Objectivists offer solutions for the ideal, not the real

All too frequently, Objectivist solutions to political (and other) problems are possible, which is a good thing, but far-fetched, which is bad. For example, I'll talk with Objectivists about some problems with healthcare, and they'll say all healthcare should be private. end discussion. We'll talk about gay marriage, and they'll say marriage is none of the government's business anyway, so all marriage - gay, straight, or whatever - should be private. Again, end discussion. We'll talk about medicinal marijuana, eminent domain, campaign finance, special interest lobbying, and the list goes on. Each time, Objectivists quickly offer a solution that's possible -- in the sense that we could at least imagine it actually happening at some point in the future -- but they're way off in identifying a real option, one that will likely come to fruition in the meantime, at least as a temporary solution.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with offering the solution of the best of all possible worlds, but there is something wrong with ignoring the fact that such a solution is not a real option in most cases.

Although Rand said she was keen on the practical, her resistance to compromise probably inadvertantly discouraged many Objectivists from identifying real options. I think this has helped marginalize the Objectivist voice. And it's nothing to be proud of. When the brutes are attacking, it's better to fight back weakly than not at all. Doing nothing, save imagining a big stick, is far from virtuous.

I'd encourage Objectivists to continue identifying the solution of the best of all possible worlds. Let that be the goal toward which their politics tend or at least accord with. But recognize that such a world is usually not immediately before us. Find what steps we can take toward that that solution, that goal, steps that will likely come to fruition in the meantime, at least as a temporary solution. Find the real options.

Jordan

PS a disclaimer: I do know several individuals who call themselves Objectivists who do engage in finding real options. This post is not directed toward them.

Post 1

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 4:31pm

Some of the most sensible, and badly needed because so often not heeded, words of wisdom about Objectivism and its admirers I've ever read. And all the more sad because the sentiment expressed is so obvious -- or should be.

Bravo, Jordan.

Jeff

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 9/09, 4:40pm)

Post 2

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 4:46pm

Jordan:

"When the brutes are attacking, it's better to fight back weakly than not at all."

According to your profile you have been studying Objectivism for 8 years. Where or when did you learn that Objectivists would advocate sitting on their pants while brutes attacked?

Sam

Post 3

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 4:47pm

Jordan, all the problems you mentioned are political ones. The political changes won't happen without first effectuating cultural change. That is where the real battle lies.

Post 4

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 5:26pm

Bob,
You're absolutely right that the examples Jordan cites are political and that the solution lies deeper than that. I would say deeper than cultural, though. I would say on the level of individual ethics. Objectivists spend far too much time discussing how to understand and effect political and cultural change and far too little about how to achieve one's own self-interest in a social setting that is often much more circumscribed than the arena discussed on the nightly news. And here at this level, too, they too often exhibit the error Jordan points out.
Jeff

Post 5

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 5:45pm

Jeff,

Thank you.

Bob,

Politics can change culture, too. It's not always culture changing politics. Just check out the polls before and after gay marriage laws in the northeast. Check out the cultural change toward blacks after seperate but equal laws were flushed. Why not take a multi-front approach? Go for culture and for politics?

Sam,

Where or when did you learn that Objectivists would advocate sitting on their pants while brutes attacked?

When Objectivists deal with political issues, they often sit back and imagine what would be the "ideal" solution -- e.g., the big stick that would ward off the brutes -- but ideal solutions are often not real options. The body politick just pushes Objectivists around, and in response, they complain but do nothing. Stopping with the ideal solution is politically ineffectual.

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 9/09, 7:03pm)

Post 6

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 5:49pm

Bob writes:
>Jordan, all the problems you mentioned are political ones. The political changes won't happen without first effectuating cultural change. That is where the real battle lies.

Bob, if some kind of vast cultural change is necessary before Objectivist solutions are acceptable to the majority of people, then I predict right now that Objectivism will never prevail. This is, after all, exactly what the later Marxists came to believe after their theories based economic determinism utterly failed to produce their desired society. Faced with this ideological failure, but unable to give it up, the agenda became: "we must change the culture to one where Marxism is acceptable", forgetting of course that Marxism would then be unnecessary.

The mistake is actually a logical, and suprisingly common one - the idea that before anything can change, *everything* must change (a culture is all encompassing - far vaster, more embedded and more ancient than any mere political system). Appealing as this wishful idea is, it is actually subversive to the holders' cause - it provides 1)a handy excuse to avoid coming up with practical proposals or programmes in the first place, and encourages a mere talkfest and 2) an all-purpose excuse for successive failures of such proposals if and when they do ever emerge. (With Marxism it was "oh, the masses simply weren't historically ready for the correct ideology")

Consider it on an individual level, rather than a social one. Does someone need to share the same culture before you can win an argument with them, or persuade them to adopt a beneficial proposal? Of course not. Such an idea would render all arguments hopeless - or worse, culturally determined, and not objective.

I think if Objectivism is going to win at all, it is going to have to do exactly what Jordan says: win the arguments, have the better proposals, produce the results on a practical issue by issue, case by case basis.

Win enough of those and you will have the very culture change you seek. If you are unable to win on this basis, and "everything must change before anything can change", then *nothing* will change.

- Daniel

Post 7

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 7:24pm

Jordan:

In your original post you said:

"I'll talk with Objectivists about some problems with healthcare, and they'll say all healthcare should be private. end discussion. We'll talk about gay marriage, and they'll say marriage is none of the government's business anyway, so all marriage - gay, straight, or whatever - should be private. Again, end discussion."

then exhort Objectivists to find real options that can actually come into fruition. Well, you're an Objectivist, surely you can present some of them. If you can't why would you expect others to be able to?

You wish Objectivists to be more pragmatic and the only way they can do so is to be more like the existing major parties, who are in the majority, by far, and according to Objectivists they are pursuing policies that are detrimental to society. How, then, can taking a softer position benefit society?

Sam

Post 8

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 7:40pm

Jordan,

Politics won't change culture since its merely a consequence of the underlying philosophy of the culture (in our case a franken-philosophy.) The metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical issues are the foundation of the problem. You can paint the house and decorate it, but with a bad foundation it will still collapse on you. Recognizing this fact is extremely important if proper ideas are going to be spread. Falling into the old fallacy of arguing about ideals versus real concrete problems is just falling into the trap that the bastards want you to fall into. Atlas Shrugged dwells heavily on this whole issue, especially later in the book.

Ethan

Post 9

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 11:08pm

Hey Jordan

Looking at the assembled comments here, I think a certain thought pattern emerges. Roughly looks like this:

1. We can try to be good Objectivists as individuals.

2. But we are prevented from effecting larger practical change because we don't have any political power.

3. We will never have political power because while our proposals are correct, a corrupt culture naturally cannot accept them.

4. Underlying the corrupt culture is the corrupt philosophy, which must be corrected before the culture can change.

5. The correct philosophy lies on the level of individual ethics, and achieving one's own self interest according to Objectivism and despite the corruption of the rest of society.

6. In other words, we can try to be good Objectivists as individuals.

Is this the case, do you think? If so, it means compromise is inevitable if actual progress is desired.

- Daniel

Post 10

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 12:01am

Daniel:

I don't follow your conclusion that in order to effect change we must compromise ourselves when trying to be good Objectivists as individuals within a corrupt system.

Is that what you're saying?

Sam

Post 11

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 12:33am

Jordan,

Really nice post on top and great questions.

Ayn Rand was once asked something similar and her response (I am going on memory, so the words might be different) was that one should act as if in the outbreak of an epidemic. A doctor cannot cure all the people, he can cure only those he can get to and provide care for.

Since all of the problems you raised are issues we all have to deal with, we should have firmly in mind what the ideal is - the answers you objected so strongly to - and work with what we can contact and influence in the world in the best manner towards that ideal. Nothing more, but nothing less either.

Under no circumstances should a person feel guilty because his reach is not long enough to effect the whole changeover from the status quo to the ideal.

Learning the philosophy first is necessary. Then doing what you can, while you can to the extent you can toward the ideal is practically all you can do.

Some can do more and some less. The important thing is to work toward the ideal and not stop working.

One extremely good way is to firmly make very clear value judgments to people (preferable not too abrasively in most cases). Make them think.

Michael

Post 12

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 12:34am

Sam:
>I don't follow your conclusion that in order to effect change we must compromise ourselves when trying to be good Objectivists as individuals within a corrupt system.

>Is that what you're saying?

Your proposals will have to be ones that are ideological compromises with the current system. Whether in doing so you would consider yourself compromised is up to you. I'm guessing many would, but I don't know.

- Daniel

Post 13

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 6:32am

Daniel,

Your proposals will have to be ones that are ideological compromises with the current system.

Sorry. I don't see that at all. You don't have to agree with something in order to recognize that you have to deal with it because of sheer magnitude.

"Ideological compromise" means that you would have to agree with it. Become corrupt inside.

Not dealing with reality - with something you disagree with, but have to because of size, actually would be the "ideological compromise."

Sounds to me a whole lot like a package concept ("one cannot have ideological integrity") is trying to sneak in under the woodwork.

I might be mistaken.

Michael

Post 14

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 7:12am

Hi Sam,

I have presented real options to Objectivists, the latest being over gay marriage and the 2004 election. Outside my Objectivist exchanges, I have engaged in quite a big of political change. But I find it arrogant to lay out one's laundry list of endeavors without being asked for it, so I won't offer it now. Anyway, rarely is doing nothing a more effective route than fighting for a less than best (or less harmful, if you prefer) real option.

Ethan,

in Post #5 I pointed to some instances where politics changed culture. I do think philosophy and culture influences politics, but such philosophy and culture aren't always ubiquitous. Often times minority philosophies and cultures influence politics and successfully spread from the top down.

Daniel,

Well, it's mostly word games, but I might not say "ideological compromise," as MSK points out, and I might also shy away from saying "compromise" to Objectivists because they have a highly negative connotation of that term. Instead, I'd say say Objectivists should engage in practical political negotiation. And yes, I do see a pattern emerging from some of the posts here. There's a general defense of the Objectivist political passivity.

MSK,

Thanks for the kind words. I think you understand where I'm coming from.

Jordan

Post 15

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 8:29am

So at the risk of posting a practical suggestion...

Why not have one thread a day or week devoted to ONE specific topic and how Objectivists could *practically* work to bring it about. You cannot post a theoretical ideal unless you can offer a realistic plan of some sort that brings it about.

Start simply. Asking "How can Objectivists make society see the futility of collectivism?" isn't going to do any good and will just encourage more pessimistic passivity. Look for something do-able, like, "How can Objectivists help ensure equal marital rights for all?" (Or "How can Objectivists stop the President from ever again being able to lock up someone indefinitely with no due process?")

Start with the small stuff and work up.

Just a thought.

Post 16

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 3:28pm

Jordan:
>I'd say say Objectivists should engage in practical political negotiation.

I agree. Negotiation means compromise on one side or the other, but usually on both. In other words, you'll get a few things you want that the other guy doesn't, and the price will be a few things you don't want the other guy does. Ultimately you're both looking for a benefit that will overcome these costs.

However, if your ideological programme is so fragile and intricately designed that any compromises or deviations - which are likely to be both substantial and inevitable, at least in the early stages - destroys it, then you're in trouble.

However, I would then regard *the programme itself* as being poorly designed - rather as if you built an aeroplane that you considered the best ever, but it only flies in perfect conditions! (actually, this is exactly kind of the argument I am hearing with the "cultural change" hypothesis, whether it comes from Objectivists or Marxists)

Jason writes:
>Start simply....Look for something do-able, like, "How can Objectivists help ensure equal marital rights for all?"

Jason, I regard even this as too large-scale! Can't we try something even smaller to start with?

Here's a perfect example of a small scale practical political negotiation:

"How can Objectivists best form a coalition of interests with the Libertarian Party?"

- Daniel

Post 17

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 3:41pm

Jordan

The Libertarian Party has drawn on Objectivism for much of its political platform but it doesn't have a firm idealistic base as Objectivism has. Many, if not most, Objectivists would vote for the Libertarian Party over the other two major parties even though there are issues that don't correspond 100% to their philosophy. This is where the softening and compromise of the Objectivist's position could and should occur � not at the philosophical level, but at the political level, where it legitimately belongs.

If one is bent on the admirable goal of getting real changes to the direction that society is headed then one should become active in the Libertarian Party and by one's influence from within carry out the political strategy � but if Objectivism is compromised it won't exist � because it is based on absolutes.

Sam

Post 18

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 8:56pm

Several,
As I've said before, in one way or another, any kind of political action (such as involvement with the Liibertarian Party, working toward improved marital laws, etc) is starting "too large scale." Involvement in politics is certainly not necessarily immoral, and not alone because it requires compromise, but it isn't passivity or pessimism to suggest it may not be the best use of most everyone's time.

What's important is to live a fulfilling life, and most of the bad things that happen to individuals to make that difficult (in most Western countries, at any rate) happen at the hands of other individuals who do not have any kind of political power.

It's tougher, even much harder to try to see in principle how to proceed, but the problems associated with living a rational, productive, honest, just life with integrity and good-will have almost nothing to do with anything that would be reported on the nightly news.

Many will do well to stop thinking so much about this thing called Society and think more about self, neighbor, co-worker, family member, etc. Once the latter relations are improved to an appropriate point, the former will take care of itself. That is a valid form of 'spontaneous order'.

Post 19

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 9:20pm