Reality-based vs. Faith-based

I'll have plenty to say about the reason-faith divide in due course. For the moment, I would like to address some flak I am getting in the blog comments from an Objectivist over my decidedly high praise for Obama. How does Obama's left-liberal ideology square with an Objectivist philosophy that is, in short, laissez-faire capitalist?

Very simple: intellectual integrity and accountability.

These are the most valuable intellectual currency, in my view. They are of fundamentally greater importance than the content of someone's ideology. If someone is a libertarian or (self-proclaimed) Objectivist but does not adhere to reason as a fundamental principle, I do not consider them to be allies for my cause. They are in fact the wolves in sheeps' clothing that need to be rooted out and separated. I have far more in common with, and can relate to much better with, those whose ideology may differ from mine but who are, at root, honest and hold their ideas accountable to the facts of reality.

So take to heart Ayn Rand's dictum about the primacy and importance of reason:

I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.

This—the supremacy of reason—was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism.

(Along with Diana Hsieh, I heartily recommend Leonard Peikoff's Understanding Objectivism lecture course for a full-blown exposition of reason in its practical application.)

I see in Barack Obama a decidedly pragmatic figure, in the sense that he is willing to be responsive to the facts of reality in how he forms his views and how I think he will govern. A properly-formed ideology is also pragmatic in this sense. Here, I do not see a false alternative between ideology and pragmatism. This is why I have named my blog A Damascus Sword, and why the saying beneath it is linked to the blog entry of that title.

There is, however, ideology of a very bad kind: a faith-based one. This kind of ideology eschews accountability and responsiveness to the facts of reality. And it is that kind of ideology that I see run rampant in the GOP of today. It has led to disasters of leadership, and would lead to more (Sarah Palin). We need something fundamentally different and better than that in order to restore credibility to our leadership.

So, no, I don't see this as a matter of Objectivists having to decry both sides as more or less equally vile because of their differences in policy. The fundamental differences are epistemological. I would urge Objectivist-types and anyone else to take a supportive and critical stance towards an Obama presidency. We need reality-oriented leadership for the problems we face today, and none of us can afford to maintain any illusions that he's all fine and good if he isn't.

In this process, we also repudiate resoundingly, in no uncertain terms, the guiding epistemology (i.e., lack thereof) of the Right as we know it.

Everyone -- Objectivist and non-Objectivist alike -- is invited to wield that Damascus sword along with me.