Back in 2007, Leonard Peikoff made waves in the Objectivist community with his advocacy of voting for the Democrats across the board. In case you missed it, here's the Q&A. One particular part, however, would become forever known as "the fatwa":
In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life--which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.
It's taken the Obamanation a little over a year to prompt Peikoff to do a 180 degrees:
"I always vote long-range over short-range...but, if and when, and the short range means immediate death and disaster, then there is no long-range to wait for or work for!...It's at the point where if it's not stopped...I still think it's the religionists that will take over...but despite everything, I will vote Republican this November."
Now, does this mean that anyone who voted Republican does understand Objectivism? Or that anyone who voted Democrat was detached from the world?
Um, "Go away and come back tomorrow..."
That, folks, is why this blog is called Objectivish. I know where I differ from "official Objectivism," I don't speak for "official Objectivism," and I don't care to. Besides, if that is an example of "official Objectivism," I'd sooner kiss a flying monkey than an "official Objectivist's" ass.