RoR: Forum

David and Robert,

Can you guys keep this up for a while? I was in Brazil all during this time and I find these details fascinating.

Keep on writing these stories and I will keep bonking sanctions at you (and having a ball reading them). That goes for anybody else who may want to join in.

Michael

Post 101

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 11:25am

Robert, you published your review in June 1986, Kelley refused to sever ties, and 3 years later they throw David out???

Why did you change these facts? David Kelley was not an "adviser" with quotes, he was a member of the Editorial Advisory Board, its on the back of every issue. The EAB was: Sam Blumenfeld- religious conservative activist in the free school movement, David, and Ron Paul-religious conservative-Anti-abortionist Liberatarian. On Principle was not an Objectivist newsletter, more like reason magazine. It's biggest contributor was the famous religious conservative writer Don Feder.

David, post 98, Peikoff's statement on LFB is on tape and isn't anything like what you say, do you have any facts to back your story up.

Post 102

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 1:34pm

No contradiction, Mr. Heppard.

The personal estrangement between Kelley and Peikoff began with the Branden book episode. There was considerable turmoil and debate within ARI in the years immediately following that; and the public announcement of the estrangement between ARI and Kelley occurred later, when Schwartz found Kelley's appearance before the Laissez Faire supper club to be an opportune moment to denounce Kelley's alleged betrayal of the philosophy. It was an interesting betrayal, since Peikoff had himself spoken before the same audience a few years before, to promote The Ominous Parallels; and Peikoff's talk, despite his claims to the contrary, occurred while the Laissez Faire catalog carried many titles by the Brandens, by libertarians such as Rothbard, and by a range of anarchists. That Kelley was later pilloried for something Peikoff did under identical circumstances speaks volumes...so I don't have to.

I am amused that Heppard has kept up so well on the history of On Principle; even I had forgotten the names of its advisory board, and I wrote for the publication for about 4-5 years. The "Editorial Advisory Board" was a purely nominal designation. As most people with even a small degree of sophistication about such matters understand, the purpose of such a "board" is to create a list of prominent people who, for a variety of reasons, like the publication, and get them to lend their names to it as public endorsers. This presumably brings in new subscribers who respect one or more of the "advisers." The appearance of Sam Blumenfeld and Ron Paul on the "advisory" masthead no doubt drew some conservative and libertarian subscribers, too. But those names had no discernable impact on the editorial policy of the newsletter--and certainly none on my own writing: I was totally free to write whatever I wished.

However, let me assure anyone who may be interested that the On Principle "Editorial Advisory Board" never convened a meeting, as people on such "boards" are rarely asked for much input or advice (though obviously they get an audience whenever they wish to opine). I know that David Kelley occasionally offered opinions to the editor and publisher.

On Principle was strictly political, and during his ownership of the publication, editor Don Feder was a big fan of the political aspects of Atlas Shrugged (though no longer). Don was a practicing Jew, but he did not take public anti-Objectivist positions in the journal, and tended to avoid issues that might put the publication into conflict with its largely Objectivist subscriber base. It was only after selling On Principle to publisher Michael Berger, a veteran Objectivist, that Feder began to publicly identify himself as a strong religious conservative, especially in his columns in the Boston Herald.

And it was under Berger's regime, not Feder's, that I wrote my review of The Passion of Ayn Rand. David Kelley's name appeared on the "Editorial Advisory Board" during that time; I'm not even sure, without checking further, if Kelley's name appeared before or after Feder sold the newsletter to Berger; but in any case, it doesn't matter. When Berger took over the reins, the publication was completely Objectivist, and I was the major writer, not Feder.

So how does this lead any sane person to conclude that the association of Kelley or me with On Principle constitutes evidence of some betrayal of Objectivism? Or have I answered my own question?

Post 103

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 2:23pm

>David, post 98, Peikoff's statement on LFB is on tape and isn't anything like what you say, do you have any facts to back your story up[?]

Yes. The fact that Andrea, as she reported to me when all this fit was hitting the shan, has had to deny ever assuring Peikoff that LFB would now no longer carry the disapproved types of books, i.e., would not be "libertarian." You're skeptical that Peikoff ever made the claim about Andrea. Others have been skeptical that Peikoff would ever sign books at LFB. Both are true.

That Peikoff later modified his ludicrous claim on tape is no surprise to me. And what does he say on the tape? I think I know what you're referring to and I don't recall it exactly, but it didn't seem to make any sense, something about how "circumstances have changed." But remember, the public attacks on LFB weren't solely about the fact that we were carrying Passion, but that we are a libertarian outfit. That was true in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, etc. The slam of Kelley's unconscionable communication with the unwashed was about the fact that some libertarians can be subjectivist and the like, Kelley was allegedly tainting himself by proffering a different view, etc.

I don't dispute that it was all a retroactive trumping up as Bidinotto infers. Let's remember that, for example, Schwartz agreed to let Reason reprint an article of his in the early 80s (though he regretted it because of changes made without his approval). After Rand's death, there was some tentative sense that hey, maybe not all libertarians are putrid scum per se. But it's probably impossible to untangle fully how much of what went on is ex-post-facto rationalization and how much is delusional New and Improved View of Sanction a la Peikoff's "Fact and Value" (with its belabored explanation of how "...now, at last, I finally realize...").

Here's testimony from the horse's mouth. Two horses. Maybe Barbara can attest that this reproduction of the correspondence is accurate (it originally was posted to NoodleFood, a site by someone who used to be fairly reasonable on these questions and now has turned to the Dark Side, I guess because she Gave TOC the Best Years of My Life and Look What Happened or something).

[Barbara Branden:] In an earlier post, I told Kate that I would contact Andrea Rich, the [then-]owner of Laissez Faire Books, and ask her to let me know if -- as has been alleged -- Peikoff had agreed to an autograph party at LFB only after being told that LFB, which had been a libertarian organization, had now ceased to be libertarian.It was Andrea who invited Peikoff, and arranged the party.

Here is Andrea's response, followed by my email to her.

ANDREA:

Dear Barbara,
This is such an old story, dating back to 1982 or whenever it was when Leonard's book first came out. He did come down to LFB on Mercer Street for an autograph party. He never asked me if I were libertarian, and I assumed he knew that LFB was a libertarian bookshop.
As I remember, someone asked him later that evening why he had agreed to sign books for us and he said something to the effect that he would sign books for Attila the Hun in order to get his message out. That doesn't sound like he thought we were "no longer libertarian," does it?
A few months later he signed books for us again in New Orleans at the NCMR (Natl Cmte for Monetary Reform) hard-money investment conference (Jim Blanchard headed it), and hung around our booth for quite awhile in case people came over to chat with him.
Yes, he signed a book for me personally, as you describe. I'm in San Francisco at the moment so can't give you the exact wording.
Poor Leonard; this has haunted him for 20 years!
Andrea

----- Original Message -----
From: BBranden

Dear Andrea,

Would you answer a question for me? It seems that some of Peikoff's admirers say that he agreed to attend a Laissez Faire Books party for him (as I remember, in 1982) because he was told, by the NEW owner, that LFB was, under that new owner, no longer libertarian. Is this true? If you have no objection, I want to send your reply to the discussion group where this issue has been a subject of controversy.

I have a dim memory that he appeared twice at your book party. Is my memory correct? And that he signed one of his books, for you, with a thank-you for having the party. Perhaps you'd give me the wording of that thank-you.

Barbara

###

(Edited by David M. Brown on 5/31, 3:11pm)

Post 104

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 5:13pm

This is becoming a wild tangent, but...

The "second split" happened in a much more complicated context than one would be led to believe from the postings here. ARI was never as monolithic as it is portrayed. Peikoff was the first to sound the alarm about the fact that in the larger political and ideological context, the liberal and conservative factions were once again (for the first time since 1932) switching sides, with conservatives becoming the party of social interventionism, majoritarianism and big government. People associated with ARI were spread all over the place, from Peikoff's neo-classical-Liberalism to Bidinotto's near-endorsement of the social interventionism of the religious conservatives. Schwartz and even Binswanger were leaning away from Peikoff and Lewis toward the conservative side, and given Schwartz's position as ARI's point man against "Libertarianism," cutting off Kelley for associating with "Libertarians" was more than anything a strategic manoeuvre to keep Schwartz and Binswanger on the ARI side of the inevitable split.

It turned out that Peikoff and Lewis were right; Paul and Diana Hsieh, Michelle Cohen, I and several others associated with TOC found Kelley's social-interventionist conservative fellow-travellers too much to stomach and left. And I continue to be amused by references to ARI as "the Dark Side," as though the social-conformist pseudomorality of the Lucas mythos did not speak for itself.

Post 105

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 5:27pm

Adam Reed...

...Bidinotto's near-endorsement of the social interventionism of the religious conservatives.

Mr. Reed has missed his calling as a stand-up comic. I have to conclude that he's joking here, because all of us know that he is a vastly superior intelligence, utterly incapable of making a serious claim so out of touch with the reality that the rest of us know and love.

P. S. By the way, I'm simply fascinated by his revelations of what was really going on inside the heads of all the folks at ARI, and all their crafty machinations and "manoevres." I wouldn't have guessed that anyone could have such divined the secret motives of the ARI inner sanctum. But then, I clearly don't possess Mr. Reed's vastly superior intelligence, either.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 5/31, 5:33pm)

Post 106

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 5:37pm

Adam,

For me this comes down to one issue. When I am at TOC or SOLO, I feel free to speak my mind. At ARI, you are likely to get a knife in the back for doing that.

Jim

Post 107

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 6:44pm

The situation is much more complicated than some of the posts have let on. Around the time The Passion of Ayn Rand was published, aliens from outer space visited the earth and abducted three persons: Leonard Peikoff, Harry Schwartz, and Peter Binswanger. All three were tortured and brainwashed by these aliens and instructed to go ballistic over a factual and fair-minded account of Rand's life. An ancient Martian text "Factoids and Valueoids" was RNA-sutured into Peikoff's brain, and he was hypnotically instructed to regurgitate it in the appropriate Objectivise after his return to earth. These aliens feared that if leading Objectivists were too benevolent and rational, capitalism and rational self-interest as a way of life would spread too rapidly and effectively, thus making it harder for the aliens to conquer the earth when the time came. According to the most recently refreshed intel, the invasion is scheduled to take place soon after the new "War of the Worlds" hits the screen. Stay tuned for updates as they come in.

(Edited by David M. Brown on 5/31, 6:45pm)

Post 108

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 7:23pm

David, you make my case with Andrea's letter to Barbara. Peikoff said something like "you don't have anything to do with the old owners?" on tape. He said nothing about not selling books or libertarianism, which Andrea said he didn't[He never asked me if I were libertarian]. His statement is believable because it sound like any "name" person covering their ass when going to any group. Also with Peikoff's personality if he said something as stupid as "don't sell those books" and Andrea said no, he wouldn't show up.

Post 109

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 8:07pm

Not sure I follow you, Glenn.

People probably don't often wear wires when Peikoff and the others tell them various things in private conversation. But for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that whichever persons spread the idea that Peikoff had been assured by Andrea that LFB would no longer be libertarian in the objectionable sense just plain got it wrong.

Where does that leave us? However you slice it, Peikoff obviously had no reason to believe in 1982 that there would be any radical shift in policy about the types of books to be carried by Laissez Faire Books. Of course, as a matter of fact, whenever there are shifts in management and editorship in such an outfit, there will likely be some changes in direction, changes that are not necessarily very obvious to outsiders. But all this is not to the point; LFB has always been "libertarian" in its willingness to carry books not regarded as kosher by the Objectivist flame keepers. There was never any ambiguity or doubt about that. Nor did Andrea ever give Peikoff any contrary assurance.

Now, Peikoff in later years damned Kelley for appearing in front of a small group at an LFB-sponsored get-together. How was his signing books for Laissez Faire any different in the sanctioning-of-libertarian-evil department? Again, we're back to all the retroactive backing and fillling that occurred as a result of the blow-up provoked by the publication of The Passion of Ayn Rand.

Post 110

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 8:41pm

Robert since "as most people with even a small degree of sophistication about such matters understand, the purpose of such a board is to create a list of prominent people who, for a variety of reasons, like the publication."

I was wondering what Sam Blumenfeld (a leading intellectual in Christian Reconstructionism--they support laws "mandating the death penalty for homosexuals" as well as blasphemers, heretics, females guilty of "unchastity before marriage," and etc.) and Ron Paul(a fundamentalist christian and major anti-abortion partisan) liked about your objectivist newsletter.

Post 111

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 11:05pm

Blumenfeld and Ron Paul were friends of Don Feder's. They probably wanted to help him, and probably agreed with the limited government rhetoric of the publication. You'd have to ask them exactly why they would have endorsed it, especially given my openly Objectivist views.

Maybe they have more relaxed moral standards than I do.

Post 112

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 11:21pm

Robert,

You associated your name with theirs. If their standards were more relaxed than that, they'd pretty much have to sign warrants for their own execution.

Post 113

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 11:32pm

Adam, since I was doing the writing, and they were doing the endorsing, I find it hard to fathom how I am the one with the low standards.

Of course, by your criteria, the life of a recluse might be the only moral course of action. After all, one wouldn't want to risk becoming the victim of even inadvertent "guilt by association," by writing something of merit, and then having some unsavory stranger endorse it.

Had Ayn Rand applied your hermetic protections against moral contamination and sanction-giving, she would never have written for the New York Times or L.A. Times, and never have spoken at the Ford Hall Forum. God only knows the scum and villainy to be found on those forums, and implicitly "sanctioned" by her participation.

Post 114

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 11:56pm

Robert,

Context. No reasonable reader expects agreement in op-eds, opinion columns, or letters to the editor. On the other hand, one does expect agreement between the editorial board and the editor of a small specifically ideological publication.

Many of your articles do seem designed to conceal those of your premises with which a social-interventionist religious conservative reader would disagree. Am I misreading your intent, or is the concealment deliberate?

Post 115

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 2:36am

"Many of [R. Bidinotto's] articles do seem designed to conceal those of your premises with which a social-interventionist religious conservative reader would disagree. Am I misreading your intent, or is the concealment deliberate?"

What is this apropos of? It seems out of the blue in this thread, and certainly if we're talking about his stuff for "On Principle." And is it really an issue of some kind that a couple guys imperfectly in favor of the free market were on the OP masthead?

I've been a reader of Bidinotto's work since 1982 and this "concealment" business is a mystery to me. Unless you're talking about simply targeting the piece and not bringing in extraneous issues, which all professional writers do. As far as polemics go, if you're trying to persuade the reader of a particular controversial point, you don't help yourself by tacking on separate claims not critical to your argument, since you obviously don't have the time to pause and deal with the reader's skepticism about the new and not directly related claims also.

Audience matters, the market for which you are writing matters. But none of this is derelict "concealment," it's common sense. And is there any reader in the world who fails to know that he's not getting the writer's whole world view in any particular article or op-ed?

With regard to "expecting agreement between" advisers and advised, I've always followed a certain iron-clad rule. If an article has a particular byline above it, I expect agreement between the person named in the byline and the content of his article (at least at the time he was writing it). I have a feeling that this approach is not so esoteric. Most folks don't feel obliged to rank and tabulate concentric rings of sanction in all their possible ripples and permutations. Is that the issue here, "sanction," regardless of whether the alleged "sanction" has any discernible injurious effect or not? If we're not supposed to sanction sanctioners, nor sanctioners of sanctioners, either, where does that particular rabbit hole end? There are only six degrees of sanction, max, separating you and any particular deviationist.

Maybe Adam can cite an article or two by Bidinotto that seems so bothersome.

Post 116

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 3:29am

Adam,

If your arguments were really at the root of ARI's actions, where would you say George Reisman, Edith Packer, Jerry Kirkpatrick, Linda Reardan, Richard and Genevieve Sanford fall within the spectrum of Objectivist thought? No, the sad fact is that Leonard Peikoff, Peter Schwartz, and Harry Binswanger are vicious little intellectual autocrats trying to defend their turf. End of story.

Jim

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 6/01, 4:09am)

Post 117

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 6:09am

Adam writes about Yours Truly...

Many of your articles do seem designed to conceal those of your premises with which a social-interventionist religious conservative reader would disagree. Am I misreading your intent, or is the concealment deliberate?

You are absolutely, positively, incontrovertibly right, Adam. Cowardly hiding of my premises, so as not to offend the "social-interventionist religious conservative reader," is calculated...deliberate...blatant...flagrant, even.

Here are just a few recent examples of how I pander to religious conservatives:

http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=252

http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=256

http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=76

The intellectually and morally superior reader will also note the abject, gutless way that I dealt with the conservatives who replied with critical comments to these spineless little essays.

Not surprising, is it? After all, I've long been known for pulling my punches, never saying what I mean, apologizing for my principles, ducking the moral issues, etc. For more examples of me at my mealy-mouthed worst, see here, here, here, here...oh god, where does this second-hander, insipid pandering to the philosophical status quo end?

It's a real shame that moral champions like yourself, Adam, aren't permitted to voice your courageous views in prominent public forums anywhere near as frequently as I am. In the face of my shameful betrayals of Objectivism at every turn, we really, really need moral exemplars like you.

Post 118

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 9:17am

Goddammit Adam,

Will you stop giving Robert such blatant encouragement to plug his articles?

//;-)

Michael

Post 119

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 9:27am