I haven’t personally attended a Tea Party event, but I’ve done some related tracking. To this day, there has not only not been much integrated organization for that group in general beyond some Internet linking; there hasn’t been an explicitly dominant guiding philosophy. As Ayn Rand indicated, simply opposing a position doesn’t fulfill the obligation(s) required of having a positive normative philosophy. In other words in this case, for the Tea Party movement to be anti-status quo in government in some superficial way isn’t nearly enough of a surrogate to carry the prospect for American freedom forward. Make no mistake at best, supposed American renegades are merely coasting currently. The Tea Party supporters have some idea of what to oppose, but they have little idea of what to be united by. They really don’t understand what they should be fighting _for_.
America was founded by an explicit guiding philosophy as elaborated in the Charters of Freedom. We haven’t seen anything along those lines in decades as far as the general populace has been concerned. In recent years, a faction of Americans have come to realize that there might be some political benefits to the ideas inside Ayn Rand’s _Atlas Shrugged_. Still, it’s a long way to go from being merely aware of a potential value as against becoming throughly versed and immersed in a broad-based ideology. Whether someone is involved in the Tea Party movement or not, those Americans who seek greater freedom need to not only become more pro-active in politics, they also need to be more mindful as to the type of ideas that they subscribe to and promulgate.
Though the Tea Party has not been a movement which has had a major power vacuum or usurpation as of yet (since there never was an established intellectual leadership), the movement is becoming ripe for manipulation to outside forces. Coincidentally and recently, former Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin has been in the news for courting the Tea Party movement. This may be unsurprising, but it’s certainly disturbing. It clearly indicates that Palin is looking for a vehicle to express her ideas; at the same time, it further reinforces that the Tea Party movement hasn’t been particularly aware of how it should be intellectually guided. If any political movement can so readily and easily be influenced by an outside interest which is expressly part of and representative of the very establishment which is supposed to be opposed, then that movement is to be questioned for its motives. The problems inherent of the movement in support of Ross Perot some several years ago come to mind here....
Likewise, it has been mentioned in the news that there may actually be a Tea Party in the form of a political party running in competition of the Democrats and Republicans. This is a decidedly different focus for the Tea Party movement to take. Again, it’s unsurprising that this movement would eventually seek to actualize and manifest ideas into practical reality. Still, the aforementioned intellectual vacuum makes for a further troubling turn of events given the potential rise of a related political party. It benefits no one for yet another political party to be raised if that party hasn’t even clearly differentiated itself in a way that would offer positive benefit to Americans.
The over-arching background for all of this of course is that the Republican Party continues to be bifurcated by the religious conservatives and everyone else who’s been left sidelined. The fact that this division has not been addressed by Republican politicians shows that the GOP hasn’t made any real headway since the days of Barry Goldwater running for the Presidential office. It used to be needless to say that if the Republicans didn’t stand up for individual protection, then no one would. Today, no one in politics stands for individualism or individual rights. This cavernous vacuum still stands as the greatest American issue to be dealt with today.
The recent news about the Tea Parties reveal ongoing issues that need to be dealt with if these organizations are to actually benefit American people. It should be obvious by now that the religious conservatives are overwhelmingly responsible for America’s demise. It is just as obvious that no appeal to that same faction will save or salvage America in any way. As per usual, what Americans must discover is that the very nature of their way of life depends on the identification of the virtue of independence. Americans must realize that to be American _is_ to necessarily be politically free from government tyranny in any shape or form. Americans have had a track record of knowing how to fend for themselves in an economic context. What has left those same people vulnerable to internal political turmoil is their lack of understanding of the importance of intellectual ability in the more fundamental context of rational politics.
Where the Founding Fathers failed to identify the proper intellectual nature of freedom, Ayn Rand managed to single-handedly succeed. She was the very person to signal to Americans what they must to do in order to protect themselves and their general way of life. Neither religion nor Socialism has ever offered the political benefits that the Founding Fathers hoped to leave behind for their successors. Still, the Founders were themselves disarmed by the very people who disarm us today: the philosophers. If Americans are ever to seriously resurrect their country, then they must realize that it is in rational philosophy that they must significantly start investing their time and energy into. The increased reading of _Atlas Shrugged_ is the one true bright spot in our current political landscape, but that book is a work of fiction that contends with politics in artistic terms. Americans must embolden themselves as colonists of early America did by studying the humanities. The important difference that new rational revolutionaries must be mindful of is that an adherence to reason in politics is not an expendable option.
Showing posts with label platforms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label platforms. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Thursday, April 12, 2007
How is Objectivism relevant to society now?
One of the reasons I love thinking in terms of fundamentals is that when it works it can completely change the nature of action. Frankly, I suspect that Objectivists are stagnating in their approach to politics and polemics. Having internal discussions and working through the Ayn Rand Institute are certainly worthwhile, but those related activities are NOT all-encompassing. There are other important issues which _no one_ is addressing right now. (I mean absolutely no one I've come across....)
By the way, I _hope_ that this post provokes Objectivists because we seriously need to reconsider our tactics. Broadly, nothing much is changing... at all. Look at the evidence: We're starting to (once again) ask who would make good Presidential candidates. We occasionally take pride in ARI's book donation drive. Maybe we are even asking more advanced questions which reflect greater consideration and philosophical knowledge. These are good and promising symptoms of a generally static trend.
I think that it's time to push for more dynamic thought. I even run the risk of making much of my past thinking less relevant, but if it means being more realistic about the future, then it is worthwhile to cast past work aside. Very few people are even bothering to be both challenging and broad-minded. I believe that John Lewis and Leonard Peikoff are among those few Objectivists who are thinking far ahead. I am _not_ writing to simply cheerlead though. If someone wants to know what those two think, then they can find online resources for their writing.
I believe that we need to be cognizant of certain standing orders. For one thing, Objectivism has never been exclusively or primarily concerned with politics. We aren't tied to a group. We don't live in terms of what other people expect. Laws are there for everyone's protection not for obedience. That is, the law is not supposed to be a matter of socialization. For example, it's a total misstep to look to any political authority for leadership. Individuals are obligated to be self-responsible.
Andrew Bernstein has said repeatedly that Objectivists can and should do things to encourage the wider adoption of Objectivism. First, we need to practice our beliefs. Second, we need to tell people about the work of experts to put people on notice. I don't believe that we can afford to stop with only those directives. The world is substantially different than it was even 10 years ago. We now have a recent history of Presidents who formally seek United Nations approval. They also callously neglect what used to be common-sense morality. Sadly, many people do implicitly refer to politicians for moral references, so we can't completely ignore the repercussions of what major political figures do.
What I'm starting to suggest is that we need to operate in a more parallel and self-aware manner. It's wrong to look at Objectivist communications in terms of _just_ the inside/outside question. That way of thinking is quickly becoming antiquated. We can't sequester ourselves from the world. We can't continue to ping-pong discourse amongst ourselves while ignoring vital evidence of impending mega trends.
Simply put, if we are seriously interested in making practical differences in the culture, then we had better start outlining some new paradigms for dealing with the new trends. (Peter Schwartz's foreign policy white paper is a positive step.) It's not enough to pat ourselves on the back for starting to understand first-level implications of applied philosophy. Those days are over.
I'm not expecting anyone to offer specifics as assured requirements of cultural change. I'm offering a suggestion as to what is at stake. I tentatively think that Objectivists will have to engage in the following:
To jump ahead and backtrack at the same time, I would like to see more evidence that Objectivists are even aware that what I'm discussing is at issue. Beyond this, I would like to see less rehashing of old debates. That expended energy could be targeted towards completely new considerations and developments.
For example, we don't have to settle for being strapped to a false alternative of 1) arguing how government can better handle legal matters vs. 2) arguing how to scrap government in ways that are bordering on anarchism. Instead we _could_ discuss the specifics of how to engage government representatives as a collected force. Objectivists have barely even attempted to utilize the idea of writing campaigns. Surely, we can agree on enough details to offer a cohesive and principled solution to many common social problems.
There is much, much more to brainstorm about, and there's much more substantiation to offer for these and related ideas. In the meantime, I want to simply encourage people to think in these terms on occasion.
By the way, I _hope_ that this post provokes Objectivists because we seriously need to reconsider our tactics. Broadly, nothing much is changing... at all. Look at the evidence: We're starting to (once again) ask who would make good Presidential candidates. We occasionally take pride in ARI's book donation drive. Maybe we are even asking more advanced questions which reflect greater consideration and philosophical knowledge. These are good and promising symptoms of a generally static trend.
I think that it's time to push for more dynamic thought. I even run the risk of making much of my past thinking less relevant, but if it means being more realistic about the future, then it is worthwhile to cast past work aside. Very few people are even bothering to be both challenging and broad-minded. I believe that John Lewis and Leonard Peikoff are among those few Objectivists who are thinking far ahead. I am _not_ writing to simply cheerlead though. If someone wants to know what those two think, then they can find online resources for their writing.
I believe that we need to be cognizant of certain standing orders. For one thing, Objectivism has never been exclusively or primarily concerned with politics. We aren't tied to a group. We don't live in terms of what other people expect. Laws are there for everyone's protection not for obedience. That is, the law is not supposed to be a matter of socialization. For example, it's a total misstep to look to any political authority for leadership. Individuals are obligated to be self-responsible.
Andrew Bernstein has said repeatedly that Objectivists can and should do things to encourage the wider adoption of Objectivism. First, we need to practice our beliefs. Second, we need to tell people about the work of experts to put people on notice. I don't believe that we can afford to stop with only those directives. The world is substantially different than it was even 10 years ago. We now have a recent history of Presidents who formally seek United Nations approval. They also callously neglect what used to be common-sense morality. Sadly, many people do implicitly refer to politicians for moral references, so we can't completely ignore the repercussions of what major political figures do.
What I'm starting to suggest is that we need to operate in a more parallel and self-aware manner. It's wrong to look at Objectivist communications in terms of _just_ the inside/outside question. That way of thinking is quickly becoming antiquated. We can't sequester ourselves from the world. We can't continue to ping-pong discourse amongst ourselves while ignoring vital evidence of impending mega trends.
Simply put, if we are seriously interested in making practical differences in the culture, then we had better start outlining some new paradigms for dealing with the new trends. (Peter Schwartz's foreign policy white paper is a positive step.) It's not enough to pat ourselves on the back for starting to understand first-level implications of applied philosophy. Those days are over.
I'm not expecting anyone to offer specifics as assured requirements of cultural change. I'm offering a suggestion as to what is at stake. I tentatively think that Objectivists will have to engage in the following:
- Form or join committees that strive to outline broad policy. (This is just starting to happen now.)
- There is also the start of more professional publications e.g. _The Objective Standard_, but certainly this is just the tip of the iceberg.
- Do more testing. This could involve surveys, role-playing, debates, and blind tours.
To jump ahead and backtrack at the same time, I would like to see more evidence that Objectivists are even aware that what I'm discussing is at issue. Beyond this, I would like to see less rehashing of old debates. That expended energy could be targeted towards completely new considerations and developments.
For example, we don't have to settle for being strapped to a false alternative of 1) arguing how government can better handle legal matters vs. 2) arguing how to scrap government in ways that are bordering on anarchism. Instead we _could_ discuss the specifics of how to engage government representatives as a collected force. Objectivists have barely even attempted to utilize the idea of writing campaigns. Surely, we can agree on enough details to offer a cohesive and principled solution to many common social problems.
There is much, much more to brainstorm about, and there's much more substantiation to offer for these and related ideas. In the meantime, I want to simply encourage people to think in these terms on occasion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
