| Tuesday, July 29, 2008 |
 |
Objectivist Party?
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:03 AM   
Yesterday, I got the following FaceBook message from Tom Stevens. (I'm reproducing it because it's a form letter from someone wholly unknown to me.) It said:
I am the Objectivist Party Presidential Candidate and we need 9 registered Colorado voters to list as Presidential Electors. There is no obligation but if we do not get said registered voters, we will not be on the ballot.
If you could help by letting us list you, it would be appreciated.
In Liberty,
Dr. Tom Stevens
Presidential Candidate
Objectivist Party I wrote up a quick reply, then realized that my comments might be of interest to NoodleFood readers. So I put a bit more work into it, so that I could post it here. (Be forewarned, I wrote the comments below before I realized that this guy is a Libertarian. More on that below.) Here's my response:
Tom,
I can't grant your request. While I am a strong advocate of cultural and political activism, I think that attempting to change American culture via a third party is not just ineffective but downright counterproductive.
The problem with American politics today is not that Americans are looking for an Objectivist candidate but the major parties will only run statists. The majority of voters are reasonably satisfied with their choice between left-wing and right-wing statists on Election Day. Objectivists must work to change the culture toward secularism, reason, egoism, and individual rights. Only then can we expect better politicians to mount a credible campaign, let alone win elections.
That cultural change will be felt within the major parties -- so long as Objectivists don't sequester themselves into political irrelevance in their own unelectable political party. If Objectivists (and sympathizers) demand that the major parties court their vote, then political change for the better is possible.
The history of the political influence of the abolitionist movement bears out this analysis. Abolitionists created new political parties, some focused on the single issue of abolition and others broadly pro-liberty. All such parties failed to gather any significant votes; they had no positive impact. If anything, they had a negative impact, in that they siphoned off strong abolitionist voters that the fledgling Republican Party would have otherwise had to woo. Eventually, the Republican Party did adopt abolitionism -- due to effective cultural activism, not those minor abolitionist parties. By uncompromising moral arguments, a small band of committed abolitionists changed American hearts and minds about the evils of slavery in just a few decades. (Brad Thompson discusses this fascinating political history in his excellent lecture course, American Slavery, American Freedom. Hopefully I've remembered it reasonably accurately.)
Today, if the small but growing number of Objectivists and sympathizers gravitate to an Objectivist political party, the Republicans and Democrats could safely ignore us for decades to come, knowing that they've already lost our vote. That's a license for more statism, not less.
Objectivists should follow the same model as the abolitionists: change American hearts and minds, and the politicians will follow. Political advocacy can and should be a large part of those efforts to change the culture, as seen in the activities of the Ayn Rand Institute and Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM). Unlike running wholly unelectable candidates for office, that kind of activism works. And that's where Objectivists ought to be focusing their time and efforts. After writing most of the above, I examined the web site of this proposed Objectivist Party in more detail. In my first look, I'd noticed a strongly anti-libertarian statement in the platform itself, in the form of this quote from Harry Binswanger:
The "libertarians"...plagiarize Ayn Rand's principle that no man may initiate the use of physical force, and treat it as a mystically revealed, out-of-context absolute...In the philosophical battle for a free society, the one crucial connection to be upheld is that between capitalism and reason. The religious conservatives are seeking to tie capitalism to mysticism; the "libertarians" are tying capitalism to the whim-worshipping subjectivsim and chaos of anarchy. To cooperate with either group is to betray capitalism, reason, and one's own future. (Harry Binswanger: "Q & A Department: Anarchism," TOF, Aug. 1981, 12.) So, I thought, however counterproductive the endeavor, it didn't seem to be corrupt. That's one reason why I was willing to write such a detailed reply to the request. However, on reading the biographical information on Tom Stevens, the founder and 2008 presidential candidate, it became perfectly clear that he's a Big-L Libertarian in Objectivist clothing. See for yourself:
Dr. [Tom] Stevens is the Founder of the Objectivist Party. He was elected to the Judiciary Committee of the Libertarian Party in 2006 and re-elected in 2008. He served as a New York State Delegate to the Libertarian Party's National Convention in Atlanta in 2004, Portland in 2006, and Denver in 2008. He currently serves as President of the Libertarian Freedom Council, a national organization of students, young professionals and entrepreneurs and also serves as a member of the LPNY State Committee. In the Republican Presidential Primary, he was a supporter of Ron Paul and served as Political Consultant and New York State Coordinator for the Paul For President Coalition. (I might add that I find other aspects of the biography, particularly the range of college-level courses that he's taught somewhere unspecified "during the past few years," as suspect.)
So that makes clear to me the value of this endeavor so-called "Objectivist Party." Libertarians are not allies in the struggle for liberty. So while I think that my comments above are worthwhile as general points about political and cultural activism, this request was not worth so many electrons.Labels: Activism, False Friends of Objectivism, Libertarianism
|
| |
 E-mail Diana Hsieh
 PermaLink ( )
 Comments [17]
|
|
|
|
| Comments on "Objectivist Party?" |
|
 | Tuesday, July 29, 2008 at 4:20:39 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Burgess Laughlin
E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com
URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com
Libertarian Dr. Stevens attempted to proselytize for his OP through our local group, SPON (Seattle-Portland Objectivist Network): http://www.aristotleadventure.com/spon/index.html
He did not succeed. We would not disseminate his message.
Intentionally or not, a sure way to sabotage the Objectivist movement is to siphon energy from it into a futile political gesture. In my experience, many of the individuals who join such efforts want to "do something." Often they want to do anything _except_ learn more about the philosophy and engage in philosophical and _intellectual_ activism. Their approach is anti-intellectual. It is also anti-historical in that it rejects cause and effect. Ideas, especially fundamental ideas, cause history. The ideas must be spread first.
|
| Tuesday, July 29, 2008 at 8:45:53 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Doug A.
I do not even think that Tom Stevens carefully researched Objectivism before he began this endeavor. For example, on the Facebook group for the Objectivist Party, Tom Stevens began a discussion thread inquiring what the differences between Libertarians and Objectivists are. He subsequently deleted this discussion thread after someone else posted a few Ayn Rand excerpts delineating her views on Libertarians. Needless to say, these are not promising characteristics for a man who is leading a political party allegedly championing Objectivism.
Furthermore, like nearly all politicians, Tom Stevens also seems all too willing to compromise on principles for the sake of party unity. See the beginning of the discussion thread labeled "Statement of Principles" on the Objectivist Party's Facebook group.
Tom Stevens wrote on Jul 22, 2008 at 12:26 PM:
"The issue of a Statement of Principles or the need
for a Platform has come up. Some have suggested we
have a stand on every issue that we feel is dictated
by objectivist political philosophy. Others would
prefer the general comments of Ayn Rand regarding
political philosophy and then leaving it up to the
candidates to take specific stands on issues.
I believe we should take a middle ground approach.
I would like us to develop a simple statement of
principles upon which all new objectivist members
would agree."
So, he suggests a compromise between a platform where positions stances are based on Objectivist principles and whatever position the candidates feel like taking. This is not a promising sign given that Stevens has not articulated a principled *understanding* for why he is no longer affiliated with the Libertarian party. Copying and pasting a Harry Binswanger quote does not suffice.
|
| Tuesday, July 29, 2008 at 10:25:54 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Thomas Shoebotham
E-mail: celloshoe(at)yahoo.com
Your comments are absolutely dead-on, Diana. In particular, I enjoyed this:
"The problem with American politics today is not that Americans are looking for an Objectivist candidate but the major parties will only run statists. The majority of voters are reasonably satisfied with their choice between left-wing and right-wing statists on Election Day."
Back in the 1960s, so I've read, many sincere advocates of liberty made a similar error, and probably some people interested in Objectivism shared it. It was called the "conservatives in the woodwork" theory. The idea was that if the Republican Party would just nominate for president a sufficiently pure, unadulterated conservative (which, to be sure, even then meant different things to different people), millions of unhappy citizens who hadn't voted recently would come out of the woodwork and rush to the polls, eager to restore freedom, limited government, and promote a strong, anti-communist foreign policy. This was part of the impetus behind the "Draft Goldwater" movement in the early 60s. We know how well that worked out. Some conservatie commentators still seem to cling to some version of this vision.
It is still earlier than many people think...
|
| Tuesday, July 29, 2008 at 10:55:11 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Onar Ã...m
E-mail: onar(at)systemagi.no
Diana,
your answer to Tom Stevens is good, except one part which I find curious, namely the following:
"Today, if the small but growing number of Objectivists and sympathizers gravitate to an Objectivist political party, the Republicans and Democrats could safely ignore us for decades to come, knowing that they've already lost our vote."
In my view the exact opposite is true. If a *real* Objectivist Party were to be established in the US and it gained, say, 0,5% of the votes with time, then it would start to matter for the other parties, because 0,5% can actually change the outcome of an election. Once this happens the big parties need to pay much more attention to "the Objectivist vote." Ralph Nader is doing the very same thing, but in a larger scale. He is running as an independent candidate in part in order to punish the democratic party for not being sufficiently Leftish. In 2000 he probably cost Al Gore the victory, and since that there is no chance that the Democrats will ignore "The Nader votes." In this way, the Nader wing amplifies their influence within the Democratic party. I don't see why a real Objectivist Party couldn't do exactly the same thing, i.e. become so big that it starts to influence the outcome of elections, and then force the parties to try to win back the votes.
I'm not saying that all Objectivists should be running around doing political activism, but I think the synergy between political and intellectual activism is good. Note that there is no conflict between the two. The Freedom Party in Canada is doing something very much like this. Paul McKeever is running as a political candidate on a largely Objectivist platform and at the same time he is using the party to promote intellectual activism. He is very active on YouTube with tutorials on anything ranging from economics to philosophy.
One of the roles which I think is highly underestimated for political activism is to use it as a platform NOT just to present an alternative policy, but as a platform to attack intellectuals and the fundamentals of fascism that has crept into America. Look at what Jonah Goldberg has managed to do with his book "Liberal Fascism" which in many ways echoes Peikoff's "Ominous Parallels." The major difference between the two is that Goldberg is using it to attack the political Left for being Fascist, while Peikoff outlines a more intellectual campaign against Nazism/Fascism. The books are highly compatible, but Goldberg's book is better suited for creating an attack on the political Left in the general media. His book will be used actively by conservatives to attack the Left, whereas Peikoff's book won't. Similar topics, different disseminations and different audiences.
|
| Tuesday, July 29, 2008 at 11:37:59 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Nick
Onar is right on. Third parties don't go very far usually, but that does not necessarily mean they don't have impact.
|
| Tuesday, July 29, 2008 at 12:51:06 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
I can't really disagree with the conclusion that Dr. Stevens is a flake. His approach to politics appears similar to the "get rich quick" approach to business that appeals to people who imagine there is some secret easy path to wealth. I don't think he realizes that serious politicians treat politics as a profession that demands unrelenting attention: the kind of attention that can be seen, for example, in the Obama campaign for the Democratic nomination, and that does much more to explain his success than any personal charm he may have. (Which is not to endorse his political goals, but simply to say that he pursued them like a professional, whereas Clinton pursued hers like an amateur.)
However, it's not clear to me that minor parties are automatically worthless. Consider the Socialist Party of a century ago. They never took a serious share of the national vote; but they had a major influence on public policy, and a large part of their platforms is now law. Presumably there are specific conditions that must be met for such a party to have that impact; but third parties can't simply be dismissed as automatically valueless. If an "Objectivist Party" could get as many of Rand's ideas turned into public policy as the Socialist Party managed for their ideas, I think it would have to be considered a major success, even if it never won a major election. The Socialist Party was, in fact, the model that was proposed for the Libertarian Party, back in its early days, though obviously that's no longer true.
Much of the discredit for this has to go to the Libertarian Party's policy of seeking alliances with as many interest groups as possible: most recently, with "paleoconservatives" whose core ideas are explicitly theocratic, nationalist, and often racist. But are there conditions under which alliances with adherents of non-Objectivist philosophies can be considered legitimate? Consider, for example, that neither the authors of the Constitution, nor such of their contemporaries as Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, or Thomas Paine were Objectivists (obviously!); at best, they were deists and believers in "enlightened self-interest." Should they be rejected for not having proper ethical grounds for advocating freedom in a principled way? Or can they legitimately be cited as adherents of the correct political principles, even if those principles were not founded in Objectivism? And if the latter is true, where precisely is the difference between such political agreement and the kind of political agreement that the Libertarian Party supposedly embodied?
These aren't rhetorical questions; I'm seriously curious as to how you would answer them, and I'm asking for information, not to advocate any specific answer.
|
| Tuesday, July 29, 2008 at 13:07:26 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
William --
(1) Undoubtedly, the *socialists* got both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party to embrace most of their ideas. However, I do not think that the Socialist Party was instrumental in that effort to any substantial degree. It was socialist academics and intellectuals who were effective in so radically changing the culture.
(2) You ask: "But are there conditions under which alliances with adherents of non-Objectivist philosophies can be considered legitimate?" Yes, when it doesn't involve any moral sanction or compromise. The details are enormously complicated, but I do think that Ayn Rand's essays on "What can One Do" and "The Anatomy of Compromise" are very helpful. Also, Lin Zinser spoke about this issue at some length in her recent OCON course on health care activism. (That will be available from the Ayn Rand Bookstore sometime in the next few months.) With FIRM, our political opponents desperately wanted us to compromise our strong stance in exchange for "a seat at the table." We refused to do so -- and that's one of the primary reasons we were so effective. There's no dichotomy between the moral and the practical here.
Notably, I regard your appeal to the case of the Founders is anachronistic and inapt. The Founders did fabulously well with the mixed Enlightenment philosophy they inherited. They didn't have a solid philosophical base; they didn't reject Objectivism, like today's Christian libertarians and pragmatic conservatives do, for example. Nor could we reasonably expect them to invent Objectivism. So we admire them, even while demanding that today's politicians and intellectuals do better -- because we *know* that the philosophy of the Founders cannot sustain a free society.
|
| Tuesday, July 29, 2008 at 13:23:54 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Regarding the effectiveness of third parties, let me ask the following question:
Who has been responsible for the government adoption of environmentalist laws and polices? The environmentalists working electing Green Party candidates? Or the environmentalists working on and with Democrats and Republicans?
It's obviously the latter -- because unless an election is insanely close, the 1% to 5% of the vote that a Green Party candidate might get doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
That's why the environmentalists in the Green Party can be largely ignored except in rare cases, whereas the environmentalist-concerned voters that may vote Republican or Democratic or stay home must be -- and are -- courted actively by one or both parties in every election.
|
| Tuesday, July 29, 2008 at 14:48:45 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Rook
Great and important topic.
I agree that a third party can be effective as well. If nothing else, having a pro-capitalist party would help somewhat to shift the political spectrum so that the two poles are socalism and capitalism as opposed to socialism and mixed economy, which is currently the case.
Likewise, the existence of a green party and their extreme views allows the democrats (and republicans) to appear reasonable and moderate when they propose environmental laws that don't go as far as the green party proposes.
|
| Tuesday, July 29, 2008 at 15:34:30 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Radio Raheem
Diana,
Given that you were unaware of the fact that Dr. Stevens is a Libertarian (unware, that is, at the time of composing your message to him), I'd say you deserve no moral sanction for this act of communication. Though a similar, claimed ignorance did not prevent Andrew Bernstein from feeling compelled to apologize.
|
| Tuesday, July 29, 2008 at 15:44:10 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Radio Raheem: Go away, troll.
No knowledgeable Objectivist holds that mere communication with libertarians is a moral sanction of them as allies in the struggle for liberty.
|
| Tuesday, July 29, 2008 at 17:57:20 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
"Consider the Socialist Party of a century ago. They never took a serious share of the national vote; but they had a major influence on public policy, and a large part of their platforms is now law."
This happened after they infiltrated and co-opted American liberalism, not because of the party. It is a well-known saying that "Americans never took to socialism"; it had to be repackaged under the label of "liberalism" by the intellectual Left, before Americans could fall for it.
I refer you to Gus Van Horn's excellent post on the abolitionist Lydia Marie Child, who observed that the abolitionist influence was *greater* when they were a constituency instead of a party -- because the mainstream parties will court the former's votes so long as they are uncommitted. If they become committed to their own party, then there is little incentive for them to do so.
http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/2008/01/indeed-indeed.html
The best LMC quote: ""Moral influence dies under party action."
|
| Tuesday, July 29, 2008 at 18:26:55 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Adam
E-mail: amossoff(at)gmail.com
Coincidentally, Dr. Peikoff's recent podcast (which is a portion of his Q&A from OCON) contains his answer to one of the conference attendees who specifically asked about Objectivists engaging in more overt political action. I think the questioner even said something about promoting "Objectivist politics" in critiquing the regulatory state, which I found very odd, as we're advocates for capitalism, but I don't think of this as "Objectivist politics." In saying that a critique of zoning laws is an example of "Objectivist politics" is similar to saying we're advocates for "Objectivist sex," "Objectivist art," "Objectivist literature," etc., which is a real fundamental misconception of Objectivism as a philosophical system.
I agree that overt political action, especially in forming a political party, would be a disaster.
As a law professor, I engage in legal and political activities in my career, such as writing legal briefs and law review articles, but I don't believe that my work will fundamentall alter the culture. What I do, and what the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights will do, is subsidiary to and in support of what the ARI does, but it's not on the same level of philosophical or cultural importance.
|
| Wednesday, July 30, 2008 at 5:17:37 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Onar Am
E-mail: onar(at)systemagi.no
Diana,
you say:
"Undoubtedly, the *socialists* got both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party to embrace most of their ideas. However, I do not think that the Socialist Party was instrumental in that effort to any substantial degree. It was socialist academics and intellectuals who were effective in so radically changing the culture."
I disagree. Obviously there would have been no socialist influence without the intellectuals, but a major reason that the socialists gained influence even in the Republican party is due to socialist political activism. What would have happened without militant worker unions and violent strikes? Without revolutionary groups? Very little, I believe. The conservatives in Europe and also in America were scared stiff of the "red menace" precisely because of the political activism. They were afraid of a socialist bottom-up revolution and decided to meet them half-way to prevent it.
The same is definitely true of the environmental movement. Where would it have been without political activism? Nowhere. It is the same mechanism over again, where the moderates appease the environmentalists. In America neither the socialist party or the green party have been of any major importance, but the network of political activism to which they belong has been very important.
Political activism by itself is worthless, but it strongly enhances an intellectual movement, and brings the message out there to most people. Let me give an example of what could possibly be an interesting kind of political activism: the Gandhi-movement. It could be an organization for businesses and entrepreneurs that collectively decide to go on strike against the government and refuse to pay taxes. In order for this to be of any value at least 1 million businesses need to participate. But if a significant portion of american business did this, then such a strike would be very effective. It would force the ruling parties to either appease (reduce taxes) or to present themselves as fascist bullies by imprisoning entrepreneurs and/or dispending a significant portion of the businesses in America. Now THAT would be effective, especially when backed up by intellectual activism.
|
| Wednesday, July 30, 2008 at 6:20:25 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Onar Am,
You are now criticizing me for views that I do not hold.
Remember that my original post spoke against Objectivists forming and sequestering themselves in their own political party. That's what I oppose.
I don't oppose "political activism" -- if that's very broadly understood as publicly advocating political change. In fact, I've done quite a bit of that kind of political activism over the past 18 months myself, as part of FIRM, and I've encouraged others to do the same via my OActivists list. I'm now taking the lead with my own Coalition for Secular Government, particularly in opposing a proposed Amendment to the Colorado constitution that would grant a fertilized egg full legal rights. So really, you're barking up the wrong tree here.
Of course, since the point of any political activism must be to change hearts and minds, any effective political activism must be based on arguments, particularly moral arguments for individual rights, not mere demands for change. That's always been our strategy here in Colorado -- and it has worked wonders.
|
| Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 0:21:29 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Christian S
E-mail: mrcrippa(at)hotmail.com
Given that Sweden has a parliamentary proportional system and not a majoritarian as the US has, I think that there might be a better argument for such a party in Sweden. Granted that this party would get over 4% of the votes and thus get some seats in the parliament, the possibility of political comment would be greatly enhanced.
Any thoughts?
Christian
|
| Monday, August 4, 2008 at 15:29:30 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Ragnard Danneskjold
E-mail: ragnard(at)swarmail.com
URL: http://ragnard.wordpress.com
Dear Diana:
I agree with your thesis and everything you say except one thing. I don't think that the mistake about forming an Objectivist party is that it would sequester Objectivists. It is simply that the party could not get anyone elected to dog catcher, much less president. Why spend time and money on something that is guaranteed to fail?
There is only so much time available to anyone to do something. Writing a letter to the editor, or even arguing with colleages at the coffee machine can change minds.
You hit the nail on the head when you said that people are not fundamentally dissatisfied with the current parties and their policies. They may quibble that the government should rob their neighbors to pay them (as opposed to the other way around), or they may not agree which gang should control the machine. But they agree with the current socialist-fascist policy direction.
Half a percent is one vote in 200. If you stood up and said "I would repeal welfare and replace it with nothing," and "I would avoid war when possible, but I would nuke our enemies out of existence" and "I would repeal every tax and every regulatory agency" you would be lucky to get one vote in 2000! 0.05%.
|
|
| Post Your Comment on "Objectivist Party?" |
|
|
|
