humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 25, 2:55 pm, Charles Bell wrote:
>  Agent Cooper wrote:
> > But look, this talk about "Tiger Woods mask falling" is unsavory and
> > not particularly accurate as far as I can tell.
>
> It is only inaccurate to the extent that Tiger Woods is someone who
> has accomplished something of real value.

No, I was suggesting that its *imperceptive*. The mask metaphor
suggests that there's a Real Essence of Blackness covered over with a
dishonest fraudulent Surface of Whiteness. And that's way wrong. Barry
grew up in Hawaii, raised by white people from Kansas. I don't think
they even *have* a black community in Hawaii. You've got it almost
exactly backwards. It's the Blackness that's the mask. Read his own
autobiography, written ages before he contemplated the White House
run. I think even that is an oversimplification, but you were way
closer with your "fake negro preacher" comment. Since the two comments
don't really cohere with each other, it looks like you're just
throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. By all means criticize,
but let's not be shallow. This is a very clever guy, clever enough to
have fooled you into thinking he's a Dangerous Black Man and not just
another Harvard JD shilling for Archer-Daniels-Midland.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275

And because of that, you have played right into his hands, because he
will play the race card, with *your* face on it, right into the White
House. Dumb!

> > The issue with Obama
> > is: is he more likely to get his 200 billion in new spending approved
> > than Hillary will?
>
> Yes, the "change" people will have wanted by electing him will be a
> President who proposes much more in domestic spending than the
> President we now have who proposes in every one of his budgets either
> reductions in the increase in spending in existing programs or real
> cuts.

And that's very serious. Yes. But this takes me back to my gamble:
will he get it? Because that's the key.

> > And: is he more likely to screw the pooch in
> > foreign policy than Hillary will?
>
> Yes, he is an ignorant rube on foreign policy.

The exactly right thing to say here, what I exactly think is: you're
more confident of that than I am. I think that that depends on what
the *right* answers are, and what *his* advisors think. Both of those
are less clear to me than they are to you, so I should probably just
be very Socratic and say "tell me more." At the very least I have to
say that I don't think what we're doing is working (let me qualify
that: I think the Afghan war was brilliantly handled, the rest of
what's been done seems to me muddled and unfortunate on all sorts of
levels).

> > I don't see any compelling evidence
> > on that. What I do see is, as Dick Morris explained, a Chicago pol who
> > needed church support.
>
> He might have *initially* picked that church to give him some
> appropriate reputation within what would be his solidly black
> constituency. That he stuck with a church that preaches black-
> supremacist theology for twenty years means either (1)ideas have no
> sticking power in his mind; or (2) he agrees with the theology.  Take
> your pick: he is an airhead or he is a racist.

Well, the third hypothesis is (1) left out, and (2) infinitely more
plausible: it *sustained* that reputation. And frankly, this has
*worked*, because two things needed to happen to get him, and us,
where he is now: Barry from Honolulu had to persuade the South Side
that he was One Of Them (check) and then he had to win in a
predominantly white state to persuade them that he was electable
(check). And here we are, with Ms. Inevitability on life support. For
one thing, seeing *that* can only feel the well-prepared mind with
glee and admiration at the sheer skill of it. But I digress. I suspect
that by leaving out the third hypothesis, you have deprived yourself
of the opportunity to be far more indignant. But I wonder why you did
that. This may be connected to your conception of morality.

> > Charles is very naive if he thinks that a
> > Chicago pol contains in his heart everything said by the most popular
> > minister among his constituency.
>
> You are naive to believe that someone who refers to his xenophobic and/
> or racist grandmother TWICE (he repeated it in his later explanation)
> as "a typical white woman" (with no mention of generation or any other
> context) who was BRED to be afraid of a strange person . . . etc. is
> not a racist.

I think it speaks more to his willingness to use family for his own
purposes. Anyway, the context makes utterly clear that he loves her
despite her imperfections, and the terms of comparison are, she's not
unlike most. One can take exception to the rhetorical strategy
(dilution), but the idea is "she's OK, therefore, I'm OK." So I think
this is a somewhat silly accusation. I at least read "typical" to mean
"not someone noteworthy for outrageous racist views or conduct" i.e.,
like most of us. Did we read the same speech?

> > If you are an Objectivist, then Ken's original stance and comment has
> > to be right: all three candidates are close to worthless.
>
> No, either a racist or a fool is worst of all.

Well, I'm not going to argue that point since I see a false
alternative here.

> > Let's not
> > forget that McCain shows almost no capacity to understand even the
> > most elementary economic principles,
>
> McCain comes from a traditional Republican balance-budget/zero-sum-
> economy perspective that ought to have fizzled in 1929.  This is far
> different than the traditional (since 1936) Democrat approach which
> has been damn-the-cost, full speed ahead on social welfare spending.

And far far better! You bet! My whole assessment of the fiscal thing
(which I really agonized over, believe me--didn't I just say a few
weeks ago, months ago, years ago, that fiscal policy is *everything*,
as an answer to people who would vote Republican but for abortion,
which bugs them? And I say, no, follow the money issue, ignore
symbolism?) is predicated on an historical analogy which, if wrong,
means I've made a catastrophic mistake. And the analogy is 1992, when
a very similar fellow came to town with a big wishlist and was told,
sorry, no can do. That's key: I'm assuming no one can do anything on
that front. If that's wrong, do not pass go, go directly to McCain.

> > and that he likes to think of
> > himself as a TR Progressive. You either sit this one out, or you try
> > as best as you can to predict who will do the least damage. Now you
> > could take promised spending at face value, on the premise that
> > politicians are (1) unimpeachably honest promise-keepers with (2)
> > limitless capacities to act. Somehow I'm a little skeptical of that.
> > Thus I find the spending proposals to be meaningless. In general,
> > micro-issues are almost *always* meaningless in a campaign. They may
> > tell you something about the priorities the politician would *like*
> > tobe able to adhere to, but their predictive value is close to nil.
>
> This is where you show yourself to have no principles with respect to
> politics.  It is one thing to vote for someone who, for whatever
> reason, is unable to keep to his promises, but it is another thing to
> vote for someone who makes promises that you do not want him to keep,
> nor expect him to keep.

Well, principles must vindicate themselves in terms of their
consequences, or else you're defending, inadvertently, the bugbear of
intrinsic duties that come from nowhere and do nothing for anyone. And
I *know* that's not you.

I was very very clear: a vote principles Objectivist can't vote this
time. If that's your line, I totally respect that. Really. I assume I
don't need to explain Hillary (whose promised fiscal profligacy is
slightly less than Obama's only because she hasn't come up with the
free time yet to think up things to spend money on). But McCain is no
saint by your standards either: global warming treaties to come,
McCain-Feingold behind us, anti-abortion--you want a list? Where the
hell is Novins when I need him!

So I'm seriously trying to figure out what we can do here. The core
argument is that we are not leaving Iraq in 2009 at a pace that will
differ meaningfully between the candidates because they will be
advised by the same Pentagon and have the same desire to not run for
re-election with a genocidal civil war on their watch. I don't think
that there's anything that can be done about Iran at this point except
containment, and that's what we'll get from all three. That really
only leaves my "rebranding" argument. It's not much, but it's the
rationale that seems to remain, if you want to vote lesser of three
evils. Whether it's right or not is an empirical question. But lets
leave *principles* out of it. The guy that crossed the threshold into
"close enough to be an honorary Objectivist" was Giuliani. He's out.
I'm sad too, but we must go on from here.

> > So we have three economic "leftists" running for president,
>
> We have a leftist (E. McCarthy, McGovern) in Obama, a left-leaning
> pragmatist (LBJ, Mr. Clinton) in Mrs. Clinton, and a right-leaning
> pragmatist (Nixon, GHW Bush) in McCain.
>
> > in an
> > environment in which almost any available funds will be squandered on
> > Iraq,
>
> rather . . . in an environment in which money is squandered at five
> times the rate on an unjust transfer of wealth than on a just and
> constitutional war.

That's a possible scenario, yes. I consider it tremendously unlikely.
But that's partly because I believe that there can be something like
political science which is something in addition to just the
delineation of the best possible policy in a perfect world. That is a
serious philosophical issue, and a respectable one, and one that I'm
*deeply* convinced I'm right and you're wrong about: conduct can be
*predicted* in light of knowledge of agents' beliefs, desires and
circumstances. My theory is, Obama wants to not only get elected, but
that he wants to also get *re-elected*. Making predictions entirely in
terms of a person's *desires* is to assume away context and causality.
Seriously.

> > Charles has made a lot of hay out of principles.
>
> I make "hay out of"  *your* lack of  principles.

That's fine. I approach these things differently, that's all.

> > Charles. I think his ranking is probably the reverse of mine. I
> > respect that, though I could do without the ebonics impressions,
>
> You indirectly accused me of racism because I noted Obama use of a
> fake negro preacher tone of speech while at stump speeches (that I
> have heard).  

That was very rude and wrong of me. Still, I did not find the
imitation black diction particularly insightful or amusing.

Unlike  the racist Obama, I would not make note of his
> "typical" black man's insincerity that must have been bred into him,
> but I would rather just say that *he* strikes me as one of the least
> sincere national politicians I have seen in my lifetime.

You forget Bill and Hill.

 Whether it
> is because is is an airhead, with virtually every word scripted for
> him, or he is an evil person does not actually matter to me as I
> contemplate his being President.
>
> > which
> > I gather are more of that wicked sense of humor that doesn't translate
> > well on usenet or at cocktail parties. All I can say is, I'm not
> > amused.
>
> I think I held to considerable restraint in my parody.

Well, if you say so. Personally, I think it confuses people.

> > I see advantages and disadvantages with Obama.
>
> Certainly, the biggest advantage would be that James Earl Ray Day will
> not become a reality.

Sigh.