The decision of some Objectivists to support, and to participate in, the "Tea Party Movement" has come to exactly the end that Ayn Rand predicted for such efforts. As Robert LeChevalier writes in the OActivists mailing list,
Evidence is growing that many Tea Parties around the country are being subverted by those who neither share our values or the values on which this country is founded, and that they are paying lip service to them while manipulating the Tea Parties to dilute their effect (Democratic hacks, Libertarian dupes, Republican opportunists, or even very likely the police, by the way), or simply using them as a cash cow for any end you can imagine.Or, as one organizer of a "Tea Party" wrote to another OActivist,
I'm sure you're aware the focus of the Tea Parties is limited government, fiscal responsibility and free markets. Individual rights certainly doesn't contradict any of those key points but I don't feel it fits ....One of those slogans (none is specific or well-defined enough to call it a goal) is "fiscal responsibility." "Fiscal responsibility" is also the main slogan of ongoing proposals and campaigns, in several US states (and also at the federal level) to raise taxes (yes, I know that "fiscal responsibility" may also mean "cut spending," but Christian Republicans are not about to give up on the Christian principle that "we all have a responsibility to help the less fortunate.") And the claim that a campaign to raise taxes "does not contradict individual rights" could only be made by someone who has no idea of what rights are.
Those who advocate collaboration with the "Tea Party" movement sometimes cite Ayn Rand's one narrow exception to her caution against "unprincipled alliances:" "The only groups one may properly join today are ad hoc committees, i.e., groups organized to achieve a single, specific, clearly defined goal, on which men of differing views can agree." But in its original context (The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 7 January 3, 1972, "What Can One Do?") what Ayn Rand wrote was:
Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to "do something." ... It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies... The only groups one may properly join today are ad hoc committees, i.e., groups organized to achieve a single, specific, clearly defined goal, on which men of differing views can agree.Far from having "a single goal," the organizers of "Tea Parties" seldom list fewer than three or four. And even fewer of these are either specific or well-defined (the ambiguity of appeals to "fiscal responsibility" is just the last case-in-point.) The "Tea Party" movement is - in all respects - the paradigmatic embodiment of "we've got to do something." This means, you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies. If only Ayn Rand were alive today to say, "I told you so."
44 comments:
Bravo and thank you!
My knowledge of Tea Parties is very limited, but it points in the direction you have identified.
I attended a local Tea Party. Most of the identifiable types were conservatives (God, Tradition, Nation, and Family), libertarians, and the simply bizarre ("Truthers"). No organizer, however, can be fully responsible for who shows up. What matters is what the organizers sanction.
At the Tea Party I attended, there were about four official (sanctioned) tables. One of them was the Oregon Republican Party--a party which is part of the problem, statism, not part of the solution, individual rights.
I note also that conditions may appear to vary greatly from locale to locale.
Again, thank you.
> A Tea Party organizer: "I'm sure you're aware the focus of the Tea Parties is limited government, . . ."
Prof. Reed has shown the dangerous vagueness of "fiscal responsibility." As he implies, "limited government" is also a problem.
For me the first question that arises is: Limited by what? What principle sets the limits on what government can do? In the context of an explicit philosophy of reason, "limited" has an objective meaning: limited to the protection of individual rights.
Outside that context, "limited government" could mean almost anything: Limited to the protection of the race; limited to fulfilling God's will; and so forth.
(The same goes for "small government," because size is a nonessential characteristic of government. A proper government needs to be as big as it can be to achieve its sole goal: protection of individual rights.)
Good articles. I especially enjoyed the series on wedge strategies.
I continue to be amazed at how right Ms. Rand was about these things.
There's a difference between joining an *organization* that has an agenda one cannot support, vs. participating in an isolated *event* such as a Tea Party, which has a wide variety of independent participants. The level of sanction provided by one's presence is not the same.
I understand the negatives of supporting an organization when it does not endorse proper principles(such as the current Republicans), but if individuals think they can get the Objectivist word out at local Tea Party events, more power to them.
Does Yaron Brook being the keynote speaker at Virginia Republican Party qualify as someone who is "supporting and participating in" the Republican Party? Is he a 'collaborator' because he participates in discussions on Fox or Pajamas TV etc? Or is he simply using such things as opportunities to speak to those who may be receptive to his ideas?
In other words, is the claim here that Objectivists should NOT speak to people or distribute informational flyers etc at things like Tea Party events - because many of the people there may not be converted to Objectivist ideas?
Put simply, does simply spreading information about Objectivism to those who may be sympathetic to its arguments "help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies"?
If that is the claim here, the argument presented does not support it. And if that is not the claim here, then the claim being made is completely unclear.
In either instance, one needs to identify exactly what qualifies as "support" and "participation" in the "movement", and why such "collaboration" is self-destructive rather than self-promoting.
The given article does not do that.
mtnrunner2,
The sponsors of Tea Parties are organizations, and the Tea Party events constitute a movement - and that movement promotes ideas and slogans that (outside the very limited context of the reasonable spin that ARI speakers try to give to some of those slogans) tend to be objectively contrary to individual rights and to life-qua-Man.
"Getting the Objectivist word out" - this assumes that adults whose cognitive faculty was crippled by the Pragmatist Comprachicos who run American K-12 schools, can understand that "Objectivist word" when they hear it. And that assumption is false. Being able to use Objectivist epistemology is an extremely useful skill for all future knowledge workers, and I incorporate it (and use it) in the courses I teach at my university. I find that it takes several weeks for graduates of American K-12 schools just to grasp the basics of OE - basics that most immigrants who grew on non-Pragmatist curricula can master inside an hour.
And it gets worse: the Pragmatist K-12 curriculum mostly produces sheep and crackpots, and the Tea Party crowds are mostly the crackpots. When they hear Objectivist speakers at Tea Parties, they go away with the impression that Ayn Rand would endorse whatever crockpottery they happen to favor. Even if they go on to buy a copy of Atlas Shrugged, they will either stop reading before the middle of the book, or just skip the ideas and read the sex (with which they will also disagree, having skipped the ideas in the way.) And the press will also "get," and report as fact, that Ayn Rand's philosophy supports whatever crockpottery the organizers of the Tea Parties wish to promote.
To change America in a fundamental way, one must first change its schools. One can also use public advocacy for specific Objectivist values to demonstrate the utility and the power of rational, conceptual cognition. Only when Americans understand concepts will they be able to understand individual rights. There are no shortcuts.
RadCap,
Did you read the Web pages of the other, non-Objectivist speakers? The ARI speakers at the Boston Tea Party will be interspersed among, inter alia, members of the John Birch Society, who will also "advocate Capitalism" - as an embodiment of national collectivism and religious altruism. That is counterproductive (see my reply to mtnrunner 2, above.)
Adam,
You didn't answer ANY of my questions.
Although you bring up a really important point about the vageries of fiscal responsibility, I do not agree that it is wrong to participate in the tea parties as events.
Although it is true that many Americans have not been taught the value of their liberty, and do not know their history, many of the tea partiers, a self-selected group, do know these things. Some of them may well be open to hearing a moral defense of their liberties, solidifying what is now only a vague sense.
If you are to have an impact on them, and perhaps turn what is now only an awakening sense of outrage into a sustained, reasoned argument for Liberty, then you must make your ideas known.
The success or failure of the burgeoning patriot movement depends upon ideas and a moral foundation for Liberty. If you choose, you may well be a guiding force. There is a point where philosophers must come out of the closet in defense of the value of Liberty and individual rights.
You also seem to be contradicting yourself. You say:
""Getting the Objectivist word out" - this assumes that adults whose cognitive faculty was crippled by the Pragmatist Comprachicos who run American K-12 schools, can understand that "Objectivist word" when they hear it. And that assumption is false."
Yet, I just finished reading other of your comments, in which you suggest just the opposite:
"So, what does a rational person do when invited to collaborate with those with whom one has fundamental differences? I think that the best solution is not to collaborate, nor to turn down the invitation, but instead to treat the invitation as an invitation to dialogue. Look at ARC's tea-party leaflets, or listen to what Yaron Brook says to conservative hosts and at conservative conferences, for excellent examples of how it's done."
If, as you claim in your first quote, people are too crippled to grasp the "objectivist word", then to whom is it that Yaron and the flyers are disseminated, and why did you praise their efforts?
For those who support participation (in whatever form) in any of the local or national Tea Party events: Would a comparison help clarify the issue involved?
How would attending an event or speaking at an event or formally joining a local Tea Party organization differ from "engaging" in the same ways a Libertarian Party or Communist Party event?
(Are the Tea Party events acceptable to you because you think they don't have a particular agenda and are thus seemingly "open forum" events?)
I think that any and every Objectivist who ever even entertained the idea of participating in these Tea Parties should be publically denounced, identified as a covert subjectivist trying to infiltrate and undermine Objectivism, be starved of resources, and should be officially labeled as evil, dishonest, and crazy.
RadCap,
Back when I wrote the second of your two quotes, I did not yet know as much about the Tea Party sponsorship and attendance as I learned since. It was also before I went back and re-read Ayn Rand's contemporaneous analyses of a similar moment in her lifetime (just replace Carter with Obama, and Reagan with Dick Armey, who hopes to ride a similar wave of "we've got to do something" into power after Obama.) The Tea Parties have been a learning experience for me, and (I hope) those Objectivists who had similar hopes to mine. And I do think that it is sometimes productive to use a forum of opportunity. But not to the point of providing the national collectivists and the pseudo-moral supernaturalists with any semblance of sanction.
At this point, I hope that after the ARC delegation to tomorrow's Tea Party in Boston, their collaboration with Armey's campaign will cease. And of course I will be writing more about Armey on the "Three Democides" thread.
Rad Cap:
About my not answering your questions - I answered pretty much the same questions from mtnrunner2 before I even saw your earlier post. Your arguments, like those of mtnrunner2, appear to assume that the last half century's worth of Pragmatist schooling did not affect the cognitive efficacy of the average American's mind enough to matter. My experience in university classroom is otherwise. If it turns out that at least one person who attends tomorrow's Tea Party in Boston, actually gets from prior ignorance of Objectivist principles to the point of actually understanding those principles - as a result of direct or indirect exposure to the ARC speakers - then I'll change my mind by the evidence. But what I expect to see, is what Ayn Rand saw 37 years ago.
"The Tea Parties have been a learning experience for me, and (I hope) those Objectivists who had similar hopes to mine."
What were these hopes? And what facts have caused you to consider them dashed?
"I do think that it is sometimes productive to use a forum of opportunity. But not to the point of providing the national collectivists and the pseudo-moral supernaturalists with any semblance of sanction."
Given the above, and your indication that your re-readings of AR and your experience with the "Tea Parties" have caused you to re-evaluate actions you previously praised, I will repeat my earlier question: do you think Yaron is "sanctioning" the collectivists and supernaturalists by participating in discussions on Fox, PajamasTV and the like, and by officially participating in Republican Party events?
Additionally, do you think ARC is following a "false premise" and that it simply shouldn't even attempt to reach out to those whom you indicate are cognitively "crippled" (ie seemingly most of the adult population)?
Mr. Reed,
I wouldn't answer RadCap's question if I were you. It's a RadCap trap. I may not agree w/ you that Objectivists engaging outside groups sympathetic to is counter-productive, but at least I'm willing to have an open and honest discussion about the merits of doing so.
sorry, I meant to say "sympatheic to liberty" in my last comment.
RadCap,
Yes, I think that giving any semblance of agreement, to the canard that Objectivists have anything that matters in common with Conservatives, is counterproductive. And Yes, I think that the audience of those fora (obviously excepting Objectivists who go slumming there only to see Brook, Binswanger etc) consists largely of people with minds so crippled by Pragmatist schooling, that they have no clue of what Yaron Brook means by what he is saying - and who would burn Yaron Brook on the nearest stake if they understood what he's actually telling them.
Adam
Thank you for making your principles and conclusions clear.
Hmm. An additional question occurred to me. If the principle is that one cannot give "any semblance of sanction" to the collectivists et al through 'support' or 'participation' or 'collaboration', is it proper for ARI to be participating in the public school system? Do they not support it through the donation of books and curriculum? Does such collaboration with this gargantuan, statist organization not provide it sanction?
Adam,
You say you will change your mind if even one person who attends the Tea Party in Boston actually ends up undestanding Objectivist principles. But, *absent* such evidence, you say you have no cause to make such a change of mind. And you indicate those who disagree "appear to assume that the last half century's worth of Pragmatist schooling did not affect the cognitive efficacy of the average American's mind enough to matter."
Well, you may not have attended school in the last 50 years. I did. And I know many other Objectivists who did as well. "Pragmatist schooling" didn't prevent *us* from grasping the import of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Nor has it prevented the number of Objectivists and those interested in Objectivism from growing over the years *despite* that schooling.
Now, if one were to accept *your* principle, we simply should NOT exist. Yet we DO exist. WE are the evidence that such speakers and such dissemination of information CAN indeed result in individuals understanding Objectivist principles. Our very existence indicates you need to check your premises.
RadCap,
I will collapse my answers to your last two comments into one comment - I hope that you don't mind.
Culture coerces, but it does not determine. Regardless of all the anti-conceptual pressure that growing Americans face in Pragmatist schools, there are, and will always be a few heroic individuals who manage to develop their conceptual faculty, either by reading and thinking on their own, or by seeking out adult mentors: older people schooled before the Comprachicos took over American schools; immigrants; scientists and other conceptual knowledge workers. In larger schools there is a subculture of "Geeks" - once a term of Pragmatist opprobrium for thinking rebels; now and in the last few decades a kind of self-identification for kids and former kids who dared to think conceptually in a largely Pragmatist culture.
What I have observed is that the development of a conceptual epistemology, and identification with some conceptual discipline (science, technology, mathematics, chess and so on,) often with an explicit self-dentification as a "Geek," almost always comes before the growing person begins to think in conceptual terms about ethics and politics. That has been, as far as I know, the only path by which young people who grow up in Pragmatist schools have become genuine Objectivists. I don't know of even one young, American-educated Objectivist who was not, at some point in their development, centered on science or engineering or some other "Geek" endeavor. (I once asked, at a seminar on Objectivist philosophy, for a show of hands from those who had written computer programs. Half the audience, and literally every American-educated person under forty at that seminar, raised their hands.)
Now, if there is anything that a person with a conceptual epistemology cannot be, in the context of a twenty-first-Century conceptual understanding of reality, is religious or traditionalist. Someone who looks for signs of conceptual consciousness among traditionalist or religious Conservatives today is not likely to find any. Which is why (if my analysis of the issue is correct) Conservative fora are a very unlikely place for finding people with the intellectual pre-requisites for becoming authentic Objectivists.
I think that distributing Ayn Rand's novels to literature teachers will get at least some young Geeks exposed to Objectivism, so it is a good thing in context. I think that distributing the Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology to computing teachers, with a good study guide relating OE to Object-Oriented modeling and programming, would be even more effective. Given the monopoly position of Pragmatist schools in America today, neither would be interpreted by any rational person as an endorsement of the existing system.
On the other hand, among public fora for adults there are very, very many to choose from. Choosing the fora of one of the most anti-conceptual political persuasions in today's world - which is what present-day conservatives overwhelmingly are - is in an altogether different category, in both assumptions and consequences.
I am glad to see you acknowledge not everyone is so crippled that they are incapable of actually understanding Objectivism, despite "Pragmatist schooling" - as you previously suggested. So it appears we we are now in agreement: there ARE individuals out there capable of understanding Objectivism despite the last 50 years of education.
I'm glad we have that premise out of the way. That means the question is not whether they exist, but is simply where to find them/how to reach them.
"I don't know of even one young, American-educated Objectivist who was not, at some point in their development, centered on science or engineering or some other "Geek" endeavor."
Well, you do now. I am an artist - and always have been. And there are more of us out there as well.
"one of the most anti-conceptual political persuasions in today's world - which is what present-day conservatives overwhelmingly are"
Except you already said you would change your mind about speaking, distributing flyers, etc - ie participating in such things - if even ONE mind in such a group can be reached. Well, given the evidence provided, and given your seeming agreement that such individuals ARE out there, on what basis do you not change your mind? Is it your claim NO ONE - not one single person at the Tea Parties or in the Republican Party, etc - is capable of learning and understanding Objectivist principles? If that is indeed the premise you are proceeding from, I must say, from experience, it is false (and I would further suggest it is not the only one).
--
All in all, this does not sound like the moral issue you framed it to be: of giving 'victory to one's enemies' (especially given your 'one mind' premise). Instead it sounds simply like a disagreement over what specific tactics are more effective at reaching the individuals out there who may be receptive to Objectivist principles.
And, while *you* may dismiss even the possibility of such individuals existing in certain groups, it is neither immoral nor self-defeating for others to look at *all* the evidence and come to a conclusion different than your own.
In fact I would say your accusations do an injustice to such individuals.
RadCap,
First, I consider religious and traditionalist Conservatives to be enemies of my own life - and of life qua Man in general - because their ban on research into cloning-based medical technologies is likely to cut my natural - natural for the animal that lives by its mind - lifespan, short of its natural end, by somewhere between one and two dozen years. So yes, I consider giving Conservatives any semblance of moral legitimacy, giving victory to our enemies. Since you have read my past blogs - you quoted excerpts - this is a fact with which you were already familiar.
That said, I also considered - in response to your questions - the possibility that participation in Conservative fora might do enough good, by exposing some potential future Objectivists to the ideas of Ayn Rand, to outweigh the evil. This is a separate issue, with its own context. For you to confuse the two contexts (the most benign explanation of "this does not sound like the moral issue you framed it to be") indicates that you do not grasp a fundamental fact in Objectivist Epistemology: the contextuality of knowledge. Lacking this understanding, you are not qualified to be considered an Objectivist
What bothers me the most about this new penchant for political activism that has overtaken "mainstream" Objectivism is that it is the same debate that David Kelley's actions (NOT is subsequent justifications for them) raised 20 years ago. Actions for which he was summarily denounced.
I haven't thought about the issue of speaking to loosely-in-agreement groups enough to have a solid opinion one way or the other about it's value/morality, but at least I'm willing to admit it.
Unlike the powers that be at the ARI who, having an upswing of popular interest in Objectivism unexpectedly fall into their lap as a result of a nosedive in the economy and culture over the last few years, are reacting by the seat of their pants and pretending like they're following some kind of well considered strategy.
Ever since the Kelley schism this issue has been out of bounds, and now that outside events have made it unavoidable, the mainstreamers - and their rank and file apologists like Radcap - are acting as if they've known all along what they would do when this time came.
It is debateable whether or not this course of events has helped, harmed, or didn't affect at all, the quality of Objectivism's response to the public's increased interest, but one thing's for sure: it's very pretentious.
"For you to confuse the two contexts ...indicates that you do not grasp a fundamental fact in Objectivist Epistemology: the contextuality of knowledge. Lacking this understanding, you are not qualified to be considered an Objectivist"
LOL.
First - I reject the assertion that any context was dropped.
Second, and more importantly, even if it were true that a logical fallacy had been committed, your conclusion is completely irrational.
The failure of an individual to identify or separate the context in a particular instance is not evidence that the individual fails to grasp the *need* to keep context. In other words, it is not proof that they do not grasp the principle that knowledge is contextual.
Such a conclusion is wildly illogical.
Given that this seems to be the type of 'logic' you are applying to the issues you raise, and given the injustice of the accusations you continue to hurtle towards others based on this 'logic', I think you have now provided everyone with enough information to judge the validity of your assertions here.
My assumption has been that the central issue--as shown by Dr. Reed's wedge-strategy posts and the cited passages from Ayn Rand's comments on tactics--is joining as a member or officially affiliating with an organization whose stated goals are inimical to one's own.
I see now that there are other issues, as mtnrunner2 has suggested. Merely attending and "recruiting" or leafletting at an event or, under certain circumstances, speaking at an event whose agenda is ambiguous or undefined is not in the same class of problem.
The essence of this thread has been informative. I disagree with some secondary points made here.
In the war against supernaturalism, mysticism, altruism, and statism, the central barricade is very long. There is plenty of room for a variety of approaches, styles, and particular activities.
RadCap,
As you write, "The failure of an individual to identify or separate the context in a particular instance is not evidence that the individual fails to grasp the *need* to keep context. In other words, it is not proof that they do not grasp the principle that knowledge is contextual." Since you are posting anonymously, I can only use the facts that are available to me about you, all of them from the context of this thread. In retrospect, your assumption that, since you are an artist, you cannot have been a Geek (in the current sense of conceptual rebel against prevailing Pragmatism) is not justified either - doing valid art requires a great deal of conceptual thought (although, being more isolated in your field, you may lack practice in keeping track of context in dialogue with other conceptual thinkers.)
In any case, I do not see your personal context as evidence against either of the two principles that I have been arguing for: (1) that the bulk of Conservatives, those motivated by the anti-conceptual doctrines of traditionalism and supernaturalism, are enemies of Life Qua Man (and therefore of Objectivism,) so that giving them the moral sanction implicit in using their fora is likely to work existentially against the goals of Objectivism; and (2) with the exception of slumming Objectivists, the audience of contemporary Conservative fora consists overwhelmingly of people possessed of a radically anti-conceptual mentality, who for that reason are not good candidates for "conversion" to Objectivism. Neither you, nor anyone else in this thread, have given any cogent argument against either thesis.
Burgess,
Thank you for your comments- they are always enlightening. I am curious to know more about the "other issues" and "disagreements about secondary issues" that you mention. I would be grateful for additional details, preferably by e-mail to adamreedatalumdotmitdotedu.
"Since you are posting anonymously, I can only use the facts that are available to me about you, all of them from the context of this thread"
First, it isn't a fact. Second, even if it were, NO logic warrants jumping from the fact of someone committing a logical error in a particular instance to the conclusion they do not grasp a fundamental principle of Objectivism and thus declaring they cannot be an Objectivist.
You need a LOT more facts before you can validly assert that conclusion. To make such a claim without that evidence is wholly ARBITRARY.
Objectivists can commit any number of logical fallacies. This fact does not indicate they do not grasp fundamental principles of Objectivism. For instance, if an Objectivist is 'confused' in a particular instance and ends up with a contradiction, that contradiction is not, as you would have it, proof the Objectivist fails to grasp the Law of Identity and thus is not "qualified to be considered an Objectivist".
Such beliefs are simply absurd.
This is the type of 'logic' you have applied to the rest of your arguments as well. And it is why those arguments fail - and is likely why you have seen no "cogent argument" against those you have presented.
I agree with Burgess. "In the war against supernaturalism, mysticism, altruism, and statism, the central barricade is very long. There is plenty of room for a variety of approaches, styles, and particular activities."
Trying to smear and morally condemn those who do not share your particular approach is both unjust AND "counterproductive."
Radcap,
In reference to your points in your last comment (which I agree with), I guess this would make Mr. Reed a "crusading irrationalist", wouldn't it?
No
RadCap,
There is a long spectrum of inferential validity in between the proven and the arbitrary. A judgment based on limited evidence is not "arbitrary" - it is merely a judgment based on limited evidence. I agree that an occasional error may be an anomaly on the part of someone who usually does apply Objectivism in a more integrated way. But the better one's understanding, the less likely such errors become. Since you are posting here with a made-up label rather than your name, and since no identifying information is available about you (no profile and so on,) your postings here are all that I have to go on. And those postings fall short of demonstrating to me that your grasp of Objectivism rises to the level of an integrated understanding. It may well be that if I knew more, I would judge differently, and I would change my mind on the basis of added evidence. And in that case I would sincerely apologize. But for the moment, you are the one who is withholding the missing evidence, if any.
You write, "Trying to smear and morally condemn those who do not share your particular approach is both unjust AND 'counterproductive.'" I agree - but I have not been trying to do any such thing. And I also agree with both Burgess and you that "In the war against supernaturalism, mysticism, altruism, and statism, the central barricade is very long. There is plenty of room for a variety of approaches, styles, and particular activities." But this does not mean that all "approaches, styles, and particular activities" will be equally effective. A rational activist will think conceptually, evaluate the relative effectiveness of the available alternatives in full context, learn from the evidence of experience, and choose accordingly. Trying to analyze the alternatives and optimize the choice of proper action, and trying to do so in a principled, conceptual way, as I have been doing, does not amount to "condemnation and smearing."
Adam,
Harry Binswanger conducted a poll of his HBL list of some 800-1000 Objectivists some years ago. He found that the largest group of them came to Objectivism from a center-right background (using today's flawed political spectrum). Next to none came from leftist backgrounds. (Center-Right here meaning largely secular oriented Republicans or "conservatives who are religious" as opposed to "religious conservatives".) Even more interesting, the overwhelming majority of those under 30 came from right of center backgrounds. There were nearly no under 30 list members who were prior leftists.
'Conservativism' is a big tent movement. Many of them are the anti-conceptual religionists and traditionalists* that you mention. But a number of them are libertarians or classical liberals or just not very religious. Some of these people may be open to Objectivist ideas. If you went to any leftist or left-liberal forums and tried to spread Objectivism you would get mocked and insulted. Leftist's minds are totally closed. I agree with you that geeks and science types are great candidates for Objectivism, but if they are leftists (which many of them are) their minds will be closed.
I share your disdain for Conservatism but more people who call themselves conservatives are open to reason and individualism than are people who call themselves liberals (let alone committed leftists), IMO.
* When you say "traditionalists", do you use the term as a stand-in for cultural conservative or do you mean the Paleo-Conservative sub-group who refer to themselves as "Traditionalists" such as Larry Auster?
"A judgment based on limited evidence is not "arbitrary""
It is when you are not required to draw the conclusion yet do so anyway despite knowing you LACK the evidence needed to RATIONALLY reach your conclusion.
The ONLY "evidence" you had was your (false) belief that a logical fallacy had been committed. You had absolutely NO other evidence to draw a conclusion BEYOND that - yet you did anyway.
THAT is arbitrary.
There are MANY other explanations for someone making a logical error (if indeed one has even been made). Since a rational person KNOWS this, unless events compel him to judge without all the facts, he WITHHOLDS judgment until such a time as he has the evidence necessary to reach a valid conclusion.
In other words, when missing the evidence required to logically come to a conclusion, a rational person will say 'I don't know'.
That you CHOSE to judge without the necessary facts, and that you CHOSE as your rationalization for that judgment an insulting smear, speaks volumes about your "judgment" AND your sense of justice.
Because of that, one can only say goodbye to you.
RadCap,
In regards to your answer of "no" to my question: So it's only a "crusade" for irrationality when a person promotes something; not when he condemns something? If, say, David Kelley were to "promote" Libertarianism by speaking about Objectivism at a Libertarian supper club, that would be contributing to a "crusade of irrationality" - but if, say, RadCap were to "promote" Christianity by holding up signs about Objectivism at a religious-right-organized Tea Party, that wouldn't be a the same thing?
In the first case, obviously, "real" Objectivists can condemn David Kelley because he should have known that those Libertarians were so fargone psycho-epistemologically that there was no hope of even one of them ever becoming an Objectivist (nevermind MadMax's comment right above this one). That the only possible explantion for his giving a speech was that he was trying to undermine the Objectivist movement by making the public think it was identical to the Libertarian movement.
However, in the second case, we (Mr. Reed) are being "unjust" and "'counterproductive'" when we condemn RadCap (et al) for failing to realize that those Christians are so fargone psycho-epistemologically that there is no hope of even one of them ever becoming an Objectivist? That the only possible explanation for an "Objectivist" to attend a Tea Party is that he isn't really one, and that he secretly desires to undermine Obejectivism by having it be seen as just another religious-right organization?
Isn't this exactly the same thing? Isn't this the approach the Peter Schwartz and Leonard Peikoff taught us when they condemned David Kelley?
No? There's a chance that, just as RadCap may have been mistaken in a particular instance (strategy), those Christians who organized that Tea Party be mistaken about the source of their rights (God)? Fine. Very well. Twenty years of bickering (mostly of the silent-treatment kind), and David Kelley's position has been vindicated. If a mistake about strategy is no more (or even less) irreperable than a mistake about metaphysics or epistemology, then we all owe him a huge apology.
But let's assume for a moment that Objectivist Tea Party participation is a rational endeavour. Depsite what you might wish, it isn't a settled question - but let's just assume for a moment that it is. That all of the evidence reasonably available to the leadership at ARI, which advocates Objectivist participation in these events, has been analyzed (it hasn't), and that the Institute is certain (it's not) that at least some portion of the public involved in these events is psycho-epistemologically ready to respond to Objectivist ideas in a positive manner, drop their altruist ethics, the faith-based epistemology, and their primacy-of-consciousness metaphysics...
Wouldn't that be wonderful?
Along comes Mr. Reed - with his "unjust" and "counter-productive" denunciations. Not just of the participation as such, but of the Objectivist (he calls them pseudo-Objectivists) participators themselves (you)! Other than the (immaterial) distinction between the fact that David Kelley was "promoting" an "irrational crusade", whereas Mr. Reed is here "denouncing" (I see it as responsibly questioning) an equally "irrational crusade", I can think of no reason for you to withhold the epithet of "crusading irrationalists" from him. Other than a fear of seeing the leadership of the ARI as anything less than omniscient, and a lust to think of David Kelley as incapable of any good idea (let alone honest mistake), I can't think of a reason.
RadCap,
Upon reflection - and some off-line communication with a person that I am proud to learn from - I see that you are right: I did not need to make a judgment from the limited evidence I had, and I apologize to you, for that mis-judgment, and for misreading your preceding comment as requiring me to judge. I will do my best to avoid a repetition of this mistake.
I respect your decision to say good-bye - and I understand that the generalizations you made in your latter comments were not unprovoked. I hope that this exchange will not keep you, as it assuredly will not keep me, from being open to additional evidence and judging accordingly.
Unfortunately, I have come to this debate a little late, so I apologize for any repetition.
Mr. Reed; you seem to have read Comprachicos, which seems to have constricted your understanding of how people become Objectivists (O’ists, for short). First of all, you imply that all O’ists are/were math centered. Such a conclusion is inaccurate. There are plenty of this-generation O’ists who began adopting rational ideas young enough to develop their knowledge in the “humanist” studies, such as philosophy and the law. I myself am a law student, and I know several other law students as well as philosophy and psych grad students who are uncontrovertibly O’ists. Perhaps this knowledge will provide sufficient evidence for you to “check your premises.” I myself have never heard a valid reason why we should confine our "recruiting" to chess clubs and math departments.
Speaking of recruiting: the Libertarians are not sponsoring the Tea Parties, and in some cases the Tea Partiers have explicitly denounced the Republican party. The Tea Party that I personally observed (as well as the tea parties that other O’ists attended, who I’ve talked to about the subject) did not have any official party/group or sponsor of any sort. Therefore, any blanket assertion that all tea parties are somehow co-opted by any set ideology is premature and based on insufficient evidence.
Based on this, it seems to me that a large non-group-affiliated gathering of anti-collectivists would a superb forum for propounding a moral-philosophical basis for being anti-collectivist. Kind of how the NRA recruits at gun shows, yes?
Second of all, Mr. Grant said, "I think that any and every Objectivist who ever even entertained the idea of participating in these Tea Parties should be publically denounced." Mr. Grant, I don't wish to single you out or personally attack you, but this is something that is constantly recurring, especially amongst older O'ists. You are not a member of the Spanish Inquisition; Objectivism is not the Star Chamber. Correct someone's errors if you wish, but "denouncing" someone as being "non-Objectivist" is silly, especially considering that the posts you were basing your judgment on were objectively rational. Trying to mimic AR by (mistakenly) "denouncing" people makes you look like a tool, and makes Objectivists in general look like a bunch of cultists.
John,
That comment was entirely sarcastic.
madmax,
Thank you for info from the HBL poll. Since young Geeks are rebels against the anti-conceptual Pragmatist ideology of school administrators, and the latter also tend to be leftists, it is not surprising that young Geeks identify as right-of-center.
Yes, there are some ("moderate," non-Anarchist) "libertarians," and also Classical Liberals, who identify themselves as "Conservatives" in polls - but they tend not to be the ones at Tea Parties. And I can't think of so much as one of the latter among self-identified Conservatives in a full-time political or "public intellectual" career today.
Contrary to what you assume, I have found among my faculty colleagues many who identify as left-of-center, but are receptive to Objectivist ideas, and the applications of those ideas - provided that Objectivist ideas are explained to them as concepts rather than slogans. My University recently adopted an official policy on free expression that I wrote, and that is rather directly grounded in Objectivism. And of course everyone in my field (yes, even the Marxists) uses the Unified Modeling Language - knowing that Grady Booch cites Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology as a foundation for his work from the start.
As for Traditionalists, I mean both the rank-and-file "cultural Conservatives" and their "intellectual leaders." Of course most of the former never even heard of the latter - not surprising about an "Intellectual movement" so bluntly ranged against the human intellect.
John,
You comment is pervasively inaccurate, and largely false, both about the openly documented facts and about what I have written here. For example, I did not start my identification of the pervasive anti-conceptual tendency of contemporary American culture with "The Comprachicos." I observed this tendency, as I have written above, in the form of a consistent difference in the difficulty that the concepts that I teach in my university courses present to students educated in America, versus students educated elsewhere. The process was identified by Leonard Peikoff in his 1984 Ford Hall Forum lecture, "The American School: Why Johnny Can't Think." (I assume that you are really "John," and not someone else who might be pulling my leg with an abstruse reference to the title of that lecture.) And I have neither written nor implied that "all O’ists are/were math centered." I've observed a tendency in the direction of conceptual ("Geek") disciplines, but even a law student such as yourself should know the difference between a tendency and "all."
I have documented, in previous posts on my blog, that Libertarians are (contrary to what you have posted) listed among official co-sponsors of more than one Tea Party - together with Republicans and Objectivists. The fact that some Libertarian and some Objectivist speakers at Tea Parties have criticized some past policies of the Republican Party is true - but the most objectively evil Republican policies, such as restrictions on medical research into applications of cloning, were never addressed by either.
There was never any "assertion that all tea parties are somehow co-opted by any set ideology" on my part. You (apparently) made that one up out of thin air. The citation (from another writer) in my blog said that it was the lack of any explicit ideology in the Tea Party movement that led to the co-optation of Tea Parties by statists, Libertarians, and national collectivists.
The only sensible part of your post is your analogy with "how the NRA recruits at gun shows." But, as Ayn Rand often pointed out, her philosophy is first a philosophy of Reason, and therefore one that requires a functioning conceptual faculty. Objectivist individualism is a consequence - and it has nothing beyond the label in common with the self-alleged "individualisms" of supernaturalists and whim-worshipers. A philosophy of Reason needs to recruit at gatherings where there are as many people as possible who have reached the conceptual stage in their intellectual development. And there are gatherings where finding such people is much more likely, than at political rallies attended mostly by what Burgess Laughlin calls the "God, Tradition, Nation, and Family" crowd.
Mr. Reed,
I had hoped to keep this civil, but if you wish to take a sharp tone, very well.
You said: "science or engineering or some other "Geek" endeavor."
This clearly implies that all things in the category "'Geek' endeavor" are either math or science.
You then said: "I've observed a tendency in the direction of conceptual ("Geek") disciplines."
Your attempted ambiguation of the term "geek" fails because all knowledge is conceptual. So either, you said something completely without meaning, or you said that all objectivists are math or science centered. Again, you said that you "don't know one...etc," thus we must conclude that you mean all o'ists. You seem to be making a giant generalization, yet discarding information from other people that calls into question your basic premises for this conclusion.
As for the rest of your response to my post, I was pointing out that the fact that some Libertarians had co-sponsored some tea parties was no cause to dismiss "tea parties" categorically. To re-iterate my point from a logical demonstration: "some flowers are red" (some teaparties are run by Libertarians) does not mean that all flowers are red (etc). You have failed to address this in your response.
As for your assertion that all people at the tea parties were incapable of conceptual thought, I see no justification in reality or, from your postings, proof that you have such justification. Judging the intellect of tens of thousands of people you have never even seen, nevermind talked to, is wildly bizarre to the point of willful misinformation. I have never seen someone declare so many disparate, un-unified people (who, by your own admission, do not have a single or unified philosophy), mentally incapable of thought on such little evidence. You must have an incredibly depressing and dark view of the capabilities of the human mind to make such sweepingly broad characterizations.
John,
Your insistence on putting your own simplistic spin on my position, even after I had pointed out your misreadings; and your failure to read or listen to Leonard Peikoff's "Why Johnny Can't Think," means that additional communication with you is not likely to be intellectually productive - and so I'm stopping it here.
Post a Comment