RoR: Forum

It looks like Robert has an excellent vision for TNI, along with a lot of A-list writers in the pipeline. I'm eagerly awaiting my copy ... I'll comment more when it arrives.

Post 1

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 7:40am

Michael, thanks so much for this kindness.

Just a minor correction: this isn't "the first issue of The New Individualist" -- only the first issue under my editorship. Actually, Ed Hudgins was editor-in-chief during the transition from the predecessor magazine, Navigator, and published four issues this past year under the publication's new name. Ed had assumed the editorial reins from Roger Donway, who ran Navigator for many years. (Incidentally, my personal tribute to the under-appreciated Mr. Donway appears in my first issue.)

As I noted in my blog, I'm in the midst of instituting significant changes in the magazine. These include a forthcoming Extreme Makeover in its graphic design, as well as important revisions in its editorial emphasis. So don't let this debut effort be the gauge of all that is to come.

Now...back to frantic writing and editing...

Post 2

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 8:37am

Robert! Good to see you back, even for one post.

Ethan

Post 3

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 10:46am

Robert,

I managed to change the title of the notice - there was still time for editing.

I just got out of a minor surgery (which went A-OK, by the way, for those who have expressed concern) and am still a little groggy - damn doctors trying to turn me into a drug addict or something...).

So if this should have been the first issue "beside" Bidibob, or "over top" of Bidibob, or "behind" Bidibob, or whatever, I will try to get the preposition right later...

//;-)

Once again, congratulations. You did a great job.

Michael

Post 4

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 11:53am

Sir Robert - I'm excited about what I'm hearing. I hope I get to *see* it soon! However, sight unseen, it's clear hearty congratulations are in order.

Linz

Post 5

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 11:55am

Andrew, Ethan, Lindsay...thanks one and all. Wish I had time to say more, but I am truly swamped.

Post 6

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 5:28pm

I'm glad Robert Bidinotto is admitting he is using religious conservatives in TNI. How this will "familiarize [readers] with the existence of our philosophical alternative" or [see Hudgins, poll discussions of TNI] create "articles to be the Objectivist equivalent of pieces we might find in National Review, etc..., interesting, informative, thoughtful yet with a unique Objectivist perspective." is still up in the air.

Will Bruce Thornton make non-Objectivists sympathetic to Objectivism by informing them about "the powers of the evil inherent in all human beings."

Or: "freedom and material prosperity, now uncoupled from the counterforce once provided by Christianity, have created a public and popular culture of trivial mediocrity, in which humans are reduced to the lowest common denominator: appetite and its gratification."

Or: "Freedom comes from the choices made in accord with a cosmic rational and moral order and conducive to their goal, which is good. The idea that freedom for the individual derives from his subordination to a greater good, particularly after it was Christianized, would have a powerful impact on Western thought."

Or: "The rationalist ideal in the West has always coexisted with the recognition, first given voice by Euripides, that thinking and calculating are not all there is to being human. Christianity subordinated reason to revelation, the truths of this material world ultimately significant only insofar as they confirm the grand truth of our true nature and destiny, a truth not discovered by our minds but freely revealed to us by God."

Wow! Sounds like a unique Objectivist perspective to me.

I can see why Bidinotto says, don't bother me, don't bother me, don't bother me. "I only judge the merits of manuscripts."

Post 7

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 6:31pm

Hey, Glenn!

Ever think about doing something in life other than bitching about what high-level achievers do?

How about founding your own magazine?

(I'm sure not holding my breath on that one.)

Michael

Post 8

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 7:05pm

DAMN RIGHT MICHAEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BONK

We seem to have an over-abundance of finger-wagging-nay-sayers lately

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 10/17, 7:07pm)

Edited to fix incorrect word usage. I had meant to say we have "no dearth" of finger waggers, but mispelling the word and typing the sentence wrong didn't help! Dayquil takes its toll!
(Edited by Ethan Dawe
on 10/18, 7:05am)

Post 9

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 7:42pm

That's "dearth," Ethan! And I think you mean surfeit!! :-)

I assumed earlier posts about the conservatives in TNI referred to earlier issues. So they're in this new one? Is the point to raise matters for debate in subsequent issues?

Post 10

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 9:29pm

I'm not bitching about Thornton, just pointing out what the man stands for based on what he has published. He is being passed off as an Objectivist intellectual or someone that is in agreement with Objectivism.

If I wanted to bitch I would ask why does TOC have at least four writers, full time, on it's staff (Kelley, Bidinotto, Donway, and Hudgins) being paid over $50K each (add in other costs a business pays to hire people and the total is around $250,000) and they can't fill a small magazine? What do they do for 40 hours a week? They have to get National Review rejects?

RJB: "TNI is an outreach magazine, a magazine meant to address the interests of --and to persuade-- a general audience of intelligent NON-Objectivists, especially non-Objectivist "opinion leaders."

Well all the opinion leaders know Dr. Bruce Thornton is a religious conservative, so what are they going to be "persuaded" of? The "general audience" won't be reading objectivism, so what is the use?

RJB: "But their SPECIFIC articles are consonant with Objectivist principles and values."

Principles and values that only apply to the examples in the article, how philosophical! Written by people who don't follow those principles and values all the time. How are the "intelligent non-Objectivists" readers going to integrate this sea of floating abstractions?

Post 11

Monday, October 17, 2005 - 10:15pm

Dayaamm!

50 k is all those guys make?

That sure is a fact to bitch about.

But hell. I don't own TOC, nor did I create it. They must know what their own business purposes are. Their approach suits their own view of business, nobody else's. (Just musing about capitalism...)

Thank goodness that there is an alternative high-quality Objectivist publication to read. I do admit that the Internet has provided much more Objectivist material to read, but often you have to sift through piles of garbage to get to the good stuff.

In a print magazine, a certain amount of filtering has been done already.

btw - Glenn, the background of any one author does not invalidate a whole magazine or whole organization. But if it does for you, you don't have to like their magazine. No obligation. You don't pay for it so you also don't have to read it either.

I like what I see so far. I will read it.

Also, I will pay for it and recommend it, especially for its high-quality.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/18, 7:54am)

Post 12

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 6:37am

Michael,

Since you may be the only one commenting here who, as of yet, has actually read the issue of the magazine about which some are opining so knowledgeably, you may be aware of the editorial disclaimer that runs in every issue:

"While the editors accept the philosophy of Objectivism, signed articles reflect only the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors, the Center's staff, or its trustees."

If the goal of an Objectivist magazine is to acquire and persuade a non-Objectivist readership, it is not necessary (or even desirable) to mention "Objectivism" and "Ayn Rand" in every single article in order to establish clearly the philosophical position of the magazine. Since TNI editorials, staff-generated articles, articles contributed by other committed Objectivists, and advertisements of Rand-related products all promote Objectivism, then additional pieces on narrow topics written by non-Objectivists, but which are in themselves consonant with Objectivism, will not confuse the reader about the magazine's philosophy. (Unless the reader is a complete moron, of course -- a possibility which at least one writer here compels me to entertain more seriously.)

In any case, my editorial statement in the forthcoming issue will make the philosophical position of the magazine, and its relationship to outside contributors, so clear that even morons may be able, with diligent effort, to understand it. Though I still have my doubts, given their demonstrated inability to grasp plain English.

Speaking of plain English: the criteria for contributing to TNI include at least passing familiarity with elementary English grammar and punctuation -- which may be why a few self-styled Objectivists, so eager to criticize TNI authors, probably wouldn't themselves qualify for admission into the magazine's pages.

Being an open-minded sort, I am of course willing to entertain the possibility of a direct causal connection between their venomous criticisms of superior writers, and their own demonstrated deficiencies in writing abilities.

Post 13

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 7:57am

As publisher of The New Individualist I'm obviously biased but I want to congratulate Robert on the first issue under his editorship. He's now busily working to get us back on schedule by the end of the year. You'll also notice that I've had pieces in each issue of TNI, including a long piece on the need for a new individualism in the first issue, a long piece on the Means and Ends of Islamists in the current issue and a long piece on creationists in the next issue. And naturally, Robert, that writing machine, will be putting more of his own material in future issues.

This SOLO discussion does raise a deeper question: How do we go about spreading Objectivist ideas and creating a true Atlas society? One way is for individuals to read Rand, accept the philosophy whole, and go on to try to convert others.

A second way, which does not exclude the first, is to introduce unique Objectivist ideas into public discussions and debates, in the long-run changing peoples' understanding and evaluation of various issues. That's in part what has happened in the public policy realm. Things that Rand said 40 years ago -- abolish anti-trust laws, shut down the FCC, eliminate entire government departments -- are now advocated by many think tanks and policy entrepreneurs, many of whom were influenced by Rand (often the leaders like Ed Crane, Bob Poole, etc.) but most who probably are not Objectivists.

We are targeting the magazine at non-Objectivists who might be sympathetic with us and are using this second approach. TNI might give readers an Objectivist perspective on things, for example, using conceptions like the sanction of the victim, individuals' interests not conflicting when individuals do not seek the unearned, the need to fight for freedom based on rational and responsible self-interest. And we want to get our unique Objectivist ideas into discussions not only on public policy but also on culture and values. Think of this as preparing the philosophical ground for a wider acceptance of Objectivism.

We also hope to bring some readers around to our perspective on various issues where they might disagree with us or perhaps haven't made up their minds.

But to do these things we need to get people to read our stuff; loud, emotional denunciations of all those who disagree with us won't do that. And as I like to say, individuals listen to arguments with logos, ethos and pathos, with their minds, their moral sense and their emotions. We must take this into account when communicating with other. This means that articles for TNI that will best serve their function cannot be either boring term-papers (which would attract the righteous wrath of Linz in any case!) or mere rants. We want material that appeals to the minds but that is interesting and readable.

We want TNI to be effective and will be experimenting with new writers, topics and the like to see what works best. So keep your eyes opened for future issue

Post 14

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 8:26am

There is certainly nothing wrong with ad hoc material, as it links the rest of the world to the real-ness of Objectivism...

Post 15

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 9:28am

Robert M: thanks for "getting it."

Oftentimes, non-Objectivist experts in particular fields marshal masterful critiques of specific erroneous positions...even though their own alternative positions may be inadequate, or just plain wrong. Some of the finest criticisms of liberals are penned by conservatives -- and vice-versa. Some of the best refutations of environmentalism have come from non-Objectivist scientists and economists.

Do these have no value? Or isn't it true that Objectivists have borrowed wholesale from such works in order to buttress their own arguments?

Shouldn't I do likewise, as editor of an Objectivist magazine?

To take a hypothetical example: Suppose I wanted to publish an issue of TNI focusing on the "creationism" controversy. Now, I would probably have an Objectivist discuss the philosophical issues concerning religious faith and "revelation." But I might invite a non-Objectivist scientist to tackle the bogus scientific claims made by "creation scientists." What is wrong with that? Since the Objectivist has set forth the philosophical arguments, how, exactly, would inclusion of a non-Objectivist expert to address narrow, scientific matters confuse readers about the Objectivist position?

To take a more specific example: I disagree with classics scholar Bruce Thornton about a number of things. But I do not disagree with his brilliant critique (in the current issue of TNI) of multiculturalists, their Balkanization of Western societies into feuding racial-ethnic-religious factions, and the horrific impact of their relativism on the ability of immigrant populations to assimilate into American society. Neither would Rand disagree with that critique: read her "Global Balkanization." Thornton's position on all this, as stated in the article, is completely consonant with Rand's. And there's nary a peep in his article endorsing positions contrary to Objectivism -- such as his views on religion. Finally, Prof. Thornton is not only eminently qualified to write on this topic, he is an elegant, graceful , and persuasive essayist.

So should I instead publish some half-assed screed by some unqualified writer on this topic...simply because he calls himself an Objectivist? That appears to be the choice that some critics would have me make.

To take another example: What is wrong with having an expert constitutional scholar and attorney, Henry Mark Holzer, provide an informed, well-reasoned discussion of the U.S. Constitution's definition of "treason" and its relationship to freedom of speech? Is such a topic of no interest to Objectivists? Furthermore, if his is only one article in an issue themed on the general topic of "treason," an issue that explores its many other aspects (including moral aspects), isn't his contribution on the legal issues relevant to the overall discussion?

So does having Hank Holzer discuss that topic within the magazine imply that I agree with every other position he takes outside of the magazine, on every other issue?

More broadly: Is the proper criterion for my accepting a magazine article my complete philosophical agreement with its author on every conceivable subject, and my complete endorsement of his every action, on issues and matters completely extraneous to his assigned article?

That appears to be the implicit standard of critics denouncing my inclusion of "non-Objectivist" authors in The New Individualist. And that criterion -- which would hold authors to an undefined, platonic standard of Objectivist Perfection -- probably explains, in part, why these sanctimonious critics have proved themselves unable to attract enough "qualified" writers to ever publish a monthly magazine for a general audience, rather than for their own small, intellectually inbred circles.

That such critics haven't a clue as to how one can work cooperatively with non-Objectivists, yet uphold one's principles, speaks volumes...but not about The New Individualist.

Post 16

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 9:20am

Robert,

Thank you, your editorial disclaimer does answer my question.

"TNI is an outreach magazine, a magazine meant to address the interests of -and to persuade-a general audience of intelligent NON-Objectivists, especially non-Objectivist opinion leaders." Which will "familiarize [readers] with the existence of our philosophical alternative" with articles from " a unique Objectivist perspective."

While at the same time, not an outreach magazine meant to persuade intelligent non-Objectivists, because the writers are not offering a philosophical alternative from a unique Objectivist perspective, "only the views of the authors."

This has success written all over it.

But didn't you and David Kelley try this "Objectivists+Religious Right" publication in the 80's and it didn't work out?

Robert Jones, another religious conservative writer for TNI, says "As someone who is both religious (RC) and a conservative,"

"I also wonder how we have come to a state in this nation where to say bless you after a sneeze, or Merry Christmas to a non-believer has become so verboten. It reeks of censorship, of prior restraint in the marketplace of ideas. I attribute it to the puritanical streak in the sphere of ideas in America, that one does not merely need to do what is right, but BE right."

"Both the left and right are guilty of this: The left, in wanting to expunge every mention of God or Christ from public discourse and the religious right, who honestly believe we have only freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The latter are absolutely correct when they note that the phrase "separation of church and state" aren't in the constitution; I am a big advocate of judicial restraint myself, and agree prima facie with that statement, and have been aghast many times of the left's use of this phrase in lieu of the establishment clause to strike down people exercising their freedom of religion clause and free assembly clause, just because they choose to exercise them in public."

"The separation of church and state doctrine should be best regarded as guidance, not constitutional doctrine."

As for his review of the Monk t.v. show--"While I am not an objectivist per se, I am most certainly an objectivist when it comes to "Monk."

?????????????

Let the goal to "acquire and persuade a non-Objectivist readership" begin!

Post 17

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 11:18am

Has anyone else noticed that, to date, on this thread and others, criticisms against those issues of The New Individualist that I have edited are (1) directed against a magazine that none of the critics has yet read, and are (2) based solely and entirely on ad hominem arguments?

Regarding point 2, their "arguments" go like this:

"Author X is a non-Objectivist; non-Objectivist philosophies are false; therefore, any articles written by Author X must be false."

Or:

"Author X is a non-Objectivist; non-Objectivists cannot write things that are compatible with Objectivism; therefore, no article written by Author X can be compatible with Objectivism."

Or:

"Author X is a non-Objectivist; reasoning offered by non-Objectivists is false; therefore, the reasoning offered in an article written by Author X must be false."

Or (specifically):

"Robert L. Jones holds views incompatible with Objectivism; in a TNI article, Jones endorsed the 'Monk' TV show; therefore, Jones' endorsement of 'Monk' in TNI is incompatible with Objectivism."

Or:

"Bruce Thornton holds views incompatible with Objectivism; Thornton attacked multiculturalism in TNI; therefore, Thornton's TNI article attacking multiculturalism is incompatible with Objectivism."

Or:

"Henry Mark Holzer holds views contrary to Objectivism; Holzer wrote an article for TNI defending freedom of speech; therefore, Holzer's article defending free speech is contrary to Objectivism."

Well, I suppose this sort of "reasoning" is an expedient way of trimming one's reading list...

Post 18

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 11:31am

Robert congratulations. I look forward to reading it.

I do have *some* trepidation about the inclusion of non-Objectivist authors. I can see X writing an article worthy of publication in an Objectivist magazine, though he himself may not be explicitly an Objectivist. Where it gets sticky is when X has previously expressed ideas that are indeed antithetical to Objectivism. In some contexts associating certain writers names with TNI would be intellectual suicide.

I have every reason to think that you are the best man to take on this challenge Robert, and that the result is reflective of your intellectual razor.

All the best
John

Post 19

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 11:37am