Letters: Objectivist Collaboration (July/August 1998)

To the Editor:

Having met Dr. [David] Mayer at the 1997 IOS Summer Seminar and enjoyed our lunchtime conversations, I was happy to see his interview in the April 1998 issue of Navigator. I was especially interested in his ideas on the origins of the American revolution and would like to hear more of this issue presented in Navigator.

But there is one point that I take issue with, and that is his comment on Rand's rule of collaboration. As a historian, Dr. Mayer should be well aware of what happens when the rational collaborates with the irrational over specific concrete goals that seem to have a semblance of compatibility. The Founding Fathers' acceptance of slavery, Chamberlain's collaboration with Hitler, the U.S. collaboration with the U.N., Israel's collaboration with the Palestinians are some of the innumerable instances of compromise that have led to disasters. Rand's "rule" was not taken as an arbitrary whim, but as an element of her analysis of what compromise of principles means. Why is it that Libertarians never seek collaboration with Objectivists about the use of reason in morality? Why doesn't Pat Robertson seek collaboration with Objectivists about the role of Original Sin in people's lives? The answer is clear: It is the more fundamental premises that serve as a means of selectivity for collaboration.

Why is Dr. Mayer advocating collaboration between Objectivists and others whom we do not need to win the battle for liberty? If he views the issue of collaboration as a concrete over how to achieve less government, is he prepared to loudly voice Reason to these other groups? And what will happen when the others realize what we mean by reason and walk away from our fight for freedom? Does this mean further "collaboration" to water down the meaning and justification of freedom? Who is to prevent this process from occurring once we enter into a collaboration? Dr. Mayer claims that there are many religious conservatives who would join Objectivists. Who and where are they? On what conditions would they join us?

It is not from lack of confidence in Objectivism that Rand formulated her ideas on compromise. Dr. Mayer says that Jefferson held "truth will win out over error." I'm sure all Objectivists would agree, as long as compromise is not the means of accomplishing one's goals.

Paul Cohen
Columbia, Maryland

David Mayer responds:

I appreciate Mr. Cohen's thoughtful critique, but I am sorry that he missed the distinction I'm drawing between philosophical and political activism. My view is that it's not inconsistent for Objectivists to be forceful advocates for the philosophy of Objectivism and all that it teaches (including the relevance to political philosophy of epistemology and moral philosophy) while simultaneously cooperating—or, if one prefers, collaborating—with others of different philosophical perspectives who nevertheless share our political goal of reducing government and increasing individual freedom.

To "collaborate" means, literally, to labor together with someone else for a common goal. Christian conservatives or libertarians may have a justification for individual freedom that's radically different from Objectivists', and perhaps just as radically different a notion of "the good life." But we can all work together in advocating a return to the Founders' vision of a government whose powers are strictly limited to a few essential activities, with everything else left to the voluntary acts of free individuals, cooperating for mutual benefit, and striving to achieve in their private lives their own vision of "the good life." Objectivists needn't persuade Christian conservatives or libertarians to renounce their belief in God in order to get them to agree with us that the legitimate powers of government do not extend to personal beliefs (whether grounded in faith or in rational conviction); we can all agree on the value of each individual's freedom of conscience, as well as the value of persuasion as opposed to coercion.

Most conservatives, as well as libertarians, share Objectivists' abhorrence of the modern regulatory/welfare state; they are our natural allies in political activism aimed at reducing the intrusive role of government, particularly in the business world. Indeed, my experience working with conservatives in academia convinces me that Objectivists can ally with conservatives on a number of social and cultural issues, as well. Conservative critics of "political correctness" in higher education and of the phenomenon called "multiculturalism" share Objectivists' concern about subjectivism and the abandonment of objective standards. (Indeed, I suspect that many conservatives embrace religion simply because they've succumbed to modern philosophy's assault on reason and therefore do not understand that there is an alternative to subjectivism other than religious faith. I am optimistic enough about human nature—as well as confident in the common sense of Objectivism—to believe that we can not only work together with these allies on common political goals but also that we can persuade many of them about the efficacy of reason.)

Moreover, Objectivists do need to work together with non-Objectivist libertarians, with conservatives, and yes, even with so-called "liberals," to win the battle for liberty; we cannot do it on our own because we are a minority—a very small minority—not only in the political arena but also among intellectuals (as those of us on college and university faculties are quite aware). That we are a minority does not mean we cannot be influential, however; as Ayn Rand noted, "History is made by intellectual movements, which are created by minorities." Nevertheless, we do no good for the cause of freedom and limited government when we cavalierly dismiss as "irrational," or even evil, the many thoughtful conservatives and non-Objectivist libertarians who are our natural allies in the call for a return to the Founders' vision of limited government. The sort of ideological consistency that may be necessary for the vitality of a philosophical movement can be fatal to a political movement, which by its very nature requires people of various philosophical perspectives to work together for a common goal.

To take one example from American history: the abolitionists of antebellum America did not succeed in their effort to abolish slavery by convincing all Americans of the rightness of their moral position; their ultimate goal was achieved only after abolitionists joined with other, perhaps less philosophically consistent, allies in the antislavery movement, the Free Soil party, and, ultimately, the Republican party, who did not share the abolitionists' absolute abhorrence of the institution of slavery but who nevertheless shared the desire—the more politically realizable goal—of excluding slavery from the western territories. The alliances, or "collaborations," between abolitionists and more "mainstream" Republicans led to Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860 and set in motion the complicated chain of events that led to Civil War and the eventual addition of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery throughout the United States.

Philosophical integrity indeed is important, but to refuse to work together with non-Objectivists to achieve some of our common goals not only dooms our chances to succeed in the world of American politics: it also severely limits the efficacy of Objectivism in the world of ideas. Let's not confuse integrity with intolerance.

David N. Mayer
Professor of Law and History
Capital University Law School