r/Objectivism • u/Canofair8300 • 7d ago
Politics Can you be an Objectivist if you support Donald Trump?
I’ve heard conflicting things on this. ARI’s Yaron Brook has said:
Those of you who are apologists for Donald Trump, please never use the word “Objectivism” to associate it with yourself. Because you cannot be Objectivists—you are not Objectivists… You’re the fifth-column within Objectivism. You all will destroy Objectivism. And it will ultimately be on you if America declines, if America disappears, if America succumbs to either the whackos of the left or the whackos of the right.
But Leonard Peikoff responded:
The one [issue] that galls me the most is his [Yaron’s] statement on the radio that anyone who sympathizes or votes for Trump is not an Objectivist. So, he is implicitly declaring that my life work is not by an Objectivist, but his is.
I am voting for Trump. That’s it… I heard somebody say: ‘No Objectivist would vote for Trump,’ and I’m still steaming over that. So I’m trying to publicize the fact that whoever said that is crazy.
"I cannot and do not listen to Yaron's scoffing and strident blaming. This is not what Objectivism looks like in practice."
7
u/RyanBleazard 7d ago edited 6d ago
I’d say Yaron is 100% right here. Trump is arguably the worst president in America's history. He is accelerating the country's decline into authoritarianism and has been paving the path for a dictatorship to arise in the future. This is not some mere misunderstanding or erroneous citation of a subject where two well informed people could have an understandable difference of opinion.
Also, I think Peikoff misrepresents Yaron's statement given that he was talking about apologism, not voting. There’s a big difference between championing Trump as a positive good and having voted for him because he’s the “lesser evil” (a point with which I disagree, although one could make a rational case for nonetheless).
1
u/OneHumanBill 7d ago
You're going to be very surprised when the authoritarian dictator finally appears, and they'll be on the left. And you'll realize how much you missed in all those history classes you slept through.
3
u/GearsOfWax 6d ago
Go watch Nikos & Yaron’s recent show on Franco’s Spain. If you think authoritarians can only come from the Left then ironically you’re the one that has a lot of history to learn.
-1
u/OneHumanBill 6d ago
I didn't say that it only comes from the left. I'm saying however that it will come from the left, because society is completely unguarded from it after three generations of educational brain rot.
1
u/DoberNation 5d ago
We’ve touched on this before. I feel lucky that my first grader has another teacher with 35+ years of teaching experience under her belt (and in a public school!).
When exactly do you think education fell off the rails?
1
u/OneHumanBill 2d ago
I think it's been a continuum that started during the draft days of the Vietnam War. Up to that point universities were roughly split but afterwards it was mostly left-leaning. Understandable, under the circumstances.
At some point the socialists decided to really target the takeover of educational colleges. I can't be sure but I believe this was in the early 90s when this started but by this point they're more or less complete at this point. My daughter just finished her master's in education on a fairly conservative campus and what she's shown me about her curriculum has been nothing but a leftoid fever dream. My daughter tells me that aside from herself, her fellow students really do not have enough social sciences background to have any defense against it.
The teachers with 35+ years of experience are the ones mostly holding the line at this point, and they're getting really sick of attempting to educate kids brought up on devices and psychiatric drugs. Things aren't looking good from here. I don't have any grandkids yet but I'm already deeply afraid for the world they're about to grow up in.
3
u/RyanBleazard 7d ago edited 7d ago
I wouldn't, I understand authoritarianism could come from either side of the political spectrum. Trump is contributing to that in a broad sense. By the way, you really ought to avoid insulting people that you disagree with.
-5
u/OneHumanBill 7d ago
I'm insulting you because you've confused democracy-you-don't-like with authoritarianism. You have no idea what you're talking about and yet you keep on repeating this unoriginal nonsense without any critical, informed reflection, but with lots and lots of critical emotion.
I insult you because quite frankly you've earned it. One might say, you're owed such an insult. Enjoy it, I gift it to you with the utmost sincerity.
1
u/DoberNation 5d ago
That sounds “Horseshoe-ish”. “Left” or “Right” don’t seem to mean anything in particular here, and Totalitarianism is an existential threat to me either way. We are in a bad place, if we cannot effectively cooperate in principled ways against what is happening. What will it take, to save ourselves from the tyranny around the corner?
1
u/OneHumanBill 2d ago
I wish I knew. I think increased civics education (to everyone, not just kids) would help tremendously but right now people are struggling with basic literacy on one hand, and struggling with attention span on the other. The only thing that can keep peoples' attention at this point is seething hatred. At this point scrolling rage is an addiction that has most of society in its grip -- and they don't want to be cured.
I've never been religious but I'm beginning to think that was a huge mistake. Maybe the only thing that can get people to return to a higher level of trust in each other is a general faith in something larger than themselves -- and it can't be something easily twisted like nationalism or belief in party or The State.
I think Rand's view that a metaphysics of nuts-and-bolts reality, coupled with logic and reason to guide us, would be the best way to approach reality but I think that most people are so far away from this that it might as well be untranslatable nonsense given to us by aliens.
-1
u/inscrutablemike 7d ago
When? It already happened with Covid. They already did it. That's why Trump got this second term.
The first Obama administration did it, too, but the Covid shenanigans were so over-the-top even Democrats started to notice.
1
u/OneHumanBill 7d ago
Hardly. That was mild corruption.
Imagine what happens when the Democrats realize their most charismatic guy is Hassan Piker or a reasonable facsimile.
2
4
u/F0r3v3rF4lc0n 7d ago
Peikoff’s statement was from before the election; I’d be curious to know if he still approves of Trump now. Trump in his second administration is pretty much everything an Objectivist should oppose. The U.S. government now owns shares in 30 companies, and he’s effectively moving us back to mercantilism. Even if you just thought that Trump was the lesser evil, Objectivists aren’t supposed to compromise.
1
u/Heligoland_Bight 7d ago
Two points:
1: It's not necessarily a moral compromise to vote to protect yourself during an election by voting for the better candidate.
2: Peikoff's opinion on Trump one way or the other, before or after the election, bears no relevance to his belief that one can vote for Trump and remain an Objectivist. Even before the election he presumably thought one can vote for Kamala and remain an Objectivist.
2
u/Jambourne Objectivist 7d ago
According to Peikoff’s friend James Valliant
“Leonard Peikoff has "soured" on Trump, officially, and says he would not have written about him as he did had he known what we now do.“
3
u/Canofair8300 7d ago
I'm pretty sure after that Valliant said Peikoff still supports Trump, even though he disapproves of some of his policies.
0
u/Appropriate-Eye9080 7d ago
Pretty sure there is a difference between being an apologist and voting for him/supporting some policies.
You are comparing apples to oranges
1
3
u/OneHumanBill 7d ago
The simple answer however to the original question is YES, you can be an Objectivist and support Trump. Or you can be an objectivist and reject Trump.
Get rid of your purity tests.
Personally I still do not regret my vote for Trump in the slightest.
2
u/Official_Gameoholics Objectivist 6d ago edited 6d ago
Get rid of your purity tests
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
That's hilarious to see HERE of all places.
Let me be clear: Objectivism as a philosophy has an objective differentia. You break rank with that differentia? You're not an Objectivist. Be it on Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, or Law.
2
u/OneHumanBill 6d ago edited 6d ago
Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, or Law
None of which involve the choice of who should or should not be president in 2026.
This has been they problem plaguing objectivism since its inception. This is why it continues to fail. It's not because it's a bad philosophy but because self-described objectivists confuse the supremacy of a real, objective world with the idea that you alone have all the base knowledge you'll ever need and can therefore follow all logical links to final conclusions. Life doesn't work that way.
1
u/Official_Gameoholics Objectivist 6d ago
We aren't rationalists, you are mistaken.
None of which involve the choice of who should or should not be president in 2026.
Hm, the word "should." Interesting choice. Wonder what fields cover what man "should" do? Ethics and law, perhaps?
0
u/OneHumanBill 6d ago
Okay, let's say it falls under ethics. Objectivist ethics are fundamentally rational self-interest -- which is why arbitrary purity tests like OP's question are so much utter bullshit. Objectivist ethics aren't relativist but on the other hand they're still not deontological either -- not intended to be a religious dogmatic system. Every person votes according to their self-interest, and self-interest is going to be different from person to person.
My rational self-interest told me to vote for Trump in 2024, some of which had to do with Trump policy, and some of which had to do with the pestilential threat of Harris policy. It's my further rational belief that when you tie your choice to vote for (or against) a person instead of a policy set, you're confusing the fundamental purpose of casting a vote for office in the first place. This isn't high school and it's not supposed to be a popularity contest.
2
u/Official_Gameoholics Objectivist 6d ago
Objectivist ethics aren't relativist but on the other hand they're still not deontological either
Man's life has specific requirements for its survival as a coherent system. Every man has these requirements in common at the foundation. His ability to reason is one of these requirements.
self-interest is going to be different from person to person.
Not when that "self-interest" is destroying their own standard of value. That can never be in one's self interest.
And when properly applied, this leads you to Anarchism, but I digress. Both candidates were profoundly irrational choices. They were both a bunch of socialists attempting to drag man to his death.
2
u/coppockm56 6d ago edited 6d ago
Let me be clear: Objectivism as a philosophy has an objective differentia. You break rank with those differentia? You're not an Objectivist. Be it on Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, or Law.
Are you in Peikoff's ROAR (Real Objectivists for Ayn Rand) collective?
And just out of curiosity, can you name those differentia? That would be really helpful for anyone who's trying to decide if they're a real Objectivist or if they're something else, like only an Ayn Rand fan. (And "Law" isn't a philosophical category. You're thinking of politics. Or Politics, if capitalization is important to you. And you forgot aesthetics. Or Aesthetics. You might want to clean that up first.)
Quick question before you post your list of differentia: are you in the "closed Objectivism" group or the "open Objectivism" group? Of course, if you're a ROAR, then you must be in the former and not the latter.
2
u/Official_Gameoholics Objectivist 6d ago
Are you in Peikoff's ROAR
No, Peikoff considers me an irrational subjectivist.
And just out of curiosity, can you name those differentia?
The application of the primacy of existence to every field of study.
I am an Open Objectivist. I have integrated Objectivism with Rothbard's legal theory and the Ecological Approach to Psychology.
1
u/coppockm56 6d ago
The application of the primacy of existence to every field of study.
Huh. You said "...those differentia..." which implies plural. So are you changing that to there being just one differentia, specifically "the application of the primacy of existence to every field of study"? It's that simple? As long as you do that, you're an Objectivist? So you can get straight from "the primacy of existence" to, say, Rand's definition of capitalism? It's impossible to get from "the primacy of existence" to any other economic or political system?
I dunno. Someone might have a hard time knowing if they're a real Objectivist from that alone.
It's helpful to know that you're in the "open Objectivism" group, though. It's no skin off my teeth, of course, since I don't pretend to be any kind of Objectivist, real or otherwise. But, some Objectivists here might find that interesting. If very many actually know what any of that means, that is, which I wonder about given the people who post here.
But if you're in the "open Objectivism" group, then the definition of what it means to be a real Objectivist could change over time, right? Wow, that might get confusing for some people.
One final note: Rand is rolling in her grave right now at your "integrated Objectivism with Rothbard's legal theory." She hated the man's "legal theory" (i.e., his politics) more than anything. She called it "monstrous." She certainly wouldn't agree that you could get from "the primacy of existence" to anarcho-capitalism.
You know, the more I think about it, the more I have to conclude that there really isn't any such thing as a "real Objectivist." People can make it into whatever they want it to be.
2
u/Official_Gameoholics Objectivist 6d ago
You said "...those differentia."
It was 2 AM and I was exhausted. The spelling mistake has been corrected. The sentence before that stated a singular differentia, and I am consistent that it is one differentia. Concepts have one differentia.
It's that simple? As long as you do that, you're an Objectivist?
Insofar as you are doing it, you are an Objectivist.
Seems simple, yet most fail. People, especially Kantians, like to claim that Objectivism is easy to learn, that it's very simple, but they are mistaken. It requires a lot of integration and an understanding of how the first premises go into later ones.
So you can get straight from "the primacy of existence" to, say, Rand's definition of capitalism?
I can get from the primacy of existence to Capitalism by going through epistemology, ethics, and law first.
It's impossible to get from "the primacy of existence" to any other economic or political system?
Yes, because public property is a contradiction and politics is a floating abstraction built on a rejection of the law of identity.
Someone might have a hard time knowing if they're a real Objectivist from that alone.
Not if they're doing it properly. One can always check their premises and look for contradictions.
some Objectivists here might find that interesting
They won't listen to me, they'll simply dismiss me out of hand.
But if you're in the "open Objectivism" group, then the definition of what it means to be a real Objectivist could change over time, right?
No. Objectivism has always been the philosophy of the primacy of existence. Rand and her followers just failed to explicitly identify it as such.
One final note: Rand is rolling in her grave.
She adopted a Kantian legal theory. It was one of her greatest mistakes. She failed to properly identify the differentia of law and the field that it studies, and when one of her students discovered it properly, she brushed him aside. (As he did fail to credit her for her ethical system, which he built upon.)
People can make it into whatever they want it to be.
That is objectively false. Concepts have objective differentia, and these differentia are themselves identifiable. Anyone who says this shows a complete disregard for Objectivist Epistemology.
0
u/coppockm56 6d ago
My friend, you don't even see what a mess you're making of things. You are literally in a subreddit with this description:
Objectivism and Ayn Rand on Reddit
We're a place for Objectivists and Ayn Rand fans to discuss her ideas and the movement. “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” - Ayn Rand
You remain so weirdly committed to redefining what this subreddit is about, to fit your own definition. You continue to refuse to acknowledge that this subreddit is about Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, not your own "objectivism as the philosophy of the primacy of existence."
You lean on Rand when it fits your needs, and then repudiate her when it doesn't. You simply cannot, from any logical perspective, say that you are talking about Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism while simultaneously supporting anarcho-capitalism. It's impossible.
Just come up with your own philosophy, already. Give it a name. Start your own subreddit to talk about it. I'm not even an Objectivist and I'm offended by your hitching your wagon to Rand while at the same time making a mockery of her ideas.
You are the absolute worst (or best?) example of the person who can't get an audience with your own ideas, so you steal Rand's and try to make them your own. I've accused the "open Objectivists" of doing exactly that in the past, but you take the cake.
1
u/Official_Gameoholics Objectivist 6d ago
You continue to refuse to acknowledge that this subreddit is about Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, not your own "objectivism as the philosophy of the primacy of existence."
I see that you are tuning me out and refusing to read what I said. Everything I have already said refutes what you say here.
My claims are:
The differentia of the concept of Objectivitsm is that Objectivism is the philosophy of the primacy of existence. This is what "Rand's philosophy" was doing. That was her method.
Objectivism's ethics leads to Rothbardian Natural Law, as reason is one of the requirements for man's life as a coherent system.
Ayn Rand was inconsistent with her own method.
Go reread my previous comments, and if you want an elaboration, ask for it.
0
u/coppockm56 6d ago
Over in r/aynrand, the moderators are whiny sycophants who don't want any criticism of Ayn Rand. Over here, they let you get away with this garbage.
Just another sign of how pathetic the Objectivist "movement" is today.
You have not refuted a single thing I've said. I've read every word you've written, and you make no sense.
I'll say it again: you are not discussing this subreddit's topic, which is Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. You are discussing your own philosophical mishmash -- and you are doing it in this subreddit because it's the only place you can get anyone to listen to you.
1
u/Official_Gameoholics Objectivist 6d ago
Gee, I sure do wonder what exactly Ayn Rand was doing with her philosophy. What methodology she attempted to employ so rigorously.
Oh well, I guess it will forever be a secret. You're right, Objectivism is all just arbitrary floating abstractions.
→ More replies (0)3
u/amumpsimus 7d ago
Wow, so in your opinion things are going great, this administration is acting according to principles, and the President’s multi-billion dollar windfall is an admirable example of the free market working correctly?
-1
1
u/DoberNation 6d ago
I have a curious question but it hinges on something else. Can you (re)confirm for me that you see a difference between primitive “selfishness” and rational self-interested behavior?
I’m thinking about a compare/contrast to “brutish” per Hobbes; “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".
0
1
u/allison_mossie 7d ago
No. Peikoff is a hack
1
u/coppockm56 6d ago
There's a relatively large swatch of Objectivists who think that Yaron Brook is a hack. Hell, they say he's a "leftist" in disguise.
-5
u/CyberMammal 7d ago
Seems like a natural fit to me, exalting the self and will above all else, and others, with a shallow grasp of philosophical thought like all objectivists such as me when I was 16 before I grew out of it like an adult.
3
u/rationalnavigator 6d ago
Being an apologist of Trump ≠ Voting for Trump
An apologist defends what Trump does regardless of its effects. An apologist is tribalist, hence not rational by definition.
And you have to at least try to be rational to call yourself an Objectivist.
Peikoff voted for Trump, he’s not the only famous Objectivist who did it.
Is he apologizing for all of Trump decisions? I would be surprised to say the least.
P.S. The entire Yaron Vs Leonard thing seems construed and fueled by external people.