How can any Objectivist support Bush?!!

The ultimate end of Bush's policies is Fascism/Authoritarianism and/or Theocracy, thus how can any Objectivist give him support and thus power?

There are many examples of Bush and Co's misleading, lying, distain for science and reason, their ultra-secrecy, hypocrisy and corruption, and their embrace of a vast untruthful propaganda machine.

This seems obvious to me (and anyone else who cares to analyse based on facts), yet I am shocked how many Objectivists seem to support a man who's actualization would ultimately mean their demise.

Truthfan

Post 1

Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 6:50pm

Truthfan: When I vote I have to balance a number of things. While I am adamantly opposed to ALL the religious aspects of the Republican Party I also abhor the more socialistic nature of the Democratic Party. On balance, I am more afraid of the socialism as it is more insidious than the theocracy, which is available for everyone to see and assess.

The Democratic mantra that Bush lied is a lie in itself. ALL, I repeat, ALL the leaders of Western democracies believed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, including the darling of the Democrats, Bill Clinton. Was Bill Clinton lying? If so, why? If you didn't observe this, where were you living?

Do you understand what Fascism is? Perhaps you have never heard of 'The Ominous Parallels' by Leonard Peikoff. While I am not a particular fan of Peikoff's brand of Objectivism he expresses the case against Fascism (and Nazism) very well. He quotes a leading spokesman for Fascism: "For Fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends."

It would seem that the Democratic Party's relentless assault on individualism would make them the advocates of Fascism, rather than the Republicans.

Sam

Post 2

Friday, December 31, 2004 - 7:43am

"distain for science and reason, their ultra-secrecy, hypocrisy and corruption"

Are you trying to suggest that paternalist liberals, with their precautionary principle, global warming (or cooling depending on which decade) perpetual malthusian dystopian attitude, preaching of 'sustainability' etc, are a paragon of science and reason? If you are of libertarian inclination, ask any liberal what they mean by 'pro-choice' and then ask their stance on just about every other issue of choice and you'll find out what hypocrisy really is.

How can any objectivist support Kerry?

Michael

Post 3

Friday, December 31, 2004 - 12:52pm

I don�t see how an objectivist can be anything other then a Republican considering the options we have. From my standpoint, many people in the Republican leadership �get it� and acknowledge that free enterprise is inherently good and taxes are bad. Yes there is the far right who likes stealing �charity� from the people but toss them a few bones and they�ll be all right. Most of the problems come from Republicans trying to get more votes, not morality. You honestly think Bush would have passed all those social programs without being forced to compromise? True that�s no excuse but the Democrats would have done much worse and done it gladly.

As for those bones, I�m talking about religion. I was born and raised Catholic and just because I�m not religious now don�t mean it bothers me. If some private group wants to donate a sculpture with the 10 Commandments on it to a courthouse like in Mississippi, as long as it looks nice I won�t object and if it looks really nice, hell I might support it. What�s written on it won�t detract from its aesthetic beauty and, sorry to burst your bubbles, with the exception of the first few most of those rules are pretty damn good to follow. And best of all, IT DOSEN�T COST ME A CENT! Those knuckleheads in San Francisco just spent a couple hundred thousand dollars trying to remove the cross from their city seal and it still didn�t come off. Fools! Leave it up there, I�m an atheist and even I don�t care! Bad or good, Christianity is a part of this country�s history and my heritage and trying to say otherwise is stupid.

Now this part is really important. As for the Democrats, they don�t want to get rid of Christianity because they are atheist, no, many them are tree worshipers, Christians when it�s convenient, or something like that. They are moral relativists and who take the ideas of �tolerance� and �diversity� to the extreme to the point where they are intolerant of anyone who believes in any absolutes other then theirs. Christians and likewise, a large percent of Republicans, believe in an objective morality even though it has false pretenses. Nether the less, only a Republican can get up can call the Soviet Union and �evil empire� like is was and only a Republican has even a hair breath of a chance of winning this war.

So I�d help a crusading Republican like Bush fighting our enemies in the Middle East any day over hugging some trees and pissing in my pants with the likes of Al Gore.

Post 4

Friday, December 31, 2004 - 1:35pm

(Edited by Clarence Hardy on 12/31, 7:36pm)

Post 5

Friday, December 31, 2004 - 2:13pm

Sam,
The fundamental attribute of reason is clarity. Do you think that Bush was clear in his rationale for war? First is it was 9/11 connection. When that didn't pan out he just kept on strongly implying (and not denying) it to his hardcore base, then he moved on to 'WMD'. WMD is a term used by Bush to group three distinct types of weapons with drastically different dangers together--for marketing purposes. Bush marketed an imminent (he carefully didn't use that word, he implied it) threat to our national security as 'WMD'. Past presidents and other leaders thought Iraq had some type of 'WMD', but none thought the evidence was strong enough to warrant a unilateral war. (And that wasn't because they were lilly-livered pre9/11 Democrats, that's a stereotype embraced by the far-right). The decision to invade Iraq was a pre9/11 one so the 'things changed' rationale doesn't work. Afghanistan was because 'things changed', Iraq was/is not.

We still don't know if Bush knew that there weren't WMD there, by the way. What we do know is that he didn't plan for the insurgency, and who knows if he didn't think that since it was supposed to be such a cakewalk it didn't matter if he lied to us to reach his objective (check out the postings about Strauss and the Neocons). But who cares now, it's all about spreading democracy. Yeah right.

History will look back at Bush and see that he cherry-picked the intelligence to reach his and the Neocon's predetermined pre9/11 goal of Iraq invasion. Right now you and the majority of this country have been lead to believe a falsehood via a very well-organized and well-funded marketing (mainstream media) and propaganda (right-wing controlled media). That falsehood is that Bush is not responsible, that Bush was mislead by the CIA or God or whomever.

In fact Bush mislead us, he lied to us. I believe that intentional misleading is equal morally to 'lying'. He used techniques that should apaul Objectivists--his speaches were carefully worded to give us vague notions, fuzzy feelings, to feel things in our gut rather than use reason to make a decision of whether we should support and trust our leadership.

Bush was/is anything but clear. In a variety of contexts he purposely muddies the intellectual debate. He speaks in code to the religious right---the people who will certainly persecute the Objectivist if they gain ultimate control in the Theocracy that you find not so bad, Sam.

The truth is against Bush, thus he tries to muddy the debate and make you revert to reactionary emotions to make your decisions. This flies with the right-wing religious zealouts, but it should be a warning sign for the Objectivist.

I want the truth, loud and clear. I have a right to make my decisions with factual information. Bush is the most secretive president since Nixon, he has beefed up the government's traditional tools of hiding the truth (read the Patriot Act, look at how he's tried to squash the Freedom of Information Act, etc, etc).

Read Al Frankin's book (Lies and the Lying Liars...) if you want proof of the lies that took place/are taking place. Now, we've all been force-fed to dismiss Al Frankin with the rest of them, but if you read it his reasoning should be very appealing to you as an Objectivist. He lays things out very scientifically, he backs everything up with facts and reason. Not the kind of 'facts' that you find spewed from the right-wing, real facts that you can look up for yourself and come to your own conclusions. Sure there is socialist type stuff there, but above all he is championing science and reason and truth. That's why I'm on his side in this battle.

You will find that a lot of the info that you have been told to believe by Bush and the right is just not true. Look up some of Rush Limbaugh's references and judge for yourself. Rush was an official Bush campaign advisor by the way.

Once you do a little nonbiased research and judge for yourself you begin to see a bigger, scarier, picture of what is going on in America today.

It's not Fascism, yet, but that's where we're headed. This is fundamental stuff. We can't begin to debate the virtues of Objectivism today. That would require an environment that reveres the truth. Right now it's as simple as one side (with all their faults) embracing the truth and the other (will all their faults) not. Which side gives the best chance of well-being to the Objectivist? Which side is most dangerous to the Objectivist?

Being on the Democrats side is the only chance that Objectivists have to enter a debate about the issues that matter to us. Let's fight for truth today, and have a debate with them tomorrow about why Objectivism is right. Go with Bush and you will wake up one day finding yourself in a Theocracy/Fascist state, dreaming of the Clinton years where you still had the Bill of Rights and economic prosperity.

Post 6

Friday, December 31, 2004 - 7:27pm

Truthfan: You addressed your post to me so I thought it was going to be somewhat of a refutation of what I stated. You've persisted in your 'Fascist' claim against the Republicans without any sort of acknowledgement that Fascism is grounded in socialism (an attribute of the Democratic Party).

You ask, "Which side is most dangerous to the Objectivist?" I reply that socialism is most dangerous to the Objectivist.

The rest we've all heard before.

Sam

Post 7

Saturday, January 1, 2005 - 10:17am

Sam + other Bushfans, (Note: please read the entire post, it's not as long as the others)

This is the dictionary definition of Fascism:

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

That's where we're headed under Bush. Why? It's as simple as the Truth vs. Lies. The current party in control espouses lies and confusion of truths to hold power (let me know if you want specific examples), while the opposition is standing up for the truth (ditto). It's as simple as that. I think at this point the particular policies of each party, third parties also, is irrelevant. In a democracy, when people aren't given truthful information with which to make their decisions, then those in power will abuse that power because there are no checks on that power.

You mention Socialism in regards to Fascism, are you're saying that the only way that Fascism can exist is in a socialist environment?

You say we've heard all 'the rest' stuff, that sounds like a dismissal without acknowledging my points--which is easy to do. I'm guessing that you didn't read Franken's book, you should and then judge for yourself. It's common to hear from the right these days "don't even bother reading ______, just listen to us, we're the only one's you can trust for information".

I hope that no self-respecting Objectivist would fall into such a trap of not making up their own mind.

Truthfan

P.S. I say that a Theocracy is far worse than a Socialist society, in theory.

Post 8

Saturday, January 1, 2005 - 3:03pm

Truthfan:

Firstly, I am not a fan of Bush � I disagree with many of the his policies. He is very, very far from advocating individualism. I oppose harsh drug laws and his stance on abortion.

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Please give examples of how the Democrats have been suppressed through terror and censorship. Are you also alleging that Bush is a racist?

You haven't made a case that "people haven't been given truthful information". In any case, I suspect that you are too young to remember, or understand, what it is to be truly at war. No one at war with Germany and Japan had any concerns about secrecy in prosecuting the Second World War. Please don't confuse Viet Nam or Korea with WWII. I am concerned that the Homeland Security is always divulging what facilities need more protection and what screening devices and methods are in use at airports. Sixty Minutes did a piece on lax security at chemical plants and showed how easy it was to penetrate the barriers. This is just the stuff terrorists need and I think that 60 Minutes was guilty of providing aid to our enemies. That episode should have been censored.

You mention Socialism in regards to Fascism, are you're saying that the only way that Fascism can exist is in a socialist environment?

I don't know but I do know that Fascism has never existed except in a socialist environment.

I say that a Theocracy is far worse than a Socialist society, in theory.

A Theocracy IS a Socialist society. Individualism is crushed and absolute conformity reigns.

You are trying to convert Objectivists to follow a party that relentlessly assaults individualism at every turn while Objectivism is founded on individualism. Unless you can get around that barrier you're whistling in the wind.

Sam

Post 9

Saturday, January 1, 2005 - 10:13pm

Guys, there's another alternative no one's mentioned yet, which is supporting the Libertarian party. I know there's a fastidiousness among some Objectivists when it comes to the Libertarians but c'mon, the Democrats and Republicans are simply abhorrent.

I've read "Libertarianism, the Perversion of Liberty" but I don't find it particularly persuasive.

I started reading Rand out of interest in libertarian politics. This probably happens a lot. One of the Libertarian Party pamphlets I read specifically recommended "The Virtue of Selfishness" and one thing led to another . . .

Post 10

Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 7:19am

Truthfan: In the wee small hours of the night I realized that I was in error. I concede that Fascism can exist outside a Socialist environment.

Jared: Of course Libertarians are much closer to Objectivist ideals (I'm a registered Libertarian) but in the last election I felt that my vote would be wasted if I voted that way.

Sam.

Post 11

Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 10:18am

Sam + Jared,
My anti-Bush, pro-Dem stance at the moment is purely practical. I very much realize that neither party has the solutions we need. Maybe if we get Instant Runoff Voting we can all vote for who we really think would do the best, not just the lesser of two evils. But in 2005 you have to pick one side, and I choose the side that is pushing for openness and truth. That is the only environment in which Objectivism can survive, if you don't have a truthful environment then everything else is moot. Further, since Dems are forced to fight for the side of truth (since Bush uses lies), like it or not, they are charting a direction that is ultimately favorable to Objectivism. If Bush is not stopped you will get more and more murkiness, obfuscation, mysticism, fiscal irresponsibility, etc etc. Eventually Fascism. (We're already a Socialist society in a variety of ways).

As for Bush's lies, here's a good example: the Medicare bill. Bush made speeches up until the night it narrowly passed saying that the cost of the bill would not exceed 400billion. He and his people heavily pressured Congress to pass the bill promising them that it would only cost 400billion. He told me, and all the other American people that it would only cost 400billion.

He lied.

Now, whether or not Medicare (or Social Security or any other Socialist program) is a good idea is beside the point. The issue is truth vs lies. Bush lied. He knew in reality the bill would cost some 530billion, but he also knew (based on comments Congressmen had made) that the bill would not pass if the bill costed more than 400billion. Not only did he lie to Congress and the American people, but he threatened the Chief Actuary that he would be fired if he revealed the true known cost of the bill to Congress before the vote. I'm not making this up, it's that incredible.

This is probably the clearest, objective example of Bush's lying that I can give you. Of course, don't just take my word for it, look it up. It's all been (under)-reported in all of the mainstream newsources.

Also, Bush lied in selling the tax cuts. Whether or not the more wealthy among us should have gotten a bigger tax cut, again is besides the point. What I focus on is that in order to sell the tax cuts to the majority of Americans Bush said : "By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom". Untrue. Why didn't Bush make his argument using reason and truth? Why didn't he say that it's right for those who pay more to get more back? The moment you defend 'end justify the means' reasoning is the moment you open the door for a Fascist to stomp on you.

Who knows what else they have lied about. Where I get nervous is when I see this amoral behavior, these documented lies, then I also see that so far there have been two (that we know of) 'enemy combatants' who are US Citizens, supposedly protected under the Constitution from such a label/denial of rights. And then we hear about enemy combatants being tortured and/or being kept off the books (being 'disappeared'). These life/death issues are why I don't want a liar holding power.

So my point is, the policy details at this point are really not even relevant. We have a leader in office who has shown that he is willing to lie and distort the truth in order to maintain/gain power. Objectivists and Democrats may be strange bedfellows but in 2005 it's the only option.

I don't think we're in a Fascist society yet, but that's where we're headed.

Truthfan

Post 12

Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 12:48pm

Objectivists supported Bush in the recent election because Kerry's Statism was much worse. Under Bush, it is still possible to win the war against the Islamists, which would have been impossible under Kerry. See Kerry's platform about global nuclear disarmament while providing Iran with nuclear fuel "for peaceful purposes."

Note: By "Objectivists" I do not include anti-any-US-government Libertarians

Post 13

Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 3:07pm

Truthfan,

Pull your head out of your ass, and then read "The Gulag Archipelago". Learn what tyranny and totalitarianism really means. Learn what repulsed Ayn Rand to her very core and drove her to put forth the first coherent moral defense of capitalism. You might find imbibing of reality far more refreshing than the stale swill that even the Democrats are sick of.

I'm no fan of Bush, but I sure am a fan of this country, which was the only reason to pull the lever for him instead of Kerry.

Pukszta

Post 14

Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 2:35pm

It would have been impossible for Kerry to win the war on terror? Seriously, some of the postings on this site reflect a disturbingly mystical acceptance of propaganda.

Here's a summary of Bush's platform about nuke disarmament: 1) do nothing about North Korea. 2) Do nothing about Iran, except play right into their hands by botching the Iraq war.

But Rush, Ann Coulter, the Swift Veterans, Sean Hannity and the gang tell me everything is alright--let's all keep taking their word for it, never question authority. Heil Bush!

You're bloody brainwashed. Brainwashed Objectivists, who would have thought...

Post 15

Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 3:26pm

Mr. Puke,
Pulling one's head out of one's ass would seem to imply that that person is making his decisions from someplace other than reality.

In fact, I make all my decisions based on facts and evidence. See my above post re Bush's lies on the Medicare bill and the tax cuts.

Why isn't anyone refuting my claims about the lying of the Bush administration, with contrary facts that is? Why is everyone dismissing my relaying of clearly factual information?

All I'm hearing is regurgitations of what someone else told you to say. Look at the facts, then start thinking for yourself. Mr. Puke, you lose site of the fundamentals of Objectivism when you dismiss me with brainwashed jibberish.

Tell me specifically where I'm wrong. I don't think you can.

Truthfan

Post 16

Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 4:43pm

Truthfan,

You are right on track, don�t change anything. See you in �08.

Jon

Post 17

Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 7:29pm

Thanks for proving my point Jon.

Truthfan

Post 18

Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 10:31pm

Truthfan,

Your challenge, along with the charges of being brainwashed, unable to think for oneself and regurgitating what others told one to say, were not directed at me, as I had not posted in this thread yet. Therefore, my wishes that you and your fellow democrats keep up the good work prove nothing.

I could respond to your challenge, but I�m not interested, as that rant of yours with about a dozen bolded lie, lied, liar and lies tells me that you are hysterical on this issue. Bush won. If you don�t focus now on �06 your party will be thrashed again. See you then!

Jon

Post 19

Monday, January 3, 2005 - 6:59am