Why do ARI and other Objectivists ignore current events?

[Selene]

Sarah:

Each state develops it's own internal system. Federalism and comity does exist.

This creates opportunities as well as problems. The Republicans had a huge turnover in the state legislatures this last election amounting to some 660 some odd state legislative seats. Therefore, they will be seeking to Gerrymander seats that will make safe Republican Congressional seats, the same way the Democrats sought to make safe Democratic Congressional seats.

In other words, business as usual. The public is ready to at least listen to not doing the business of the citizenry "as usual." Therefore, I believe that there is an opportunity to be taken seriously on this issue.

More later.

Adam

[sjw]

The mode of communication you use is revealing: you don't communicate by the statements you make, you communicate by inference, followed by denial.

You make a bad inference, and then tell me I communicate by your bad inference. You're a dog chasing its tail. A caricature of presumptuousness. You're so presumptuous you've lost all awareness of how presumptuous you are. Classic.

Shayne

[sjw]

This is very generous of you Shayne: This place is too good for you--go to a worse, inferior, place--you are inferior.

--Brant

I think she'd be happier amongst actual Objectivists. She is at that stage of ignorance where nothing will teach her of her mistakes than to be around those who think like she does. She should come back after she learns her lesson.

Shayne

[Selene]

Sarah:

Since Shayne is not housebroken yet, I will emphasize that he speaks purely for himself.

Adam

[sjw]

Sarah:

Since Shayne is not housebroken yet, I will emphasize that he speaks purely for himself.

Adam

It seems a luxury to be able to speak purely for yourself, some people can be so damn presumptuous.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

This is very generous of you Shayne: This place is too good for you--go to a worse, inferior, place--you are inferior.

--Brant

I think she'd be happier amongst actual Objectivists. She is at that stage of ignorance where nothing will teach her of her mistakes than to be around those who think like she does. She should come back after she learns her lesson.

That might work.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What I don't understand completely, I must admit, is Rand's aversion to politics. She did seem to favor the psychological side of Objectivism over the political side; but then, she would occasionally go all out and write a 1200 page opus that revolves around the political side almost exclusively. I have trouble understanding if Rand was really as averse to politics as many of the post-Rand acolytes insist.

GeekGirl,

Before 1964, Ayn Rand was quite active in politics. She worked very hard on the campaigns of several politicians and dropped out after the Goldwater defeat. If you get a copy of Letters of Ayn Rand, you will be able to follow some of her attempts to influence politics up to that point.

This is a book carried out under the auspices of the Ayn Rand Institute, and the editing by intellectuals from over there leans toward making lots of changes in the texts without telling folks where the changes are. So you get a somewhat sanitized view of Rand in ARI publications. And there are many selective omissions to make sure people who are now in disfavor are not represented correctly according to their importance to, and/or influence on Rand. But Michael Berliner (the editor of this volume) is a bit better than some of the other ham-handed efforts from ARI, so at least you can get a gist of Rand. A gist is better than nothing at all, but so many of us would like a correct portrayal when her own writing is involved. Anyway, even with these reservations, I still recommend the book.

You can also get a terrific overview of Rand's interaction with conservative intellectuals and politicians of the time in the recently published Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right by Jennifer Burns. Jennifer was able to consult the archives and had access to many more letters than were included in the book above, including a lot of other material. And Jennifer did a stellar job of covering the topic. (You will here grumblings from more dogmatic Randists, who prefer a more sanitized Rand or wanted Jennifer to preach Objectivism according to their understanding in her book, but I hold she did a marvelous job developing her theme and documenting it.)

Obviously, I recommend the different biographies of Ayn Rand as they also give an overview of what she did and when she did it, especially The Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden and Ayn Rand and the World She Made by Anne Heller.

Now, as to the question surrounding Rand's later withdrawal from direct involvement into politics, here is an excerpt from The Ideas of Ayn Rand by Ron Merrill.. pp. 131-132. It is the best explanation I have read so far, and it puts all the other stuff into context.

The December, 1964 issue all of The Objectivist Newsletter carried an article which had a 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 reaffirmed 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 youth 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 increasingly on political, rather than philosophical, subjects.

The way this situation got interpreted by many Objectivists and Objectivism-friendly people over the years was for people to barricade themselves in small ivory towers and complain bitterly about the world. As these ivory towers were fairly hermetic, the inevitable happened. Gossip and power. Then bickering.

I, personally, have been involved with the online Objectivist community (the outcast side) since 2004, when I came back to the USA from Brazil. I didn't expect to find what I did, but there it is. I was looking forward to community, activism, movement, etc., but I did not find a center. Instead, there was a group of different organizations, cliques and efforts that didn't like each other too much. Some got (and get) along, but there was not what anyone could call a general unity of purpose.

In fact, usually when Objectivists organize "activism," I have found that they have no understanding at all of public relations. The best they do is write ham-handed letters to the editor of various publications, and the worst is probably sundry attempts to skew public or online surveys in favor of Rand or Objectivism (or related stuff).

But there are some good things happening. Some isolated real-world attempts at activism are being done by ARI with distributing Rand's books to high-schools and sponsoring student contests. With TAS (The Atlas Society), they do seminars, but their real cultural and political impact will be seen in their involvement in the Atlas Shrugged movie set for release next year. Robert Tracinski puts out a wonderful publication, The Intellectual Activist, which is not quite mainstream, but is a cut above other similar attempts, both in quality and quantity. And he, as an author, does write in the mainstream. Once in a while, you will see other Objectivist intellectuals in mainstream publications, and radio and TV shows. Yaron Brook does some stuff and one of the most active on our side of the fence is Ed Hudgins.

I enjoyed your own approach of getting in people's faces in normal everyday situations when they spout leftie stuff. I do this, myself. This is a far more refreshing idea than organizing another group and jockeying for a leadership position. (God save us from any more Objectivist guru-wannabees!)

As to OL, I have devoted this site to what I hold is Rand's greatest message to all of us: for each person to think for himself and herself to the best of their ability. I take this very seriously and I understand that different people have different paces and paths toward understanding. So it might appear that there is too much tolerance here, but that is an illusion that is created only when you look at a discussion forum as a pulpit. This has ruffled some feathers, but I believe it is the best way.

For keeping a lid on things, when I sense a lot of nonsense and/or mindgames are going on, or there are attempts to spam the forum and things like that, I intervene. Otherwise, I prefer to let people work out their own thinking in their own manner.

You are correct to wonder what you are supposed to do with good ideas once you have them. Elitist posturing in ivory towers is a waste of time.

If you are interested in some real-life stuff, Selene (Adam) and gulch and some others have their fingers in real politics. There are several libertarian members of OL who are involved in politics, also.

I, myself, am very interested in the awareness that Glenn Beck and Fox News have brought to the country. Kat and I went to Beck's Restoring Honor rally last year, which I believe is one of the most important political events in recent history. That's because it was not devoted to politics, but to forming and reforming character as a basis for doing politics. Some around here obviously disagree with me (especially due to Beck's religion), but when I do things like that, I do what I believe will cause the greatest effect on improving our society.

This aligns with how I believe it should be, too. We use a forum to discuss ideas and work through them, but activism, per se, should be done where it will actually have an impact.

Anyway, once again, welcome to OL. Maybe you will like it here, or maybe you won't. I do and will wish you well either way. The important thing for you--and for me--is for you to decide with your own independent judgment and to act according to your own values. I believe when two or more people who are like that agree and get together, they change the world.

And I further think that, maybe, waiting for the emergence of this attitude as a norm--i.e., independent thinking that cannot be bought or manipulated--was what Rand was getting at when she dropped out of politics.

Michael

[RightJungle]

Hey Geek Girl, I like your style. You write like a real Radical for Rand.

I am out and about in the Midwest - I go to the Tea Parties, teach what I know about Objectivism at every opportunity, and am trying to engage with the state government.

Currently, I'm working with a group of groups of people who will be spending time with our new Iowa governor telling him what we think the top priorities of the state should be.

The groups have lots of different names that usually include the "tea party" phrase. Guess what my group is called. The Objectivists of Des Moines". We are brand new and we are meeting tomorrow for lunch to plan our topic for the first meeting with the governor. I can't wait to see what happens.

Actually, I didn't vote for this Governor. I voted for the Libertarian candidate, Eric Cooper (gasp! Libertarian!)

My theory on why Ayn Rand paid attention to politics: She had read Frederick Bastiat and took seriously his admonition that when your country's politics were getting into bad shape, you needed to get involved in politics. That doesn't mean you have to run for office, but you have to DO SOMETHING.

Ayn Rand sure knew philosophy and she set a great example for how to think and write clearly. You have obviously learned that for yourself.

Geek Girl, I'm absolutely delighted with your passion and your obviously well developed understanding of Objectivism. Looking forward to more of your posts on anything at all.

(and just between you me and this fence post, you were right about SJW. He asserted that Rand was wrong on several important topics but then did not go ahead and say what they were. Tsk, Tsk.)

And finally, to get back on the thread that started this off - Objectivists do talk about current events - they are everywhere. Even Yaron Brooks is on Pajama TV regularly.

[sjw]

(and just between you me and this fence post, you were right about SJW. He asserted that Rand was wrong on several important topics but then did not go ahead and say what they were. Tsk, Tsk.)

So, if someone asserts something you disagree with, which does a philosophy of reason advocate?: a. ask for a reason for the assertion, or b. prance about hurling insults and putting words in the mouth of whomever asserted the something.

Given that Objectivists (and I mean this in the true sense -- those who submit themselves to Rand's authority) reliably choose b, I have to conclude that this is what they believe a philosophy of reason would advocate.

Objectivists bring shame to Rand's philosophy of independence.

Shayne

Edited January 2, 2011 by sjw

[Selene]

You just love that "prance" word, don't you!

[sjw]

You just love that "prance" word, don't you!

I will grant you this: When you mock you get straight to the point, unlike REB's boring drawn out grammar lessons. On the other hand, you never involve yourself in the center of any issue, you content yourself with playing the coward and beggar, grabbing at whatever cheap shot you can scrounge up.

GeekGirl did raise a number of valid points, I agree with her passion, I also agree with her disdain for evading the central points.

Shayne

[Selene]

My theory on why Ayn Rand paid attention to politics: She had read Frederick Bastiat and took seriously his admonition that when your country's politics were getting into bad shape, you needed to get involved in politics. That doesn't mean you have to run for office, but you have to DO SOMETHING.

Ayn Rand sure knew philosophy and she set a great example for how to think and write clearly. You have obviously learned that for yourself.

To anyone who has never read Bastiat's brilliant Candlemakers' Petition:

A PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting.

To the Honourable Members of the Chamber of Deputies.

Open letter to the French Parliament, originally published in 1845 (Note of the Web Publisher)

Gentlemen:

You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and have little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry. We come to offer you a wonderful opportunity for your — what shall we call it? Your theory? No, nothing is more deceptive than theory. Your doctrine? Your system? Your principle? But you dislike doctrines, you have a horror of systems, as for principles, you deny that there are any in political economy; therefore we shall call it your practice — your practice without theory and without principle.

We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on us so mercilessly we suspect he is being stirred up against us by perfidious Albion (excellent diplomacy nowadays!), particularly because he has for that haughty island a respect that he does not show for us ^[1].

We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

Be good enough, honourable deputies, to take our request seriously, and do not reject it without at least hearing the reasons that we have to advance in its support.

First, if you shut off as much as possible all access to natural light, and thereby create a need for artificial light, what industry in France will not ultimately be encouraged?

If France consumes more tallow, there will have to be more cattle and sheep, and, consequently, we shall see an increase in cleared fields, meat, wool, leather, and especially manure, the basis of all agricultural wealth.

If France consumes more oil, we shall see an expansion in the cultivation of the poppy, the olive, and rapeseed. These rich yet soil-exhausting plants will come at just the right time to enable us to put to profitable use the increased fertility that the breeding of cattle will impart to the land.

Our moors will be covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of bees will gather from our mountains the perfumed treasures that today waste their fragrance, like the flowers from which they emanate. Thus, there is not one branch of agriculture that would not undergo a great expansion.

The same holds true of shipping. Thousands of vessels will engage in whaling, and in a short time we shall have a fleet capable of upholding the honour of France and of gratifying the patriotic aspirations of the undersigned petitioners, chandlers, etc.

But what shall we say of the specialities of Parisian manufacture? Henceforth you will behold gilding, bronze, and crystal in candlesticks, in lamps, in chandeliers, in candelabra sparkling in spacious emporia compared with which those of today are but stalls.

There is no needy resin-collector on the heights of his sand dunes, no poor miner in the depths of his black pit, who will not receive higher wages and enjoy increased prosperity.

It needs but a little reflection, gentlemen, to be convinced that there is perhaps not one Frenchman, from the wealthy stockholder of the Anzin Company to the humblest vendor of matches, whose condition would not be improved by the success of our petition.

We anticipate your objections, gentlemen; but there is not a single one of them that you have not picked up from the musty old books of the advocates of free trade. We defy you to utter a word against us that will not instantly rebound against yourselves and the principle behind all your policy.

Will you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, France will not gain at all, because the consumer will bear the expense?

We have our answer ready:

You no longer have the right to invoke the interests of the consumer. You have sacrificed him whenever you have found his interests opposed to those of the producer. You have done so in order to encourage industry and to increase employment. For the same reason you ought to do so this time too.

Indeed, you yourselves have anticipated this objection. When told that the consumer has a stake in the free entry of iron, coal, sesame, wheat, and textiles, ``Yes,'' you reply, ``but the producer has a stake in their exclusion.'' Very well, surely if consumers have a stake in the admission of natural light, producers have a stake in its interdiction.

``But,'' you may still say, ``the producer and the consumer are one and the same person. If the manufacturer profits by protection, he will make the farmer prosperous. Contrariwise, if agriculture is prosperous, it will open markets for manufactured goods.'' Very well, If you grant us a monopoly over the production of lighting during the day, first of all we shall buy large amounts of tallow, charcoal, oil, resin, wax, alcohol, silver, iron, bronze, and crystal, to supply our industry; and, moreover, we and our numerous suppliers, having become rich, will consume a great deal and spread prosperity into all areas of domestic industry.

Will you say that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift of Nature, and that to reject such gifts would be to reject wealth itself under the pretext of encouraging the means of acquiring it?

But if you take this position, you strike a mortal blow at your own policy; remember that up to now you have always excluded foreign goods because and in proportion as they approximate gratuitous gifts. You have only half as good a reason for complying with the demands of other monopolists as you have for granting our petition, which is in complete accord with your established policy; and to reject our demands precisely because they are better founded than anyone else's would be tantamount to accepting the equation: + x + = -; in other words, it would be to heap absurdity upon absurdity.

Labour and Nature collaborate in varying proportions, depending upon the country and the climate, in the production of a commodity. The part that Nature contributes is always free of charge; it is the part contributed by human labour that constitutes value and is paid for.

If an orange from Lisbon sells for half the price of an orange from Paris, it is because the natural heat of the sun, which is, of course, free of charge, does for the former what the latter owes to artificial heating, which necessarily has to be paid for in the market.

Thus, when an orange reaches us from Portugal, one can say that it is given to us half free of charge, or, in other words, at half price as compared with those from Paris.

Now, it is precisely on the basis of its being semigratuitous (pardon the word) that you maintain it should be barred. You ask: ``How can French labour withstand the competition of foreign labour when the former has to do all the work, whereas the latter has to do only half, the sun taking care of the rest?'' But if the fact that a product is half free of charge leads you to exclude it from competition, how can its being totally free of charge induce you to admit it into competition? Either you are not consistent, or you should, after excluding what is half free of charge as harmful to our domestic industry, exclude what is totally gratuitous with all the more reason and with twice the zeal.

To take another example: When a product — coal, iron, wheat, or textiles — comes to us from abroad, and when we can acquire it for less labour than if we produced it ourselves, the difference is a gratuitous gift that is conferred up on us. The size of this gift is proportionate to the extent of this difference. It is a quarter, a half, or three-quarters of the value of the product if the foreigner asks of us only three-quarters, one-half, or one-quarter as high a price. It is as complete as it can be when the donor, like the sun in providing us with light, asks nothing from us. The question, and we pose it formally, is whether what you desire for France is the benefit of consumption free of charge or the alleged advantages of onerous production. Make your choice, but be logical; for as long as you ban, as you do, foreign coal, iron, wheat, and textiles, in proportion as their price approaches zero, how inconsistent it would be to admit the light of the sun, whose price is zero all day long!

Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850), Sophismes économiques, 1845 Notes:

^[1] A reference to Britain's reputation as a foggy island.

[<-]

Originally published on the web by The New Australian. Unknown translator (maybe someone from the FEE). Slightly edited by Faré Rideau. See also the original french text on Bastiat.org.

Also ran across a nice little website about him: http://bastiat.org/en/

Adam

Hoping Little Timmy Geitner never reads this, or, perish the thought the incredible shrinking President O'biwan

Edited January 2, 2011 by Selene

[geekgirl]

Michael Stuart Kelly: Thank you so much for that! That actually helps quite a bit... I find that it depresses me as well. I have to say I totally agree with her - the primary battlefield should be education first, politics, second. The problem is... how's that going exactly? I'm not sure there's much of any Objectivist thought in the education system at any level. It's certainly nowhere near as prevalent as Leftist thought. My God, imagine if Atlas was actually assigned reading? Imagine if it was being taught with the intensity, say, global warming is. We wouldn't even have to worry about the politics. Leftism would barely exist, and they would be jokes. We could concern ourselves with debates between Libertarianism, conservatism, objectivism, etc.

My only concern is that due to the rather (ahem) slow progress on the education front, that the political front has been lost completely. Have you seen IndoctrinateU? If we have to start with education... at this rate, we may never get there.

Mary Lee Harsha: you're totally right about Frederick Bastiat. In fact, that encompassess everything I feel right now - DO SOMETHING! The reason we are in such bad shape right now is because we ignored the politics for so long. (And the education, apparently) We allowed essentially enemies of the state to define us. Now we find ourselves in a situation where we have to actually make a case for individual freedom. Don't fret the libertarians - would you prefer the marxists? Anything we do to begin dragging the country back from collective destruction to individual prosperity is a good thing.

Selene: loved the French reference point! Isn't it amazing, from the Fall of Rome to the Raping of the US Treasury; some things

never change. Our biggest threat is always from people who think they can bring about utopia through micromanagement. (And of course, they're always happy to skim a little off the top along the way.) What was it Reagan said - "democrat fiscal policy: if it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." In fact, I just found an unopened bottle of completely cliche pink champagne - a new year's toast to France!

Edited January 2, 2011 by GeekGirl

[sjw]

Ayn Rand best identified the root of political problems: a failure to follow reason. As self-proclaimed advocates of reason, the best thing Objectivists could do is set an example of how to follow reason in politics, and to try to teach others to do likewise. And yet, they do the opposite. The refuse to engage in rational debate on important issues, they refuse to rationally justify their own principles (because they do not hold them as principles, but rather as dogma dispensed from their Authority Figure, Ayn Rand), they use morality not as an example of the power of reason, but in the same manner as the Catholic church would use it.

All is hopeless unless a substantial fraction of humanity chooses to follow reason. It is the one and only thing that can save the world. But on this count, Objectivists blend in with the rest of the world. They don't embrace reason at all.

Shayne

[RightJungle]

What I don't understand completely, I must admit, is Rand's aversion to politics. She did seem to favor the psychological side of Objectivism over the political side; but then, she would occasionally go all out and write a 1200 page opus that revolves around the political side almost exclusively. I have trouble understanding if Rand was really as averse to politics as many of the post-Rand acolytes insist.

GeekGirl,

Before 1964, Ayn Rand was quite active in politics. She worked very hard on the campaigns of several politicians and dropped out after the Goldwater defeat. If you get a copy of Letters of Ayn Rand, you will be able to follow some of her attempts to influence politics up to that point.

This is a book carried out under the auspices of the Ayn Rand Institute, and the editing by intellectuals from over there leans toward making lots of changes in the texts without telling folks where the changes are. So you get a somewhat sanitized view of Rand in ARI publications. And there are many selective omissions to make sure people who are now in disfavor are not represented correctly according to their importance to, and/or influence on Rand. But Michael Berliner (the editor of this volume) is a bit better than some of the other ham-handed efforts from ARI, so at least you can get a gist of Rand. A gist is better than nothing at all, but so many of us would like a correct portrayal when her own writing is involved. Anyway, even with these reservations, I still recommend the book.

You can also get a terrific overview of Rand's interaction with conservative intellectuals and politicians of the time in the recently published Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right by Jennifer Burns. Jennifer was able to consult the archives and had access to many more letters than were included in the book above, including a lot of other material. And Jennifer did a stellar job of covering the topic. (You will here grumblings from more dogmatic Randists, who prefer a more sanitized Rand or wanted Jennifer to preach Objectivism according to their understanding in her book, but I hold she did a marvelous job developing her theme and documenting it.)

Obviously, I recommend the different biographies of Ayn Rand as they also give an overview of what she did and when she did it, especially The Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden and Ayn Rand and the World She Made by Anne Heller.

Now, as to the question surrounding Rand's later withdrawal from direct involvement into politics, here is an excerpt from The Ideas of Ayn Rand by Ron Merrill.. pp. 131-132. It is the best explanation I have read so far, and it puts all the other stuff into context.

The December, 1964 issue all of The Objectivist Newsletter carried an article which had a 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 reaffirmed 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 youth 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 increasingly on political, rather than philosophical, subjects.

The way this situation got interpreted by many Objectivists and Objectivism-friendly people over the years was for people to barricade themselves in small ivory towers and complain bitterly about the world. As these ivory towers were fairly hermetic, the inevitable happened. Gossip and power. Then bickering.

I, personally, have been involved with the online Objectivist community (the outcast side) since 2004, when I came back to the USA from Brazil. I didn't expect to find what I did, but there it is. I was looking forward to community, activism, movement, etc., but I did not find a center. Instead, there was a group of different organizations, cliques and efforts that didn't like each other too much. Some got (and get) along, but there was not what anyone could call a general unity of purpose.

In fact, usually when Objectivists organize "activism," I have found that they have no understanding at all of public relations. The best they do is write ham-handed letters to the editor of various publications, and the worst is probably sundry attempts to skew public or online surveys in favor of Rand or Objectivism (or related stuff).

But there are some good things happening. Some isolated real-world attempts at activism are being done by ARI with distributing Rand's books to high-schools and sponsoring student contests. With TAS (The Atlas Society), they do seminars, but their real cultural and political impact will be seen in their involvement in the Atlas Shrugged movie set for release next year. Robert Tracinski puts out a wonderful publication, The Intellectual Activist, which is not quite mainstream, but is a cut above other similar attempts, both in quality and quantity. And he, as an author, does write in the mainstream. Once in a while, you will see other Objectivist intellectuals in mainstream publications, and radio and TV shows. Yaron Brook does some stuff and one of the most active on our side of the fence is Ed Hudgins.

I enjoyed your own approach of getting in people's faces in normal everyday situations when they spout leftie stuff. I do this, myself. This is a far more refreshing idea than organizing another group and jockeying for a leadership position. (God save us from any more Objectivist guru-wannabees!)

As to OL, I have devoted this site to what I hold is Rand's greatest message to all of us: for each person to think for himself and herself to the best of their ability. I take this very seriously and I understand that different people have different paces and paths toward understanding. So it might appear that there is too much tolerance here, but that is an illusion that is created only when you look at a discussion forum as a pulpit. This has ruffled some feathers, but I believe it is the best way.

For keeping a lid on things, when I sense a lot of nonsense and/or mindgames are going on, or there are attempts to spam the forum and things like that, I intervene. Otherwise, I prefer to let people work out their own thinking in their own manner.

You are correct to wonder what you are supposed to do with good ideas once you have them. Elitist posturing in ivory towers is a waste of time.

If you are interested in some real-life stuff, Selene (Adam) and gulch and some others have their fingers in real politics. There are several libertarian members of OL who are involved in politics, also.

I, myself, am very interested in the awareness that Glenn Beck and Fox News have brought to the country. Kat and I went to Beck's Restoring Honor rally last year, which I believe is one of the most important political events in recent history. That's because it was not devoted to politics, but to forming and reforming character as a basis for doing politics. Some around here obviously disagree with me (especially due to Beck's religion), but when I do things like that, I do what I believe will cause the greatest effect on improving our society.

This aligns with how I believe it should be, too. We use a forum to discuss ideas and work through them, but activism, per se, should be done where it will actually have an impact.

Anyway, once again, welcome to OL. Maybe you will like it here, or maybe you won't. I do and will wish you well either way. The important thing for you--and for me--is for you to decide with your own independent judgment and to act according to your own values. I believe when two or more people who are like that agree and get together, they change the world.

And I further think that, maybe, waiting for the emergence of this attitude as a norm--i.e., independent thinking that cannot be bought or manipulated--was what Rand was getting at when she dropped out of politics.

Michael

You have provided some good info, Michael. I sometimes lose track of the full context of the background of the Objectivist movement. I read everything that I can get my hands on about or by Ayn Rand, but sometimes I just don't take the time to wade in as deeply as some of you experienced Objectivists do.

Thank you for your willingness to take the time to take it seriously.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Mary Lee Harsha

[Brant Gaede]

Ayn Rand best identified the root of political problems: a failure to follow reason. As self-proclaimed advocates of reason, the best thing Objectivists could do is set an example of how to follow reason in politics, and to try to teach others to do likewise. And yet, they do the opposite. The refuse to engage in rational debate on important issues, they refuse to rationally justify their own principles (because they do not hold them as principles, but rather as dogma dispensed from their Authority Figure, Ayn Rand), they use morality not as an example of the power of reason, but in the same manner as the Catholic church would use it.

All is hopeless unless a substantial fraction of humanity chooses to follow reason. It is the one and only thing that can save the world. But on this count, Objectivists blend in with the rest of the world. They don't embrace reason at all.

Shayne

There are a lot of suppositions in these statements starting with whom is and isn't an "Objectivist." It goes back to Ayn Rand, though, and her all in or you're out attitude in that the philosophy was one big ball of wax. Hence it became a dogma serving a cult--or a cult serving a dogma.

--Brant

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

Everyone knows why I'm here. I'm an objectivist. I advocate for that position. I have come to an objectivist website and was intrigued by this thread, so I registered and have enjoyed pushing all of you a bit to stand up and make some noise. Get out of the armchairs. Actually get in the fray. My biggest complaint is that we are NOT proactive enough; and that position (I think) should be obvious.

I'm a (relative) newbie here myself, and GeekGirl, I agree with you in your support of the original topic thread.

I believe that the key political issue now is support for the Constitution. During the past two years, especially the last, the "Democrat" party has passes legislation, which if ignored, amounts to a Bolshevik (New Leftist) takeover of the USA. The details are buried in the thousands of pages of hidden levers of power. That legislation is blatantly unconstitutional, but well-crafted from the viewpoint of flouting any fragile Supreme Court majority who would declare it so.

The "Tea Party," named by a stock trader, has given the statist mass media a label for supporters of the Constitution, to be smeared endlessly as "right-wing," racist, and violent.

I am personally appalled that those once close to Ayn Rand, whatever their reasons, prefer to quibble over solutions to the "problem of induction," whatever that means, and to leave the battlefield to religious or semi-secular "conservatives," whose philosophical premises are based on Locke, Hobbes, Hume, the Vatican, and the Book of Mormon, as the sole defenders of the Constitution.

However, not all post-Randian thinkers are in lock-step regarding the battle against neo-Bolshevism and its Soros-fueled propagandists who quote Popper's "open society." From time to time I read polemics from self-described Objectivists criticizing the nameless leftist writers of law and their sock puppet Obama.

Sure, the conservatives are wrong on many counts, but to quote the mass murderer Mao Zedong in a rare moment of agreement with him, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," at least in this instance.

The United States of America are fighting for their life. The Bolshevik/Kantian cancer has metastasized, and in my opinion, Rand's philosophical ideas are the most likely chemotherapy to work over the long run. They must be tested on the 50 patients, and not kept sequestered away by an "Objectivist" establishment which views itself as the FDA of ideas.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Jonathan David Leavitt

[sjw]

Ayn Rand best identified the root of political problems: a failure to follow reason. As self-proclaimed advocates of reason, the best thing Objectivists could do is set an example of how to follow reason in politics, and to try to teach others to do likewise. And yet, they do the opposite. The refuse to engage in rational debate on important issues, they refuse to rationally justify their own principles (because they do not hold them as principles, but rather as dogma dispensed from their Authority Figure, Ayn Rand), they use morality not as an example of the power of reason, but in the same manner as the Catholic church would use it.

All is hopeless unless a substantial fraction of humanity chooses to follow reason. It is the one and only thing that can save the world. But on this count, Objectivists blend in with the rest of the world. They don't embrace reason at all.

Shayne

There are a lot of suppositions in these statements starting with whom is and isn't an "Objectivist." It goes back to Ayn Rand, though, and her all in or you're out attitude in that the philosophy was one big ball of wax. Hence it became a dogma serving a cult--or a cult serving a dogma.

--Brant

In addition to the authoritarian junk, the ball of wax has a lot of other junk in it. It's better to chop it up in to pieces and carefully sort the good from the bad. But self-identifying with a group is alluring, too alluring for many. Note the psychological defense mechanisms in this thread -- I say Rand was wrong about some important matters, and by itself, that's enough to throw someone into an irrational fit. One has to speculate that behind this fit is the fear of being stripped of a group label, a badge worn on the sleeve that one has pseudo pride in, just as so many other -- gangs small and large -- love their uniforms.

Shayne

[sjw]

Everyone knows why I'm here. I'm an objectivist. I advocate for that position. I have come to an objectivist website and was intrigued by this thread, so I registered and have enjoyed pushing all of you a bit to stand up and make some noise. Get out of the armchairs. Actually get in the fray. My biggest complaint is that we are NOT proactive enough; and that position (I think) should be obvious.

I'm a (relative) newbie here myself, and GeekGirl, I agree with you in your support of the original topic thread.

I believe that the key political issue now is support for the Constitution. During the past two years, especially the last, the "Democrat" party has passes legislation, which if ignored, amounts to a Bolshevik (New Leftist) takeover of the USA. The details are buried in the thousands of pages of hidden levers of power. That legislation is blatantly unconstitutional, but well-crafted from the viewpoint of flouting any fragile Supreme Court majority who would declare it so.

The "Tea Party," named by a stock trader, has given the statist mass media a label for supporters of the Constitution, to be smeared endlessly as "right-wing," racist, and violent.

I am personally appalled that those once close to Ayn Rand, whatever their reasons, prefer to quibble over solutions to the "problem of induction," whatever that means, and to leave the battlefield to religious or semi-secular "conservatives," whose philosophical premises are based on Locke, Hobbes, Hume, the Vatican, and the Book of Mormon, as the sole defenders of the Constitution.

However, not all post-Randian thinkers are in lock-step regarding the battle against neo-Bolshevism and its Soros-fueled propagandists who quote Popper's "open society." From time to time I read polemics from self-described Objectivists criticizing the nameless leftist writers of law and their sock puppet Obama.

Sure, the conservatives are wrong on many counts, but to quote the mass murderer Mao Zedong in a rare moment of agreement with him, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," at least in this instance.

The United States of America are fighting for their life. The Bolshevik/Kantian cancer has metastasized, and in my opinion, Rand's philosophical ideas are the most likely chemotherapy to work over the long run. They must be tested on the 50 patients, and not kept sequestered away by an "Objectivist" establishment which views itself as the FDA of ideas.

I'm not an expert in history, but if I trust Peikoff's analysis in the "Ominous Parallels", one factor that created Nazi Germany was the left/right paradigm, where leftists try to strip one set of rights, and rightists try to strip you of the other set. The rightists have just in the last decade continued their escalation of war against Americans, e.g., the Patriot Act, or the fascist bailout of big business of 2008. Obama is continuing this rightist agenda, but note that all you criticize him for is the leftist aspects. This is a folly.

Shayne

Edited January 2, 2011 by sjw

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

I'm not an expert in history, but if I trust Peikoff's analysis in the "Ominous Parallels", one factor that created Nazi Germany was the left/right paradigm, where leftists try to strip one set of rights, and rightists try to strip you of the other set. The rightists have just in the last decade continued their escalation of war against Americans, e.g., the Patriot Act, or the fascist bailout of big business of 2008. Obama is continuing this rightist agenda, but note that all you criticize him for is the leftist aspects. This is a folly.

Shayne

A point well taken. Ayn Rand wrote repeatedly that Bolshevism functions as a form of fascism, while trumpeting altruist propaganda in the name of Marxist egalitarianism.

I have written about this in several blogposts, the first under my own name, and the second under the name of Liberty Rant:

http://www.doublesquids.net/coffeeblog/archive/theright.html

http://impeach-them-all.org/Archive/Red-DiaperFascist.html

[sjw]

I'm not an expert in history, but if I trust Peikoff's analysis in the "Ominous Parallels", one factor that created Nazi Germany was the left/right paradigm, where leftists try to strip one set of rights, and rightists try to strip you of the other set. The rightists have just in the last decade continued their escalation of war against Americans, e.g., the Patriot Act, or the fascist bailout of big business of 2008. Obama is continuing this rightist agenda, but note that all you criticize him for is the leftist aspects. This is a folly.

Shayne

A point well taken. Ayn Rand wrote repeatedly that Bolshevism functions as a form of fascism, while trumpeting altruist propaganda in the name of Marxist egalitarianism.

I have written about this in several blogposts, the first under my own name, and the second under the name of Liberty Rant:

http://www.doublesquids.net/coffeeblog/archive/theright.html

http://impeach-them-all.org/Archive/Red-DiaperFascist.html

For all the good intentions Rand had near the root of her system, the branches of it decidedly lean to the right. This may stem from her having lived under a Communist regime -- even she seemed not to be able to completely stop herself from the normal human response of overreaction in the opposite direction (one sees a similar overreacting response in anarcho-capitalists). I don't fault her so much as I do her modern-day acolytes, which have latched on to the rightest elements of her philosophy with unreasoned fervor.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Gee, Shayne, she just wanted to be right--don't you?

--Brant

I can be sophistical!

[sjw]

Taking up my original question, I have to wonder if one reason for ARI's disengagement is that some of the worst current events in recent history have some root in what they themselves have been pushing for years. For example, the 2008 bailout of big business in the context of ARI's incessant defense of big business and simultaneous ignoring or virtual ignoring of the plight of small business and individuals. Their virtual silence about the systematic eradication of the Bill of Rights over the course of decades (most recently their silence on the Patriot Act* and their justification for using torture) makes them philosophically culpable and (evidently) unable to speak even when it gets as egregious as we've recently seen with the TSA.

To those who actually value the Bill of Rights and see their importance, many Objectivists look like traitors to American founding ideals.

Shayne

* I don't know of any case where ARI spoke out against The Patriot Act but am open to correction. A google search turned up this.

Edited January 2, 2011 by sjw

[pippi]

geekgirl I love your fire and eloquence

I still have that sometimes-not easy these days. esp the eloquence part

fwiw I admire your spirit