[dianahsieh]

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Yesterday, I got the following FaceBook message from Tom Stevens. (I'm reproducing it because it's a form letter from someone wholly unknown to me.) It said:

I am the Objectivist Party Presidential Candidate and we need 9 registered Colorado voters to list as Presidential Electors. There is no obligation but if we do not get said registered voters, we will not be on the ballot.

If you could help by letting us list you, it would be appreciated.

In Liberty,

Dr. Tom Stevens
Presidential Candidate
Objectivist Party

I wrote up a quick reply, then realized that my comments might be of interest to NoodleFood readers. So I put a bit more work into it, so that I could post it here. (Be forewarned, I wrote the comments below before I realized that this guy is a Libertarian. More on that below.) Here's my response:

Tom,

I can't grant your request. While I am a strong advocate of cultural and political activism, I think that attempting to change American culture via a third party is not just ineffective but downright counterproductive.

The problem with American politics today is not that Americans are looking for an Objectivist candidate but the major parties will only run statists. The majority of voters are reasonably satisfied with their choice between left-wing and right-wing statists on Election Day. Objectivists must work to change the culture toward secularism, reason, egoism, and individual rights. Only then can we expect better politicians to mount a credible campaign, let alone win elections.

That cultural change will be felt within the major parties -- so long as Objectivists don't sequester themselves into political irrelevance in their own unelectable political party. If Objectivists (and sympathizers) demand that the major parties court their vote, then political change for the better is possible.

The history of the political influence of the abolitionist movement bears out this analysis. Abolitionists created new political parties, some focused on the single issue of abolition and others broadly pro-liberty. All such parties failed to gather any significant votes; they had no positive impact. If anything, they had a negative impact, in that they siphoned off strong abolitionist voters that the fledgling Republican Party would have otherwise had to woo. Eventually, the Republican Party did adopt abolitionism -- due to effective cultural activism, not those minor abolitionist parties. By uncompromising moral arguments, a small band of committed abolitionists changed American hearts and minds about the evils of slavery in just a few decades. (Brad Thompson discusses this fascinating political history in his excellent lecture course, American Slavery, American Freedom. Hopefully I've remembered it reasonably accurately.)

Today, if the small but growing number of Objectivists and sympathizers gravitate to an Objectivist political party, the Republicans and Democrats could safely ignore us for decades to come, knowing that they've already lost our vote. That's a license for more statism, not less.

Objectivists should follow the same model as the abolitionists: change American hearts and minds, and the politicians will follow. Political advocacy can and should be a large part of those efforts to change the culture, as seen in the activities of the Ayn Rand Institute and Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM). Unlike running wholly unelectable candidates for office, that kind of activism works. And that's where Objectivists ought to be focusing their time and efforts.

After writing most of the above, I examined the web site of this proposed Objectivist Party in more detail. In my first look, I'd noticed a strongly anti-libertarian statement in the platform itself, in the form of this quote from Harry Binswanger:

The "libertarians"...plagiarize Ayn Rand's principle that no man may initiate the use of physical force, and treat it as a mystically revealed, out-of-context absolute...In the philosophical battle for a free society, the one crucial connection to be upheld is that between capitalism and reason. The religious conservatives are seeking to tie capitalism to mysticism; the "libertarians" are tying capitalism to the whim-worshipping subjectivsim and chaos of anarchy. To cooperate with either group is to betray capitalism, reason, and one's own future. (Harry Binswanger: "Q & A Department: Anarchism," TOF, Aug. 1981, 12.)

So, I thought, however counterproductive the endeavor, it didn't seem to be corrupt. That's one reason why I was willing to write such a detailed reply to the request. However, on reading the biographical information on Tom Stevens, the founder and 2008 presidential candidate, it became perfectly clear that he's a Big-L Libertarian in Objectivist clothing. See for yourself:

Dr. [Tom] Stevens is the Founder of the Objectivist Party. He was elected to the Judiciary Committee of the Libertarian Party in 2006 and re-elected in 2008. He served as a New York State Delegate to the Libertarian Party's National Convention in Atlanta in 2004, Portland in 2006, and Denver in 2008. He currently serves as President of the Libertarian Freedom Council, a national organization of students, young professionals and entrepreneurs and also serves as a member of the LPNY State Committee. In the Republican Presidential Primary, he was a supporter of Ron Paul and served as Political Consultant and New York State Coordinator for the Paul For President Coalition.

(I might add that I find other aspects of the biography, particularly the range of college-level courses that he's taught somewhere unspecified "during the past few years," as suspect.)

So that makes clear to me the value of this endeavor so-called "Objectivist Party." Libertarians are not allies in the struggle for liberty. So while I think that my comments above are worthwhile as general points about political and cultural activism, this request was not worth so many electrons.http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ObjectivismOnline/~4/349623204

http://www.objectivi...ves/003857.html

[Devils_Advocate]

I don't think the point is to change the culture via a third party, I think its more so to expand the Objectivist movement into politics as well. Keep it as visible as possible, and politics is one way to do this. Well we still have to rely on education via scholars, intellectuals, authors, philosophers, etc., to actually make the huge impact, I think that it doesn't hurt to have an objectivist political party to keep the movement constantly expanding in the public eye.

[DavidOdden]

Devils_Advocate, on Jul 30 2008, 05:48 AM, said:

I don't think the point is to change the culture via a third party, I think its more so to expand the Objectivist movement into politics as well.

"The point" is exactly to change the culture, and to further recognize that this cannot be done via yet another third party. There is no "Objectivist movement" (you may wish to research this concept in the writings of Ayn Rand), and such involvement already exists where Objectivists are involved with real political parties. The proposal for a third party is equivalent to simply withdrawing from politics.

Quote

Keep it as visible as possible, and politics is one way to do this.

Yes, and that is why Objectivists with an interest in political activism should seek effective and visible venues, through the two major parties. It is better to have 1 Objectivist speaking out at the local precinct caucus in 20,000 precincts, that to have a political party of 20,000 Objectivists which can be ignored in one fell swoop.

[agrippa1]

DavidOdden, on Jul 30 2008, 06:11 AM, said:

"The point" is exactly to change the culture, and to further recognize that this cannot be done via yet another third party. There is no "Objectivist movement" (you may wish to research this concept in the writings of Ayn Rand), and such involvement already exists where Objectivists are involved with real political parties. The proposal for a third party is equivalent to simply withdrawing from politics.Yes, and that is why Objectivists with an interest in political activism should seek effective and visible venues, through the two major parties. It is better to have 1 Objectivist speaking out at the local precinct caucus in 20,000 precincts, that to have a political party of 20,000 Objectivists which can be ignored in one fell swoop.

I disagree with objections to a third party. I believe the current two-party system is defunct and I respectfully challenge Diana's assertion that "The majority of voters are reasonably satisfied with their choice between left-wing and right-wing statists on Election Day." In 2006, Congress' approval rating was around 10%, yet the reelection rate that year was 94%. That tells me that voters are deeply dissatisfied with their so-called choice, but are locked into re-electing that same stale statists for lack of a viable alternative, not to mention the seniority system that biases local pork towards the incumbent.

The basic objection to a third party is based on the false logic that third parties [sic] destabilize the democratic process. In fact, we have candidates now with widely diverging ideologies, banded together by a corrupt party machine system. We Objectivists can't save the world with an Objectivist Party, but we could put together a party platform, with issue positions explicitly based on principles and values. If we were to drain off even a small percentage of the vote from either party, you would see the two parties shift their positions to recapture those votes. I would point out that the American Socialist Party, which never got a foothold in American elections, other than a few local candidates, nevertheless saw all of its original platform planks absorbed by the one or both of the major parties.

At this point, there is a large and growing block of voters who are looking at withdrawal from the demonstrably bogus American democratic process. Providing those folks with an outlet of valid political principles and ideals could at least gain the attention of the the political parties and maybe cause some shifting of positions towards the principles that founded this nation. Unless there is a tangible benefit to adapting our views, you can be sure the politicians will avoid them at all costs.

This post has been edited by agrippa1: 10 August 2008 - 11:36 AM

[Seeker]

agrippa1, on Aug 10 2008, 01:34 PM, said:

In 2006, Congress' approval rating was around 10%, yet the reelection rate that year was 94%. That tells me that voters are deeply dissatisfied with their so-called choice, but are locked into re-electing that same stale statists for lack of a viable alternative, not to mention the seniority system that biases local pork towards the incumbent.

Congress' approval rating does not indicate that voters in a given district are deeply dissatisfied with their choice, it indicates that they are dissatisfied with the institution of Congress. Given a reelection rate of 94%, this indicates that they are very satisfied with their own representatives, it's those other guys' representatives they can't stand. Money spent in their own district is a worthy expenditure that provides jobs, money spent in others' districts is pork. Across the board what you see reflected is the overwhelming preference for statism. Has anyone ever lost a seat in Congress because they brought too much pork back to the district? That's the sea change that needs to happen and we are nowhere near there.

This post has been edited by Seeker: 10 August 2008 - 12:43 PM

[agrippa1]

Seeker, on Aug 10 2008, 11:03 AM, said:

Congress' approval rating does not indicate that voters in a given district are deeply dissatisfied with their choice, it indicates that they are dissatisfied with the institution of Congress. Given a reelection rate of 94%, this indicates that they are very satisfied with their own representatives, it's those other guys' representatives they can't stand. Money spent in their own district is a worthy expenditure that provides jobs, money spent in others' districts is pork. Across the board what you see reflected is the overwhelming preference for statism. Has anyone ever lost a seat in Congress because they brought too much pork back to the district? That's the sea change that needs to happen and we are nowhere near there.

The fact that people vote to maximize the return of expropriated money to their own district says less about their satisfaction with representatives than about their rational response to an irrational system constructed by a corrupt kleptocracy.

[Seeker]

agrippa1, on Aug 11 2008, 12:59 AM, said:

The fact that people vote to maximize the return of expropriated money to their own district says less about their satisfaction with representatives than about their rational response to an irrational system constructed by a corrupt kleptocracy.

Then they ought to be satisfied with representatives who maximize the return of expropriated money to their own district, since that is what they are voting for. You have yet to establish that "voters are deeply dissatisfied with their so-called choice".