About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Monday, December 19, 2005 - 4:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Quick wins." That's an expression I picked up at work and I think it covers the intent of this article.

(Edited by Jillian Blackall on 12/19, 4:06am)


Post 1

Monday, December 19, 2005 - 6:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

You are correct, this is the sensible approach.  A word of caution, however.  Thanks to the popularity of Lew Rockwell, libertarians are enmired in what seems to be an endless debate that is tending to favor anarchy over min-anarchy.  I would advise those who are shaky on that issue to firm up before approaching libertarians.  A good site where one might hone their skills by debating this issue is:   http://www.libertyforum.org/ 

Robert Bidinotto has written some great material refuting anarchists which would also be worth looking at. 


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Monday, December 19, 2005 - 9:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree wholeheartedly with the approach of starting with those 'near' Objectivism, especially libertarians.

I've attended libertarian clubs or big-L political events, and found it possible to easily establish common ground and engender goodwill toward Objectivism. I was surprised to initially find many people expected me to be disdainful of them because I was an Objectivist. Apparently many libertarians have gotten a bad taste of Objectivism since they've only encountered Randroids or Peter Schwartz-like intolerant assholes before. Simply being willing to meet them and explain your position and philosophy but not condemn them works wonders for countering that negative perception.

It's also quite possible to uncover new Objectivists this way. There are plenty of libertarians who also have underlying philosophical views which are de-facto Oist, but who have not been exposed to it as a unified philosophy. I was defacto Oist for years before encountering libertarians or Randians, and I've personally met other libertarians (including big-Ls) who fit naturally into the philosophy once they were aware of it.

Truly converting a libertarian who has a different established philosophical basis for liberty than Objectivism is, however, extremely difficult and I cannot say that I've ever seen it done. I personally have come to accept this and am willing to still work with such libertarians on common political goals anyway, but I know many other Objectivists may not be happy with this.

I wish anyone luck who does wish to try for true conversion of other libertarians. The best tip I can offer is that if you are arguing about anarchy/minarchy or other high-level political difference, you've already gone down an irrelevant rathole. The key philosophical difference with almost all established non-Objectivist libertarians is much more fundamental than political minutea - they believe in a god. This is a central difference in metaphysics, and what you must tackle first.


Post 3

Monday, December 19, 2005 - 10:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Surprisingly, when used to frequent the pub I went to for many years, used to find many there in similar situations, and were open to discussing ideas - as long as kept to seeing practical from them, not the esorteric ivory tower approach... and yes, was also pleasantly surprised at how many had read Rand - either of her major novels...

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Monday, December 19, 2005 - 6:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jillian, that sounds about right. Of course it's all relative. It's quick compared to more difficult paths.

Robert D., I agree. The anarchism problem makes the suggestion of going after libertarians a big question mark. As loud and influential as they are, I don't think they really make up the bulk of the libertarians. And I agree that Robert Bidinotto has some especially good writing on the subject.

I don't know if it's worth learning the fine points of debating the issue. Most of the anarchists I've seen use it to rationalize their hatred of the US, or as a fantasy about not paying taxes. They weren't convinced of the position because of deep intellectual arguments, and won't be swayed by them. I accept the possibility that some are just confused, but don't consider sorting them out to be "low hanging fruit".

Aaron, one of the reasons I think there's potential with libertarians is that they already are going against the political norms. They're independent enough to think for themselves and stand by their choices. That's not bad. So I'm not surprised you've had some good experiences. I have as well.

Robert M., I've had pretty good experiences generally talking about ideas to people. If done right, they can be receptive.

The problem is that the ideas don't stick. They can agree that force is wrong, but then go off and vote for socialism. Ideas just don't seem to matter. That's a potential downside with "Rand fans". Sure, they're at least sympathetic to the ideas. That's a good start. But if they were really interested in them, or really cared about ideas, they'd probably explore Objectivism without being pushed.

That's why getting the word out more might be the best method of growing the Objectivist circle. Expose it to the people who will pursue it on their own initiative.

Of course, this article wasn't attempting to prove one is better than another, just to establish a criteria by which we can judge different alternatives.

Post 5

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 7:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'd nominate college atheist/agnostic groups as low-hanging fruit.

Post 6

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 9:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Christy, those groups pose their own collectivistic challenges.  Please see my post at

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0743.shtml

and share your thoughts there.


Post 7

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 11:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Great points, Joe. And, as you suggest with "leaping a little too fast", they apply to -how- you reach out as well as to whom. My first job out of grad school was for an Objectivist businessman who had a whole shelf of Atlases and he'd give one to colleagues at a slight show of interest in ideas. The problem is Atlas is high-hanging fruit compared to Anthem. You need a lot more motivation or more than casual interest to read a thousand page book than a very short one. So one aspect of all this is the time dimension of low-hanging fruit: You have to be satisfied simply to plant a seed and wait another year or season to water it or examine it or try to cultivate it some more.

This is another aspect of going for what will work now and building toward more ambitious goals slowly. You learn from small successes of the type you describe, and they enable you to build toward more ambitious ones. But you can't do it the other way around, because you don't have the confidence, the skills, or the track record. Crawl-walk-run is the way it's often expressed.

Time after time, the grandiose Objectivist-in-a-hurry, like any advocate of very new ideas -- whether he is trying to approach a hostile audience or convert people to the entire system at once, or get immediate agreement rather than provoke thinking, or otherwise too directly or too impatiently try to build a high tower without having built a foundation or trained himself in construction methods -- ends up discouraging himself and others and leaving behind failed dreams and a big mess.

Philip Coates
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 12/20, 11:13am)


Post 8

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 11:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> Surprisingly, when used to frequent the pub I ... used to find many there ..open to discussing ideas - as long as [they were] practical...not..ivory tower... was also pleasantly surprised at how many had read Rand - either of her major novels. [Robert M]

Doesn't surprise me. It's a valuable skill to know how to talk to ordinary people who are not philosophically oriented as such. I remember reading somewhere that it was the working class audiences in the 30's? 40's? who responded most enthusiastically to one of Rand' early offerings, either the Fountainhead movie or the Night of January 16th play. If anyone remembers this report or where it is from, please enlighten us... Some of the most mentally alive, alert, questioning people I've met never went to college or became professionals. I've had intelligent conversations with construction workers, crossing guards, farmers, etc.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 1:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil wrote:

"I remember reading somewhere that it was the working class audiences in the 30's? 40's? who responded most enthusiastically to one of Rand' early offerings, either the Fountainhead movie or the Night of January 16th play. If anyone remembers this report or where it is from, please enlighten us... "

It wasn't a story about responses to her writings. The story was about her working for the Willkie campaign and talking to "people on the street." She said that the working class audiences were the ones who most readily grasped what she was saying. I believe the story is recounted in *Who Is Ayn Rand*, if you have that. And it's in *The Passion of AR*, p. 161-2:

(I'm including a longer quote than is strictly necessary to document the answer to Phil's question. There's something in the paragraph after that part which
I thought would be interesting.)

EXCERPT--

"As Ayn watched the campaign collapsing into ruins, she was given a new assignment by the Willkie Clubs--added to her 'intellectual ammunition' work-- which was an enormous source of pelasure to her. She had never enjoyed--and never would enjoy--formal public speaking; the few talks she had given following the publication of *We the Living* were done as a dutiful, nervous chore. But now she began enthusiastically addressing assorted, often vocally hostile, groups on steet corners, in cafes, in parks, wherever she could find people who wanted to listen and question. Once, a heckler demanded: 'Who the hell are you to talk about America? You're a foreigner!' Calmly, she answered: 'That's right. I *chose* to be an American. What did *you* do, besides having been born?' The crowd laughed and applauded--and the heckler was silent.

"The Gloria Swanson Theater on Fourteenth Street, near Union Square, a strongly pro-Roosevelt district, was showing Willkie campaign movies and had requested speakers to answer the audiences' questions. Seven times a day for two weeks, Ayn's shyness vanishing as it always did in the presence of eager, questioning minds, she happily answered questions from the stage of the theater. The experience further confirmed her in her respect for the American public, in her conviction that the so-called 'common man' is singularly *un*common. The most intelligent and rational questions she heard anywhere were asked by the audiences from the working-class area of the theater.

"She was delighted, too, by her newly discovered ability to make complex political issues instantly clear and to establish communication even with antagonistic audiences--and she found that she loved being in the thick of an intellectual battle. A friend from the Willkie Clubs sat in the audience to see the severe, cerebral Ayn Rand sparkling on that Fourteenth Street stage as the power of her words and the power of her personality held her audience entranced. Her ability to make complex issues effortlessly intelligible, to open wide the gates to the realm of ideas for even the most modest of intelligences, was newly discovered by Ayn, but had always been clearly perceived by those who knew her. It was a talent that was an essential part of the spell she was progressively to weave as the years passed, bringing even the most antagonistic audiences to their feet in thunderous applause for a woman--and a philosophy--they had been prepared to dislike. It was a talent that was to reach a towering height--a talent for finding the most devastating arguments for her case, for presenting her arguments with stunning clarity and precision--a charismatic power to convince."

END EXCERPT -

Those of us who heard her speak at the Ford Hall Forum before the days when the audience there was entirely comprised of her admirers (or, as I did, at McCormack Place in Chicago in 1963) would have seen in action what's being described here regarding her ability to end up receiving applause even from those in the audience who started out disposed against her.

Ellen


___

Post 10

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 8:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is a great article Joe. Having a good plan and targetting the right goals is the best way to succeed and to keep your motivation up.

Ethan


Post 11

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 12:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ellen, thank you very much for taking the time to make a substantive post, as opposed to the lazy, "chatroom" one liners too many Soloists only do.

Thanks for typing in that very long and very good excerpt. It must have taken a half hour! It is a very revealing one, and shows me (rather than telling me) more clearly that PAR is much more than Miss Rand's personal disputes and fallings outs. So I will now (or soon--time permitting) sit down and read it in its entirety for these other things (and not just the first and last chapter)... Just your short excerpt gives me a good deal of new insight about AR and her intellectual development. On several levels.

On the point I originally raised, however, I did read somewhere what I said about one of her -works'- reception [which is a separate issue from the reception to her public speaking]. I just can' t put my finger on it and am still looking for anyone else's clarification...

Phil

Post 12

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 12:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ethan, that comment about one-liners comes right after your post. It wasn't directed at you (or at the appropriateness of sometimes only making a brief post...this one is!), but at a too wide, too general anti-effort phenomenon I see on solo and other discussion boards.

Phil

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 12:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am surprised to see the length of people's posts being categorized as "lazy." by a man who has written so much about courtesy and who teaches critical thinking. While writing long posts with deep analysis and discussion is important, writing a short note does not denote laziness. I have read Joe's article and identified with it. I sanctioned it, and as such wanted to provide a note of positive feedback. It's also worthy to note that friendly banter and short comments of congratulations are all part of the online community experience.

Ethan


Post 14

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 5:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And sometimes those short posts 'cut to the quick', removing much superfluousness...
(Edited by robert malcom on 12/21, 5:03pm)


Post 15

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 9:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> friendly banter and short comments of congratulations are all part of the online community experience.
> sometimes those short posts 'cut to the quick', removing much superfluousness...

I agree. Different subject from the one I was addressing.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 9:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil,

You wrote,
It is a very revealing one, and shows me (rather than telling me) more clearly that PAR is much more than Miss Rand's personal disputes and fallings outs.
It is a magnificent work. All the recent arguments are over a few minor details. The rest of the work is pretty much like this.

That's why when it came out, even Alan Greenspan called it, "A fascinating insight into one of the most thoughtful authors of this century."

Michael


Post 17

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 9:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael, I think we're getting a bit far afield on Joe's thread with PAR. (Maybe I shouldn't have brought up Rand and her audience and then PAR, but I was trying to find the low-hanging fruit among the admirers of her fiction. I hate it when people hijack my threads, so I should be more careful and conscientious to avoid doing myself the very thing I'm criticizing in others :-] (how do you do an embarrassed smiley?)

Post 18

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 11:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for the suggestion Christy.  There are a lot of groups out there with at least some potential overlap possibly making them easier.  Philosophy students for instance may believe in the importance of ideas.  Teenagers may be looking for an understanding of the world.  Engineers may already have a strong respect for logic and reality.  Atheists or secular humanists may already be looking for an alternative world view.  The list is long, but some are obviously easier than others.  Even within a group there may be low-hanging fruit.  I wouldn't suggest trying convince every Libertarian.  The idea would be to find those who are attracted to it for the right reasons and who may not be exposed to Objectivism, or exposed in a good way.

Phil, good point about Atlas vs. Anthem.  There's a different question about which is more effective overall, but certainly Anthem is easier to read.

Ethan, glad you liked the article.  I'm a strong believer in putting a little thought into activism to try to improve the odds of it being useful.


Post 19

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 1:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Where are my manners?

Of course that was a good article. Sorry for the hijack, Joe. I didn't even notice that I was on your thread.

One comment. I know that this is an article geared only toward easy results, but there is the issue of morale. Obviously, an accumulation of small victories will increase morale, but there is nothing that can replace looking toward the horizon and hearing the drumbeat.

So I would say that, in order for low-hanging fruit type activism to be carried over successfully from the beginning stage to the middle, some effort should be expended on inspiring the troops.

(I was going to say that becoming a fruit-picker is not a very inspiring banner, but it sounded negative and smarmy, so I included it here in parentheses to hopefully get the concept across without trying to be derogatory. Morale is an essential consideration and gathering a backlog of small victories is a very worthy goal.)

Michael



Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.