One member of HBL wrote in the Member Forum:

I love this statement by Kamala Harris, because it dismisses altruism:

“So then the United States is supporting Ukraine not out of charity, but because it is in our strategic interest.”

And I’m fully aware that she didn’t say “self-interest,” which would have been much better.

I have no illusions about Harris’ domestic politics. I think she will take some bad steps towards socialism. But then there will still be time in the future for better politicians to countermeasure socialism and open the way to capitalism.

It is more important to destroy the power of the Russian dictatorship. If Putin loses to Zelensky, and Ali Khamenei loses to Benjamin Netanyahu, and both Kim and Xi witness this; then we can begin the process of eliminating Russia as a nuclear power. And after that, the defense costs of all Western nations in the future can be reduced, and we can develop a freer and more productive world.

Trumpian pacifist protectionism will not promote freedom. It will only give Putin time to build a stronger military force and pave the way for more wars.

I tend to agree with him, that Harris’ expression is pretty good, though not perfect.

The criticism that was raised against her statements concerns what she did not say: that she favors altruism and regards rights as a myth. We know from other data that she holds these bad premises. But we have to distinguish a statement that, on its face, upholds the right values, such as “freedom” and “the rule of law,” but does not say anything about mysticism, altruism, and collectivism, from a statement that voices support for those three basic evils but claims to be able to speak of things like “freedom.”

In other words, distinguish these made-up statements:

1. In supporting Ukraine, we are supporting freedom over tyranny and human decency over naked aggression.
2. In supporting Ukraine, we are supporting God’s plan that we live in freedom and that we act as our brothers’ keepers. Human decency, which comes from a willingness to sacrifice oneself, is being jeopardized by brutal, selfish aggression.

Still trying to nail this down: if idea A has to be based on idea B:

A
^
B

If you endorse A while not saying anything, directly or indirectly, about B, its base, that’s not so bad; but if you explicitly attack B or support some form of anti-B, nothing you say about how great A is will make you an ally of the A movement.

In a letter to Rose Wilder Lane, Ayn Rand wrote on this subject:

Now to your second question: “Do those almost with us do more harm than 100% enemies?” I don’t think this can be answered with a flat “yes” or “no,” because the “almost” is such a wide term and can cover so many different attitudes. I think each particular case has to be judged on his own performance, but there is one general rule to observe: those who are with us, but merely do not go far enough, yet do not serve the opposite cause in any way, are the ones who do us some good and who are worth educating. Those who agree with us in some respects, yet preach contradictory ideas at the same time, are definitely more harmful than the 100% enemies. The standard of judgment here has to be the man’s attitude toward basic principles. If he shares our basic principles, but goes off on lesser details in the application of these principles, he is worth educating and having as an ally. If his “almost” consists of sharing some of the basic principles of collectivism, then we ought to run from him faster than from an out-and-out Communist.

As an example of the kind of “almost” I would tolerate, I’d name Ludwig von Mises. His book, Omnipotent Government, had some bad flaws, in that he attempted to divorce economics from morality, which is impossible; but with the exception of his last chapter, which simply didn’t make sense, his book was good, and did not betray our cause. The flaws in his argument merely weakened his own effectiveness, but did not help the other side.

As an example of our most pernicious enemy, I would name Hayek. That one is real poison. Yes, I think he does more harm than Stuart Chase. I think Wendell Willkie did more to destroy the Republican Party than did Roosevelt. I think Willkie and Eric Johnston have done more for the cause of Communism than Earl Browder and The Daily Worker. Observe the Communist Party technique, which asks their most effective propagandists to be what is known as “tactical nonmembers.” That is, they must not be Communists, but pose as “middle-of-the-roaders” in the eyes of the public. The Communists know that such propagandists are much more deadly to the cause of Capitalism in that “middle-of-the-road” pretense.

Personally, I feel sick whenever I come up against a compromising conservative. But my attitude is this: if the man compromises because of ignorance, I consider him worth enlightening. If he compromises because of moral cowardice (which is the reason in most cases), I don’t want to talk to him, I don’t want him on my side, and I don’t think he is worth converting.
[Letters of Ayn Rand, pp. 308-309]

Bottom line? Kamala Harris’ statement was pretty good.

Email the author - hb@harrybinswanger.com