www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_objec.htm
Do you have a a comment of your own?
An exchange
between Steve Sniegoski
and Ronn
Neff
Mr. Neff's reply.
Dr. Sniegoski's second reply.
Mr. Neff's second reply.
Dr. Sniegoski's
third reply.
Mr. Neff's third
reply.
Objectivism = Sharonism?
Comments on Ronn Neff's
"The Peace of Objectivism"
I know little about Objectivism, and what I have to say may be so obvious that Mr. Neff saw no need to deal with it in his column. But when he writes that the Objectivists' cheerleading for the "war on terrorism" signals their rallying around a flag, I have to say it looks to me as though the Objectivists — at least those of the Ayn Rand Institute — identify not so much with the flag that has the 50 stars as they do with the one that has a single, large, six-pointed star. (In this letter, I will focus on ARI, which is the "official" Ayn Rand organization. [1])
The Objectivists of the Ayn Rand Institute are distinguished above all by their staunch support of Israel — an Israel of the most extreme, Sharonist hue — and their concomitant demand that the United States fight to aid that country.
For example, the Institute came out with an "ad hoc" publication in April
titled "In Moral Defense of Israel," and part of ARI's Website is devoted to
that question. [2]
ARI pontificates: "We hold that the state of Israel has a moral right to
exist and to defend itself against attack — 
and that the United States should unequivocally support
Israel." That's right, unequivocally. To show that Israel's moral
purity warrants U.S. support, the publication continues: "Israel and those
who attack it are not moral equals. Israel is a free, Westernized country,
which recognizes the individual rights of its citizens (such as their right
to property and freedom of speech). It uses military force only in
self-defense, in order to protect itself." [Ibid.]
The publication features such pro-Israel headings as "Israel Attacked for Its Virtues" and "Israel's War Is America's War." [Ibid.] There is a claim that the defense of Israel contributes to the security of the United States — and one would expect no less from an organization that is physically situated in the United States. However, most of the articles contrast the moral purity of Israel with the diabolical nature of Islam and the Arabs. In fact, ARI expounds such a militant Zionism that by comparison Ariel Sharon almost appears the "man of peace" President Dodo proclaims him to be. As Justin Raimondo aptly observes: "The latter-day saints of the Objectivist faith have taken up the cause of Israel more fiercely than the most fanatical mystics, either Zionist or Christian." [3]
One ARI article maintains that the
exchange of any land on the Israeli-occupied West Bank would lead to
Israel's suicide. [4] This, of course, implies that Israel either must
make permanent its undemocratic rule over a million or so Palestinians,
bereft of citizenship rights, or ethnically cleanse the entire population.
But imperial domination does not faze ARI: another article alleges that
"only individuals dedicated to freedom have a right to 'self-determination'
and to create a state." [5] Obviously, since the Palestinians are not, in ARI's
view, "dedicated to freedom," it is perfectly all right to rule them with an
iron fist, confiscate their property, deny them civil rights, and mete out
various and sundry other cruelties for which the "dedicated to freedom"
Israeli occupiers are notorious.
More shocking still, and in utter disregard of existing international law, ARI holds that it is perfectly proper to "deliberately target the civilians of an aggressor nation," as the United States did "when it dropped fire bombs on Dresden and Hamburg and atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These bombings were moral acts." [6] It is just there, of course, that many civilized folk will simply tune ARI out. Definitively and forever.
Because in ARI's view the
Palestinians do not enjoy the right to self-determination, their resistance
to Israeli occupation amounts to "aggression" categorically, quite
independently of whether any Palestinians ever engage in aggression
against Israeli noncombatants. But that's the least of it: ARI wants the
United States to apply the same philosophy right across the Middle East,
recognizing that it "requires mass civilian deaths in terrorist countries."
ARI seems to be saying that the protection of Israel necessitates and
justifies the extermination of the non-Jewish peoples of the Middle
East.
***
I have to make it clear that loyalty to Israel is not merely one ARI position among many; rather, it is central to the work of the organization. According to ARI, speakers have "garnered more than 3,200 minutes of radio airtime interviews on such topics as the war on terrorism and Israel's moral right to exist." And the publication asks its readers for help in spreading the pro-Israel message:
If you agree that Israel is the victim, that it is in the right, that it deserves staunch intellectual defense — please send a (tax-deductible) contribution to the Ayn Rand Institute. Your financial support will help us produce more editorials, arrange more campus lectures that promote a rational solution to terrorism in general — and that present a moral defense of Israel in particular. [7]
Why do the "official" Objectivists support Israel? It does not seem to flow directly from the philosophical principles of Objectivism, though Rand was personally pro-Israel. According to Raimondo, Rand held that
the Palestinians are "savages" and [she] reiterated her unconditional support for Israel. Since every word Rand ever uttered is worshipped as holy writ by her followers, that's it as far as the "Objectivists" are concerned, and we'll hear no further arguments. [8]
As I have stipulated, I am no expert
on Objectivism, but I am not so sure how far the "Randroid" argument
takes us in this case. While Rand was pro-Israel, it is not apparent that
she advocated an American military defense of Israel, much less anything
like the offensive moves that the ARI expounds. In fact, Rand tended to
oppose American military intervention. As the noted libertarian scholar
Roy Childs writes: "She spoke often rather fondly about 'isolationism,' and
seemed to have been sympathetic with the America First Committee."
Childs continues: "For years, I have tried to find a coherent foreign policy
in her works, and have always failed." [9]
What now looms so large at ARI seems to have been, at best, only in the penumbra of Rand's thinking. That suggests another possible explanation. Most of the leading figures of ARI, beginning with the leader, Dr. Leonard Peikoff, appear to be Jewish. [10] If evolutionary biologist Kevin MacDonald is correct, it is their Jewishness that explains their pro-Israel focus. [11]
The ARI Objectivists openly call for the sacrifice of individual freedom, property rights, legal norms, and human life itself to advance the interests of Israel — or, rather, some ultra-Sharonist vision of "Greater Israel." Mr. Neff, I believe, diagnosed a deeper, philosophical flaw in the Objectivists' support of the state; at the same time, though, it is not apparent that all non-anarchists go so far in advocating the trampling out of all vestiges of human liberty as do the current crop of Objectivists. But whatever the cause, the same thing can be said about "official" Objectivism that one of Rand's favorite authors, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, said about the revolutionary ideology of his day. As his revolutionary ideologue Shigalov admitted in The Possessed:
"I have started out with the idea of unrestricted freedom and I have arrived at unrestricted despotism." [12]
August 16, 2002
Mr. Neff replies
Dr. Sniegoski's description of what one finds at aynrand.org cannot be
gainsaid; and he is right: it goes far beyond anything Rand discussed
publicly.
Of course, Peikoff was a long-time confidant of hers, and it may be that
she imparted such views to him in the course of unrecorded
conversations.
Or that he overheard them before he became the heir apparent.
I take issue with three points:
(1) That "loyalty to Israel is not merely one ARI position among many;
rather, it is central to the work of the organization." It is certainly an
active element of the ARI site, but a look at the Site
Index shows that aynrand.org is really quite a large site and contains
seven "micro-sites," some of which are "micro" only by comparison with
the rest of the site. To be sure, ARI would not even consider publishing an
anti-Israel essay; but then it would not consider publishing an essay
critical of Microsoft, either, or an argument against abortion. Randians are
a pretty hard-line sort in that once they take a position, they brook no
disagreement.
(2) That ARI is stridently pro-Israel because Peikoff (and other
dominant personalities at the organization) are Jews. The ARI position
on Israel is so irrational that one naturally looks for an explanation. But if
the Jewishness of Peikoff and others is to be taken as that explanation,
one needs yet another explanation for the gentile Objectivists' being
pro-Israel (e.g., David Kelley) and yet a third for the fact that there are
Objectivist Jews who are not pro-Israel. (They do not write for ARI or the
Objectivist Center, of course.)
(3) That I derived Objectivists' contempt for individual rights from
their not being anarchists. Like Dr. Sniegoski, I recognize that there
are many libertarians who are nonanarchists but who do not advocate the
complete trampling of individual rights and who are not warmongers. (One
thinks of the writers at the Future of Freedom Foundation.) It is not
because Objectivists are in love with the state that they have fallen so
far from the implications of Rand's vision of liberty. It is that they are in
love with the United State, and always have been.
For 40 years they have watched what she identified as fascism wax in
this country. Yet their fervor for the United State has not waned. Even on
constitutionalist premises — perhaps especially on constitutionalist
premises — one should expect to see some genuine hostility to the
wickedness that is so present a threat to them. And neither they nor Rand
ever expressed the hostility toward it that the United State has merited
and merits. There is no telling what absurd and evil propositions will
come tumbling out of intellects that such a love has corrupted. Reply posted August 19, 2002
Dr. Sniegoski
replies
As I said in my previous letter to the editor, I don't claim expertise
regarding Objectivism. It appears that Mr. Neff, a long-time observer of
the Objectivist scene, differs considerably with some of my analysis.
Although in one instance our differences appear to be largely semantic,
elsewhere Mr. Neff's causal arguments seem to conflict with empirical
evidence or logic, at least as far as I can see.
I wrote that "loyalty to Israel is not merely one ARI position among many;
rather, it is central to the work of the organization," and that appears
quite clear — though "central," of course, does not mean
primary function. (I did not intend to imply that ARI is a pro-Israel
front group.) It is not the case simply that ARI would never publish an
anti-Israel statement, as Mr. Neff notes, but rather that ARI advocates
that the United States "unequivocally support" Israel. In essence, ARI
holds that the United States should back any policy the Sharon government
might take. That is a very significant position to take; it would be an
unheard-of diplomatic stance — that U.S. foreign policy should,
essentially, be made by a foreign country.
Even if we simply take into account the amount of space and effort
devoted by ARI, support of Israel seems to loom very large. As I pointed
out in my earlier letter, there is a special publication devoted to the
issue, a Web page, lectures at colleges and universities, and a
fund-raising advertisement on the theme. In addition, the ARI lecture series
this fall on the applicability of Rand's philosophy will start with a
discussion of the "war on terrorism" by Israeli Yaron Brook.
I implied that the Jewishness of the leaders of ARI may account for their
pro-Israel militancy, a point Mr. Neff rejects. As compared to the general
population, Jews certainly tend to be more supportive of Israel. Why would
Objectivist Jews be any different? The fact that some Gentiles support
Israel while some Jews do not does not undermine the idea that Jews, by
and large, are far stronger supporters of Israel than Gentiles.
I did go to "The Objectivist Center" site to see what the TOCers were
saying on Israel. And they were about as extreme as the ARIans. There was
a major article by a Tal Ben-Shachar on "Israel's right to self-defense,"
with "self-defense" meaning the right to dominate the Palestinians on the
West Bank. After seeing a piece by Shawn Klein ("The Judgment Days")
Of course, Objectivist groups' promotion of a defense of Israel would tend
to elicit Jewish support in terms of membership and money. In short, both
the ARIans and the TOCers appear both heavily Jewish and stridently
pro-Israel. It stands to reason that groups that promote Israel will attract a
Jewish membership, who then will promote Israel. Somehow I don't think
Arab-Americans would be attracted to these Objectivist groups.
Mr. Neff strongly implies that it is atheism that causes organized
Objectivism's Israelophilia. But I am unaware of any particular Gentile
atheist support for Israel. To the contrary, the strongest Gentile support
seems to come from fundamentalist Christian fundamentalists. Moreover,
it is not apparent that Israel is more secular than the Palestinians. Israel
officially supports the Jewish religion, while the Palestinian Liberation
Organization has called for a secular state in Palestine. Also, it would be
odd if atheism should cause anyone to support the Jewish West Bank
settlements, which are largely inhabited by fervently, if not fanatically,
religious Jews. In Israel, secular Jews tend to be the group least in favor
of the settlements, and religious Jews the most supportive. On top of that,
one would think that the whole Biblical belief that God has given the land
of Israel to His "Chosen People" would turn off militant atheists. In
essence, it does not appear that there is any pro-Israeli proclivity among
atheists or any logical reason for such to exist.
Finally, regarding Mr. Neff's reference to the "United State," I am not
certain what that means. If it means support for a
consolidated-centralized United States, other groups — such as mainstream
liberals — have been strongly in favor of that transmutation but by
no means as gung-ho for Sharon's Israel. If, on the other hand, love of the
"United State" means fervent nationalism, it is odd to call people
nationalists who want their country to "unequivocally support" a foreign
country. If a group in the 1930s advocated such a position regarding the
Soviet Union, they would hardly have been regarded as staunch American
patriots; and in the 1950s, individuals associated with such a group would
have been investigated by the House Un-American Activities
Committee.
One would think that nationalists would advocate a policy favorable to
their own country above all others — as does Pat Buchanan, who
describes himself as a nationalist and advocates an "America First"
policy. To propose that the United States "unequivocally support" Israel
serves to subordinate American foreign policy to Israeli policy. Instead of
an American nationalist position, what ARI promotes can be categorized
as an "Israel First" policy.
As I keep saying, I claim no expertise on Objectivism. It is intriguing,
however, to see this group take such an extreme position in advocating a
"war on terrorism" to enhance Israeli power. I would assume that there is
more than one cause for the phenomenon, but precisely what all the causes
are is not clear. While I am presenting my differences with Mr. Neff, at the
same time I credit him with introducing to TLD this very worthwhile
topic, which certainly deserves greater scrutiny.
Reply posted August 28, 2002
In fact, as is evident from our context here, I do not "enforce" any such
thing in these present pages. But naturally I do seek to popularize it. Nicholas Strakon
Mr. Neff replies
Dr. Sniegoski has detailed a fault of the official Objectivist sites in so
many ways that it is a pity his work is relegated to the LTE corner of
TLD.
He and I disagree on two primary points:
(a) That Sharonist Zionism is central to the work of the two
primary Objectivist sites; and
(b) that the primary Objectivist sites are Sharonist Zionist
because their principals are Jews.
On the first point, I concede that the two primary Objectivist sites
contain much that might lead to Dr. Sniegoski's contention, and it may be
simply that he and I mean different things by "central." But let's not let
this exchange be merely semantic.
I contend that while Zionism is important to the work of each of the sites,
it is not central to that work. In this connection, for a reason to be given
later, I shall be speaking only of ARI's site, aynrand.org. As I
argued before, there is quite a lot of material on that site that has nothing
to do with foreign policy, and since neither Dr. Sniegoski nor I have access
to a list of all the text files on it, it is difficult to make the case for
either side by counting.
There is, I think, another possible measure. On the Internet there is an
extraordinary site — archive.org — where one can take a look at
superseded Web pages. (The Ditch cannot be so viewed because it has been
at its current address for less than a year, and archive.org seems to be
about a year behind in posting the contents of its archives.) If one puts in
the URL www.aynrand.org, the list that comes up gives the date of August
1, 2001, as the last archive for that site before the atrocities of
September 11. (The site that actually comes up gives an earlier date as its
last update.)
On the site as it existed before those atrocities, there is no "microsite"
for Israel at all. There are six topics for aynrand.org's "media link"
section. On the site as it exists today, there are those six and two more, a
radio show and the "Moral Defense of Israel." On the old site, there are
three "moral defense" projects: opposing Clinton's and Colin Powell's
"volunteerism" campaigns; defending Microsoft; and defending Elia Kazan.
Today, the "moral defense" of Israel is clearly dominant.
On the archived site, I found only six articles dealing with terrorism and
Palestine, even though the current hostilities date from Ariel Sharon's
visit to the Temple Mount almost a year before September 11. (On the
current site, four essays come up if one uses the search term "Temple
Mount," all of them dated 2002.)
An organization that has been around as long as ARI has been surely would
have made its central work clear before now. On the basis of discussions
of Palestine and terrorism as they existed before September 11, no one
would ever have thought that the well-being of Israel was central to ARI
at all. It is entirely possible that ARI could lose its focus and make the
welfare of Israel its central work, but I think I have shown that the
welfare of Israel is not central to ARI as such.
What about The Objectivist Center? I have a challenge. I have not looked at
the archived site (which is shown at http://web.archive.org/web/20010711222601/http://ios.
or g/ — last year, the organization was known as the Institute
for Objectivist Studies). I am confident that similar results would be
obtained from an examination of it; if someone should learn that they are
not, I will reluctantly concede that Dr. Sniegoski's case is much stronger
than it appears to me now. I trust Strakon will reopen the debate just
enough for the egg to be applied to my face. ***
Now for the second point: the explanation for the Sharonist Zionism in the
two primary Objectivist organizations.
Dr. Sniegoski argues, "As compared to the general population, Jews
certainly tend to be more supportive of Israel. Why would Objectivist
Jews be any different? The fact that some Gentiles support Israel while
some Jews do not does not undermine the idea that Jews, by and large, are
far stronger supporters of Israel than Gentiles."
He is right that the fact that some Gentiles support Israel does not
undermine the idea that Jews are stronger supporters than Gentiles.
Moreover, there is nothing inconsistent in holding that the reasons for
Jews' support are different from the reasons for Gentiles' support. And a
strong case could be made that the reasons for the one are no different
from what they are for other groups of Jews, and that the reasons for the
other are also no different from what they are for other groups of
Gentiles. I go further: I think the empirical evidence for such an answer is
probably very strong.
Certainly as each organization takes a more and more strident position,
each will attract more Jewish support and money. I would not be surprised
to see that there are few Arabs who support the two organizations.
(Similarly, neither organization has ever enjoyed substantial black or
Hispanic support. Like libertarianism, Objectivism has never been
particularly attractive to any groups other than Jews and white
Gentiles.)
A hint of the explanation I shall offer is seen in Ayn Rand's contention
concerning the Israeli-Palestinian dispute: that when one sees a civilized
man in a conflict with a savage, one must side with the civilized man.
That is virtually the only argument she ever gave publicly for her support
of Israel. Please note: it lacks any sense of the area's or peoples' history
(even propaganda-history); it suggests no appreciation for the subtleties
of foreign-policy; and it does not even draw on her own philosophical
principles.
I suggest that the matter is more of a "sense-of-life" issue for the
Randians than it is anything else. Israel conducts her foreign policy in a
manner in which Objectivists would like to see America conduct hers
— without the groveling, without the disdain for "national
self-interest," without the altruism. Israel is a little country facing the
enmity of a dozen or more other countries, all larger than herself. Israel
has made the desert bloom, while her enemies remain trapped in medieval
(if not prehistoric) living conditions with a medieval religion, despite
their immeasurable wealth — wealth that they could not tap,
produce, or develop themselves. They could only nationalize it after the
capitalist countries of the world had done the work for them. Still, this
brave little country takes no crap from anyone. She defies the world and
does what is right in her own eyes. She even dares to antagonize her
primary benefactor when that benefactor begins to waver and lose her own
moral vision. And when Israel goes to war, she whups her enemies.
That, at least, is a common view of Israel, and it is just the sort of view
that would appeal to anyone who loves a novel in which the high point is
an architect's blowing up a housing project he designed because
"second-handers," in the course of building it, betrayed his design. It is the sort of
view that would appeal to anyone who loves a novel in which a main
character blows up the incalculable wealth of copper mines that his
family have been building each generation for 400 years, leaving behind
the message, "Brothers, you asked for it."
The real parallel hero here, though, is not Howard Roark or Francisco
D'Anconia or even Hank Rearden. It's Bjorn Faulkner of The Night of
January 16 (AKA Penthouse Legend). Faulkner, for whose murder
his mistress is on trial, is clearly dishonest, a rapist, a forger, a
power-seeker on a grand scale, and a swindler. His mistress loves him not in
spite of what he was but because of what he was. The jury was to
be drawn from each evening's audience, and Rand wrote the play with a
different ending for each verdict. And their verdict would be made on the
basis of each juror's sense of life, a "pre-conceptual equivalent of
metaphysics," his "emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man
and of existence."
The kind of people who find Bjorn Faulkner and his mistress Karen Andre
heroic will also find Israel heroic. The error comes in forgetting that
Faulkner and Andre are symbols. Israel — at least that adolescent
Israel I described above — would be a symbol for what a heroic,
self-confident country can and should be. But no Objectivist would ever
think that stock swindling was virtuous, so on a biographical or empirical
level no Objectivist would ever find Faulkner heroic. It is only the
symbolic Faulkner who can be heroic. If, however, you forget that Israel is
a real country, with a real history, and if you never study that history, it
is possible to end up confusing symbolism with foreign policy.
I do not think this is an isolated error among Objectivists. To take one
other example, Rand's delight and praise of the Apollo 11 mission was in
contradiction to what she had written about government projects in her
essay "The Monument Builders." But on the basis of her sense of life, her
love for genius and for achievement, she praised it. So treating the symbol
as reality is not an error the principal Objectivists make only when
writing about Israel. But it is an error they seem always to have made
with respect to Israel. This is in the nature of things a difficult
proposition to prove, and I will not attempt it here. I am merely
presenting it, along with a few reasons for believing it. I recommend that
anyone interested in the possibility get a copy of the play and read it
— it is quite short — and see whether my suggestion carries
the "ring of truth."
I offer one final consideration to suggest that Objectivists, even the Jews
among them, are not driven to and by their Zionism in quite the way that
most Zionists are: I doubt — and again I am prepared to have egg
smeared on my face — that anyone will find on the ARI Website or on
the TOC Website any rejection of a position contrary to their own as
"anti-Semitic." I think no one will find them trying to destroy the careers
of critics of Israel. That is just not the Randian style, and I will be
amazed if I am shown wrong. It is, however, commonplace among other
supporters of Israel, and the difference hints at a more profound
difference lying at the root of their Zionism.
I go further. I suspect that if there is any "anti" tossed around at all, it
will be "anti-mind," "anti-reason," "anti-life," "anti-productive." And
maybe even "anti-American." Reply posted August
30, 2002
Dr. Sniegoski
replies
Mr. Neff makes some excellent points. I would especially like to comment
on his perceptive observation that Objectivists portray Israel as the
embodiment of the Objectivist ethics — upholding "selfishness,"
productive success, and Western civilization in contrast to the Arabs'
whining, incompetence, and savagery. It is remarkable how radically the
official view of liberals in the United States differs from that of the
Objectivists, as envisioned by Mr. Neff. For liberals, the Israeli Jews hold
ultimate victim status, having suffered the greatest evil of all time, the
HOLOCAUST. No matter now wealthy, Israeli Jews are portrayed as
being powerless and faced eternally with another HOLOCAUST at the
hands of powerful aggressors. As ultimate victims, Jews must always be
defended.
It does make me wonder. Do Objectivist (and liberal) supporters of Israel
really identify with Israel because she embodies their own respective
values? Or do they identify with Israel first and then project onto her
their own Objectivist (or liberal) values? Given the fact that the
Objectivist and mainstream liberal views of Israel differ so radically, it
is my belief that the second situation prevails. Furthermore, if Israel
really embodies the ethics of Objectivism, why does she need or deserve
U.S. government support any more than a Randian hero would need or
deserve a government subsidy?
I think the question continues to call for further analysis.
August 30, 2002; posted September 6, 2002
Mr. Neff replies
I think that Dr. Sniegoski has missed my main point.
I did not say that Objectivists portray Israel as anything, and
certainly not as an embodiment of the Objectivist ethics. Indeed,
the point of the parallel with the hero-crook Bjorn Faulkner was that the
matter does not hang on ethical questions at all, but on a "sense of
life."
While the difference between the Objectivist treatment of Israel and the
liberal one is striking, it is by no means unusual. Often, when Rand was
discussing some current issue she would say that such-and-such a side
was right, "but not in the way they mean." The classic example was her
opposition to the war in Vietnam. She was probably the only critic to hold
both that it was a stupid war and that the United States should win it.
Moreover, it is worth remembering that the Objectivist position on Israel
was first formulated in the early years of Israel's history, and it was
stated publicly only after the Six-Day War. It is hard to remember, but in
those days the Holocaust simply was not a central theme of Jewish
writers or supporters of Israel. There was not even a specific word for
the crimes of the Third Reich against the Jews. Their status as the
ultimate victims had not yet emerged. (Watch the movie "Exodus"; the
suffering of Jews in that movie is usually discussed as something that
they overcame, and their eventual victory proves their special status in
the world.) In those days, I suspect even liberals did not think of Israel in
victim terms.
Dr. Sniegoski raises an interesting question when he asks whether a
Randian hero would need or deserve a government subsidy. Rand was
opposed to government subsidies, and I assume that all Objectivists (even
those not associated with the major centers) would reject them. While her
heroes are uniformly self-sustaining, standing in no need of the approval
or appreciation of others, she regarded it as a gross injustice when such
real-life heroes were denied approval or appreciation. It was more a
question of "emotional fuel"; it falls into the category neither of need nor
desire, but is rather a kind of nourishment. A real-life Objectivist hero
would deserve help, but only because he didn't need it.
Now ... would the official Objectivists support the discontinuing of foreign
aid to Israel? One would assume they would (but not for the reasons
pro-Palestinians might give). I went to the TOC Website, which has a page on
which one may post questions about Objectivism. I asked them, "I know
TOC is favorably disposed toward Israel, but not in favor of foreign aid.
Would TOC be willing to see all aid to Israel ended?"
The answer I received is worth including in this discussion.
Thanks for getting in touch with us. You commented on foreign aid:
Comment — I know TOC is favorably disposed toward Israel, but not
in favor of foreign aid. Would TOC be willing to see all aid to Israel
ended?
Reply:
TOC does not have a position on foreign aid to Israel as such. In general,
Objectivism holds that government has a single purpose: to protect its
citizens' rights to freedom from the initiation of force. As military
defense is one legitimate component of government, it is conceivable that
there might be a defense rationale for aiding an ally. I don't really see how
supporting Israel helps a current U.S. strategic military interest, but
perhaps a case could be made on those grounds. Israel is a military ally of
ours, and is a democracy. But most foreign aid projects simply are not
within the proper province of government.
Of course, Objectivism is not opposed to foreign aid: any individuals who
want to aid foreigners should be free to do so, as long as they do not
finance wartime enemies of their own country. So TOC would not favor
ending all aid to Israel. But it might suggest ending most of the
tax-financed aid that currently goes there, or to any country or person.
Best wishes. I hope you are or become a TOC member, and help us fight for
a more rational and freer culture.
— William Thomas ***
It is conceivable that Mr. Thomas is speaking only for himself. But I'm
inclined to think he is not.
In any case, I can think of little to say about this answer. It has been a
long time since I have talked to any constitutionalist as pro-government
as the official Objectivists are, and I had forgotten just how much in the
way of a tax-supported undertaking they could stomach.
"Radicals for capitalism," my eye.
Reply posted September 6, 2002
Nicholas Strakon
© 2002 by WTM Enterprises. All rights
reserved. Other reader response
If you found this article to be interesting, please donate to our cause. You should make your check or m.o. payable in U.S. dollars to WTM
Enterprises and send it to:
Thanks for helping to assure a future for TLD! Notice to visitors who came
straight to this document from off site: You are deep in The Last Ditch. You
should check out our home page and table
of contents. 
My own speculation is that atheism
has become more central to Objectivism's "sense of life" than big-name
Objectivists will admit — more central than individualism. Israel is
secular enough for them, and the Palestinians are "mystical" enough for
them, that they can draw distinctions and take sides. Just as Rand's play
Penthouse Legend (AKA The Night of January 16th) was a
"sense of life" drama, I believe that the Israel/Palestinian conflict is a
"sense of life" conflict for them, and they have allowed the sense-of-life
aspects of foreign policy to overrule the more linear-principle
aspects.
identifying with the Jewish
celebration of Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah, I couldn't help but conclude
that Jews and Judeophilia loom large in organized Objectivism. Editor's note. Mr. Neff, Mr. David T. Wright, and I all prefer to
describe the band of human wolves ravenously battening upon America as
the "United State." In a note preceding the main text of Dark Suits and Red
Guards (1997), I wrote:
So that readers unfamiliar with The Last Ditch will not
mistake for a misprint the first occurrence of the phrase "the United
State" in this book, I must explain here that I deliberately use that
formulation to refer to the post-Appomattox unitary state ruled from
Washington and New York City. Shelby Foote, eminent historian of the War
for Southern Independence, has noted how Americans typically said "the
United States are ..." before Lincoln and "the United States is
..." afterward. They were, and are, right to do so. Take the phrase "the
United State," then, as my attempt to enforce G.C. — grammatical
correctness.
Editor-in-chief
August 28,
2002
Nevertheless, I think that that
conclusion would be false. I suggest that there is another reason for the
support of the sites for Israel and that that reason applies equally to
Jews and Gentiles. It is related to those aspects of Objectivism that make
it different from other philosophies. My conclusion, however, is based only
my "sense" of how Objectivists see themselves, of what they take to be
important in the world, and of how they approach matters.TOC's answer
Manager of Research and Training
The Objectivist Center
http://www.objectivistcenter.org
email:
wthomas@objectivistcenter.org
Tel: Mon/Wed (845)
471-6100Editor's note. I now close this correspondence
between Mr. Neff and Dr. Sniegoski. I continue to invite TLD readers to
comment on their exchange as well as on Mr. Neff's original column.
Editor-in-chief
September 6,
2002
to Mr. Neff's
column.
WTM Enterprises
P.O. Box 224
Roanoke, IN 46783