RRD:This is the third in a series of informal essays that I will be publishing at irregular intervals on the 2012 presidential candidates.It is generally directed at Objectivists--and to their specific concerns--but those who are not Objectivists may benefit from it anyway. The first dealt with Santorum.
See: Why Santorum Must Be Defeated - fightingstatism
http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/why-santorum-must-be-defeated
The second Romney:
Who should we support for the #2012 election:Why we need better candidates.Part 2: Romney #obamacare #tcot #tlot #teaparty - fightingstatism http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/who-should-we-support-for-the-2012-elect... Most of the series will be circulated privately so that it cannot be used later by the Democrats, but those parts dealing with the worst candidates--whom I will be opposing publicly--will be public. Those who read part 2 can skip to the section entitled GINGRICH.As this is a reprinting of that.
Many have adopted a kind of ABO attitude( i.e.:Anyone but Obama) towards the 2012 presidential election.There is a danger in personalizing this election.Obama is,in fact,our enemy.But he is not our only enemy.As Obama is fond of pointing out,there are Republicans who have advocated(indeed,even pioneered) the same policies and ideas that he has.
These policies will really be no less immoral,or destructive if they are carried out by someone with a R after their name,then if they are carried out by someone with a D after their name.
What's more,our goal should not be simply to get rid of Obama.It should be to reverse his agenda(and the agenda of statists more broadly).
How do we do this?
As Ayn Rand noted you cannot trick people into freedom(i.e. you cannot pander to the lowest common denominator & then "institute freedom",once in office.You will be reversed at the next election.)
Contrary to the claims of those who denounce "purity"(by which they seem to mean a principled,consistent,moral stance) the best way to win a battle of ideas IS TO HAVE ONE.
The only way to wage such a battle is with someone who understands--& who is capable of articulating--the principles of Individual Rights & Limited Government.Such a person need not be perfect(though to the extent that they are flawed they risk defeat & failure) but neither can they be a mee-toist weakling.Nor can they be a cowardly mediocrity who is more concerned with being liked by our enemies in the news media then with winning. Nor can they be a Neo-conservative/Rockefeller Republican(who are not even Conservatives,much less Objectivists) who "recognizes" the "fact" that the welfare state is a "reality that we must conform to",and who simply wish to do it "better"..."differently" etc...
Rather they must be someone who understands that the welfare state is irrational and must and will fall,one way or another.(Either by repealing it,or because it goes bankrupt).
They must understand that the collapse of the United States,at best, would be a catastrophe for us,and at worst could mean the end of Western Civilization.(fn1)
They must understand that Enviromentalism--as a ideology--is a anti-humanistic religion masqurading as a rational belief system,which seeks to impose a totalitarian neo-asceticism on us(fn2).And that no compromise with it,or appeasement of it,is possible if we are to survive. The problem is that all of the likely 2012 nominees are,to one degree or another,deeply flawed.We may have no choice but to go with the least bad one of them.But that is not yet the case.
And that is the purpose of this series:To identify the problems with the existing candidates and to seek out alternatives who have not considered running,and to evaluate them,and,if possible,persuade them to run. I am through with passively accepting the existing candidates as if they are representative of the best we can hope for.
I ask all who are reading this to put forward the best potential candidates you can think of.Potential candidates other than those listed below.
Now I will list the likely candidates and explain why they range from flawed to horrendous.I will deal with them,individually,in a series of separate essays.
Michele Bachmann(Declared)
Jeb Bush
John Bolton
Herman Cain(Declared)
Chris Christie
Newt Gingrich (Declared)
Rudy Giuliani
Jon Huntsman(Declared)
Bobby Jindal
Gary Johnson(Declared)
Peter King
Bob Mcconnell
Thaddeus Mccotter
Sarah Palin
Ron Paul (Declared)
Tim Pawlenty(Declared)
Rick Perry
Charles Elson "Buddy" Roemer
Mitt Romney(Declared)
Rick Santorum(Declared)
Obviously,as circumstances change,I may add to,or subtract from,this list.
GINGRICH: For why I regard support for the Individual Mandate to be a disqualification see the Romney article above.
Gingrich Backs Obamacare's Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gingrich-health-care-insurance/2011/05/15/id/...
Romney, Gingrich Flunk Poli-Philosophy
http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/56-health-care/997-romney-gingrich-flu...
YouTube - Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich Commercial on Climate Change
HUNTSMAN:
I published this story when Huntsman declared.From it you may guess that I have some reservations about a Huntsman presidency. Huntsman Declares,demands civility towards obama.Fuck them both #tcot #tlot #teaparty - fightingstatism
http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/huntsman-declaresdemands-civility-toward...
The post goes into more detail,with less profanity.
GARY JOHNSON:
I will not support someone who advocates withdrawal from Afghanistan.Further his statements about "soft power",and "leading by example" are ominously similar to Obama's.In particular the latter calls to mind Obama's grotesquely pompous statement that we should lead the world not by a "example of our power,but by the power of our example".To which David Brooks replied(paraphrase)that it was unlikely that Russia or the Mullah's Islamic Republic of Iran would be impressed by the "power of our example"(This is one of Brooks' statements that actually makes sense). Foreign Policy
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/foreign-policy Frankly Johnson strikes me as Ron Paul-lite.
Which brings me to.
RON PAUL:
See the links on foreign policy below:
Ostrichism? | Don't Let It Go
http://dontletitgo.com/2011/06/23/ostrichism/ Why I Won’t Vote For Ron Paul | Don't Let It Go
http://dontletitgo.com/2011/05/11/why-i-wont-vote-for-ron-paul/
fn1.
By "Western Civilization" I mean the values of Reason, & Political Liberty,(including Freedom of Speech, Individual Rights,Representative Government etc).If the US and Europe fall,China and/or Islamists could lead the world into a new Dark Age.With Chinese style technocratic dictatorships in the non-muslim parts of Asia,and Neo-Medievalistic ones in the Islamic World(possibly including Europe). fn2: I hold that Enviromentalism is a anti-humanist neo-pastoralist,neo-ascetic movement that has more in common with Jainism(see below) than with any rational belief system.It is a movement which places "Nature","The Earth","Mother Earth",and various forms of wildlife on a equal footing with Man.In short the problem with Enviromentalism is NOT that it seeks to prevent human beings from being poisoned,but that it does NOT concern itself with human beings & human welfare.Instead upholds the belief that "Nature" is some form of intrinsic value,apart from it's value to Homo Sapians.This is why we see a vast effort expended to preserve the spotted owl under the mystical rationalization that it's destruction will(somehow) throw off the "delicate" "ecosystem" of the Earth,leading to some unexplainable cataclysm.
(Though in fairness even Jainism is less anti-humanistic) Jainism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism
See: Why Santorum Must Be Defeated - fightingstatism
http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/why-santorum-must-be-defeated
The second Romney:
Who should we support for the #2012 election:Why we need better candidates.Part 2: Romney #obamacare #tcot #tlot #teaparty - fightingstatism http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/who-should-we-support-for-the-2012-elect... Most of the series will be circulated privately so that it cannot be used later by the Democrats, but those parts dealing with the worst candidates--whom I will be opposing publicly--will be public. Those who read part 2 can skip to the section entitled GINGRICH.As this is a reprinting of that.
Many have adopted a kind of ABO attitude( i.e.:Anyone but Obama) towards the 2012 presidential election.There is a danger in personalizing this election.Obama is,in fact,our enemy.But he is not our only enemy.As Obama is fond of pointing out,there are Republicans who have advocated(indeed,even pioneered) the same policies and ideas that he has.
These policies will really be no less immoral,or destructive if they are carried out by someone with a R after their name,then if they are carried out by someone with a D after their name.
What's more,our goal should not be simply to get rid of Obama.It should be to reverse his agenda(and the agenda of statists more broadly).
How do we do this?
As Ayn Rand noted you cannot trick people into freedom(i.e. you cannot pander to the lowest common denominator & then "institute freedom",once in office.You will be reversed at the next election.)
Contrary to the claims of those who denounce "purity"(by which they seem to mean a principled,consistent,moral stance) the best way to win a battle of ideas IS TO HAVE ONE.
The only way to wage such a battle is with someone who understands--& who is capable of articulating--the principles of Individual Rights & Limited Government.Such a person need not be perfect(though to the extent that they are flawed they risk defeat & failure) but neither can they be a mee-toist weakling.Nor can they be a cowardly mediocrity who is more concerned with being liked by our enemies in the news media then with winning. Nor can they be a Neo-conservative/Rockefeller Republican(who are not even Conservatives,much less Objectivists) who "recognizes" the "fact" that the welfare state is a "reality that we must conform to",and who simply wish to do it "better"..."differently" etc...
Rather they must be someone who understands that the welfare state is irrational and must and will fall,one way or another.(Either by repealing it,or because it goes bankrupt).
They must understand that the collapse of the United States,at best, would be a catastrophe for us,and at worst could mean the end of Western Civilization.(fn1)
They must understand that Enviromentalism--as a ideology--is a anti-humanistic religion masqurading as a rational belief system,which seeks to impose a totalitarian neo-asceticism on us(fn2).And that no compromise with it,or appeasement of it,is possible if we are to survive. The problem is that all of the likely 2012 nominees are,to one degree or another,deeply flawed.We may have no choice but to go with the least bad one of them.But that is not yet the case.
And that is the purpose of this series:To identify the problems with the existing candidates and to seek out alternatives who have not considered running,and to evaluate them,and,if possible,persuade them to run. I am through with passively accepting the existing candidates as if they are representative of the best we can hope for.
I ask all who are reading this to put forward the best potential candidates you can think of.Potential candidates other than those listed below.
Now I will list the likely candidates and explain why they range from flawed to horrendous.I will deal with them,individually,in a series of separate essays.
Michele Bachmann(Declared)
Jeb Bush
John Bolton
Herman Cain(Declared)
Chris Christie
Newt Gingrich (Declared)
Rudy Giuliani
Jon Huntsman(Declared)
Bobby Jindal
Gary Johnson(Declared)
Peter King
Bob Mcconnell
Thaddeus Mccotter
Sarah Palin
Ron Paul (Declared)
Tim Pawlenty(Declared)
Rick Perry
Charles Elson "Buddy" Roemer
Mitt Romney(Declared)
Rick Santorum(Declared)
Obviously,as circumstances change,I may add to,or subtract from,this list.
GINGRICH: For why I regard support for the Individual Mandate to be a disqualification see the Romney article above.
Gingrich Backs Obamacare's Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gingrich-health-care-insurance/2011/05/15/id/...
Romney, Gingrich Flunk Poli-Philosophy
http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/56-health-care/997-romney-gingrich-flu...
YouTube - Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich Commercial on Climate Change
HUNTSMAN:
I published this story when Huntsman declared.From it you may guess that I have some reservations about a Huntsman presidency. Huntsman Declares,demands civility towards obama.Fuck them both #tcot #tlot #teaparty - fightingstatism
http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/huntsman-declaresdemands-civility-toward...
The post goes into more detail,with less profanity.
GARY JOHNSON:
I will not support someone who advocates withdrawal from Afghanistan.Further his statements about "soft power",and "leading by example" are ominously similar to Obama's.In particular the latter calls to mind Obama's grotesquely pompous statement that we should lead the world not by a "example of our power,but by the power of our example".To which David Brooks replied(paraphrase)that it was unlikely that Russia or the Mullah's Islamic Republic of Iran would be impressed by the "power of our example"(This is one of Brooks' statements that actually makes sense). Foreign Policy
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/foreign-policy Frankly Johnson strikes me as Ron Paul-lite.
Which brings me to.
RON PAUL:
See the links on foreign policy below:
Ostrichism? | Don't Let It Go
http://dontletitgo.com/2011/06/23/ostrichism/ Why I Won’t Vote For Ron Paul | Don't Let It Go
http://dontletitgo.com/2011/05/11/why-i-wont-vote-for-ron-paul/
fn1.
By "Western Civilization" I mean the values of Reason, & Political Liberty,(including Freedom of Speech, Individual Rights,Representative Government etc).If the US and Europe fall,China and/or Islamists could lead the world into a new Dark Age.With Chinese style technocratic dictatorships in the non-muslim parts of Asia,and Neo-Medievalistic ones in the Islamic World(possibly including Europe). fn2: I hold that Enviromentalism is a anti-humanist neo-pastoralist,neo-ascetic movement that has more in common with Jainism(see below) than with any rational belief system.It is a movement which places "Nature","The Earth","Mother Earth",and various forms of wildlife on a equal footing with Man.In short the problem with Enviromentalism is NOT that it seeks to prevent human beings from being poisoned,but that it does NOT concern itself with human beings & human welfare.Instead upholds the belief that "Nature" is some form of intrinsic value,apart from it's value to Homo Sapians.This is why we see a vast effort expended to preserve the spotted owl under the mystical rationalization that it's destruction will(somehow) throw off the "delicate" "ecosystem" of the Earth,leading to some unexplainable cataclysm.
(Though in fairness even Jainism is less anti-humanistic) Jainism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism
No comments:
Post a Comment