An Objectivist Political Party?

Quick question... and I'm thinking you can probably guess what it's going to be, from the topic of this thread...

Why isn't there an Objectivist political party? Couldn't -- or shouldn't -- there be one? What would it take to get it underway?

Post 1

Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 12:30pm

It seems to me the short answer is a lack of Objectivists and a lack of willingness to compromise with non-Objectivists. There's the Peace and Freedom party, the Natural Law party, etc, but so what? What's the point of a party that doesn't get on the ballot and doesn't get any votes? The number of Libertarian activists hugely dwarfs the number of Objectivists, let alone Objectivist activists, and the Libertarians have trouble getting on the ballot, getting heard, and being relevant.

Post 2

Monday, April 12, 2004 - 12:49pm

Jeff,

That's a real shame. Part of me sees that perspective as defeatist, but the more rational part knows that you're being a realist concerning present circumstances. Nothing is possible if you don't at least start there.

You know, it's terrible that Rand's philosophical base seems to me to have been squeezed out of mention by the entrenched pressure groups that dominate public awareness. Were there not a stranglehold on what books were publicized to the public, this philosophy would have been a lot farther along by now. The Objectivist philosophy, with its natural, rational appeal would likely expand outward and pave the way for an Objectivist party.

I also think it's a travesty that public schools are so adept at aversively conditioning their students to hate learning, by limiting their assigned reading "choices" to the very worst sorts of mind-numbing, sheepifying kinds of books. But then again, I guess that's the point with "public" school. Much of it is an anti-concept and deception to begin with.

It's just a shame to me that the human mind is paralyzed before it even has a fighting chance to grow, or becomes aware of such possibilities.

Post 3

Monday, April 12, 2004 - 6:50pm

Well, we need more Objectivists and we need to spread Objectivism. It seemed to me that there weren't any very good Objectivism websites out there, so I wanted to make this one, since whenever I want to know anything I go to the Internet to learn it. I don't think I'm too pessimistic. If I didn't think we can win eventually, I wouldn't spend so much time doing all this SoloHQ stuff.

But to expand on the political party thing, as I said, then number of Libertarian activists dwarfs the number of Objectivists. And they spend quite a deal of time running the party, putting up candidates, campaigning, etc. I've seen it on the local level and have been quite impressed, and when I project that to 50 states and the major cities in all those states, I feel humbled when I compare that to what Objectivists are doing. But for all those people and all that effort, what are they getting? I'm just not at all convinced that even a 3rd party of that magnitude is worth doing when you consider what else you could do with all that time and effort. Making web sites, writing books and pamphlets, going to law school and suing the government, even protesting would all probably be a better use of time than running a 3rd party.

Post 4

Monday, April 12, 2004 - 8:55pm

Well, I think that part of the problem is that Ayn Rand was right on, when she criticized the Libertarian movement in one of her non-fiction commentary books.

After surveying the Libertarian movement, she contrasted it with Objectivism, and called it freedom without reason, where Objectivism stresses both. She made a point of saying that the embracing of such a thing is nothing but anarchy, and that sets the stage for the necessity of dictatorship.

Now, I'm not entirely sure that I agree with her attitude on that, because I think that there are limitations to what we can correctly anticipate using pure logic. Many times, as in evolution, advances are phenomenal, occuring randomly... and at times achieving results that are superior to what we can achieve using anticipatory logic and design. Mind you, the process is considerably more blind, slow, and messy, but it does work.

So perhaps in that vein, maybe the Libertarians are onto something, and there is a kind of metaphysical logic to what they're doing, but I wonder if they're even planning things that way.

Post 5

Monday, April 12, 2004 - 8:59pm

By the way, I love this website... does it list members by location anywhere, in case we wanted to have a get-together?

Post 6

Monday, April 12, 2004 - 10:32pm

Orion kind of off your topic but,

You said:

I also think it's a travesty that public schools are so adept at aversively conditioning their students to hate learning, by limiting their assigned reading "choices" to the very worst sorts of mind-numbing, sheepifying kinds of books. But then again, I guess that's the point with "public" school. Much of it is an anti-concept and deception to begin with.

I agree fully heres something you might try that I am doing. If you can become involved in the life of a high-school or middle school kid, do so. I have taken to explaining objectivist philosophy to the high-school and middle school kids that I meet while playing games at my friends gaming shop. Not the most nobel of places to discuss philosophy but you might be surprised at the positive responces that you get out of these kids.

You discuss what rand thinks about public education and they will say "yeah, my teacher does do that..." and give you about ten examples of what you were talking about. You explain the philosophy and sometimes they agree sometimes they argue out of confusion but on the whole they are receptive to anyone who is educated and is telling them something interesting.

A few pointers, let them try to reason things out for themselves in spots. And try to avoid the needless confusion of philosophy vocabulary that every objectivist seems to become adept at by the time they consider themselves an objectivist. Most of these kids can barely form coherent sentences let alone figure out the meaning of the word epistemology. I have been trying to explain philosophy in terms of a building.

Metaphysics = foundation                                               Where do we build buildings?
Epistemology = frameing;                                                How does the building stay standing?
Ethics = walls, ceiling, floor, stairs                                   Where can we stand in the building?
Politics = windows, doors, pumbing, electric                    How does the building function?
Esthetics = the paint, style, siding                                     What does a beautiful building look like?

The analogy is a bit shakey in spots but it conveys the idea well enough to kids and contruction workers. I came up with the idea while I was watching the new wing to our management department go up.

Post 7

Monday, April 12, 2004 - 10:47pm

Glad you like the site. We have some SOLO clubs that occasionally have get-togethers. So far just NYC and UK, but more to come. I could add city, state, and country to the user profile and then have the option to view users by location. That might not be too bad of an idea.

Post 8

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 10:34am

Orion:

You ask: >>Why isn't there an Objectivist political party? Couldn't -- or shouldn't -- there be one? What would it take to get it underway?<<

Every couple of decades the opportunity for a third party opens up in American politics -- e.g., 1992, 1968, 1948, 1924, etc. The successful third party will emphasize a single issue of paramount concern to the voters that the Republican and Democratic parties have ignored. Consequently it will overcome the traditional resistance of voters to "waste" their ballots on a third party, because the public discovers that their vote constitutes a protest to the status quo. Hence the third party garners an unexpectedly large share of the vote, and so one of the two major parties scrambles to capture the third party's issue. With the loss of its monopoly over a critical issue, the third party's raison d'etre disappears and it is consigned to the pages of history.

Therefore, if the goal is to bring to fore a single issue of primary concern to Objectivists, then using a third party as a vehicle to embed that issue into one of the two major parties has strong historical precedent. The fact that self-identified Objectivists constitute only a small percentage of the electorate is not a barrier to this strategy. The key is defining the issue in terms the broad public can understand and support, and then timing the launch of that issue when sensitivity to it is at a peak.

However, if the goal is to make Objectivism an enduring movement in American politics, there is no shortcut except for the capture of one of the major parties. This does happen. The New Left captured the Democratic Party in the early 'Seventies, and the conservative movement captured the Republican Part in the late 'Seventies. Prior to that, the Populists and then the Progressives ousted the Jacksonians from the Democratic Party and gained control of it ahead of the Great Depression.

Either way, however, means a great deal of compromise. Considering the nature of Objectivism, are practical politics within its ken? I don't think so. Therefore, I must wonder if the greatest political impact Objectivists can make is individually ala Ron Paul -- that is, ally yourself to one of the major political parties to obtain ballot access and a realistic opportunity of victory and then vote and influence your fellow solons along Objectivist lines.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 9

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 1:00pm

The Libertarianz party of New Zealand (www.libertarianz.org.nz) is, essentially, objectivist, due to the benevolent influence of its founder Lindsay Perigo (of solohq.com) fame. I have little direct involvement in the party, but from what I have seen it is much more philosophy and objectivist oriented than it's USA counterpart, though there are non-objectivist and even (horror!) christian members.

For some reason the above-mentioned site seems to be down right now...

Post 10

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 7:15pm

Eric:

Thanks for the feedback... I do find myself talking an awful lot to people from all walks of life, especially students, and when I put Objectivist principles in everyday terms, they love it... When I tell them about Rand's books, many of them ask me to spell her name and the titles; that to me is a strong sign that they may actually seek out and read the books.

Jeff:

I live in Florida, and it would be nice for once to have an actual peer group that I didn't have to feel so guarded and alienated from... Striving for a rational lifestyle is clean living, but wow, it can get lonely.

Citizen:

Sad as it is to me, I agree with you... Objectivism, while liberating and brilliant, can not be fully appreciated by everybody, although its grasp is quite far-reaching and hugely efficacious. Sad to say, it may have to be a brahmin type of society, rather than a political party... Objectivists are ideologically linked, although possibly always consigned to behind the scenes influence. Much as I might bristle at the idea of Illuminati or something, I'm not sure that the rest of humanity gives the person of Objectivist character much choice.

Post 11

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 7:54pm

David said: "The Libertarianz party of New Zealand (www.libertarianz.org.nz) is, essentially, objectivist, due to the benevolent influence of its founder Lindsay Perigo (of solohq.com) fame."

Indeed, the Libertarianz party is Objectivist-based, due largely to all the party's founders (plural) and most of its leaders being largely Objectivist. As it happens, however, Lindsay - although essentially benevolent - was not the party's founder (singular). That honour belongs to one Ian Fraser: Founder, the party's first Leader, and (frequently) President.

You are also, sadly, correct when you say that the Libz site is currently down. The site has been plagued by hackers ... and it's extremely frustrating!!

Cheers,

Peter Cresswell
FORMER LIBZ LEADER. :-)

(Edited by Joseph Rowlands on 4/13, 8:07pm)

Post 12

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 1:01am

Peter, correcting David, said:

'David said: "The Libertarianz party of New Zealand�(www.libertarianz.org.nz) is, essentially, objectivist, due to the benevolent influence of its founder Lindsay Perigo (of solohq.com) fame." Indeed, the Libertarianz party is Objectivist-based, due largely to all the party's founders (plural) and most of its leaders being largely Objectivist.�As it happens, however, Lindsay - although essentially benevolent - was not the party's founder (singular). That honour belongs�to one Ian Fraser: Founder, the party's first Leader, and (frequently) President.'

That's not quite right either. Ian Fraser *was* the founder of Libertarianz, but in the beginning, Libz didn't bother with a leader. As the 1996 election loomed, it was decided there *should* be one. At that point, I was co-opted into the role, & Ian Fraser became President. So the first leader was moi. I stepped down after the 1999 election & Mr Cresswell himself became leader. Illness, alas, smote him, & the party entered a period that might most charitably be described as "dysfunctional." *That* is about to change, with FreeRad humorist Bernard Darnton having stepped into the leader's role, a dynamic new President in Scott Wilson (another SOLOist), a motivated young deputy-leader in Stephen Berry (yet another SOLOist) & an executive of ... er, the usual suspects. Fortuitously, the fortunes of the country's occasionally semi-libertarian ACT Party (a party that wants the War on Drugs to be stepped up) have plummetted, leaving fertile ground for the *true* libertarian party, i.e. Libz.

Linz

Post 13

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 10:45am

Orion:

You wrote:

Sad as it is to me, I agree with you... Objectivism, while liberating and brilliant, can not be fully appreciated by everybody, although its grasp is quite far-reaching and hugely efficacious. Sad to say, it may have to be a brahmin type of society, rather than a political party... Objectivists are ideologically linked, although possibly always consigned to behind the scenes influence. Much as I might bristle at the idea of Illuminati or something, I'm not sure that the rest of humanity gives the person of Objectivist character much choice.

If your goal is nothing less than Galt's Gulch from sea to shining sea and will brook no compromise, you are being realistic about your political prospects. However, if the goal is to make society more Objectivist rather than less, then you have a goal that is achievable through electoral politics.

Keep in mind that electoral politics includes the referendum process at the state and local level. Indeed, a referendum would be the most practical way to advance an Objectivist goal. This is a process that is certainly do-able at the grassroots level. Perhaps after testing the waters with a few different Objectivist referenda, you would discover a public appetite for Objectivist ideas, even if not explicitly label as such.

That appetite might provide you with enough of base to create a political organization (if not a party) that could deliver votes to candidates who support Objectivist goals. In light of the so-called reform of federal campaign financing, such non-party organizations are going to have more influence on elections. If single-issue groups can have such an influence, why not Objectivists?

Such a non-party strategy is certainly plausible. If you consider how few people it took to donate to Dean's presidential campaign to make it break all Democratic records in primary fundraising, you begin to appreciate what is possible with groups even as small as Objectivists -- which probably isn't all that small, once you include fellow travelers, as compared to many of the non-party groups currently active in federal elections.

Food for thought.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 14

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 9:57pm

Citizen,

I agree completely... these ideas are so potent, that they sell themselves, with a high demand in many cases. But using the term "Objectivism" might just throw more terminology at people, that they're tired of hearing.

The spirit of Objectivism is what's important, and as much as I hate to label the process that you're describing as a Trojan Horse method, because that implies malicious intent where the intent here is positive, perhaps that's the most appropriate metaphor.

But yes, I also am not surprised that a handful of powerful donors to Dean's cause put him in such hot contention. As most people are sheep for whatever reason, it's frequently not some movement of the slack-jawed masses that pushes a candidate forward.

Anyhow, sorry to sound elitist, but that's very often reality.

Post 15

Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 12:30am

Guys,

There's only one way Libertarian government is going to happen: Revolution.

(Edited by Marc Geddes on 5/12, 7:49pm)

Post 16

Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 5:50am

Orion:

You wrote: >>The spirit of Objectivism is what's important, and as much as I hate to label the process that you're describing as a Trojan Horse method, because that implies malicious intent where the intent here is positive, perhaps that's the most appropriate metaphor.<<

I don't think the decision to not label a campaign as Objectivist would be dishonest. If there is only one truth (and there is only one) and Objectivism is the best means by which that truth is discovered and understood, all you have done by not bringing Objectivism explicitly into the campaign is to skip the explanation of why you think your proposal is true.

It is the truth that counts, not the label upon it.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 17

Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 6:01am

Marc:

You stated: >>There's only one way Libertarian government is going to happen: Revolution.<<

True, and the opportunity for such may be no more than a quarter-century off.

For whatever reason, America convulses through a paradigm shift, to use wonkese, every eighty-five years: 1690, 1775, 1860, and 1945. These shifts are always bloody, some extremely so. (Unknown to most is that the colonial Indian wars and rebellions around 1690 were the bloodiest years, as a percentage of population, in American history.) The last shift, in the wake of the defeat of fascism, sparked the civil rights movement and its bastard offspring, identity politics, group rights, and multiculturalism.

The next shift scheduled to arrive around 2030 will probably decide the fate of the welfare state as it verges upon demographic collapse.

You may very well get what you are asking for.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 18

Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 4:14am

Well, I think that part of the problem is that Ayn Rand was right on, when she criticized the Libertarian movement in one of her non-fiction commentary books.

After surveying the Libertarian movement, she contrasted it with Objectivism, and called it freedom without reason, where Objectivism stresses both. She made a point of saying that the embracing of such a thing is nothing but anarchy, and that sets the stage for the necessity of dictatorship.

Please site a reference to this. I've read everything that Rand has written, (with the exception of the Fountainhead), and I haven't seen such a reference to the Libertarian movement.

Thanks,

Craig Haynie

Post 19

Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 10:24pm