RRD:In 1966,in a review of Capote's In Cold Blood for The Objectivist,the reviewer wrote that if one wished to place a book in a time capsule ,so that future generations could see what led to the Second Dark Age,In Cold Blood would be it.(Or at least one of the books)(fn1)
Frankly the list of what to include grows with each day.
And at times I wonder whether there will be any future generations left,or even any sentient life left,in the universe,to read or care.
Roger Simon's drivel does not reach those depths,but it is nonetheless a beautiful illustration of the mindset which is destroying the GOP.
Arguing that Liberals can be changed(& pointing to himself as a alleged example) Simon then says:
"Meanwhile, the time is late. We all have work to do and it is not bickering with each other or wondering whether our candidate is conservative enough or whether he will betray us. You have already had three and a half years of Barack Obama. Do you have any idea what another four and a half will bring?"
Roger L. Simon » Changing Minds in Crunch Time
http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2012/05/29/changing-minds-in-crunch-time/?singlepage=true
RRD:This is priceless,seriously.
I am reminded of the character in Atlas Shrugged who said "This is a emergency!We don't have time to think!"
So we must "change liberals" by declaring that whether the Republican candidate--who enacted the prototype for Obamacare--is a conservative,is IRRELEVANT?!? What type of Liberal will be persuaded by the argument that
the candidates ideas & consistency are irrelevant if he is a Republican,but relevant if it is Obama because ”we've got to beat Obama!”
Why?
What has Obama done that is wrong?
In order to answer that question with any degree of seriousness you will have to criticize Obama's ideology,& since--in fact--Romney's is similar in many respects,you must criticize Romney's ideology.
This is precisely why I & others opposed Romney's candidacy. It is at least understandable,(though mistaken in my view)that someone on the right would look at Romney,& look at Obama & say ”Romney is a statist but the practical effect of his presidency will be less destructive than Obama's”
But how on earth do you persuade someone that Romney's statism is good statism,but Obama's is bad statism. It's preposterous. Either the Individual Mandate is a violation of Individual Rights or it isn't.
Either Global Warming is occurring
or it isn't. There cannot be two standards,one for Democrats & one for Republicans. That does not mean that you cannot vote for Romney,but you cannot say:”Who cares about Romney's political ideology,now let me tell you why Obama's political ideology is disastrous”
Simon wants to ”eat his ideas &.then have them after he eats them”.
He wants to somehow win over liberals not by saying ”this is right & this is wrong,& here's why”,but by saying ”this is wrong when a Democrat does it,but it doesn't matter when a Republican does it".
To wage a ideological battle without discussing Romney's ideology(& the ideology of Republicans more broadly), means--in practice--to wage a war of ideas that does not take ideas seriously.
It is a exercise in partisan hackwork. It is a hypocritical,self-defeating joke.
So how do you "change liberals",Robert?
You don't.
People change their own views by their own choice,you can present your arguments but you cannot force someone to agree with you.
Not "you must not" YOU CANNOT.
Except for the clinically insane every individual controls his own mind,& only that individual can change it.
I do know of Liberals who have become Objectivists or Conservatives, but none are idiotic enough to change their views when presented with this kind of nonsensical foolishness.
Yet Simon's worldview is unfortunately quite widespread among the ”beltway/establishment types”(a phrase I use to refer to a particular mindset). Ayn Rand summed this mindset up
perfectly when she wrote: ....”What is the moral stature of those who are afraid to proclaim that they are the champions of freedom? What is the integrity of those who outdo their enemies in smearing, misrepresenting, spitting at, and apologizing for their own ideal? What is the rationality of those who expect to trick people into freedom, cheat them into justice, fool them into progress, con them into preserving their rights, and, while indoctrinating them with statism, put one over on them and let them wake up in a perfect capitalist society some morning? These are the “conservatives”—or most of their intellectual spokesmen”...
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/conservatives.html
Ayn Rand wrote that in the 1960's. It is true,we don't have time;to continue on this ”practical” suicide path. Vote in any way that you wish,the battle will be won,or lost,through reason.
I for one will support anyone tolerable in the House & Senate & fight for the right ideas & leave it to Simon etal to pursue their own ”practical” course. Footnotes: fn1
Note Ayn Rand ended her relationship with the Brandens in 1968 & did not regard any work they published since then to be part of Objectivism.(To put it mildly)
I borrow Barbara Branden's metaphor because I find it apt,& my use of it no more implies a endorsement of her other views or statements than my use of quotes by Nietzsche,Dostoevsky or G.B. Shaw implies a endorsement of their views. The Objectivist Feb 1966/5:2
Review of In Cold Blood by Truman Capote by Barbara Branden
Frankly the list of what to include grows with each day.
And at times I wonder whether there will be any future generations left,or even any sentient life left,in the universe,to read or care.
Roger Simon's drivel does not reach those depths,but it is nonetheless a beautiful illustration of the mindset which is destroying the GOP.
Arguing that Liberals can be changed(& pointing to himself as a alleged example) Simon then says:
"Meanwhile, the time is late. We all have work to do and it is not bickering with each other or wondering whether our candidate is conservative enough or whether he will betray us. You have already had three and a half years of Barack Obama. Do you have any idea what another four and a half will bring?"
Roger L. Simon » Changing Minds in Crunch Time
http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2012/05/29/changing-minds-in-crunch-time/?singlepage=true
RRD:This is priceless,seriously.
I am reminded of the character in Atlas Shrugged who said "This is a emergency!We don't have time to think!"
So we must "change liberals" by declaring that whether the Republican candidate--who enacted the prototype for Obamacare--is a conservative,is IRRELEVANT?!? What type of Liberal will be persuaded by the argument that
the candidates ideas & consistency are irrelevant if he is a Republican,but relevant if it is Obama because ”we've got to beat Obama!”
Why?
What has Obama done that is wrong?
In order to answer that question with any degree of seriousness you will have to criticize Obama's ideology,& since--in fact--Romney's is similar in many respects,you must criticize Romney's ideology.
This is precisely why I & others opposed Romney's candidacy. It is at least understandable,(though mistaken in my view)that someone on the right would look at Romney,& look at Obama & say ”Romney is a statist but the practical effect of his presidency will be less destructive than Obama's”
But how on earth do you persuade someone that Romney's statism is good statism,but Obama's is bad statism. It's preposterous. Either the Individual Mandate is a violation of Individual Rights or it isn't.
Either Global Warming is occurring
or it isn't. There cannot be two standards,one for Democrats & one for Republicans. That does not mean that you cannot vote for Romney,but you cannot say:”Who cares about Romney's political ideology,now let me tell you why Obama's political ideology is disastrous”
Simon wants to ”eat his ideas &.then have them after he eats them”.
He wants to somehow win over liberals not by saying ”this is right & this is wrong,& here's why”,but by saying ”this is wrong when a Democrat does it,but it doesn't matter when a Republican does it".
To wage a ideological battle without discussing Romney's ideology(& the ideology of Republicans more broadly), means--in practice--to wage a war of ideas that does not take ideas seriously.
It is a exercise in partisan hackwork. It is a hypocritical,self-defeating joke.
So how do you "change liberals",Robert?
You don't.
People change their own views by their own choice,you can present your arguments but you cannot force someone to agree with you.
Not "you must not" YOU CANNOT.
Except for the clinically insane every individual controls his own mind,& only that individual can change it.
I do know of Liberals who have become Objectivists or Conservatives, but none are idiotic enough to change their views when presented with this kind of nonsensical foolishness.
Yet Simon's worldview is unfortunately quite widespread among the ”beltway/establishment types”(a phrase I use to refer to a particular mindset). Ayn Rand summed this mindset up
perfectly when she wrote: ....”What is the moral stature of those who are afraid to proclaim that they are the champions of freedom? What is the integrity of those who outdo their enemies in smearing, misrepresenting, spitting at, and apologizing for their own ideal? What is the rationality of those who expect to trick people into freedom, cheat them into justice, fool them into progress, con them into preserving their rights, and, while indoctrinating them with statism, put one over on them and let them wake up in a perfect capitalist society some morning? These are the “conservatives”—or most of their intellectual spokesmen”...
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/conservatives.html
Ayn Rand wrote that in the 1960's. It is true,we don't have time;to continue on this ”practical” suicide path. Vote in any way that you wish,the battle will be won,or lost,through reason.
I for one will support anyone tolerable in the House & Senate & fight for the right ideas & leave it to Simon etal to pursue their own ”practical” course. Footnotes: fn1
Note Ayn Rand ended her relationship with the Brandens in 1968 & did not regard any work they published since then to be part of Objectivism.(To put it mildly)
I borrow Barbara Branden's metaphor because I find it apt,& my use of it no more implies a endorsement of her other views or statements than my use of quotes by Nietzsche,Dostoevsky or G.B. Shaw implies a endorsement of their views. The Objectivist Feb 1966/5:2
Review of In Cold Blood by Truman Capote by Barbara Branden
No comments:
Post a Comment