Bidinotto Blasts Bush

The Objectivist Center's Robert James Bidinotto has "had it" with the GOP:

Not a damned thing distinguishes the Republicans from the Democrats anymore…not a damned thing. "No Child Left Behind" in essence, and unconstitutionally, federalized education. The GOP-engineered federal prescription drug subsidy program for seniors was another huge and costly step toward total socialized medicine. The Administration's response to recent natural disasters -- here and abroad -- establishes the premise of federalizing all local emergencies globally, and reducing the U.S. military into becoming the logistics wing of the International Red Cross.

And so on, and so on.

Whole bit here.

Comments

[theCoach]

"Not a damned thing distinguishes the Republicans from the Democrats anymore...not a damned thing...
"The GOP-engineered federal prescription drug subsidy program for seniors was another huge and costly step toward total socialized medicine."

This is just silly. The Democrats plan would have cost much less, and been much, much more useful to people using the plan. The Republican plan was much more costly because it is much, much more useful to pharmaceutical companies.

[Herrick and his balls]

Objectivists are nuttier than Scientologists. They take something some beautiful as Libertarianism and add to it all the shittiest aspects of religion to turn believing in liberty into a doctrine, which is as bad as any other doctrine. If Ayn Rand somehow resurrected from the dead, I hope someone rapes her.

[Steven Crane]

Welcome to the party, irrelevant columnist!

[ChrisO]

So what? They both suck.

[NoStar]

So, there is nothing to do but wait for the moral revolution.

How about some suggestions on how to bring that about? Naw, that would require some original thinking and the only Objectivist able to do that is long dead.

We eagerly await the second coming of our Savior Ayn. Please Ayn, you told us to vote Republican, but now they have become as reprehensible as the Democrats. And you told us never to vote Libertarian because they are not philosophically pure (as if the Republicans ever were!)

What shall we do?

[Rich Ard]

I say we gather up some ammo and get Ruthless in here to tell us how we get started.

[ChrisO]

Wow, that guy is a bit wordy, isn't he?

His basic point is worth considering, though. Given the entire set of keys to the federal government for the first time since the '50s, the GOP turned out to be MORE statist, even on domestic issues, than the Democrats who unabashedly stand for such things. I wasn't expecting much after 2000, but I wasn't expecting this level of "Potomac Fever" from the GOP. I guess if I'd payed closer attention to all of that 'compassionate conservative' bullshit, I might've.

As to objectivism, I've never quite gotten the creepy worship of Ayn Rand. And, of course, she did nothing to discourage such worship.

[vabs]

>If Ayn Rand somehow resurrected from the dead, I hope someone rapes her.

Do you wish violent sexual assault upon all your ideological foes? I mean, it seems like cruel and unusual punishment for someone who basically trafficked in ideas. I don't know much about Rand, but I'm pretty sure that her ideas about liberty included ownership of one's physical being.

In spirit at least, I'd have no problem if someone advocated the violent and bloody penetration of a guy like Lenin or Hussein, but it seems like overkill in the case of Ayn Rand.

[Rich Ard]

And, of course, she did nothing to discourage such worship.

I dunno - her getting it on with Nathaniel Branden did a pretty decenct job.

[Murphy]

Democrans and Republicrats.
And no, the above is not a typo. They just shoot invective at each other in a desperate attempt to gain power. No difference in either party. They both cower to the voters, appeasing the most vocal in an effort to be re-elected.

[Rich Ard]

er, "decent".

[R C Dean]

the GOP turned out to be MORE statist, even on domestic issues, than the Democrats who unabashedly stand for such things.

Well, its still hard to find an issue where the Dem position isn't "spend more" or "tax more." Even the prescription drug benefit that finally passed was attacked by Dems for not being big enough.

Bottom line: the Republicans suck, but the Democrats still suck harder, generally speaking. The gap is closing, though, no doubt - the Repubs are rapidly descending to Democratic levels of contemptibility.

The implication of the Repub embrace of big government is that Republican turnout will begin to decline as the Republican establishment pisses off the small government/anti-tax wing of the party. Those people won't vote Dem, but they won't vote Repub any more either. Dem turnout will continue to be what it is, so the Dems will make up ground. Hell, without the Republican gerrymandering of the last few years, I would be willing bet the Dems could retake the House next year or in 2008.

[Rich Ard]

Those people won't vote Dem, but they won't vote Repub any more either.

Do you really think, R C Dean, that this might lead to the rise of a third party in American politics?

Or do you think they'll just stay home?

[R C Dean]

They'll just stay home.

[Adam]

Objectivists are nuttier than Scientologists.

Right. Paying tribute to a well-timed, well-founded and well-argued philosophical response to collectivism is nuttier than, well, this. Or this.

[Jeff P.]

1: Bidinotto's book on crime is excellent, and very Libertarian.

2: Rand bashed the GOP regularly in her columns for betraying individualism in the early 70s. Peikoff continued to do so up to and including the last election.

3: There hasn't been a noticable gap in the "suckiness" of either party since Ford was in office.

[jw]

Who was it that used to say, "When the one party is in power, the people get robbed; when the other is in power, everyone is so broke that they aren't worth robbing?

[thoreau]

jw-

Which is which?

[Ken Shultz]

Bidinotto Blasts Bush

That's Bush Bashing!

[Isaac Bartram]

Which is which?

You can't tell either, eh, thoreau?

[MP]

Regarding Objectivists, I don't know anyone personally who labels themselves as such. But I donate to the The Objectivist Center, receive their magazine, and have never read anything remotely "nutty". Do the people here dissing Objectivists have personal experience or is this just a lot of stereotyping? And what's the big deal about adopting Randian philosophy as one's core guidepoint?

[M1EK]

"Well, its still hard to find an issue where the Dem position isn't "spend more" or "tax more." Even the prescription drug benefit that finally passed was attacked by Dems for not being big enough."

You keep saying this, you keep getting corrected, and yet you keep saying it. What can we call this other than a lie?

The Dems wanted to spend less money on drug companies, and roughly less overall. In the first comment in THIS VERY THREAD:

"This is just silly. The Democrats plan would have cost much less, and been much, much more useful to people using the plan. The Republican plan was much more costly because it is much, much more useful to pharmaceutical companies."

[Jeff P.]

MP: I am a small "o" objectivist. I embrace the metaphysics, epistomology and ethics of it, while ignoring the asthetics and irrelevent "cult" trappings that the critics seem to focus on.
(I find opera artiscally vile, and have given a few verbal thrashings to those True Believers who decry my liking Robert Fripp. I also can't stand Spillane books). I used to donate to both TOC and ARI (my ex-wife did art for the old Navigator newsletter), but I feel both have really slacked off recently. I must say the ARI op-ed pieces they've posted on the MidEast have been dead on IMO.
Interestingly enough, I just noticed today that next years ARI Summer Seminar is in Boston while TOC heads to LA, a change of coasts for both camps.

[Jeff P.]

Also, judging the "suckiness" of each party based solely on how much they spend and on what is a pretty shaky premise for a political judgment. Both parties (and I'm talking about the official organizations, here) fail to state the philosophical start point for thier "beliefs." And they are "beliefs" because they have no basis is reality. Aside from proceeding from patently false premises, both parties treat citizens as commodities, big companies as sugar daddies, and small companies as "quaint." Public ignorance is beneficial to both. Splitting hairs to defend one party over another is ethically equivilant to claiming one of your two rapists is less evil because he only stuck it in part way.

[jw]

Thoreau: "which is which?"

Actually, I don't know. I think that was the whole point of the quip...that it doesn't make much difference; because regardless, the people are screwed.
Either the ecconomy is ruined so that no one can make any money, or else people do make money and get robbed through taxation. Take your pick.

[Steven Crane]

Do the people here dissing Objectivists have personal experience or is this just a lot of stereotyping?

MP, it could be because the only o-ists I've encountered have been college-age, but they've all been slavish Randroid-types who try to write EXACTLY like Peikoff and get in big pissing contests with each other over who is the most consistent.

[Ed]

Most Objectivist-dissers (and Rand-haters) I've met have never bothered themselves with actually reading the material.

[Jeff P.]

Ed: or they read the novels (like a certain redhead I live with) and assume they represent the whole of the philosophy, as opposed to being novels.

[taktix]

Why does Bidinotto hate freedom?

[Ted]

I would think that if they're equally sucky on economics, you'd have to give the edge to the Dems on social issues, wouldn't you? They're not going to try to impose the Old Testament on America, which in my view is a substantial and positive difference. True, there's the anti-smoking thing, and there may be a few Dems left who are serious about banning guns, although we had another school shooting recently and if any of them spoke up about gun control I missed it. But that's not the same as living under the American Taliban....

[Herrick and her balls]

Her novels are fine and make for decent popular literature. It's the hard-cores who treat it like a religion who suck ass and I'm not too keen about those who make what would be called Libertarianism a moral system or a philosophy. It's not, if anything a hallmark of it should be a lack of making a rigid moral system out of it. There are people called economists who can handle the theorizing and the empiricism that prove that liberty makes the best system, it doesn't need 2 bit philosophers to sully this simple and beautiful idea by moralizing, ethicizing, or even worse, religifying it.

[Herrick]

That should be Herrick and his balls above.

[TJIT]

MP,

Got to give you a little grief here:-)

You said "yes, the Dems have an edge on Civil Liberties". I don't think there is any evidence to support that statement. They support the drug war, they pushed the campaign finance reform act, and they voted for the Patriot act in overwhelming numbers. Furthermore they are big pushers of the nanny state down to what kind of food we eat and they are terrible on economic liberty.

I'm open to persuasion, what makes you think they have the edge in civil liberties?

Thanks,

TJIT

[Eric the .5b]

the Dems have an edge on Civil Liberties

Absolutely, as shown by their tireless efforts to demolish PATRIOT, oppose campaign-finance laws and FCC broadcast standards, protect political debate on the internet from regulation...

Or, um, not.

At this point, it is a wash. I'd throw a vote to Democrats who actually appeared to prioritize and support civil liberties. It's just not going to happen any time soon.

[clarityiniowa]

TJIT - I'm open to persuasion, what makes you think they have the edge in civil liberties?

Depends what end of the telescope you look in. If you look at ensuring equal rights for minorities, for example, the Dems have it hands down. On the other hand, if you look at FORCING others to make accomodations in employment, housing, etc., then the Dems suck.

Right now, I lean Democrat because, PC language and enforced "tolerance" aside, the Dems are open to wider points of view and life experiences. If you hate doctrinal purity, you gotta hate the Republicans right now. Plus, I love how they rattle off lists of things they want to ban - abortion, cloning (both experimental human cloning and therapeutic) same sex marriage, evolution - in the name of LIBERTY. Oh, the irony.

The Dems only want my money. The Republicans want my mind too. I see that as a larger assault on my freedom.

[peachy]

JW - I believe PJ O'Rourke is the source of the line about robbing; the Republicans being the party that robs, and the Democrats being the party that leaves you too poor to be worth robbing. In fact, I believe the line comes from an early chapter of Parliament of Whores, in which O'Rourke is complaining about the uninspired '92 campaign and the minimal differences between the platforms of Bush and Dukakis...

[Viking Moose]

(1988 campaign)

the republicans were going to burn rome then fiddle. and
there's nothing wrong with america, but we can fix that.

fantastic book! peachy, good call - that's worth reading again!

cheers!

[jdog]

The Dems only want my money.

San Francisco Dems want your money AND your gun.

[MP]

I don't think there is any evidence to support that statement. They support the drug war, they pushed the campaign finance reform act, and they voted for the Patriot act in overwhelming numbers.

Yes, but you could make a case that they did these things with less enthusiasism than the GOP.

Furthermore they are big pushers of the nanny state down to what kind of food we eat and they are terrible on economic liberty.

Neither things traditionally considered (wrongly, but hey) as civil liberties.

Please don't look to me for further defences of the Donkey's. I feel dirty already doing what I just did.

[NoStar]

Ed, If only I had stopped reading after the novels, I could still be a fan.

[Walter E. Wallis, P.E.]

Sowell said it - the only reason to vote republican is democrats.
I am about to become a Soroist as soon as the first 5 million dollar check clears.

[jdog]

It's a tough call, but I still have a very slight preference for aiming a bit more of my piss on the Dems.

To Dems, the only property that is not up for grabs is the fetus in a pregnant woman's or girl's uterus, making the Dems right half as often as a broken clock.

[js]

Yes he's right. Not a damn thing distinguishes the Democrats from the Republicans anymore. Oh wait ... was it the other way around?

By the way the Dems have an edge on civil liberties because they are NOT the ones trying to destroy the most basic liberties on which this country rests - such as the the right not to be held indefinitely without a trial on the word of the government alone (see Padilla). If this right is lost so are all other rights. For example and for the sake of argument lets say pot smoking was legalized. However, if you can be held indefinitely without charges whose to say they can't lock you up because they don't like you smoking pot (or the look on your face for that matter)? At least now they are limited to enforcing only the actual laws on the books, no matter how bad they are.

And yes the Dems, may be trying to destroy some smaller liberties but the distruction of those liberties while it may not be good, is not going to turn this country totalitarian (a european welfare state is more their model I believe). I may be overly pessimistic but I think that some of the moves of the Bush administration have that potential.

Now, the Dems are a pretty pathetic opposition (accomplices to the crime) and thus hardly innocent, but they aren't the one's actually committing it and thus they aren't as guilty as the Republicans.

[Herrick and his balls]

I have been wondering this: Why doesn't the Libertarian party actually act like a Party and try to win elections? Why don't they practice some basic politics, raise money, build organizations, run ads, hold events, and hit the streets campaigning like candidates that want to win do? They could seriously win some state offices or Congressional Seats within the next few elections if they actually acted like a party that wanted to win. Until they actually try to get my vote, I'm not voting Lib, even with a protest vote.

[S.C.]

One wonders why Bidinotto turned the TOC journal he just took over into nothing more than a mouthpiece for Republican/neocon ideas (Victor Davis Hanson, Bruce Thornton, etc. are the latest contributors, according to Bidinotto's blog) if he has such genuine and distaste for Republicans. In fact, his blog indicates that he wishes to appeal to the so-called "opinion leaders" of the conservative movement.

Objectivism isn't Republicanism, and libertarianism certainly isn't Republicanism. Until this post of his, I thought Bidinotto didn't realize ir. Now I'm just confused.

[thoreau]

Before the Bush admin, you could make a good argument that the Dem advantage on civil liberties was an illusion. They talk all warm and fuzzy, but they are as big on the drug war as the GOP. And pre 9/11, the drug war was the primary tool for shredding the Bill of Rights. Toss in political correctness, nannyism (war on fat), etc., and the case can be made. I'd still argue that

But the Jose Padilla case persuades me that the GOP is even scarier than the Dems on civil liberties. Or at least the Bush faction of the GOP is. A gulag is even worse than a nanny state. Much, much worse.

[thoreau]

Blah. The first paragraph should end with "I would still argue that the Dems had a small edge, but I could see the point."