11/25/24
So far public opposition to Trump and Trumpism is fragmented. There are a few intellectuals or prominent people speaking against him, but all of it is disconnected. The one effort that is structured has been Liz Cheney's activity (her book, the Jan 6 hearings).
I propose that Objectivists can leverage the fact that there is no fully rational opposition to Trump in the public media. For instance, Liz Cheney strongly believes in the power of prayer, an idea she deemed important to include in her book on Jan 6. Sam Harris denies free will. Charles Murray, while good on Israel, appears to be a Trump supporter and his extended family is friends "with the Trumps." I expect all opposition to be drowned by the second-handedness of our society, the desire to fit in and to "get with the program." Only Objectivists are "stubborn" enough to continue calling a spade a spade.
Objectivists should leverage this vacuum towards an organized opposition to Trump. Disconnected articles and YouTube shows here and there will not suffice. The effort should aim that "against Trump" is associated in the public mind not with Liz Cheney, but with Objectivists. To accomplish this, Objectivists would need people who can formulate well and are good public speakers. They must get onto widely watched media such as Lex Fridman, Bill Maher, and Stossel. This, at the minimum, requires connections and money.
But public appearances are not enough. There would need to be a promoted book (or an online resource) collecting various arguments criticizing Trump, the persona, such as the anti-conceptual mentality. For instance, this discussion must follow with concrete examples of actual Trump actions that demonstrate this mentality. The book must also include Objectivist critique of particular policies enacted by Trump. Once such book is available, even in a draft form, it can be a basis for talking points during appearances.
In summary, the effort needs to be similar to Alex Epstein's effort on energy, but one with focus on "anti-Trump." I doubt that the effort will actually change people's ideas to a significant degree — the fanatic public support of Trump will remain. But it will give Objectivism a foot in the door into public awareness.
Of course one can fund New Ideal or Yaron Brook to do this. Alternatively, a working group can be formed towards this goal and members can take a more active role in the project. (This project is too large for any single person who already has other work commitments.) Is there anyone on HBL who is interested in the latter approach?
12/01/24
Jim Allard suggests that it is better to focus on the positive, that Americans are hungry for some defense of the American values, and that Objectivists can provide it. Isn't this the program that Objectivists had all these years, achieving no significant success (or even awareness) within the wider public?
I think that any advocacy for Capitalism or American values that is not loudly anti-Trump will be now perceived as a pro-MAGA commentary.
12/02/24
I would consider it a success if there were an Objectivist with 1M followers on YouTube, that he is invited to various outlets like Bill Maher show, and that other people are eager to come onto his show. This person must be associated with the term Objectivism or Ayn Rand in the public eye. And hopefully, there are at least a few such Objectivists, so that the association is not with the particular person but with the Objectivism movement.
Parallel examples are: Richard Dawkins for Atheism, Bill Maher for Center Left, Jordan Peterson for Conservative Right, Douglas Murray on Israel-Palestine conflict and anti-woke.
If one were to measure, instead, success by how ideas of selfishness permeated the public, it is too insignificant to be on the political map. The public is aware of a third alternative to MAGA or Woke as either Center Left or Libertarian.
Again, I said above that the anti-Trump campaign will not change people's minds, but it will give Objectivism a seat at the table.
12/02/24
I don't understand why Objectivism cannot be spread by conventional media methods. I don't understand why we need to reinvent the wheel. Concretely, what is so wrong to critique Trump from Objectivist perspective, on a nationally watched media? We don't need to pander to the audience, we just say it how it is. Let it gasp in indignation. But as it stands now, we aren't getting invited to the venue at all, nobody knows about us. For example, could we get John Allison, Alex Epstein, or Yaron Brook to go on the next Bill Maher show and demolish Trump there, while being presented as Objectivists (by "we" I mean the Objectivists)?
12/04/24
Ian Gilmore asks how can we get leading Objectivists onto prominent media. One way is to form a working group which focuses on collecting donations to pay PR agencies to pitch Objectivists. I can contribute $100 per potential appearance and if 200 people did this, that's $20,000. (Twelve years ago Alex Epstein asked people to contribute $20 towards his debate with McKibben, and the debate indeed happened.)
Ian also says that Objectivists' message is too radical, so no one wants to invite them. That may have been so, but thanks to Trump, fringe and cringe positions are welcomed.
Re anti-Trump. We can always pivot towards a positive case about how things should be, but there needs to be a hook at the start to capture people's attention. If you want an example, Jordan Peterson got famous on the pronouns issue, then pivoted onto a pseudo-science religious propaganda.