In my last article I pointed out that Bob Metz seemed to have a hard on for The Political Spectrum as presented by Craig Biddle in his 2012 article from The Objective Standard. However, it becomes clearer as you think about what he has said about other members of the right that he labels left that he considers the Right to consist of a small bubble of people and not anyone else. The fact that he will attack any Libertarian even if they are Objectivish-ish and based on reason not actually intellectually or philosophically libertarian as such shows this to the be case. Paul McKeever and Bob's chewing out the Ontario Libertarian Party leader as not being an alternative to the Status Quo is solid evidence for this idea.
He seems to think that one needs to consistently agree with every dot and tiddle of Objectivism to be on The Right. Even that is not enough, however, as Allen S. of the Libetarians in Ontario is an Objectivist. You need to be an Objectivist that comes to the same conclusions as he does using the application of the philosophy or else you are just wrong and also not on The Right. However, The Right while encompassing Objectivism as the most consistent and completely logical philosophical root to The Right is not all of The Right. Anymore than it is all of philosophy even though it is part of the greater realm of all true and great philosophy.
The Right in actuality consists of anyone that is consistent in the defense of individual rights based on a government with Objective Laws to protect person and property. In essence anyone that is consistently in favor of a social system of Capitalism and understands its proper definition is Rightist. This consists at its core at the most philosophically centered and grounded of Objectivism properly understood and practiced. However, it also includes broader non-Objectivists such as;
Classical liberals, Constitutional Republicans, Auberon Herbert Pro-Government styled "Voluntaryism," Lassiez-Fairests in general, the more principled remnants of the US Tea Party movement, the more principled members of The Republican Party Freedom Caucus, more principled members of the incredibly small Freedom Democrats in the US, more Principled Log Cabin Republicans whom rightfully decry the old time anti-homosexual legislation of the Republican Party Moral Majority, consistently reason based Right-Libertarians whom are essentially Radical Capitalists in all, but, their Party name. (Reason based Right-Libertarians tend to be classical liberals with a different label.) Throw into the pot a great deal of the Maxime Bernier supporters that are more principled for extra measure as well.
This is why you will notice that Objectivism in name is not mentioned anywhere on the Essentialized Political Spectrum as found in The Objective Standard. It lists political labels for political stances and political systems. It does not mention Objectivism because it references the political element of the broader philosophy of Objectivism which one can label with more than one name and still be correct on its contents. Objectivism is I do agree the only fully consistent and non-contradictory reason/reality/rationally based philosophical under-gurding of anyone one of those many mentioned political labels or names. However, this does not invalidate the ability for someone to come to same just rational, reasonable and non-contradictory political view and not even realize they are using the Objectivism core view of existence exists and reason being man's means of knowledge. One could personally totally misunderstand Objectivism due to ignorance and still be Politically Right and on The Right all the same.
It is a mistake to make whether someone fully agrees with or is an Objectivist as a fitness test of their character. Some of the most evil, vile, vicious and toxic people at least claim to be Objectivists. That does not make them all of a sudden the most moral and virtue filled person. Some of the best and most rational people are also Objectivists as well. The being an Objectivist does not mean anything unless you know the character of a person, They might just be using Ms. Rand's philosophy as a tool of rationalizing that their predatory and vile behavior is OK because Selfishness is a Virtue. Not realizing how self destructive they are in fact being and how mentally damaging their toxic mentality is on their own mind.
This is why one cannot make being an Objectivist VS not being an Objectivist as the soul primary in thinking about politics. You have some inconsistent and philosophically not as grounded, but, yet end result agreeing Right-Libertarians that are far less toxic than particular supposedly consistently moral and virtue driven Objectivists can be. At the same time there are also very toxic and dangerous Libertartians out there like the anarchists for example. You need to use individualism as your method when determining the character of people and whom to trust. You need to use methodological individualism when it comes to picking your political allies and just being an Objectivist or not should not be the primary criteria. It is a mistake to make The Right to be interchangeable with "the philosophy of Ayn Rand." It is the broader Rational Right in general that should be supported in the Political Realm.
