Could John Galt ever be elected president?

Absolutely! He is portrayed as the perfect leader and would make a great President.
I still have faith in humanity to recognize leadership and a man of principle. ;))
$

John Galt is not what I want in a politician.

He might be committed to his principles, but his principles make him an asshole in my book.

But if people think this is presidential material, I’m pretty sure any brainless asshole is, now.

No. It’s a lot easier to be a man of principle when you are a fictional character living in a world constructed according to a fictional ideology.

Isn’t “Going Galt” stupid?

The phrase “going John Galt” or simply “going Galt” has been used[15] to refer to productive members of society cutting back on work in response to the projected increase in U.S. marginal tax rates, increased limits on tax deductions, and the use of tax revenues for causes they regard as immoral..

Oh, it is.

Only if he crawled out of the pages of Atlas Shrugged, which was a very mediocre right wing novel that I loved as a teenager [for which I was criticized by my English teachers].
And only if the rabid right wing separates itself from the Christian right.

And even then a bad choice—sort of crossing Grapes of Wrath wit Ayn Rand’s right wing “rugged individualism”—nowhere in that mix is any political ability for concensus building.

Never heard of the bugger! I’m going to take a wild stab in the dark & say yeah, why not?

Any idiot can be elected.

John who?

“Commitment to principle” is only as good as the principle in question.

We like the idea of commitment to principle in our politicians because we want feel like we know what makes them tick and that they will behave as advertised, even when pressured to do otherwise.

While I’m interested in hearing a politician’s stated principles so I know if I share his or her general idea of what constitutes “the public good”, I really want them to temper that with a stiff dose of pragmatism and a willingness to adapt to complex and changing circumstances. John Galt said man should have an “intransigent mind”. That’s not what I’m looking for.

What @thorninmud said.

Politicians often get criticized for “waffling” on issues. Sometimes it is warranted. Other times…what pundits deem “waffling” I would call “learning.”

Self centered asshole elected president? Easily.

I think we have already tried that route with Obama. Obama brilliantly campaigned as a champion of the people with his wonderful ideals and like Galt refused to share any “details” of these brilliantly wonderful ideas. Obama tried to take on the Corporate “machine” with his “principals” and the machine chewed him up and spit him out. Now we are worse off than we were before and his only option is to play ball with the Republicans and the Corporate Machine that runs our country.

What makes you think that he’d accept a nomination to run, or run, or accept the job if it were offered? It wouldn’t be an issue.

“John Galt” represents an extreme view of individualism and exceptionalism. How would a person like that show enough empathy and compassion to look after the well-being of 340 million other people?

You’re missing an important point, @chaosrob: there’s no call for empathy and compassion in the Constitution. It’s not a specific requirement for the job. And I wish to hell that government would stop ‘looking after’ me. It’s an unwelcome intrusion.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Protecting a document and the legislation made pursuant to it that was made for the purpose, at least nominally, of protecting all citizens regardless of their power is a call for empathy and compassion if I’ve ever seen one.

In that case, I’m guessing that you’ve never seen one, @iamthemob.

@WasCy The entire document is based on the idea of the collective good, isn’t it? “We the people,” “promote the general Welfare,” etc. I would think it’s fairly obvious that a leader who doesn’t embrace collectivism doesn’t fit with the spirit of the document.

I don’t know who originally wrote/said this, but I got it from Paul Krugman:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Most of the libertarians I know don’t believe in anarchy. Some do, but I can’t embrace their thinking. I can fully support the ideals of strictly limited government as outlined in the US Constitution. But that’s not what I think is meant by the term “collectivism” in fact, I have a real revulsion to the very idea of the Fluther ‘collective’, but since it’s strictly voluntary – and free – I swallow that revulsion.

For a libertarian who believes in limited government there is certainly a moral balancing act in determining what freedoms to take away from some or all people so that the majority, and the republic itself, can survive under the terms laid out in the Constitution. But that’s really an executive job similar to any other executive job of weighing and balancing often competing interests for the good of some kind of social entity. One doesn’t have to be a collectivist to be President.

Where in the constitution does it say the federal government can’t pass collectivist-style laws?

@WasCy Okay, a number of flaws here.

1. What makes you think the Constitution creates a “strictly limited” government?

2. You understand that the Office of the President has nothing to do with making law? That power is delegated to Congress, which is in turn elected by the citizenry. The President can’t “take away freedoms” from anyone (there’s a rathole here about war powers, but let’s stay out of it).

3. The President, for good or ill, is the executive for every citizen, and is expected to support the best interests (another rathole here, define “best”) of every citizen. He or she is expected to realize that and have the skills to act accordingly. How is that NOT a collectivist point of view?

If he hadn’t felt that empathy trumped the Constitution as it was written, Lincoln might not have pushed for an end to slavery:

“You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were on board ten or a dozen slaves shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable.”

He is fictional, so anybody can say what they want, he will never be a candidate.
But I am surprised by some of the responses.
All the guy in book actually does is refuse to give away his invention, a motor.
When they try to force him to give it up, he “drops out” and takes a bunch of the world’s most clever people with him.
They go off and live in a secluded valley.
What makes this fictional character worthy of being called an asshole?

@chaosrob

Your attempt to point out flaws is, itself, flawed.

1. The US Constitution, as written, strictly delimits the powers of government. If you know anything at all about it you have to know that. The fact that we have abrogated it and ignored the 9th and 10th Amendments in no way detracts from what it does say about “limited government”.

2. Of course the President doesn’t “make” law (according to the Constitution, anyway), but as the executive he does much to set an agenda for Congress, he has powers as the executive to enforce (and in modern days, to make) regulations, if not “laws”, he enters into treaties (which the Senate may or may not ratify) that make various national commitments and he makes appointments to the bench of the Federal and Supreme Court that can set the tone of the judiciary for decades after he leaves office.

3. The President is the executive for “the government”, and is responsible for “the best interests” (we won’t quibble over what that means) for “the government”, which is nominally elected to represent “the citizens”. One of my favorite corrections about discussions of presidential limitations is that the president doesn’t “run the country” (dammit), he “runs the government”. There is a world of difference, if only people would realize it.

In any case, and to respond to @Qingu as well, I never said – if you’ll read what I actually wrote and stop trying to read my mind instead – that the President (or the government) cannot be collectivist. All I said was that John Galt wouldn’t run for or accept the job of President in the first place, and that he wouldn’t be a collectivist.

Reading comprehension here seems to be a bit worse than usual today.

Reading comprehension here seems to be a bit worse than usual today.

@WasCy No shit. Most days.

@WasCy, you didn’t answer the question. Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government cannot make collectivist laws?

I mean, I see where the Constitution says that blacks should be treated as 3/5 of people, that only Congress can declare war, that only states can control the militia, and a bunch of other shit that you probably don’t believe we should follow anymore.

But I can’t seem to find where it says Congress doesn’t have the power to make laws affecting all states. In fact, it says the opposite in the interstate commerce clause, and strongly implies the opposite with the necessary and proper clause which has about 200 years of judicial precedent to back it up. Maybe you can cite exactly what passage you’re talking about.

@Qingu

Maybe you can tell me what it is that you think I’m’ talking about. I’ve already said that the government “can be” collectivist. I looked over the thread and never saw anything I wrote to the contrary. Maybe you can point out what it is that I don’t understand about my own writing.

A couple reasons why he wouldn’t be, and a couple reasons why he would be.

One he wouldn’t be:
I believe he is absent most of the book, correct? I’m not sure even the most influential, ground breaking ideas would be received well without a face to put it with. I don’t think many people would be willing to cast a vote for someone that they had to ask “Who is John Galt?” to everyone they knew.

He also would have a tough time garnering respect of those who don’t really care about the power of the human mind. Instead, the lower, lower-middle and most middle class citizens would rather have a candidate that promises to reduce the wealth the upper-middle and upper. John Galt would make no such promises.

John Galt would, however, stand a chance because of Barack Obama. In my opinion, many people are starting to realize that Obama’s big government ideas aren’t what they thought they would be. If Galt were to come along and convince many inventors, doctors, pharmacists and businessmen that less government was the way to go, he’d stand a chance.