Craig Biddle, from The Objective Standard Journal recently came out in support of the GOP ticket upon the nomination of Paul Ryan as the Vice Presidential pick, on the basis that such a ticket would a) spread the word of Ayn Rand through Paul Ryan's tangential interest in her and her philosophy, and b) give Objectivists time to spread its ideas and influence the culture.
Couldn't the same be said of the Libertarian party? Yes, small "l" libertarianism is very different from Objectivism, and big "l" Libertarians likely share the hodge-podge & groundless ideas that come with big-tent ideologies. But if Objectivists are to jump on a bandwagon that will further their goals, increase the influence of Ayn Rand, and generally move the country in a better direction, surely one could find more support within the Libertarian Party than the GOP. Right?
Or maybe its a matter of practicality: the GOP waggon can move faster, has more ears, and more votes than a Libertarian one.
As a note, I am aware that some Objectivists do not agree with Mr. Biddle's endorsement. For those who don't, I would assume it may be difficult to answer this question. To be honest, I'm not even sure I do yet.
Shortly after I posted this question, Craig Biddle posted a follow-up blog post on The Objective Standard blog titled "Principle vs. Pragmatism in Supporting Romney-Ryan" which in-part answered my question above. I quote Biddle:
So Biddle appears to be taking the position that supporting Romney/Ryan is a choice between the better of two evils, and that voting for a Libertarian candidate is to "aid" Obama's reelection.
I maintain the fear that with today's intellectually-shallow news media, Rand nor Objectivism will get a fair showing, and Ryan will be held up as a poster child of Objectivism when he is far from it, all to the detriment of this community. But maybe that's too pessimistic.
answered Aug 26 '12 at 16:22
JK Gregg ♦
Biddle does not convince me, and I think it would be very difficult for any Objectivist to convince me, that my vote shouldn't be anything other than consistent with my values and principles. Should we cast votes based on judgments of possibilities and probabilities, or our fundamental principles? If you accept the premise that elections are a game or charade, as part of a larger system where we are only doing token actions that don't really change anything, then you could make your decision based on the former. But then don't pretend to kid yourself or anyone else that you are voting based on your philosophical principles and personal integrity.
answered Sep 03 '12 at 06:34