree with Leonard Peikoff on all the major issues there would be certain natural consequences to that :-).

To me, the irony in all this is amount of unqualified joining I still see in the movement given all of the issues involved. The schisms will stop when people stop giving groups unqualified endorsement and start really expressing their individual views. I think the antidote to conformity is individualism, not ecumenicalism.

Jim

Jim; Your last paragraph is great. The whole post is good.

I have not tried to take in all the issues in Truth and Toleration. I do want to reread it and Fact & Value.

To go to my earlier point. Tending your garden or vineyard is a metaphor for thinking and then acting in a way that is most profitable for you. I personally think TAS is doing great things. I wish they could do more. I have serious doubts about the LP and the Ron Paul movement. I was involved with the LP in the late 70ths & 80ths and saw it go nowhere. The Ron Paul movement suffers from a great problem in defending the people of the US from the real danger of the Islamics. I will disagree with those who support these efforts without I hope being disagreeable.

I think with this approach all of us can be very busy.

Chris,

I think that people have certain thinking styles that fall into different categories and I plan to write some about this sometime. I think many ARI folks genuinely do have a natural analytical thinking style that favors a certain kind of rigorous consistency, but even there I would have to ask: What do you do with data that doesn't fit your model? I share with them a quest for what Stuart Kauffman calls "an unrepentant wholism" in knowledge. I just don't think it is closed and I think many of the most important and interesting issues have yet to be properly synthesized, analyzed and properly formulated.

Jim

[galtgulch]

"I have serious doubts about the LP and the Ron Paul movement. I was involved with the LP in the late 70ths & 80ths and saw it go nowhere. The Ron Paul movement suffers from a great problem in defending the people of the US from the real danger of the Islamics. I will disagree with those who support these efforts without I hope being disagreeable. I think with this approach all of us can be very busy."

Just as the followers of Hitler were able to subjugate the entire population of Germany with few exceptions, it appears likely that the fundamentalists throughout the Islamic world who are willing to take up arms may very well take control of virtually every Muslim country. I cannot speak for Ron Paul other than to conclude from what he has said that if the US withdraws its troops from all over the world including Iraq and Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca and Medina, Afganistan, that would remove the impetus for their anger and hatred of America. Still the peoples of those countries would find themselves living under virtual totalitarian theocratic rule such as the Taliban.

Is it really in the interests of the US, and Constitutional, for our country to assure the freedom of people everywhere else on the planet? Just where does it say that in the Constitution? If not how should the Constitution be amended to grant such power to the Congress?

I sympathize with innocent people living anywhere including children who are destined to be indoctrinated and taught to hate Americans and Jews and heretics and infidels.

Is it justifiable to try to eradicate those who express the intent to establish an Islamic Caliphate worldwide?

I am reminded of Al Capp's Schmoo the cartoon character which if hit will explode into many more smaller schmoos which just keep coming. There are only 1.3 billion Muslims in the world now. Only a tiny fraction of them are radical fundamentalists, maybe about 100 million or dozens of millions. Remember the Saudi's support the madrass schools all over the world where children are taught to hate us. See Sam Harris's book The End of Faith for a lenghty translation of the Koran these children must memorize. How many challenge such beliefs especially if we drop bombs on their towns.

www.campaignforliberty.com 98827 11AM 11Dec,

gulch

Edited January 11, 2009 by galtgulch

[James Heaps-Nelson]

"I have serious doubts about the LP and the Ron Paul movement. I was involved with the LP in the late 70ths & 80ths and saw it go nowhere. The Ron Paul movement suffers from a great problem in defending the people of the US from the real danger of the Islamics. I will disagree with those who support these efforts without I hope being disagreeable. I think with this approach all of us can be very busy."

Just as the followers of Hitler were able to subjugate the entire population of Germany with few exceptions, it appears likely that the fundamentalists throughout the Islamic world who are willing to take up arms may very well take control of virtually every Muslim country. I cannot speak for Ron Paul other than to conclude from what he has said that if the US withdraws its troops from all over the world including Iraq and Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca and Medina, Afganistan, that would remove the impetus for their anger and hatred of America. Still the peoples of those countries would find themselves living under virtual totalitarian theocratic rule such as the Taliban.

Is it really in the interests of the US, and Constitutional, for our country to assure the freedom of people everywhere else on the planet? Just where does it say that in the Constitution? If not how should the Constitution be amended to grant such power to the Congress?

I sympathize with innocent people living anywhere including children who are destined to be indoctrinated and taught to hate Americans and Jews and heretics and infidels.

Is it justifiable to try to eradicate those who express the intent to establish an Islamic Caliphate worldwide?

I am reminded of Al Capp's Schmoo the cartoon character which if hit will explode into many more smaller schmoos which just keep coming. There are only 1.3 billion Muslims in the world now. Only a tiny fraction of them are radical fundamentalists, maybe about 100 million or dozens of millions. Remember the Saudi's support the madrass schools all over the world where children are taught to hate us. See Sam Harris's book The End of Faith for a lenghty translation of the Koran these children must memorize. How many challenge such beliefs especially if we drop bombs on their towns.

www.campaignforliberty.com 98827 11AM 11Dec,

gulch

gulch,

In an era of weapons of mass destruction it is necessary to consider preemption to prevent terrorist activity. How did we deal with Hitler and Tojo in World War II? Any innocents in Islamic totalitarian states are hostages, their lives should be considered but not at the cost of ours. We are not

talking about the freedom of everyone, we are talking about self-protection.

Jim

[rhartford]

It's Later Than You Think

Now that the adherents of collectivism and enforced service are united, it is time for the advocates of individualism to act.The upcoming emphasis on "A New Birth of Freedom" is a perfect opportunity to highlight the "New Birth of Economic Slavery" that is all too rapidly approaching. Mainstream response in opposition to the enormous outlays for "economic recovery" is a promising indicator.

Pro-freedom advocates on the left and the right can join in a political party of social individualism. Possibly they can take over the Libertarian party, eliminating some politically poisonous planks, strengthening advocacy of protection of rights from foreign threats, and emphasizing protection of property rights. The religious, who believe thou shalt not steal, and the secular, who are convinced individual voluntary consent is required for property transfer, can politically join forces.

An earlier post, Freedom's Address, indicates arguments and rhetoric that may appeal to mainstream citizens.

[galtgulch]

It's Later Than You Think

<br/>

Now that the adherents of collectivism and enforced service are united, it is time for the advocates of individualism to act.

The upcoming emphasis on "A New Birth of Freedom" is a perfect opportunity to highlight the "New Birth of Economic Slavery" that is all too rapidly approaching. Mainstream response in opposition to the enormous outlays for "economic recovery" is a promising indicator.<br/><br/>

Pro-freedom advocates on the left and the right can join in a political party of social individualism. Possibly they can take over the Libertarian party, eliminating some politically poisonous planks, strengthening advocacy of protection of rights from foreign threats, and emphasizing protection of property rights. The religious, who believe thou shalt not steal, and the secular, who are convinced individual voluntary consent is required for property transfer, can politically join forces.<br/><br/>

An earlier post, Freedom's Address, indicates arguments and rhetoric that may appeal to mainstream citizens.

Given that the Republican Party traditionally stood for limited govt and individual rights and adherence to the Constitution, I think it makes more sense to join with the Campaign For Liberty and attempt to take over the Republican Party and to run candidates within it.

www.campaignforllberty.com membership currently 99532

This is an existing movement to do just that. The RP is a major party with about 65M registered R.

gulch

[rhartford]

. . . . .

Given that the Republican Party traditionally stood for limited govt and individual rights and adherence to the Constitution, I think it makes more sense to join with the Campaign For Liberty and attempt to take over the Republican Party and to run candidates within it.

. . . .

Ideally, a "Social Individualists" party based on social and economic freedom, with vigorous protection of individual rights from both domestic and foreign threats, could form a united and harmonious political party. With the growing registration of independents, such an "clean-slate" effort may indeed be practical.

Leave the opponents of social freedom to the Republicans. Leave the opponents of economic freedom to the Democrats. Leave the whimsical and the anarchists to the Libertarians.

[Chris Grieb]

Galt; Where do I start.

You say that the GOP has stood for limited government. In the 19th Century that was not true. In the 20th the GOP has stood somewhat more for limited government but not in the sense you say. For example several famous libertarians in the 19th century supported the Democrats. It is worth mentioning that the passage of the first anti-trust law happened under Republicans. In the 20th Republicans under the first Roosevelt used the anti-trust laws. The Democrats under the Wilson and 2nd Roosevelt where much more statist but Republicans went along with many of these actions.

It is worth mentioning that some of the most statist legislature has been pushed by Republicans. Don't forget the first name on the anti-free legislation that is called campaign finance reform.

Sad to say that anti-stat ism efforts in the US Congress are lead by a very few mostly Republican members of which Ron Paul has been one of the best.

On some issues Democrats have been very good. The new Senator from Montana has lead the effort in his state against "real ID".

Let us hope that more Republicans will oppose what statism the new Obama Administration tries to impose.

[galtgulch]

. . . . .

Given that the Republican Party traditionally stood for limited govt and individual rights and adherence to the Constitution, I think it makes more sense to join with the Campaign For Liberty and attempt to take over the Republican Party and to run candidates within it.

. . . .

Ideally, a "Social Individualists" party based on social and economic freedom, with vigorous protection of individual rights from both domestic and foreign threats, could form a united and harmonious political party. With the growing registration of independents, such an "clean-slate" effort may indeed be practical.

Leave the opponents of social freedom to the Republicans. Leave the opponents of economic freedom to the Democrats. Leave the whimsical and the anarchists to the Libertarians.

Robert,

I attended the first national convention of the Libertarian Party in 1972 as the lone delegate from Pennsylvania and returned home to found the LP of PA. There were many Objectivists in the LP in those early days. The LP still lives, barely, but its record shows an exercise in futility and the electoral experience is that of a cartoon character who is repeatedly flattened by the steamroller leviathans of both majors.

I think we should infiltrate both majors so each has an Objectivist/Libertarian/Austrian economics/free market wing.

After all, we do share identical positions with each. The trick will then be to voice the reasons we disagree with them on certain issues and let the voters hear the reasons.

I think that the Ron Paul supporters in the Campaign For Liberty are clearly the fastest growing, most dedicated pro freedom people on the scene who are arming themselves with intellectual ammunition, mostly from the Austrian economics realm but also open to the Atlas Shrugged thinking as Ron Paul did recommend Atlas in his best seller. Here is our chance to influence this movement, especially among the younger college age people entering the fray with Objectivist ideas.

www.campaignforliberty.com membership at the moment 1:35PM 17 Jan 99548

gulch

Edited January 17, 2009 by galtgulch

[Barbara Branden]

I think it likely that if Rand had not expressed hostility to political action and later specifically to libertarianism, the course of the Libertarian Party would have been quite different. Objectivists in large numbers would have joined it, preventing the Rothbard-anarchist wing from coming to dominate it and preventing the more recent prominence of the America-can-do-no-right enthusiasts. Objectivists might have had a political home, from which, one can hope, they would have thrown their support to whatever candidates or issues in either of the major parties were pro-freedom.

Barbara

[Selene]

Barbara:

Completely agree. I moved toward the anarcho-capitalist Rothbard, Tucille networks because they were about politics. Moreover, I knew my core objectivism could not be compromised and I would be able to spread it in the Libertarian Party. I brought quite a few Randians with me also.

It is tragic that so many allegedly intelligent folks could not see past their own narrow purposes, justified or unjustified, to eschew vilification, banishment, demonizing and generally slaughtering the intellectual and political child we were nurturing by "gaining" Pyrrhic "victories.

Gulch, I am surprised we did not cross paths since I ran the Queens County "organization", for lack of a better word, in its infancy.

Adam

[Reidy]

The point you make in #21 cuts both ways. Another possible outcome is Objectivists looking as irrelevant and silly as Paul, Rockwell and Raimondo.

[Barbara Branden]

The point you make in #21 cuts both ways. Another possible outcome is Objectivists looking as irrelevant and silly as Paul, Rockwell and Raimondo.

Paul, Rockwell, and Raimondo are irrelevant and silly. The basic principles of Objectivist politics and economics are not.

Barbara