I'm not familiar with this context, but perhaps the fact that it was in the background, evidently unopened (since the cover was visible), implies that he was sufficiently open-minded to have read the book, rejected its ideas, and placed it behind him.

How were Trump's claims of election fraud based on reason and facts?

I wonder if anyone else noticed that a short time ago Glen Kirshner had a copy of Ayn
Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" on the table in the immediate background of his show?

One show was all I saw it in. I watch him regularly; the short snippets anyway. It just took me by complete surprise that someone who argues passionately against the actions of Trump would place a copy of a book written by an author who proposes a moral/ethical code of conduct that would exonerate Trump if he were judged by it. Rand would gladly assent to the fact that Trump's behaviours follow her code. — creativesoul

I don't know Kirshner or his politics and I dislike Ayn Rand's philosophy intensely. I think Donald Trump was a very bad president and is a very bad person. All that being said, and to be fair, I don't think Rand's philosophy supports Trump's actions at all. Rand was a puritan. Her obsession with personal independence included an emphasis on personal integrity.

Perhaps in Kirshner's defense, a lot of conservatives were strongly influenced by Rand and consider her an inspiration. I find that unsettling, but it's probably no worse than the left wing's attraction to Marx.

Perhaps in Kirshner's defense, a lot of conservatives were strongly influenced by Rand and consider her an inspiration. I find that unsettling, but it's probably no worse than the left wing's attraction to Marx. — T Clark

Except for Marx's superior intellectual rigour... But never mind. He - or an observant assistant - should have either removed the book or added a copy of Gore Vidal's The Last Empire for balance. Kirshner may simply have looked up a quote for reference and neglected to put the books away.

I don't think Rand's philosophy supports Trump's actions at all. — T Clark

I'm very much inclined to agree. However anti-government she might have been, and however poor her grasp of economics (and architecture) may have been, she was all about truth-telling and self-making - at least in theory. It didn't stop her little private hypocrisies, but I don't think she would have advocated that chicanery, science denial and treason be excused in public life.

I was thinking more along the lines of her notion of acting in one's own self-interest preceding all other reasons to act.

I was thinking more along the lines of her notion of acting in one's own self-interest preceding all other reasons to act. — creativesoul

There is always a reason to act, or else we lie dormant. Amoeba needs warmth and food, swims toward the busy end of the puddle. Self-interest is primal.
Perhaps Rand would see Trump's accumulation of wealth and attempts to hold onto power as a primal, natural response, but she was unsympathetic to her fictional characters acting similarly.

There are other things about Rand's philosophy that don't stand the test of time. The ideas that were associated with imperialism, nationalism, racism etc. were collective post-WW2 and prior. This was true in the Allied nations as well as the Axis nations. Now the collective ideas are anti-imperialism, anti-nationalist, anti-racist etc. Purported individualists now defiantly demonstrate freedom of thought by hard-lining on the old collective ideas. Any purpose behind her philosophy of countering a type of malevolent State through extreme individualism was short-sighted. Not least of which because forging an extreme ideology not only polarizes one side of the continuum, but has an equal and opposite effect in theory on the other end of the continuum. I side with individualism, but I prefer more of a centerist or moderate theory of individualism, that is not like Rand's or neoliberalism: one that coherently accepts a collective role for government and State, but ensures individual liberty and does not encourage excessive nationalism or communitarianism etc.

Trump superficially conforms to an Objectivist archetype, but is not objectivist in rationality or intention of his political aims.

It just took me by complete surprise that someone who argues passionately against the actions of Trump would place a copy of a book written by an author who proposes a moral/ethical code of conduct that would exonerate Trump if he were judged by it. — creativesoul

:roll:

I assume that Trump can evoke hatred or disappointment even among libertarians and people on the right.

Trump was simply a very lousy President, yet a brilliant populist for one segment of the population.

Hey ssu I've had my second post deleted by the moderators :(
I wasnt trying to aggravate anyone merely ask questions. What do you make of the situation?

First of all, don't get angry.

Perhaps the title of the thread was a bit confusing.

Notice the site guidelines and follow them and Baden shouldn't be angry:

General Guidelines:

1) Language matters:

This is an English language forum on an academic topic. Posts should display an acceptable level of English with regard to grammar, punctuation and layout. This goes for both native and non-native speakers (although we're likely to be more sympathetic when judging the writing of the latter).

2) Tone matters:

A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion. Having said that, you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming (which is not tolerated and will result in your post being deleted).

3) Context matters:

The amount of leeway you get on the above depends to a degree on where you post and what the topic under discussion is. You're likely to have more freedom in casual and political discussions, for example, than in philosophical discussions.

Starting new discussions:

Don't start a new discussion unless you are:

a) Genuinely interested in the topic you've begun and are willing to engage those who engage you.

b) Able to write a thoughtful OP of reasonable length that illustrates this interest, and to provide arguments for any position you intend to advocate.

c) Capable of writing a decent title that accurately and concisely describes the content of your OP.

d) Starting an original topic, i.e. a similar discussion is not already active (and not a copypasta from elsewhere on the internet. Plagiarists will be banned).

For more help: see How to Write an OP.

Addenda:

1) No bumps allowed. If you want to attract replies, think of a better way.
2) While there are no specific limits to the number of discussions you can start, if we feel you are unfairly monopolising space on the front page, we reserve the right to delete your discussions regardless of content.

First of all, don't get angry. — ssu

I won't dont worry.

Perhaps the title of the thread was a bit confusing. — ssu

Thank you for citing the relevant guidelines to me. That was thoughtful.

I just don't understand how you were in agreement before when the discussion was active and didn't understand why it ought to be censored but now are proposing the question was inappropriate. No specific offense issued, in just trying to wrap my head around it.

What changed? As far as I knew it was thoughtful, contextual, interesting, concise and linguistically coherent.

I mean I'm not disgarding the idea that it wasn't. But if someone could explain why I didn't meet those conditions that would be appreciated

Just remember there is personal judgment involved in any such decision. Perhaps the discussion seemed more of a general conversation about values rather than a philosophical discussion. I think it's fine for them to pull an OP. If they did it to me, I would accept the decision as I consider myself a guest here and subject to site standards.

Benj96 Just remember there is personal judgment involved in any such decision. Perhaps the discussion seemed more of a general conversation about values rather than a philosophical discussion. I think it's fine for them to pull an OP. If they did it to me, I would accept the decision as I consider myself a guest here and subject to site standards. — Tom Storm

Yeah fair. I just found it a bit frustrating because I wanted to see people's ideas on the matter and a few contributors ans I were getting somewhere I think before they shut it down. And I do accept their decision now I just felt an explanation when they did would have been appreciated not have to go chase after it.

But the info the other contributors provided me was very useful.

:up:

Your post begs the question: who is Glen Kirshner and why should anyone care what book is on his desk?