Perhaps this is an opportunity for Objectivists to exert some influence on the direction that this movement takes.
Unity08 is a diverse group of Americans who believe that neither of today’s parties reflects the aspirations, concerns or will of the majority of Americans. Both parties have polarized and alienated voters. Both are unduly influenced by single-issue groups. Both are excessively dominated by money.
I find it interesting that Sam Waterston has become a spokesperson for the Unity08 movement while Fred Thompson runs for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. Both men star in Law & Order as characters in the prosecution office. What kinds of conversations might they have on and off the set?
I'm skeptical of calls for a third party absent the motive of an overriding issue. The Republican party didn't come about because people were bored with the Whigs, Know-Nothings and the Democrats. It was the slavery issue that led to the rise and triumph of the Republicans.
We already have many "third" parties.
Calls for a new centrist party scare me. The middle is the fascist middle - they stand for what? Moderate freedom? Moderate regulation of sexual matters and free speech? Moderate hikes in spending and moderate hikes in taxes?
Bloomberg, whose real agenda was never revealed in any of his campaigns is considered a centrist. Is his nanny state no-smoking, no-trans-fat, traffic-fee middle of the road course what we need?
Give me a cause I can support with a party built around it, not would-be politicians in search of office without a program, and then we can talk.
I did vote twice for Perot, I liked his idea of a gasoline tax (assuming he would have cut the income tax proportionally) and there was no way I could possibly have voted for GWHB, Slick Willy, or Bob-Dole.
In Perot's wake his "party" has either dissolved or been taken over by the Larouchies.
I think that getting the GOP and the Dems disestablished is a better goal. Most people in this country seem to think that they are established by the constitution or something. We have closed elections in many states that are held at taxpayer expense. In most states, the Dems and GOP get on the ballot automatically but third party candidates have to get petitions signed. The party bosses have themselves ensconced as if the incumbent parties were the established churches of our country.
What we really need is a concerted effort at all levels to end tax-funded closed elections, and other unfair advantages for the parties. Ideally, I would not even allow anything other than a candidate's name to appear on the ballot. Party affiliation should be left off. Would we allow people to list themselves as the Catholic Party Candidate? And if you don't know your candidates well enough to vote for them by name, why should we be complicit in allowing ignorant voters to chose a party to support rather than a person. Show me one place in the Constitution where political parties are mentioned or even made allowance for.
I think that any organization that allows Objectivists to vote for candidates whose views are closer to our ideals is a move in the right direction, whether the organization is "doomed to failure" or not. The fact that there is some sort of rebellion influences not only the strategy of other parties in the future but demonstrates to the electorate that their views can be questioned.
In a quick perusal of their site I saw not a single mention of ideas. In fact their talk of polarization is a way of saying that they expressly want to avoid ideas. Signing on with these people would be the worst Objectivist marketing move since spamming the books-of-the-century poll.
Peter: You sound as if you think the platform is fixed and immovable. From what I can garner this is a grass roots movement that is in flux and will go in whatever direction the members want it to go. Once you're a member you can propose your own candidates and issues to be addressed. Why wouldn't you want to participate instead of just being presented with a slate of candidates that you had no influence in selecting?
I don't propose that the Objectivist "movement" promote or endorse this concept and I agree that it would be a bad idea, but individual Objectivists might want to do what they can.
My objection is that everyone's time, energy and other resources are limited. Prudence demands that we put them where they are likely to pay off. At best we have no reason to think Unity08 would be a good use of any Objectivist's resources; at worst these people are positively hostile. I doubt that it will come to much anyway, good or bad. The question is not why would you object? but why would you want to do this in the first place?
I would want to do it for the same reason that I post on this forum. In some small way I influence others, if only that I am counted as one of the 2831 members who espouse Objectivism on this site.
Peter, you imply that Rand's standing in the readers choice polls was not a spontaneous and honest outcome, but that either some person or people skewed the polls. Is there any evidence for this? If so, I would very much like to know about it, as I assumed that such claims were the groundless accusations of Rand-haters.
One piece of evidence was the huge and hugely implausible lead that L. Ron Hubbard and AR had over anybody else. The other is that people on the O-web were openly advocating spamming as a publicity move. One of them was named Athena Fotis. This was in the ATL days, when posts showed up in the subscriber's mailbox. She was the first person I ever put on my Hotmail blocked-senders list.
Thanks, Pete. I had heard this allegation by non-objectivists, and would still like to see a link. In any case, if someone wins a popularity contest by getting the most votes, is that, in itself wrong? What I want to know is, how many people created false accounts to vote multiple times for any candidate. I would not have been surprised to see Rand or Hubbard high on the lists. These people have strong followings. Graves and Nabokov were not known for their cult followers.
Rand and Hubbard have their admirers but not by a factor of 10 or 100 or whatever it was over whoever came in third. You didn't need an account to vote, so spamming was especially easy.
Winning a popularity contest is not in itself wrong. What was wrong was the dishonesty of it. It confirmed a certain stereotype of Rand's appeal: cheaters who'll do anything to have their way, just as I thought (or just as I'd heard).
Kinda like Sanjay on America's Idol? Then what the hell was the big fuss over anyway? If there were no rules, and no limits, then there was no cheating. The impression that I had gotten was that people were supposedly registering false email accounts in order to pretend they were more than one person.
