I know Rand believed that Politics was the last branch of Philosophy to pursue if one wanted to bring bout lasting change within a society but as far as spreading the ideals of a philosophy goes I can't help but think that decision was shortsighted.
In the US in the 1940's Leonard Read began calling himself a Libertarian and later in 1955 another early Libertarian named Dean Russel suggested that the movement call itself by that name. But Rand wrote "We The Living" in 1936 so obviously her development of the philosophy of Objectivism began well before that. Why has Libertarinism outpaced Objectivism in the public sphere?
The Objectivist reason for putting aside political machinations has always been that in order for there to be real change that individuals within society must integrate the reason and meaning of the philosophy in order for any change to be lasting or for it to work. There is a great article on of all things the video game "BIOSHOCK" that explains this thinking well. The long and the short of it is that the game is set in a future where apparently Objectivist principals have been forced upon a society that has not integrated the tenants of the philosophy into their lives and the ensuing mayhem (in the game) can be traced back to that fault.
I, personally agree with that assessment and the horrible outcome such a radical shift would create. The thing is that we Objectivists are a rational lot. We would no more advocate the immediate and complete imposition of laissez faire capitalism on a nation addicted to the welfare state and all it's "freebies", than we would suggest that a four year-old (a being capable of self-directed action) should be left alone to do as it wishes.
The logical course of action would be to incrementally dismantle the welfare state, not to abolish it at the start. All the while the political leaders, activists and public supporters, who would be knowledgeable and respected Objectivists would be active in the public, expressing the philosophy at the root of their politics to individuals and business. This would spread the ideas behind the politics, the philosophy behind the public facade.
The two main political ideals in the west today are conservatism and liberalism but I would bet that of all those who call themselves "Conservatives" or "Liberals" only a small fraction agree on every point of politics or philosophy encapsulated in those words. In a way the Liberal and Conservative politicians of today are doing already what I imagine the Objectivist Politicians of tomorrow should do.
Objectivism and Libertarinaism have taken two different paths, a public, dare I say populist one and an academic, private one. How have they fared in spreading the ideals behind the politics?
Libertarinism as a political ideal is taught at university's all over the world. Libertarinism has achieved almost a third party status in American politics, no small feat for a practical political ideology less than 100 years old. If you tell a reasonably political person that you are a Libertarian he/she will know what that means, will recognize the basic ideals behind that system.
Objectivism, politically is an unknown, now that isn't such a bad thing when you realize that an "Objectivist" Party is a misnomer (because the word refers to all the ideals of the Philosophy not just the political branch) but the Political ideals, by whatever name they happen to become known by (Capitalist Party, Individualist Party) are also politically virtually unknown and therein lies the problem.
Political ideals spread philosophical ideals. Retuning to the popular political ideologies, the so-called Neo-Conservatives in US politics today are largely concerned with imposing morality. The political ideal of Conservatism is spreading the philosophy and ideals of the Christian religion. Liberals in their quest for what they consider a "just society" are similarly spreading the philosophy of socialism.
When the voter steps into the booth, he/she may not believe all that is held within the philosophy of the political party but he has been exposed to it. A large portion of that philosophy has already become a part of his thinking process, his exposure to it has started him thinking about it. When the Liberal leaning Joe-six-pack hears someone comment on "excessive wealth" philosophically he has been prepared by the political machine to accept that there is such a thing. When Conservative Billy-Bob reads in the newspaper how teen pregnancy is on the rise he has been politically indoctrinated to blame that loose morality on the modern world and perhaps secular multiculturalism.
This is the advantage that Libertarianism has gained over Objectivism. In spite of the fact that Libertarianism as a political ideology is a mixed bag of Anarchists, classic liberals, Anarcho-capitalists and other radical and fringe elements, by seeking to be a political ideal it has been able to move into the mainstream, not just of politics but of ideas and ideals.
In modern warfare there is a thing called the information war. It encapsulates not only gathering information but disseminating it. Objectivism is loosing the information war.
As I sit here and type this post, the spell checkers in my computer's operating system, on my browser and in the "Blogger" program on this site don't even recognize the word Objectivism, but it does Libertarianism...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The problem is that libertarians have "a bias for action" as it is called while objectivists have a "bias for talk". Objectivists have a vision of what they want but no vision of how to get there. They think that "educating the public" was a viable action. It is not because for every newly educated "objectivist" two new socialists are born.
ReplyDeleteNow look at the Free State Project. For all valid critizism. They basically said "to hell with philosophy, lets get into action". They don't have even a slight clue about what kind of society they want, but they are content just knowing a general direction.
I think objectivists need to compromise, not on their principles but on their actions. They need a "working prototype" of the kind of society they want to live in. Galt's gulch not as a hidden refugium but as a very visible showcase. And for that they have to concentrate in a small area where they could be a "local majority", just like the free state project tries to accomplish. And for that they need to welcome even "half objectivists" on bord. By the time that one objectivist city comes about, they will be as good as convinced. But all talk and no action wont get you anywhere.