login about faq

Is it proper to demand an ideal candidate?

Would it be better to support a candidate that shared 75% of the same views as Objectivists, especially when most politicians only share maybe 25%?

Can there be some particular issue(s) that might disqualify a candidate even if he would otherwise be ideal?

(The numbers are off the top of my head and not intended to be accurate, but to illustrate the relative difference between two or more candidates.)

asked Sep 17 '10 at 20:09

Justin%20O's gravatar image

Justin O ♦
338112

edited Sep 21 '10 at 15:29

I've got to question the question. What makes you think "Objectivists [don't] support most political candidates?"

(Sep 18 '10 at 13:05) Robert Nasir ♦ Robert%20Nasir's gravatar image

@Robert I reworded the title to remove the unintentional generalization.

(Sep 21 '10 at 15:27) Justin O ♦ Justin%20O's gravatar image

The overarching political goal of Objectivist activism is to return the government to its proper function of protecting individual rights. Objectivists should support political candidates when such support works towards that goal. The tricky question is how to determine whether that is the case with regard to a particular politician, because it is by no means obvious.

answered Oct 06 '10 at 00:03

Kyle%20Haight's gravatar image

Kyle Haight ♦
12903

If "support" merely means "vote for" or even "donate money to the campaign of", then the only real requirement is that the candidate be the lesser of two evils. (For instance, I supported Scott Brown in Massachusetts, purely in order to fight socialized medicine.)

To really promote a candidate, not just as the lesser of two evils but as a positive good, I think the candidate has to have some principled stand, somehow, in favor of freedom--at minimum, of free markets and constitutionally limited government. It's not a matter of percentages, but of principles.

We've had very few candidates like that in America in a long time. There are a few coming out this year as part of the Tea Party movement.

answered Oct 06 '10 at 04:47

jasoncrawford's gravatar image

jasoncrawford ♦
10011766

Most Objectivists would generally support a candidate they did not agree with 100% on moral grounds if that was the only issue... However, when ever you give people with questionable morals incredible power for changing policies their moral and intellectual inconsistencies begin to shine through. Although an Objectivist may agree with a politician on 75% of the issues there are always going to be bad policies made over the other 25%.. Objectivists generally don't support the "lesser of two evils" policy when the "clean hands" concept is available to them.

answered Sep 17 '10 at 20:20

Colin%20MacDonald's gravatar image

Colin MacDonald ♦
16011

Why do you say we don't support the lesser of two evils? I think that's actually the right approach in most elections... as long as there really is a lesser one.

(Oct 06 '10 at 04:49) jasoncrawford ♦ jasoncrawford's gravatar image

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Share This Page:

Tags:

×103

Asked: Sep 17 '10 at 20:09

Seen: 950 times

Last updated: Oct 06 '10 at 04:49