How Not to Essentialize the Vote

In Craig Biddle's article from _The Objective Standard_ Vol. 3, No. 3. entitled "McBama vs. America", he claims that the major Presidential candidates are fundamentally the same. Biddle considers the candidates' respective positions on major issues of recent concern. While it is very obviously true that both Barack Obama and John McCain count on the philosophies of altruism, pragmatism, and Socialism to form their respective policies, there is more to consider. For example, are the concerns over general foreign policy or general medical care _absolutely_ fundamental?

While there can be some tangential benefits in noting how two (or more) candidates are similar, that tactic belies the greatest importance of each of the respective candidates' policies. For example, seeing what those candidates agree on can indicate what the wider culture considers important. (No doubt that Americans largely accept altruism as morally valid despite the overwhelming preponderance of how dangerous that philosophy is.) It is incumbent on voters to at least try to find essential differences in candidates. I don't want to focus on mechanics, but if readers are curious, then they can follow-up by researching Ayn Rand's "measurement omission" technique which is required for proper essentialization. Some indications are here:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/measurement.html

From _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_, page 59, here's some of what Ayn Rand has to say about evaluating fundamental concepts:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/definitions.html

"Now observe . . . the process of determining an essential characteristic: the rule of fundamentality. When a given group of existents has more than one characteristic distinguishing it from other existents, man must observe the relationships among these various characteristics and discover the one on which all the others (or the greatest number of others) depend, i.e., the fundamental characteristic without which the others would not be possible. This fundamental characteristic is the essential distinguishing characteristic of the existents involved, and the proper defining characteristic of the concept.

Metaphysically, a fundamental characteristic is that distinctive characteristic which makes the greatest number of others possible; epistemologically, it is the one that explains the greatest number of others."

Certain issues _are_ more fundamental to any human than other issues. While personal context is always of major import to each voter, it would be utterly relativistic to figure that those personal concerns eliminate the interest in issues that are not only universal but are of sheer survival value. For example, American voter C may be particularly concerned about the growth of the welfare state while American voter D may be concerned about American military involvement in parts of Asia. Certainly, it can be argued that neither the welfare state should be allowed to grow unabated nor should military be funded to go anywhere and everywhere in the world when (noting AR's recognition of the rule of fundamentality again) certain countries pose greater foreign threats to Americans than others. (Today, the greatest foreign threat is still Iran of course. See Dr. Leonard Peikoff's writing on Islamic terrorism for more information on this subject.) The rights to self-protection and self-preservation are so wholly basic to human survival that any talk of other issues necessarily begs this question of fundamentality as Ayn Rand indicated.

Since _I_ am not willing to overlook them, I'm highlighting some of the differences on a fundamental issue of freedom that hits closer to a person than many other issues do...

Note the dates...

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/John_McCain.htm

"Pro-life and an advocate for the Rights of Man everywhere. (Feb 2008)"
"Prosecute abortion doctors, not women who get them. (Jan 2000)"
"Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions. (Jan 2000)"


http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm

"Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)"
"Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)"
"Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)"

What this indicates is that while there may appear to be some common ground between the candidates even on the issue of abortion, the truth exists elsewhere: It is in the basic differences where a voter can begin to establish comparative value between McCain and Obama. Note that Obama has continued to affirm the individual woman's right to abortion. At the same time, McCain has a history of ignoring and even expressly attempting to violate that most basic right of an individual to control their body.

Also of relevance, it wasn't an Islamicist (or an atheist) that did the following...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/abortviolence/stories/gunn.htm

"A doctor was shot to death outside his abortion clinic here today when a man who prayed for the physician's soul stepped forward from a group of antiabortion protesters and opened fire, according to police and witnesses..."

Skeptics might want to review what Ayn Rand said about abortion as a political issue (and in particular for elections.) Also, thanks in no small part to Ronald Reagan (and the Christian Coalition), America is at the cultural point which it is at today.

Of further note, here is an excerpt from an Ayn Rand interview: Again, note the date.....

The Objectivist Forum, June 1980, _Interview with Ayn Rand (part 1)_

"Q. Would you please (elaborate)? You have said many times that you are not a conservative and you are not an admirer of Ronald Reagan who seems to have, in a sense, preempted the "right" in this country. Can you explain?

A. Yes, certainly. I am not an admirer of Ronald Reagan, and I will not vote for him, because he is the representative of the worst kind of conservatism. I am opposed to him on the same grounds as I am opposed to conservatism, that is, to the mixture of religion and politics. I am, as you know an atheist. I do believe in a man's right to believe a religion, if he wants to. But he has no right to bring his religion into politics, which means to impose it on other people by force. Political power is the power to initiate the use of physical force. If you bring religion into politics, it means that you are forcing religion on people at the point of a gun, and destroying the intellectual freedom of your citizens.

The combination of religion and politics is the worst possible combination in our society...."

Ayn Rand died in 1982, so it's very likely that the interview I just excerpted is the last or certainly among the most recent interviews she ever gave. She gave that interview at the very time when American Christians were starting to engage politics in a more serious way. With the greater affluence of Americans in the 1970's and the follow-up of President Jimmy Carter's destructive economic policies, it's not so surprising that conservatives would think that the time was right for them to swing into action. That they did.......and Christianity is here in this country as a major factor _now_ still to this very day.

If anyone doubts this, then they can ask Nicholas Provenzo at the Rule of Reason weblog if abortion opponents strike him as rational. A few weeks ago, Provenzo discussed what he thought of Sarah Palin's attempts to elevate her raising of a disabled infant to the level of great moral virtue. The religious zealots came out in droves and not only scolded him for his position, several dozen of them went as far as offering Mr. Provenzo death threats. Did as many supposedly even-handed religious advocates come out to offer him sympathetic support for what their cohorts had done? As far as I can tell, hardly any of the supporters of Palin's rhetoric offered consideration for him. They also did not substantiate their arguments with reasonable premises though they certainly resorted to blind faith and emotionalism! My point here is that we are a long way from seeing religious Americans come across as believable when they supposedly advocate peaceful living.

Considering that Craig Biddle's essay notes the similarities between McCain and Obama while neglecting the differences, one would have to figure that he would expect us to figure that those similarities to be of greater (or even greatest) significance when it comes to comparative moral evaluation. Given that a mother who is prohibited from exercising her right to abortion will hardly be able to live the life she would have otherwise figured on, there is little reason to argue that she (or her significant romantic other) would consider other issues as being equal or even greater in value. If Biddle would have maintained proper context, then his argument would have at least come off as plausible. If he would have focused on how Americans are actually required to live their lives in terms of their respective hierarchy of values, then he would have been able to see that his warning is misdirected.

If he had shown contextual consideration for the ramifications of the very policy positions he did note, then he would have been able to offer a proper and more immediately identifiable perspective. As it is, it would seem that Craig Biddle needs to check _his_ premises. Let's get really practical here: In reality, there are actual women who have foreign policy concerns who are also facing the prospect of bearing and raising children. If someone is in the situation where she found out that she is pregnant and she wants to further her career, then will ANYTHING that a foreign politician says be of greater immediate concern to her over and above her attempt to reconcile her pregnancy? In reality, even under the most dire circumstances, if another nation threatens America, then it will have to engage in some long-term planning in attacking us. Meanwhile... that woman (and untold thousands of others) will have to deal with whether or not they are even allowed to utilize a perfectly moral and medically viable option for terminating pregnancy.

Shall we wait until things get even culturally worse? Given that we are in the midst of an economic crisis, and the current Republican President has gone farther than anyone to strong-arm legislators into supporting a massive bail-out which is of course an example of naked Socialism, are people still convinced that there are no _fundamental_ differences between the two major Presidential candidates and their respective parties in 2008?

Epistemic-Political relationship in respect to the 2006 elections.

Note: Although I certainly do it on rare occasions…. I don’t like to write entries which are mainly follow-ups or tangential or trendy. Over the past 2 weeks, much ado has been made by some lay Objectivists in regard to expert analysis of the impending elections. I’m not even going to make direct references to those comments ….for the simple reason that it’s not a priority now for me to do so nor is it particularly beneficial. Consider division of labor for one thing….

Synopsis: Part 1 indicates proper evaluative method. Part 2 indicates improper evaluative application. Part 3 indicates proper evaluative application. See prior posts for additional relevant information.

Part 1 Using the inductive method

What I have to say now amounts to this: Issues regarding knowledge are more fundamental than political issues, yet political issues are _easier_ to explain from an inductive standpoint. I’m actually trying to frame the general idea in a way that seems contradictory, but that is difficult to do since philosophy is so throughly integrated as a system by itself as well as it being substantially involved with myriad disciplines of a more immediately sensory and mechanical nature. In particular, philosophy includes politics (as a theory), but philosophy also guides political science (as a practical application.) My interest in seeking a contradiction comes from wanting to locate the most severe differentiation possible in order to best clarify the nature of the process. At this point in time, I have not found such a contradiction.

To personalize the above point, if you want to judge ideas, then you have to see how they effect people when those ideas are put into action. By the way, people must be judged both on their thoughts and actions. Thoughts without action can't be seen, and actions without ideological explanation can't make sense. You have to have both a person's thoughts (causes) and actions (effects) to truly understand how and why he does what he does. This goes for politicians and voters alike.

As Ayn Rand indicated, knowledge has two core dimensions, hierarchy and context. The Modern university professors wish to consider human behavior in terms of hierarchy without regard for context. This is why they want to perform Linguistic Analysis and use symbolic logic instead of operating more like a detective or a legal prosecutor from before the Red Decade.

Induction requires gathering large amounts of evidence about a subject to the point of saturation i.e. at a point of acquiring data redundancy. In turn, the scientific method must be applied when evaluating evidence. The more the evidence is cross-referenced in as many number and types of ways possible the more reliable the related evaluations can be.

This is why the various Objectivist essays on voting Democrat are important. It's why Dr. Peikoff's DIM hypothesis is important. It's why considering American history in order of forward sequence without skipping relevant events is important.

I happen to be among a very small group of people who personally attended both Dr. Peikoff's original publicly offered _Objectivism Through Induction_ lecture series and his 2 original lectures comprising an overview and application of his D-I-M hypothesis. I have to say that I find Dr. Peikoff's DIM hypothesis plausible. On the other hand, I think his general inductive theory needs to be further revised (even more than it already has been over the past several years.) For me as a guiding rule (and as a side note to you the reader), I suspect that Dr. Peikoff has a fairly reliable way of evaluating other peoples' abilities to think in essentials, but I figure that he has much more work to do before being able to throughly evaluate the culture of whole societies. I believe that he is motivated to find such an overriding method, and if such a method was reliable and easily applicable, then evaluating the prospects for the coming elections would indeed be a more straight-forward and scientific process.

Part 2 Assessing logical errors

I can’t write this without some level of anger and ultimately… disappointment. I swore to myself that I would not revisit the issue of how to vote in this month’s American elections, but what I wanted to avoid in specific is re-arguing the step-by-step process of drawing the relevant conclusions. Instead, what I will do is go to the underlying nature of the sort of mistakes that some of my fellow Objectivists are making.

Again, I think that there’s absolutely no reason whatsoever for people to vote for Republicans if these voters understand the issues that would motivate people such as Dr. Leonard Peikoff and John Lewis to make the arguments which they have made. Whether someone understands those issues or not, there is a universal solution which I will suggest for everyone regardless of their philosophy or their knowledge of politics if they want to double-check their thinking as far as selecting political candidates go.

Keep in mind, that the current differences of opinion among many Objectivists don't come down to traditional differences between political parties. Today's Democrats and Republicans are nothing as they were at the time of their parties' creation, they are nothing as they were before our American culture was inculcated with German philosophy in the early part of the 20th century, and they are fast becoming something wholly different from the days when Carter opposed Reagan a quarter of a century ago. I contend that the difference of opinion among Objectivists comes down to arguing the importance of hypothetical short-term consequences versus the importance of hypothetical long-term consequences. The Objectivists who argue for voting straight-line Democrat would argue that fighting to protect the long-term future outweighs any dangers for the foreseeable near future.

I certainly have not tried to read much of the commentary on the several of the more serious Objectivist forums, and I have no intention of reading much more for the following reasons: What I’ve read so far was generally quickly becoming redundant. Likewise, many arguments are also rife with logical errors. I would contend the major logical fallacies which people have resorted to using are:1) jumping to conclusions and 2) context-dropping. There’s another fallacy which has appeared less frequently, but the fact that it has been used as much as it has would indicate that it’s as much a major potential crutch as the previous two are. That fallacy is: 3) begging the question. Further, some lesser fallacies have been used more sporadically as well. These include (but aren’t limited to) argument from intimidation (and it’s utterly absurd that someone would suggest that Dr. Peikoff is guilty of this for the position he’s recently offered!!!) and appeal to authority.

It is certainly true that some fallacies are related to each other; in fact, some are variations of others. Further, many fallacies can be placed into general groups. For example, some fallacies inappropriately reference people instead of central facts e.g. appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, and ad hominem; on the other hand, some fallacies depend on inappropriate attempts at forming conceptual relationships (ignoring the nature of concept-formation) e.g. non-sequitur, slippery slope, and context-switching. Ultimately, what most fallacies come from is the failure to think in essentials. That is, the core concepts have not been identified, and an argument has been offered _as if_ it uses the core concepts when it does not. Of course, sometimes an argument will include more than one fallacy ….sometimes even within the same premise.

Part 3 Comparative analysis of systems

(As a side-note and to avoid confusion, arguments depend on core principles. Still, those principles depend on core concepts. Those concepts are often taken for granted, but the fact that their importance is often ignored does not change the fact that they are _necessary_ for a proper argument to be made.) The underlying principle for judging political candidates comes from a statement of normative ethics which Ayn Rand made: “Those who practice their philosophy the most consistently will win….” Just as Dr. Peikoff was correct in highlighting that the Christians have been putting their philosophy in the practice of politics for thousands of years, it is also worth noting that the opposition of ideas is happening in ONE DIRECTION predominantly. Republicans overwhelming ignore Nihilism; they simply haven’t taken much of Modernism seriously at all. The exception is Socialism. Why this exception? Out of the canon of modern philosophy, it is Socialism which is most compatible with conservative Republican philosophy. As Dr. Peikoff has already noted several times, Socialism is dying, it is on the way out even while people of various political stripes attempt to revive it.

Simply put, Socialism is treated by Americans as a particular polar opposite to Capitalism; they do this while making simultaneous partial use of both systems. Capitalism only exists as theory at best; it doesn’t exist in a mostly purified way as far as the practice of American politics is concerned. Obversely, Socialism controls American politics for now, but it has been widely discredited among new intellectuals. (Note what Dr. Andrew Bernstein stated in _The Capitalist Manifesto_, the economists are not the problem… they appreciate the practical aspects of applied Capitalism.)

Now consider both Christianity and Socialism together. Flatly, which party is best suited to and most interested in using both religious and secular altruism in politics? There’s no contest; it’s obviously the (conservatives in the) Republican Party who have the greatest interest in altruism in the wholesale sense.

Did you notice where the similarities and differences exist? It’s true that both the Democrats and the Republicans are altruistic in some way in essence, and it’s true that both parties are interested in using both types of altruism. There are two points of distinction though i.e. that is there are two critical differentiating points. 1) Capitalism can only exist in opposition to altruism, and that means that freedom can only exist if no form of political self-sacrifice is codified and employed. 2) It is the Republican Party which is on the ideological warpath. Conversely, the Democrats neither have the quality of ideas in substance which the Republicans have, nor do they exercise the passionate will to invoke their ideas to near the degree that the evangelical Christian Republicans do.

What does this boil down to? It means that in both quantity and quality, the Republicans are poised to take over the mind-set of the American body politic. That is, they're are the ones who will win by being the most consistent, and as I and others have already stated the opposition to this employment of religion in politics does not exist in current political discourse. In point of fact, the only opposition to Christian politics which can exist can only come from Objectivism put into political practice. In turn, this means that the only way to really stop the Christians is to get laissez-faire Capitalists to oppose them.

Some would say that what Objectivists are now searching for isn’t so focused on how to offer ideological opposition to conservative Republicans; they might say that the difference among Objectivists is in the debate over the execution of the particular required logistics. In fact, Objectivists are already arguing whether it’s better to support the Democrats or the Republicans for the whole reason that they want to find a host party to inculcate with laissez-faire ideology. The problem is people aren’t robots; candidates have their respective psychologies. A person’s thinking is a volitional matter after all. Even Objectivists can not and should not try to force their ideas into the minds of politicians.

What this amounts to is that all voters including Objectivists need to come to terms with how politics is and how it will be regardless of what any one desires. (No amount of whim-worshipping will make the Republican Party better, nor will that make the conservatives voluntarily leave politics.) I have stated that ideas can not be forced into the minds of citizens, and at the same time taking the wait-and-see approach has already failed. ....so then what to do? Objectivists are already doing the best thing anyone can do viz. they are trying to infuse the American culture in as many substantial ways possible with the core philosophical ideas required for the growth and survival of a free culture.

Given the respective motivations of politicians within their respective parties, it’s the conservative politicians who are already offering evidence of real ideological conviction. They are the ones who need to be stopped if America is to survive. Since it’s the Republicans who 1) are willing to change their respective ideology first 2) are willing to politicize religion first and ultimately 3) fight for their values, it’s the Republicans who Objectivists most desperately need to stop _first_.

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.