MP3: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/3252/the-danger-of-hope-call-in-show-april-5th-2016
Soundcloud: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/3252/the-danger-of-hope-call-in-show-april-5th-2016Question: “From our observations, Ted Cruz is receiving significant support from the Objectivist online community. Some say they support him because, while flawed, he’s still the most principled pro-freedom candidate available. Others explicitly support him only because he’s not Donald Trump. This is coming from a community that has historically identified religion as the gravest threat to the culture, to the point that key Objectivist intellectuals endorsed voting Democrat in 2004 and 2008. Yet now that the Republicans have a viable non-religious candidate, Trump has morphed into the new gravest threat to America.”
“The mental gymnastics we’ve seen to justify this position have been truly astounding and suggest some visceral emotion is driving the anti-Trump/pro-Cruz response. As long-time Objectivists ourselves, it’s disturbing to us to see this coming from a community with a professed commitment to reason. What do you think is the root of this response to Trump, and what does it mean for the hope of turning the culture toward true commitment to reason?”
Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Get more from Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio including books, podcasts and other info at: http://www.freedomainradio.com
Amazon Affiliate Links
US: http://www.fdrurl.com/Amazon
Canada: http://www.fdrurl.com/AmazonCanada
UK: http://www.fdrurl.com/AmazonUK
Part of what I think may be turning off a few otherwise logical people is a gut reaction to Trump’s presentation. My own belief is that Trump the private man is a genuinely good person, and very straightforward and decent. However Trump the public person is a very carefully presented personae designed to communicate and persuade as many people as possible. As a result, I think some people are just looking at the public Trump, sensing that what they are seeing isn’t the genuine Donald, and they are assuming he is manipulating them, and thus there is something about the private Trump which is evil, or corrupt, or something.
I might assume the same, if I hadn’t heard the stories of the employees who adore him, or the people he has helped. It might help if he launched a media blitz to highlight what the people who are close to him think about him, especially his employees, and maybe show the cases of the veterans and others he has stepped up to help out in their times of need.
[…] Stefan Molyneux On #NEVERTRUMP […]
I just don’t understand the dogmatic #nevertrump people. I prefer Cruz over Trump but if the candidate ends up being Trump its still a damn sight better than Hillary or Bernie (or Jeb or Kasich or the fat schmuck from Jersey). Trump is not the ideal conservative, but he’s not going to usher in an age of Marxist dictatorship either. At worse he’s just not going to do lots of wonderful things conservatives want done. If its HIlary or Bernie then I fear my chances of dying violently at the hands of agents of the state will go up exponentially.
I look at it this way. If someone told me as a young man “you get to have sex with the chick from Charlie’s Angels” and I’d be thinking “oh boy, I get to nail Farrah” and then I show up and it’s Jaclyn Smith (or even Kate Jackson), I”m not going to be all that disappointed, let alone put my pants back on and storm out of the room. And I’m certainly not going to demand Bosley instead.
Part of the problem is understanding Objectivists (Big O). They are all people who have fallen hook, line and sinker for Rand’s long-term scam. They are terrible at empathy (and I mean that different from sympathy) and have no ability to put themselves in the shoes of someone emotional — and, even worse, they are usually emotionally stunted people who have a poor understanding of their own emotions, and therefore think that they don’t have strong emotions. They are emotional incompetents in the Dunning-Kruger sense.
I consider myself a small O objectivist, but certainly not a Big O objectivist. To me, Objectivism is for people who read Atlas Shrugged, didn’t understand any of it, and Rand told herself, “well, if they are too emotionally stupid to keep from getting scammed, they might as well get scammed by me and let me get their money.” Which is a very objectivist thing to think and do.
Zundfolge, I’ll never understand Cruz supporters. Look at the disaster that was Dubya and know that Rafael will be no different. Didn’t they learn? Same policies as Obama and Clinton, different rhetoric. IOW lying through their teeth.
Notice that the entire establishment is pulling their hair out at the prospect of President Trump. They ain’t losing any hair over Cruz. Doesn’t that, like, speak VOLUMES?
No accounting for taste, I guess. After all, Jaclyn was the hot one.
I think Objectivists are really dogmatic Libertarians, and in essence not really wolves or rabbits, but the third type that you mentioned at some point. They dislike conflict, and it seems Trump’s blustery public persona is what really bothers them.
I consider myself to be an objectivist, though I do not affiliate with (or even follow) any of the various objectivist organizations out there. From what I’ve seen, the philosophy tends to attract various weirdos I don’t want to associate with. I’m not quite sure why that is, but I think it partly has to do with narcissists being drawn to rational egoism as a means of rationalizing their own dysfunction. My take on Objectivism is that it is best to deal with people rationally, without using coercion. However, if they insist on being unreasonable savages, by all means engage them with violence. You cannot deal with irrational people through reason, if you try you will fail miserably.
As for the movement itself, I think that a lot of them still carry a lot of baggage from the current progressive, feminist trends in the culture. A lot of women seem very career oriented to the point where they consider the traditional path of being a mother and housewife to be beneath them. They tend to disagree with Ayn Rand’s essay against women being president too. She also apparently disapproved of homosexuals, which modern objectivists think was wrong on her part.
With regards to immigration, a lot of objectivists are still wedded to the notion that immigration to the USA should be open to all. I think this mainly comes from the fact that Rand was an immigrant herself. However, if unrestricted immigration no longer benefits the country, why should we continue letting everyone in? Shouldn’t people who are already Americans come first? Wouldn’t that be the “selfish” thing to do?
Zundfolge, the Analogy with the classic Charlies angels is apt. I mean both camps have a bunch of people who are all out depending on if Trump is in or not. Given that Bossley is the alternative to the lesser angel, I’d take the lesser angel.
Marc Bahn, Thinking that the establishment isn’t pulling its hair out over Cruz is wrong. The establishment is banking him now to get a brokered convention. Then they can work the levers to go for their candidate (JEB, Marco, someone else).
Personally, I want someone who understands group theory, r/K, and patriotism. Not nationalism, but patriotism. And would enforce assimilation. And while I’m at it, a 15 year ban on new citizens getting any gov’t support, non citizens never get gov’t support (not just welfare, but SS and Medicare), oh and since I’m asking for the mythical, a unicorn in every garage, and the location of the cities of gold.
Some Cruz voters are now celebrating saying they are enjoying the ‘tears’ of Trump supporters after Colorado. They’re literally using the crappy phrases I hear from BLM protesters about white male tears. Sorry, but I will give Cruz supporters no quarter in a collapse scenario.