The Potential and Limits of Outreach

As I've discussed elsewhere - http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Dissent/0211.shtml - I've been actively involved in an ad hoc effort to expose the information about the wholesale violations of civil, constitutional, individual and human rights exemplified most egregiously by the Bush administration and its reliance upon a set of legal memos, primarily authored by John Woo - www.firejohnyoo.org - and Jay Bybee - ImpeachBybee.org.

To recap, recently, the Spanish court that successfully prosecuted Pinochet has indicted six attorneys from the highest levels of the Bush administration - including Yoo - for conspiracy to violate various treaties to which the U.S. is signatory as well as international law. These are serious charges and are generally believed to be a prelude to an international war crimes indictment of Bush and Cheney, among others. Even more recent is the release during the past week of the actual memos, which are pretty amazing, especially for the "whatever we can get away with is ok" mentality displayed.

BTW, our Teach In on Torture at Chapman U. yesterday - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aps8bptRMro - went reasonably well, especially considering the short time frame that we had to get it organized. And, our teach-in can be seen as a prelude for a much larger event at Chapman on this Tuesday, when Yoo will actually debate other law professors. Tickets are available, but they are expecting a standing room only crowd. There are also going to be major street protests on the campus borders, and you will probably see this on the Tuesday nightly news.

Chapman gave no indication that anything like this was in the offing when we first began meeting a couple months ago.  The evidence suggests, in fact, that they would have preferred to bury their embarrassment over hiring someone who is now facing civil suits, criminal indictments and likely disbarment. Our little volunteer committee, it appears, probably forced Chapman's hand, which suggests some possibilities for objectivists.

As I've noted in the Dissent thread above, we could have used some additional participation by objectivists or libertarians. The "progressive" and Marxist Left have dominated this whole field - civil rights, etc. - for some time now as the Republicans and their core born-again Christian right has conveniently forgotten its own libertarian roots in their pursuit of pro-life, Bibles in the schools, creationist, etc. neolithic idiocies.

The Bush administration, proclaiming its devotion to liberty and human rights while simultaneously engaging in torture and long term imprisonment of suspects without hearings or charges, did more in eight years to undermine the intellectual credibility of those issues than the Marxists could ever have dreamed.

Forget them. With the exception of a few stalwarts like Mark Steyn, the Right in America is intellectually bankrupt, and the collapse of the economy after eight years of their rule, together with the coming avalanche of releases of information about their criminal behavior in office and subsequent suits or indictments will ensure that they will have little or no voice in America's future for a decade, minimum.

Politically, that leaves the center, mostly independents politically, the libertarians, and the Left. The Left has acquired some public respectability and sanction by default, and by doggedly stepping in to defend every unpopular minority, as if straight out of the Comintern manual.

(In the '60's I recall watching a 16mm movie at a YAF meeting depicting how Comintern agents worked to capture various movements, taking legitimate complaints and seizing the leadership positions of nascent movements or unions, then employing the movement as a tool under orders from Moscow. I don't think that this is in play here, but habits die hard.)

At our Teach-In, yesterday, we had at least two self-proclaimed communists as speakers, Michael Slate and Larry Everest. They, as well as a couple of the other speakers, I believe, spent some small amount of their time discussing the ~"role of torture in the establishment of empire," in which "Capitalism" was used as a pejorative. This was not the main focus of their talks, by any means, and they presented a whole lot of valuable facts and analysis that had nothing to do with Marxism, and much to do with the ostensive purpose of the event. However, they made sure to plant that seed.

The closest thing to a real alternative came from the speaker who I had worked to get for other reasons, the Muslim attorney, Ameena Qazi, whose main focus started with a clear and forceful statement to the effect that the founding documents of the U.S. - the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights - stood not as mere pieces of paper and words whose meaning could be recast according to the political climate, but rather as implementations of a philosophy centered on a clear concept of basic human rights.

In the latter portion of her presentation, she took some time to quote from the Koran passages that she said illustrated that the fundamental ethical and political thrust of the Muslim religion was strongly consistent with that philosophy, despite the attempts by a small minority of extremists who took passages out of context to justify their evil. She made an explicit connection between the epistemological approach of the Muslim extremists and that of John Woo, both of whom considered words on paper to be and mean whatever one could get away with, rather than connected to objective reality.

So, what has all this to do with objectivism? I suggest first that my own ability to successfully work with people of various philosophies, often quite at odds with objectivism, to achieve focused goals on which we could agree, implies that perhaps we could do a lot more in terms of outreach. I think that our style of interaction often blocks our positive message. We condemn someone and then expect them to listen. Yet, in order to achieve the real changes that we want in our society, we have to reach a lot of these people who are in profound disagreement with us.

I was able to get the other members of our committee, for instance, to recognize the importance of and include the term "human rights" in our fliers and press releases. This is a concept that is alien to much of Left, who like to cast everything in terms of collective rights and interests.

I have little sympathy for the Marxist philosophy as such, but I recognize that many people who hold that as their primary reference are also personally strong humanists and metaphysically/epistemologically in agreement with objectivism on such issues as the primacy of existence, the scientific method, etc. It is more in the realm of possibility to discuss issues with someone like that than with a typical born-again Christian.

Even there, however, there are common points of reference. Catholicism, for instance, adopted Aristotle as its primary philosophical reference, including much of his analysis of ethical issues. This meant that moral principles were supposed to be justifiable in terms of rational analysis.   I have had many conversations with Catholics on that basis.

Similarly, the Muslims had little problem in accepting the results of modern science - much less so, in fact, than much of Christianity. This may in part again due to Aristotelean influence, as the Muslim world had access to his writings long before the Catholic monks. There were also, however, quite a few major scientific and mathematical thinkers within Islam, including one such who apparently invented the scientific method long before Francis Bacon.

There is a selective blindness, of course, that one expects from religions. Even as they attempted to recast their ethical thinking in line with Aristotle's humanism, the Catholics became even more dogmatic in the scientific realm, where Aristotle got a huge number of things wrong, mainly due to not having the epistemology of the scientific method at his disposal. And while the Muslims made great strides in science and mathematics, their political and judiciary systems appear to be weak to the point of often becoming mere pawns of religious dogmatism.

These problems are fixable, up to a point: The Catholic Church eventually did recognize the validity of science, including evolution, but never was able to take the step of recognizing abortion or even birth control as anything but the destruction of a human life, due entirely to a conflict with basic dogma and Papal perfection. Perhaps when science has fully established what constitutes human sentience and is able to account for it without reference to a "soul," then they will take that step - or simply dissolve as irrelevant.

I'm not sure yet as to the implementation of this thread, but I think that it would be interesting and possibly quite productive to engage the thinkers in Islam today on the issue of rational morality. When such an issue is a matter of "revealed truth," there is little room to advance or improve or adapt to the times.

How is it possible to get around this and even have a discussion?

One possible method would be to move to a level of greater fundamentality. If what is good and proper is a matter of God's revealed will, then we still have to be careful of context and possible misinterpretation, as Ameena pointed out. That larger contect, for a Muslim or any monotheist has to be how it is that we conceive of God, himself. (Don't worrry - I'm still a hard-core atheist...)

If our most fundamental belief is our concept of God, as such, then we can ask questions about God's nature. Is He evil or good? Does He lie or trick us? What was His purpose in giving us the Koran?

If God is good, not a lier, and gave us the Koran to help us understand how to be more perfect in our humanity, as His creation, then is it not our duty, with the mind He gave us, to examine the moral precepts in the Koran to be sure that we are correctly interpreting them? If some precept or order appears inconsistent with either other precepts or with God's nature, perhaps we have taken it out of context.

Perhaps, for example, Sharia Law might be better used as a private agreement among believers than as a universal system to be forced on others. Perhaps it might be updated as well to reflect advances in our understanding of how legal systems work, an understanding not available in 600 AD.

I'm not sure how practical this particular case may be, but I suspect that we objectivists could accomplish more of our own goals, politically, culturally, etc., by using our understanding that reality is absolute, a consistent and knowable whole, to assist those of other beliefs to more fully integrate those beliefs than by telling them how wrong they are. At some point, a rational integration will yield the flaws in any philosophy.

Post 1

Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 4:04pm

Phil,

Good post, IMO. I think Objectivists might have a hard time seeing where *cooperation* with non-Objectivists is positive advancement versus sacrificial compromise. "Solidarity," as a principle, is treated with caution. I think it helps to see you work through these issues.

Jordan

Post 2

Sunday, April 19, 2009 - 4:17pm

It is thievery to take the products of labor from a man. It is very difficult for me to have a friendly relationship with someone who prefers that the government take the products of my labor from me and other producers. Its not just "I'm condemning them." Its that I'm defending myself and other producers.

I currently do business with lots of people on a daily basis whom are not capitalists. Maybe one day I will find an economy and home where it is possible to do such-- its my dream.

Post 3

Monday, April 20, 2009 - 7:06pm

One interesting thing that I forgot to mention was the Muslim take on justice that Ms. Qazi related. According to her, as best I recall it, their concept of justice focuses upon restoration, atonement and reconciliation, rather than punishment or revenge. The criminal is encouraged to understand how hurtful his or her behavior is and to approach his victims to request reconciliation. Not sure how this ties into what we've all heard about Sharia....

Post 4

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 3:21am

"I'm not sure how practical this particular case may be, but I suspect that we objectivists could accomplish more of our own goals, politically, culturally, etc., by using our understanding that reality is absolute, a consistent and knowable whole, to assist those of other beliefs to more fully integrate those beliefs than by telling them how wrong they are. At some point, a rational integration will yield the flaws in any philosophy."

Words have a very limited ability to cause social change, though many like to think otherwise. One of the greatest such abilities, though, is that they can be very enabling excuse-rationalizations for the pursuit of what was wanted before the words were heard.  Human beings pursue their goals whatever they may be to the extent that they can. This is biological and mechanistic.

And the human being, the human animal, should pursue it's goals, just as any other animal does.  I mean, why not? Saintliness is not normal, never has been, and so niether is collectivism nor any virtue like Objectivism However, both are coping mechanisms and will serve certain ends in certain situations. All is contingent.

The limits of outreach are deternmined by a people's need, and also there are likely genetic factors. It may be that an interest in Objectivism requires certain genetic precursors, which may interact with environment so that not everyone with that genetic setup will be interested in Objectivism.   The notion that there is this "Objectivism" that can be embraced by virtually everyone is silly.  And it's really vain. How can a chimp evolve into an animal, homo sapiens, that wants to be "objective"?  Well, it could happen, but it would be a fluke, unless there are constraints in the evolutionary process that steer it towards a miraculous outcome. But then, what are those constraints and where did they come from?

People do what they can. If someone is really poor and has no skills to speak of and is very much aware that they are not cognitively proficient - would it be wrong for them to embrace socialism or communism, if I fact under such schemes their lives would be easier? A hungry mans needs food, not words. Logic? Most have lived quite well without it - that is a statistical fact.  I think as Western society becomes more complex, then logic is more useful, but not because it has an imprimitur, but only because as time goes on society becomes more complex.

And then there is the matter of personality and charisma, which if lacking will prevent any idea from catching on, unless of course the idea is about something that can deliver instant, or near-instant gratification, like the internet. Very people have to be persuaded to like the internet, and only a very few people find it uninteresting. So, let us be honest here - Objectivism is far less appealing than the internet. Also less appealing than chocolate, sex, naps, raw power, water on tap, flush toilets and so much more. I a ranking of every invention and every idea, Objectivism ranks quite low.

Inventions - technology - change societies, and little else has as much effect. But because this is not usually taught or recognized it is taken for granted and overlooked, leaving people to think that other factors change society, like mere ideas, or great wars and freedom struggles. Actually, technology tends to be an important driving factor in the outbreak of war - as a technological advantage is gained over an enemy, the reluctance to battle diminishes. And the match that ignites the war may be a change in trade due to a change in technology, for instance, the American Civil War.  European Colonialism could not get going right away - it had to wait for improvements in shipbuilding technology and navigational technology - for instance, the longitude device. Subsequent Colonial power struggles then caused some European wars, which would have happened anyway for different reasons I'm sure, but they happend only after technology enabled them. The V2 rockets certainly encouraged Hitler and the Nazis and bought them lots of time while they worked on the Atomic Bomb. And so on.   Now we have political tensions based on nuclear Mutally Assured Destruction ( thanks to the Rosenbergs), this change in society or how societies square off with each other being the product of technological invention. The Industiral revolution and the automobile have enabled us to live 20 to 60 miles from our place of work. Rural living is a thing of the past for most Westerners, and I understand that China now has more people in cites than in rural areas. Indians are about to begin buying their Nano's - that will change India away from Fabianism and communism and towards capitalism.

If you want to bring about change, change technology. Words are little more than rationalizations for what was in the offing anyway. For instance, a lot more nuclear power plants in the USA would improve the economy and make life easier for so many people via cheap energy that their perspectives would shift away from the Left and towards the Center. If their prosperity persisted, their children might even move Right of center - to protect the family fortune.

To want others to change their perspectives to match one's own is vanity.  On the other hand, to change another's behavior to one that is more pleasing - regardless of the mental activiy of their perspectives - that is clever.   I don't care what my neighbor thinks as long as she does not annoy me, and preferably she will like me as that will make my life easier, for instance when I need to borrow a cup of sugar.

Philosophy is over-rated.

Cheers

Post 5

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 4:14am

I do know of a somewhat effective word-based strategy for undermining communists - this is likely more effective in the developed West than it would be in really impoverished nations where empty stomachs simply want food.

I have used this technique with good success.

In every discussion where communism or socialism is being advocated or discussed, bring up the concept of Slave Morality, but not as the basis for Christianity but as the basis for communism. Point out that any person's interest in communism or socialism is not based in any virtue, such as altruism, or common sense, but is only a manifestation of that person's poverty.  And point out that it is a game, a typically human game to pretend to a virtue in the pursuit of material goods, land, etc., when in fact that pursuit is purely animalistic. Point out that, for instance, if two bucks lock horns and duel, and after a time one is the winner and the other is the loser, it is the loser that then begins mumbling about communism and such, and demonizing the stronger buck for nothing other than it's superior strength. Emphasize that this struggle which can be seen in many animals is exactly that - evolutionarily and mechanically that which maps into the human world as competition, and the winners never develope the ideas of communism and socialism and such. And point out that such ideas begin to emerge in the mind of the loser spontaneously due to losing, and for no other reason.

Now, no one likes to think of themselves as a loser. As the above is true, most peole will recognize it to be true and they will feel some shame for having such petty thoughts.  Or at least they will begin to see that communism is not a virtue, it is only a contingency and only for losers.

Now, don't expect immediate conversions.  Sometimes new ideas have to be digested over time. The key here is that the listener is made to look at themselves, whereas the communist agitator flatters them and has them looking at their supposed enemy - the wealthy successful class. Some clothes are stripped off the listener and he/she feels a bit naked, and now knows that when they were agreeing with communist platitudes along with the rest of the herd they were just engaging in herd mutual self-deception. They know - everyone knows - they are not so good as to really care about the collective, they were only really thinking about what they might get for free, or at a huge discount because someone else is being made to pay the balance.

And do point out that the slave wants exactly what the master has - an easy life.   And also point out that the "slave" or the loser will pretend that he or she would be so much more benevolent if rich, but in fact that is probably not the case, as the struggle to get rich will change their mind on that. And point out that it is unfair and really actually odd to project such immense goodness onto your possible rich self, when in fact you are not already very good. At this point people will really bristle - no one likes to be told they are not that good - but they will know you are right about them and the accusation will sit in their craw and fester. Again, do not look for immediate conversions. And if challenged, you can ask the challenger to tell the group about their charitable efforts. Most people do very little charity, even the kind that does not require cash donations, and so the challenger will get very embarrassed and posssibly curse you. Other potential objectors will be cowed. And even if the challenger has done something charitable - volunteered to hand out water bottles at a charity marathon - all you have to do is ask them, "and what else?"  It's very unlikely they have done much charity, or very difficult charity. In other words, they might have done a little charity if it was as easy as handing out water bottles to jovial runners and that's about it...weak, weak, weak.

Well, that's it. Just get the idea of Slave Morality into their heads, and remind them that they are really not that virtuous, likely no more so than those they demonize.

I have used this technique with many Liberals and Progressives. One I have turned into a Libertarian, others have been significatly blunted in their pointy Leftist thrusts. I did make them see that they were whining and being petty and they became a little more sober in their judgements.

Young people who are physically good looking or very fit, or have dynamic personalities or have good, accurate cognitive functions, like engineers, will be very easily swayed with this concept, Slave Morality. It will free them from the year after year efforts of communists and Leftists and Progressives to make them feel guilty for their endowments. Really ugly people, or people with significant genetic defects/disabilities or poor cognitive functioning will not be swayed as they will correctly percieve that THEY will be better off in a communist or socialist society.   So, survey the audience and I suppose in some cases the audience might be so lacking in well endowed individuals that there would be no point in saying anything about this. But I think most of the time there are people with good potential and abilities in every crowd.

Cheers

Post 6

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 6:29pm

Good grief! I will try to forget the previous two posts even existed on the grounds that even cataloging all the errors would give me a major headache. Outreach in the hope of leveraging a major positive impact is one thing. This one, however, would require intellectual self-sacrifice. Genetic predisposition to be an Objectivist? Give me a break!

BTW, I just got an email from Ms. Qazi informing me that the particular sentiments I related having to do with "restorative" justice were presented as her own, and not necessarily those ~ "of Islam," as such. She informs me that there are many, many works from hundreds of Islamic scholars over the past 1400 years on the issues of justice, jurisprudence and the political state, with many differing ideas.

Meanwhile, articles on the Yoo memos are appearing all over the place now, including Yahoo news, the OC Register (both news and editorial today), and the Wall Street Journal. It appears that Obama is now giving support to at least a congressional investigation of the possibility of prosecution. The issues of human rights and state violations of such are near enough to the core of objectivism that I am still hoping that more of our thinkers will step up to bat, rather than leaving the outcome to the uncertain voices of the traditional conservative Right or the even less consistent Left.

A further note on outreach: Those on the Left are generally there because they actually believe the fundamental ideas. See Tibor's excellent recent piece "Has Capitalism Been Invalidated." It's not as though their heads are empty or that they are stupid or sociopathic. To communicate with them then requires, in addition to identifying the beliefs that both you and they hold, also thinking in advance about how they are interpreting what you are saying, and then forstalling misinterpretations.

If they misidentify capitalism with state corporate facism, for example, then it is crucial to point out that you are referring specifically to the free market, not some state/corporate collusion. The facist/mixed-economy crew have attempted, with considerable and lamentable success, their own concept theft of terms like capitalism and "free trade."

And, if you're going to tackle Auguste Comte, then you had better do some serious planning before you jump in. Simply dismissing the issues based on your own use of the terms gets you nowhere fast.

Post 7

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 3:50am