In article <1993Jan26.182315.980@odin.corp.sgi.com> joeli@dawg.bothell.sgi.com (Joel Iseman) writes:
>This story was told to me third hand, so I can't be certain of it's accuracy.
>
>Leonard Piekoff was asked in a Q+A session who should be the Objectivist chioce for President. At the time Perot was out of the race.
>
>Peikoff's surprising response was Bill Clinton. The logic was this. Bill Clinton is a vocal proponent of big government, income redistribution, incresed taxation and increased intervention in the free market economy. Peikoff found this choice preferrable to voting for a candidate who espoused free market economics while IN FACT growing the size of government, increasing taxes and increasing the burden of federal regulation and intervention in the economy.
>
>My Comments:
>
>The average american voter associates free market capitalism with the Republican Party. George Bush's public rhetoric did not deviate from this association. But the dirty little secret is that government spending, federal regulation and taxation grew unabated during his presidency. Bush has completly discredited free market capitalism, AND HE WASN'T EVEN PRACTICING IT!
Dr. Peikoff spoke about this in his talk "Some Notes About Tomorrow." At the
time, the Democratic convention had not yet been held. He said that he would
vote for the Democratic candidate mainly because Bush was so bad (and he
gave several examples of this, mainly about how Bush seems to have no
convictions). When the article was reprinted in The Intellectual Activist,
LP added a note saying that Clinton wasn't so great, especially having picked
Al Gore as a running mate. "But Bush is still Bush..."
So LP has certainly not compromised any of his principles in his "endorsement."
He simply chose the candidate whom he thought was the lesser of two evils.
------------------------------------------------
Benjamin W. Lagow
Grad Res Asst, Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering
