NeoConservatism: Why we need it

[Roxanne Appleby]

I cannot see the connection you're drawing, Roxanne. Could you draw me a map? I have some knowledge of that period in history and I can't for the life of me see what you mean.

And, in my opinion, by your reasoning you'll have to include the neo-cons as villains. There are no better intentioned people on the planet, as Murray repeatedly points out.

Pol Pot, Allende, Stalin and Hitler did not believe they were doing evil.
Everything they did was for the best.

See my post above for the Wilson thing.
On the good will vs. good intentions, I don't think I can explain it any better than I did, Rob. Maybe there's a subjective element to it, maybe we just disagree, or maybe I'm just not skillful enough to give a clearer explanation. I'm sorry if it's the latter.

 

[Oblimo]

Ratzinger...Ratzinger...Ratzinger...Ratzinger...Ratzinger

Y'know, I'm not too much of a fan of the current Pope either, but it still feels weird to not call him Benedict XVI, even if he does look like Emperor Palpatine. Kinda like calling President Bush, Mister Bush.

 

[Oblimo]

No, I mean his getting us into the war in the first place. It's an unknowable alternative history question, but if we had not gotten in the sides might have eventually been forced to negotiate a truce that would not have created the dynamic that led to round two in 1939.

So you're an isolationist. You've got some good company. Gore Vidal makes this argument too.

I'm with Richard Hofstadter, though; the problem wasn't that we got involved, it was that we should have either gotten involved sooner (both times) or not at all. Showing up when we did was disaster. But then, I probably agree with Hofstadter because he was the first political historian I ever read in my formative youth.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

So you're an isolationist. You've got some good company. Gore Vidal makes this argument too.

I'm with Richard Hofstadter, though; the problem wasn't that we got involved, it was that we should have either gotten involved sooner (both times) or not at all. Showing up when we did was disaster.

I don't call myself an isolationist, or any kind of "-ist" on foreign policy, really. Henry the K's realpolitik gets a lot of bad press, as does Jimmy Carter's human rights-ism, but I am sympathetic to both, and others also. Maybe I don't accept that there is any silver bullet on foreign policy; nation-states still live in the Hobbesian world of all against all, and in that environment no one ever has certainty, and no single "-ism" applies in every case. You know whose formulation I liked best recently? GWB's - in the Al Gore debate, when he spoke against "nation-building" and said we need to be "humble" in our estimation of our capabilities on such things. He's come a long way, baby.

Edited to paste a later post into this one:
I'm really just kind of thinking out loud there about what I "am" in terms of a foreign policy philosophy. I'm essentially pragmatic, in the plain english sense, not necessarily the philosophical sense, but pragmatism broadly interpreted, so sometimes the effective stance is a Jimmy Carter human rights campaign, because that plays to an opponents weakness. At other times Kissengerian realism makes more sense.




Gore Vidal - not what I consider "good company." Hofstadter's analysis doesn't make sense. To me, we should have stayed out of The Great War, and entered sooner into The Good War. I understand that you've just given the essential case with none of the argumentation, but it sounds "cute" to me.

 

[Pure]

at least one Randian is NOT keen on neoconservatism

Chris Matthew Sciabarra

AYN RAND'S "OBJECTIVISM" IS DEAD! LONG LIVE THE RANDIANS!

That's the profoundly provocative message of L&P colleague Arthur Silber in his essay "Please Do Not Call Me an 'Objectivist'," at the Light of Reason blog. And it's a message with which I find myself largely in agreement.

I say "largely" because I know, deep down, that, in terms of the fundamentals of Ayn Rand's framework, both Arthur and I are certainly in sync with "Objectivism," the name that Rand chose for her philosophy. It is an integrated system of thought—of realism, egoism, individualism, and capitalism—and it irks me that those of us who embrace it may end up forfeiting the "Objectivist" label to those who undermine its essential radicalism. Given the fact that I've been calling myself a "dialectical libertarian" now for about ten years, I suppose I forfeited that label some time ago.

But it is hard to disguise one's disenchantment with what has become of "Objectivism" in an era of increasing US government intervention at home and abroad. Too many of its most visible spokespeople have become apologists for neoconservatism, at war with Rand's radical legacy, which I discuss here, here, and here.

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles...ed_to_the_Radical_Spirit_of_Objectivism.shtml

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles...Crisis__Reclaiming_Rands_Radical_Legacy.shtml



I, myself, have suggested that there might be a developing distinction between "Objectivism" and "Randianism." As I argue here, it is conceivable that future generations will distinguish between "Objectivist" and "Randian" schools of thought, where the "Objectivist" label would designate strict adherence to every detail of Rand's philosophic framework, and "Randian" might designate "of, relating to, or resembling" Rand's philosophic framework. In this instance, one can say that "Randian" is the broader designation, within which "Objectivist" is one possibility.

Rand herself was a bit uncomfortable with those who would have called themselves "Randians" or "Randists"; she wrote that she was "much too conceited to allow such a use of [her] name." On this point, she expressed "sympathy for Karl Marx who, on being told about some outrageous statements made by some Marxists, answered: 'But I am not a Marxist.'" So, she cautioned: "If you agree with some tenets of Objectivism, but disagree with others, do not call yourself an Objectivist; give proper authorship credit for the parts you agree with—and then indulge in any flights of fancy you wish, on your own."

With that advice in mind, I once entertained writing an article entitled "Why I No Longer Consider Myself an Objectivist." I long suspected that if I'd authored such a piece, my critics would have simply retorted: "Whoever said that you ever were an Objectivist?" Indeed, given my self-conscious absorption of lessons from Aristotle, Carl Menger, Herbert Spencer, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, F. A. Hayek, Karl Marx, and Bertell Ollman, among others, I've long been accused of engaging in eclectic "flights of fancy" by the official, orthodox "guardians" of "Objectivism." But since these guardians themselves have become veritable performance artists in their selective re-creation of Rand's philosophy, bracketing out anything of any lasting radical political value that Rand ever uttered, I'd say "Objectivism" is dead. Long dead. We are all Randians now... even if I'm still convinced, on some level, that some of us are better "Objectivists" than others.

Paraphrasing Ayn Rand's conclusion from her essay, "For the New Intellectual," we might say: "There is an ancient slogan that applies to our present position: 'The king is dead—long live the king!' We can say, with the same dedication to the future: 'The Objectivists are dead—long live the Objectivists!'—and then proceed to fulfill the responsibility which that honorable title had once implied."

Reading Arthur's post reminds me of the heavy burden of such a responsibility, especially in an era when human authenticity, dignity, and freedom are at stake, demanding the integrated, radical response that Ayn Rand pioneered.

Posted on Monday, December 8, 2003 at 10:00 PM

 

[Oblimo]

I don't call myself an isolationist, or any kind of "-ist" on foreign policy, really.

An isolationist is someone who thinks we should not have gotten involved in WWI. That's all I meant by the term, at least. I did not mean to imply that you were espousing a broader school of thought. My apologies.

 

[Pure]

note on WWI

it's interesting that leftist Bertrand Russell, with whom Roxanne would have no truck, opposed the involvement of Britain in WWI.

again, i suppose, because the aims of Germany were (it is argued) limited.

 

[rgraham666]

All these 'isms' and 'ists' make my head ache.

I prefer being an 'ic'. A heretic and a Socratic.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

An isolationist is someone who thinks we should not have gotten involved in WWI. That's all I meant by the term, at least. I did not mean to imply that you were espousing a broader school of thought. My apologies.

Oh, no sweat Ob. I was just kind of thinking out loud there about what I "am" in terms of a foreign policy philosophy. I'm essentially pragmatic, in the plain english sense, not necessarily the philosophical sense, but pragmatism broadly interpreted, so sometimes the effective stance is a Jimmy Carter human rights campaign, because that plays to an opponents weakness. At other times Kissengerian realism makes more sense.

 

[Oblimo]

I prefer being an 'ic'. A heretic and a Socratic.

Ah; you're an icist.

 

[Oblimo]

Oh, no sweat Ob. I was just kind of thinking out loud there about what I "am" in terms of a foreign policy philosophy. I'm essentially pragmatic, in the plain english sense, not necessarily the philosophical sense, but pragmatism broadly interpreted, so sometimes the effective stance is a Jimmy Carter human rights campaign, because that plays to an opponents weakness. At other times Kissengerian realism makes more sense.

Makes perfect sense to me. And to 21st century philosophers too; according to my cousin, with his new shiny philosophy PhD, pragmatism is seriously in.

 

[rgraham666]

Makes perfect sense to me. And to 21st century philosophers too; according to my cousin, with his new shiny philosophy PhD, pragmatism is seriously in.

Oh great. That's all we need.

Another sophist. As if we aren't up to our armpits with 'em already.

Not directed at you, Ob. Just not a big fan of modern philosophy. The field hasn't been the same since Kant.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

Holeeee Shit!!!

Talk about a thread that needs footnotes ...

I read the title of this thread and a whole slew of questions rampaged through my mind:

Why do we need neocons, indeed?

Why do we need people who follow tradition blindly, as if there's no other way?

Why do we need people who have an overwhelming perpencity for sticking their noses and their pointy fingers into everyone else's private lives and personal natures?

Why do we need people who seem to be more comfortable with dismissing science (Logic), and then prefer to pray to a god that they believe is there in their hearts but have no logical proof of (Emotional)?

Why do we need people who are so fucking insistant about treating everyone else like they're too inferior to make their own decisions?

Why do we need people who are so adept at ignoring common sense no matter how obvious it is (I know; Common Sense is not a common thing)?

Why do we need people who can so blindly follow and hand over so much power to so very few rather than trusting themselves to think freely and make their own decisions?

And those aren't even all of the questions that popped up upon reading the title of this thread.

Then I read the article and rapidly found that not one of my questions was answered.

Can anyone help with this?

I once read that one of the signs of the coming apocolypse was a massive plague. Has anyone else noticed how rapidly neo-conservatism has spread in the last six years?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Makes perfect sense to me. And to 21st century philosophers too; according to my cousin, with his new shiny philosophy PhD, pragmatism is seriously in.

That's why I specified that I did not mean it in the philosophical sense. I'm on a strange compute r in a sdtramge place here, but "prag-ism" in the philo meaning gives some pretty sickening answers in the area of ethics. Think, how do we increase the net amount of happpiness in the world - one way is to eliminate some intrinsically unhappy people. I am grossly simplifying and no doubt being unfair, but peel enough layers off that onion and this is what you'll get to.

 

[Oblimo]

Oh great. That's all we need.

Another sophist. As if we aren't up to our armpits with 'em already.

Not directed at you, Ob. Just not a big fan of modern philosophy. The field hasn't been the same since Kant.

I don't blame you one bit. If my recent chats with my cousin are any indication of where modern philosophy is headed, it's up its own rear-end. They're arguing over the definition of "truth-value" as if that wasn't exactly what Plato stared the whole game off with 2500 years ago.

 

[Pure]

actually, roxanne, it's utilitarianism that seeks to maximize the net amount of happiness in the world. pragmatists haven't been that notable in ethics, but when they do, like Dewey it tends to be your run of the mill secular humanism.

 

[rgraham666]

I don't blame you one bit. If my recent chats with my cousin are any indication of where modern philosophy is headed, it's up its own rear-end. They're arguing over the definition of "truth-value" as if that wasn't exactly what Plato stared the whole game off with 2500 years ago.

Actually I separate Plato from Socrates, something rarely done in philosophy.

The Dialogs were Socratic. They were a good picture of Socrates in action, constantly questioning, forever needling people to think about themselves and their society. These works demonstrated the essential democratic nature of Socrates, a man who did not worry about truth but about good.

The Republic was Platonic. It handed down an answer from on high. It outlined a corporatist dictatorship, where the classes mattered, not the individual. The Socrates in this work was a literary character added to give intellectual cachet to the piece. This work was essentially aristocratic, and the basis of all authouritarian thought since.

Including the neo-cons.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

actually, roxanne, it's utilitarianism that seeks to maximize the net amount of happiness in the world. pragmatists haven't been that notable in ethics, but when they do, like Dewey it tends to be your run of the mill secular humanism.

Oops! Correct you are - duly noted! As you can easilu imagine I'm not inspired by any of them.

Reacting to Oblimo's on where modern academic philo is at, I've had some reports from my Objectivist friends on the inside, and the word 'lost' seems perfectly accurate. It's not my area of interest so I can't really repeat details with any clarity, b\but my interpretation was that they haven't the slightst interest in what is true- it's all just an irrelevent intellectual parlor game - pure interllectual stroke. At least we do honest stroke on this site.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Actually I separate Plato from Socrates, something rarely done in philosophy.

The Dialogs were Socratic. They were a good picture of Socrates in action, constantly questioning, forever needling people to think about themselves and their society. These works demonstrated the essential democratic nature of Socrates, a man who did not worry about truth but about good.

The Republic was Platonic. It handed down an answer from on high. It outlined a corporatist dictatorship, where the classes mattered, not the individual. The Socrates in this work was a literary character added to give intellectual cachet to the piece. This work was essentially aristocratic, and the basis of all authouritarian thought since.

Including the neo-cons.

You probably know of the alternative interpretation of Plato, which it\s that "the republic" is a metaphor for the human - the philo king is the high-minded intellect, and thing work best when it's in charge, and those lusty worker bees down below are the body and early desires, best kept under control by the philo kings. There's some other classes in there too - it's been a while for me to remeber . . .

 

[rgraham666]

You probably know of the alternative interpretation of Plato, which it\s that "the republic" is a metaphor for the human - the philo king is the high-minded intellect, and thing work best when it's in charge, and those lusty worker bees down below are the body and early desires, best kept under control by the philo kings. There's some other classes in there too - it's been a while for me to remeber . . .

It can be seen that way. Which is just what the aristocrats want you to think.

Always the 'best' people with the 'proper' qualities should rule. Everyone else can just shut the fuck up and follow orders.

It's a coincidence isn't it, how the 'best' people always pick what the proper quality is? Reason, or the divine right, or the demands of nationlism, race or economics. The 'best' people always chose themselves. And everyone else, well, who cares?

 

[Oblimo]

It can be seen that way. Which is just what the aristocrats want you to think.

Always the 'best' people with the 'proper' qualities should rule. Everyone else can just shut the fuck up and follow orders.

It's a coincidence isn't it, how the 'best' people always pick what the proper quality is? Reason, or the divine right, or the demands of nationlism, race or economics. The 'best' people always chose themselves. And everyone else, well, who cares?

The Republic is one of Plato's most troubling Dialogues. I'm sure that's exactly how he planned it. One of the most important things to keep in mind when reading the Dialogues is that, for at least half of the text, Socratese is wrong. The only exception to that rule is my favorite Dialogue, the Parmenidese, in which Socratese is wrong throughout the entire text. (It's the "Young Socratese" dialogue, when a cheeky Socratese just out of his adolescence (probably about 32 in Athenean reckoning) goes to here Zeno speak about the One and the lack of spoons, and says, "Well, I've got a theory of forms so don't give me your There is No Spoon BS," to which Zeno responds, "O RLY?" and procedes to make a fool out of Socratese. It's fun.)

Plato believed that anything that was really important should not be written down; this is a step up from Socratese and the Pythagorean mystics before him who believed that nothing should be written down, period. As such, you cannot find Plato's philosophy in the Dialogues themselves. You and your fellow gymnasts were supposed to read it at the start of a lesson, then talk about it for about a year or more. The Dialogues were meant only to point a gymnast in a certain direction. In many of the Dialogues, it is the wrong direction (well, wrong as far as Plato was concerned).

The Republic is one of the "recovery" Dialogues. In a recovery Dialogue, the characters make a mistake, spend a dozens of pages chatting working things through until one goes "Oh, crap, we royally screwed up somewhere," and then they go back and try to recover the conversation. This happens no less than three times (IIRC) in the Republic. Often, the recovery is half-assed. Whenever Socratese says, "Well, I know this isn't entirely satisfactory, but..." (and trust me, he says that a lot), it's Plato assigning homework to the gymnasts.

I'm not going to defend the Republic as if it were secretly a libertarian democractic manifesto or somethin', because it ain't. But it needs to be read after reading the Gorgias, which is the about the evils of tyranny and sophistry and attorneys.

 

[Oblimo]

Oops! Correct you are - duly noted! As you can easilu imagine I'm not inspired by any of them.

Reacting to Oblimo's on where modern academic philo is at, I've had some reports from my Objectivist friends on the inside, and the word 'lost' seems perfectly accurate. It's not my area of interest so I can't really repeat details with any clarity, b\but my interpretation was that they haven't the slightst interest in what is true- it's all just an irrelevent intellectual parlor game - pure interllectual stroke.

That's because academic Objectivists (do they really still call themselves Objectivists? I'm bemused) think they've got truth-value all figured out already. Philosophy is, has been, and always will be a continual discussion of the queston, "What does it mean to 'live a good life?'" which is in turn a quest for the definition of truth-value. Whether this is a noble enterpise or an affected decadence is up for grabs.

 

[rgraham666]

My favourite Dialogue is The Apology. It most clearly, to me, lays out Socratic thought.

And as I read Socrates, it shows his most important trait, his doubt. Everything is open to question in Socrates opinion. He started his career when the Delphic Oracle pronounced him the wisest man in Athens.

His reaction was 'That's the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard. I know nothing.' And so he started asking questions so he could learn wisdom.

This is the opposite of our modern thought which regards every question as having an answer. We often have the answer before we ask the question and never get around to asking the question. We mistake our knowledge for wisdom.

 

[CharleyH]

Oh great. That's all we need.

Another sophist. As if we aren't up to our armpits with 'em already.

Not directed at you, Ob. Just not a big fan of modern philosophy. The field hasn't been the same since Kant.

No offence but, LOL - you are hardly a Sophist.

I get where you wanted to go Pure. Too bad few others do or did.