Dr. Peikoff’s 2006 election advisory.

Originally posted October 23, 2006

Capitalism Magazine has just published Dr. Leonard Peikoff’s advice for the impending biannual U.S. elections here. Unsurprisingly, he has reaffirmed his stance from previous elections where he has implored voters to offer Democratic support as a less onorous option compared with what would likely be the general Republican Party platform. More to the point, Dr. Peikoff’s emphasis is now much more intense.

This concerns me because while I do not think that American politics is likely to change much in the next year or so. I do think that Dr. Peikoff’s overall point resonates as strongly as ever viz. the Republican party is ultimately a proxy for the Christian conservative political agenda, and that agenda stands to gain much more ground in the near-future if it’s not thwarted. If this seems too far-fetched or curious, then consider that what stands to be the religious right’s agenda has been all but unchallenged by anyone. Simply put, what the Republican party ultimately stands for isn’t on the American citizenry’s negative radar right now.

You might think that sending Republicans out in this year’s election is a piece of cake considering how the press has been reporting ever-still lower poll percentages in regards to the Bush foreign policy. There is already evidence that the American people are unswayed by the press. For one thing, the citizenry has by and large allowed for the continued use of military in Iraq and Afghanistan. (The opponents to American involvement in the Middle East are if anything vilified by conservative traditionalists in our society as kooks and no-nothings.) Likewise, the recent push for military tribunals (while ostensibly justifiable) has been barely reported as something that American voters should be concerned about at all. Keep in mind that the press is still predominantly Leftist, and _they_ have hardly chastised the administration on a point that they would likely scream bloody murder over. It appears that even the press must have some substantial fear that the President isn’t as much of a lame duck as they would have hoped for (…or maybe the idealogues in journalism have simply surrendered?!?)

Still, there’s a more pressing and immediately personal point that Dr. Peikoff suggests which concerns me particularly as an Objectivist. He says, “In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.” Take note of the fact that he is not pointing to Objectivists as being exclusively burdened by the moral implications of this coming vote; he is ready to indict _anyone_ who can vote if they do not vote Democratic in order to stop a Republican seachange.

Now I have to say that I have always been in general agreement with Dr. Peikoff ever since his last election analysis, and actually I don’t think I’ve had much of a problem with any of his general political rhetoric since the days when he was hosting his own radio show. It has to be noted that his new election analysis is comprised of fighting words for anyone who takes this year’s elections seriously. If anything it gives me pause to wonder just how many Objectivists (and for the matter just how many American voters) actually realize both what is at stake for America’s near future as well as how revealing this vote can be as far as the moral character of the body politic goes.

I want to add that I might very well differ with Dr. Peikoff on what I would consider to be some lesser points. For one thing, I am skeptical that local elections should be viewed in the same way that he views the major elections. It could be that he thinks no good can come of electing _any_ Republicans anywhere, but I suspect that local elections would not have much of an effect as a paradigm shift. Likewise, if there is a Republican at the local level who is actually quasi-Objectivist (as unlikely as that may be), then he might have enough going for him to do some good (so long as he stays at the local level.) It just so happens that I live in an area where even the local politics might substantiate Dr. Peikoff’s fear since my old local representative Christopher Cox ended up leaving to head the SEC which of course is nothing but a pain for American corporations. The second caveat that I might have is that it could be that a select subgroup of the voting public might have a reason to vote Republican as far as their exclusively personal values are concerned. That is, while a young adult voter or a child of a voting parent might have several decades to plan for, an older non-parent is living for himself within a much smaller timeframe. It could be that someone such as a senior citizen does not anticipate much political change for the rest of his life, so he might want to vote for short-term change if he suspects that that is the only term left for him to consider. On the other hand, it might very well be that if such a person votes Republican, then he could be acting out of cynical loathing of politics as such i.e. he might be voting as an anti-idealist.

On the whole, I suppose that (once again) I agree with Dr. Peikoff. I think he has seen enough and has enough experience in his life for people to still take his ideas seriously. I also recall that the current director of the Ayn Rand Institute, Dr. Yaron Brook, once said something along the lines of, “Sometimes I took positions in opposition to Dr. Peikoff’s only to change my mind later after consulting with him further.” I suspect that this is very much one of those cases where people need to seriously get out of their immediate sphere of awareness and consider an issue in a much broader and long-term fashion.