| | I agree that Dr. Binswanger nicely summarized some of the many essential differences between Objectivism and whatever else Republican politicians might believe in. As Yaron Brook pointed out, many people - millions - were "influenced" by the works of Ayn Rand, and (we Objectivists like to believe) all for the better.
I believe that the appearance of Ayn Rand's name and ideas - even severely misstated and perniciously misrepresented - is not a coincidence, but a direct consequence of the correctness of those ideas.
Steve also nicely drew the lines of tension connecting the emergence of new ideas and their acceptance. Realize though, that in science as in politics, we do have revolutions. Thomas Kuhn pointed out that paradigms fail when the experiments they commanded result in facts which they cannot explain.
("Stagflation" and the failures of FRB policies, the failures of public schooling despite ever-increasing funds all come to mind easily. )
Suddenly, a new idea springs forward, though it was slow in developing and not perceived. Kuhn, like Keynes, said that in the long run, the advocates of the old paradigm give way to a new generation. I believe that it was John Adams who said that the real American revolution took place 1765 to 1775, as people developed a new way to see themselves, even changing their religious orientation - being willing to forgoe the idea of a national church - before the Declaration was possible.
The presidency of Barack Obama was not a leftwing dictatorship at all, but only the continuation of policies from the Bush era... ever more epicycles to save the phenomenon....
The very fact that Harry Binswanger could post that in Yahoo Finance as a primary blog item speaks volumes to the change that is coming.
|
|
