Category Archives: Uncategorized

There’s been a lot of spirited online rebellion in the last couple of days in reaction to Obama for America’s “Attack Watch” campaign. In typical American fashion, people are reacting to Obama’s announcement of a new criticism watchdog, replete with web site, by going out of their way to criticize and make fun of our President.

I am glad to see this, because it shows that the American sense of life–which has found expression in the Tea Party movement and is aptly symbolized in the classic “Don’t Tread On Me” flag–is alive and well. (Republican wins in the recent special elections are also a great sign.) I must admit I’m somewhat torn about discussing Attack Watch, however. This is because, as much as I want to join in on the frequent Obama-heckling tweet-fests (they’re fun and cathartic), I don’t want to increase the amount of resources squandered by Attack Watch. But maybe I should just get over that, because it’s all for a good cause: showing that Americans won’t stand for censorship of their criticism of their elected officials.

The reason I’m posting about this (in addition to trying to come up with at least one really clever tweet heckling the President) is because it occurred to me that Obama’s institution of Attack Watch is a case study in the application of Ayn Rand’s observation that force stops thinking. In Chapter 8 of his book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff writes, “[I]f and to the extent that someone’s gun becomes a man’s epistemological court of final appeal, replacing the law of identity [A is A], then the man cannot think.”

So, to those who frequently criticize the President, let me ask you: When you first heard of Attack Watch, did you say to yourself, even for a millisecond, that you would now have to be more careful when criticizing the President publicly? Never mind that, if you’re reading this blog, you’re probably the kind of person who would go ahead and act as you had before anyway. That’s not the point. People decide to resist the institution of government controls all the time, but that does not mean that those controls, if and to the extent that they are imposed, do not stop thinking.

Some might argue that Attack Watch doesn’t threaten the use of force of any kind, nor the imposition of any penalties, so this is in fact not an example coming under the principle. (The site is apparently run by a non-government organization, Obama for America.) But if you think about it, the only reason that people even care about the existence of Attack Watch, the only reason they feel like they must rebel against it, is because they know that, even if there has not yet been a threat of penalties of any kind, such penalties might not be far behind. This is why phrases like “enemies list” and “political prisoner” keep appearing in discussions of Attack Watch. If you feel the slightest bit intimidated by the creation of Attack Watch–even if you tell yourself you will not be affected by it, that you will continue on, as before–then you have experienced a small taste of what Ayn Rand meant. (As have, for example, businessmen who were called to Washington and “urged” to run their businesses in a way more pleasing to the President, even though there was not, at that point, any legislation compelling them to do so.)

The initiation of force, or threatening to use force, is evil. This is why even a fairly heavily veiled threat of force by our government is cause for concern.

Other than the affected, urgent tone, and the repeated refrain, “You should pass this jobs plan right away,” there wasn’t much that was new about Obama’s much anticipated “Jobs Speech”. He blamed a “political crisis” for making the economy worse. He used “poignant” examples of suffering and need, in order to appeal to his audience’s emotions. He made several appeals to authority, including…

Read more at Pajamas Media.

Well, at least he said “want”. But we all know that Romney was affirming his belief in the morality of altruism, the idea that an action acquires its moral worth by virtue of its being done for someone other than oneself, that one owes a moral duty to care for those who are “in need”. Maybe that’s why he sees Obama as a “nice guy”. I doubt that anyone would mistake Romney for a member of the Tea Party, no matter what he says he has in common with them.

Also during tonight’s GOP debate, Texas Governor Rick Perry stood by what he wrote in his book, that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme” and said, as I understood him, that he thought it should be phased out. In response, Romney said the above, and went on to promise to keep the program. How? Who knows. But, importantly, Perry, while reiterating his characterization of the program as a Ponzi scheme, even when offered another rebuttal, did not question what Romney described as being “at the heart of our party”.

Nor did anyone else present at the debate, not even Ron Paul. In fact Paul made a point of explaining how liberty is consistent with “compassion” because, in fact, the market would provide for everyone better than government does. And Gingrich, who actually used the word “socialism” this evening, made sure to modify it with “bureaucratic,” because I guess it would be too much to actually criticize socialism as such.

I suppose that was to be expected.

Other observations:

Cain seemed to me to be the most improved, in that he seemed to own much of what he said, and didn’t always resort to lists of three or four things that sounded memorized. (His answer to the immigration question was an exception. It sounded like the same thing he said last time.) The substance of much of what he said tonight was good, particularly with respect to health care, where he made explicit reference to expanding the role of the free market in specific ways. And I loved the quip, regarding his 9-9-9 proposal that, if 10% is good enough for God, then 9% is good enough for government. Oh, and he also says he’d abolish the TSA. Bonus points.

Santorum was questioned about his commitment to the poor, given his Catholicism. I hated watching him defend his record of advocating for the poor and defending welfare reform as altruistic — as “saving people’s lives”. I also didn’t like the fact that he said he was already tailoring his proposals to appeal to Democratic senators. Why not adopt Bachmann’s approach of pledging to help get Republican senators elected? When I hear Santorum say “get stuff done”, I hear “compromise”. Not surprisingly, he’s also for altruism abroad, saying we should be a “force for good around the world”. I think he’s out.

Romney promised to issue Obamacare waivers, but given what he says about the GOP wanting to help those in need, I do not count on him to deliver a full repeal of that horrible pile of junk. And Perry said he would repeal Obamacare “as much as it can be”. Huh? Bachmann promised to work for full repeal, which is good, and had stats on how many jobs it’s killing. Not as good as saying “health care is not a right,” but as good as one can expect.

I liked that Bachmann mentioned the welfare issue with respect to immigration (I guess Ron Paul didn’t hear her, because he said no one else did). I also like that she addressed the problem with the situation in Libya: we don’t know who the rebels are, and whether they’re interested in supporting an Islamic theocracy, both in Libya and elsewhere. She also mentioned the problem of a nuclear Iran. I think she may have misspoken with respect to Reagan’s tax cut/spending cut deal, but we all knew what she was getting at, and overall this evening she was quite good. Notably, no real “social issues” were raised with her. Yes, she’s for parents’ rights with respect to vaccination decisions, but one need not be religious to agree with her on that. Oh, and Bachmann pointed out something that bears repeating again and again: gas cost $1.79 per gallon when Obama took office! $1.79!!!

Huntsman, to me, seemed to be too conciliatory, to use too many vague platitudes, and to come up short on substance. He said he won’t pledge anything, and we should look at his record for an indication of what he’ll do. My guess is that his record doesn’t include dealing with Obamacare. I’d like to see a pledge to repeal that, at least.

Ron Paul said some good things, as usual, but his discussion of “compassion” conceded the moral issue to the altruist crowd and, more importantly, sometimes he misspoke in such a way that I wondered whether his age is starting to affect his mental abilities. He did not discuss foreign policy this time, notably.

Glad to hear that Perry hates cancer. But the answer is not to mandate vaccination, especially by executive order. Oh, and he should have just admitted that he did not know the name of a scientist who questioned human-caused global warming. Then he could have just gone on to the arguments about the economic impact (or even the immorality) of the regulations designed to compensate for it. As it stood, he was forced to dodge the “name a scientist” question twice. Oh, and I think he’s wrong about Keynesianism being dead. Until altruism is abandoned, there will always be those who believe that Keynesianism will work if we just tweak it a bit differently this time.

And I guess that’s what Obama will try to do tomorrow in his “Jobs Speech.”