The post There is no such thing as a trans toddler appeared first on spiked.

Dr. Andrew Bernstein has long stood as a passionate advocate for Ayn Rand’s philosophy of reason, individual rights, and capitalism. His essays and lectures have inspired thousands of Objectivists, myself included, to embrace Rand’s ideas. That is precisely why his recent article—“Trump is Vastly Superior to the Left”—demands a pointed response. This is not merely a matter of political preference or trivial details. It is a philosophical matter, rooted in how one forms judgments, weighs facts, and applies principles—especially in a culture increasingly shaped by tribalism.

The Epistemology of Tyranny

No one is condemned without facts—but once facts are established, judgment must follow. One cannot credibly defend Donald Trump’s “superiority” to the Left without squarely addressing the defining pattern of his presidency—a pattern of brazen dishonesty, authoritarian posturing, and contempt for the institutions that protect liberty.

Trump relentlessly pushed the lie that the 2020 election was stolen, despite over sixty failed court challenges and a complete lack of evidence. He incited the January 6 Capitol riot by urging his supporters to “fight like hell,” stood by as the Capitol was overrun, and later celebrated and promised pardons for even the most violent participants, portraying them as heroes rather than criminals. He attacked judges who ruled against him—calling one a “so-called judge,” suggesting others were illegitimate, and even defying a federal court order by continuing mass deportations in open violation of a restraining order. His contempt for judicial authority has not only been rhetorical—it has taken the form of direct defiance, threats of impeachment, and efforts to intimidate the legal profession itself. He declared that Article II of the Constitution gave him “the right to do whatever I want as president.” He publicly demanded that the Justice Department prosecute his enemies. He separated children from their parents at the border as a deliberate deterrent.

In a recent appearence, Trump stood beaming beside Mohammed bin Salman—ruler of Saudi Arabia and a known political murderer—in an act of gleeful sanction that should revolt any defender of justice. He praised strongmen like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un while treating America’s allies with vile contempt. And through it all, he lied—compulsively, proudly, about matters both trivial and fundamental.

These are not isolated character flaws. They reflect a deeper, persistent pattern of dishonesty, authoritarian impulse, and contempt for the institutions that preserve liberty. He is a fabulist in the most literal sense, inventing realities on the fly, indifferent to anything other than dominating the narrative. His lies are so frequent, so shameless, and so central to his persona that failing to name and condemn them is to tolerate a wholesale assault on truth itself.

Trump’s conduct toward immigrants only underscores this point. As Dr. Bernstein himself concedes, Trump has displayed open hostility toward honest, peaceful people who seek nothing more than to build a life in the United States. Trump’s policies and rhetoric have repeatedly indulged in dehumanization, treating immigrants not as individuals with rights, but as threats to be expelled or exploited, regardless of context. He has even descended into openly brazen race-baiting—such as his debate-stage claim that legal Haitian immigrants in Ohio were “eating the pets” of local residents, a baseless rumor immediately debunked by officials.

To excuse Trump’s behavior by pointing to the sins of moralist collectivists is to frame the issue as a contest between two evils—one to be feared, the other tolerated. But that misses the point entirely. Dr. Bernstein often grants his favored figures the benefit of every doubt, while casting his opponents in the harshest possible light. He has even equated the entire political opposition with its most irrational faction, while excusing the equally destructive impulses of tribal authoritarianism. This is not how Objectivism teaches us to judge. We don’t excuse one irrationality by pointing to another. Our standard isn’t which tribe is less dangerous this year. It’s which ideas uphold reason and rights—consistently, and in principle. Elections may be binary—but moral judgment is not. The presence of only two names on a ballot does not absolve us of the responsibility to evaluate each by objective standards—or to withhold moral sanction from the unworthy.

By any rational standard, Trump’s zig-zagging pragmatism is not a virtue. It’s the hallmark of a mind unmoored from principle—and worse, it teaches the public to see unreason as a governing norm. A culture trained to equate whim with leadership cannot endure.

Why? Because tyranny doesn’t begin with tanks—it begins with evasions. It begins when facts no longer matter, when words are used not to communicate but to obscure, and when power is seen as the only means of settling disputes. A free society depends on the possibility of rational persuasion—on the idea that truth exists, that it can be known, and that it must govern our actions. But Trump governs by whim. He disregards facts, contradicts himself without shame, and demands loyalty not to the truth, but to himself. His style of leadership is not just a political danger—it is an epistemological assault on the very conditions of freedom.

To his credit, Dr. Bernstein does acknowledge some of Trump’s flaws—on tariffs, abortion, and aspects of immigration policy. And for that, many of Trump’s most fervent supporters have condemned him, exposing the very tribalism he seeks to avoid.

Some will argue that Trump deserves credit for his support of fossil fuels and his occasional defiance of regulatory overreach. But even if we grant that, it does not—and cannot—redeem a method grounded in whim, dishonesty, and tribalism. When a man governs by mood, not principle, even his best actions are unstable, arbitrary, and vulnerable to reversal. Such support cannot offset a sustained pattern of contempt for reason, truth, and the rule of law. There is little to gain from his short-term victories, and much to lose when the cultural cost is a normalization of irrationality.

Both factions are accelerating the collapse of reason, though in different styles—one through collectivist dogma, the other through tribal authoritarianism. Trump adds a uniquely dangerous twist by cloaking his irrationalism in the language of freedom, turning liberty itself into a mask for power. That is not a brake on tyranny. It is its camouflage. But that makes his omission of Trump’s deeper, more dangerous pattern all the more serious. To mention a few missteps while failing to integrate their moral meaning is to evade the essential. It is to downplay the actions of a man who sought to override objective law with raw power. And it is to excuse, even if unintentionally, a mode of governance that undermines the mind—the one faculty on which human life and liberty depend.

The proper moral response to such actions is not minimization. As Objectivists, we should feel no hesitation—none at all—in condemning Donald Trump. He is a walking contradiction of the values he claims to defend. The facts are plain to see, and if we integrate them properly, we must conclude that he is not merely flawed—he is a regressive force who undermines every principle on which a free society depends. Worse still, he reflects something deeper and more dangerous in our culture: an outright rejection of truth as relevant. That is the real enemy. And Trump is its avatar.

Objective Disagreement and the Proper Standard of Judgment

As Objectivists, we know well what truth requires: the full context of relevant facts, integrated without bias, and judged by consistent principles. That’s rational epistemology—and it’s not optional. It’s the method we pride ourselves on applying to every area of life, especially in matters as consequential as politics. But when we abandon that method—even in the name of fighting evil—we don’t defend our values. We destroy the very foundation they rest on.

This is precisely the trap Dr. Bernstein falls into. He rightly sees the destructive legacy of the Left—its historical body count, its collectivist dogmas, its assault on liberty. But in his urgency to oppose that threat, he misses something equally dangerous: Donald Trump’s escalating authoritarianism, his lust for unchecked power, his treatment of the presidency as a personal prize rather than a constitutional office. And he ignores Trump’s appalling dishonesty—not just on trivial matters, but on the very foundations of American governance: elections, the courts, and the rule of law.

As a teacher of Objectivism, Dr. Bernstein knows what moral judgment requires: that we identify essentials, integrate facts into principles, and judge without fear or tribal allegiance. Yet in defending Trump, he abandons that method. He treats the Left/Right divide as if it were a clash of principles—when it is merely a contest of factions. What masquerades as political opposition is, in fact, a struggle over which tribe gets to wield unprincipled power.

And the deeper problem is this: the factions themselves have become so intellectually bankrupt, so untethered from any principles, their labels obscure more than they reveal. Their moral premises shift. Their policies contradict their rhetoric. Their allegiance is not to truth, but to mood, myth, and control. The old Left/Right binary is irretrievably broken. It no longer maps to anything philosophically meaningful. What we are dealing with now are two intellectually collapsing coalitions: one rooted in sacrificial collectivism, demanding obedience to the needs of others, equity over justice, and the subordination of man to nature; the other grounded in tribal traditionalism, exalting religion over reason, loyalty over logic, nationalism over individualism, and brute force over law. These movements differ in style, but not in substance.

In a culture where the rejection of truth has become a badge of honor, the challenge isn’t simply spotting error—it’s standing firm when the cost of defending truth rises. As confusion spreads and contradictions mount, even honest minds can falter—tempted to delay, to hedge, to rationalize. You may not like the conclusion. But if you see the facts, and look away—that’s evasion. It is self-betrayal. It is the choice to know—and not act.

The most common evasion today is this: surrendering one’s mind to a false binary. Such a capitulation conceals the contradictions, evasions, and power lust each faction embodies. It reduces moral reasoning to team loyalty, where the goal is not truth, but victory.

Objectivists, of all people, ought to reject that false alternative. As Ayn Rand observed, both political camps ultimately rest on the same premise: that the individual must be sacrificed—whether to the tribe, the state, tradition, or the collective. Today, the consequences of that shared premise are everywhere. Ronald Reagan could not lead today’s Republican Party. And to today’s social justice left, Martin Luther King Jr.’s insistence on colorblind justice and nonviolence would be worse than naïve—it would be heresy. Rand warned that if the dominant philosophical trends of the 20th century went unchecked, America would slide into statism, tribalism, and intellectual collapse. And now, in 2025, we are living the result. The American republic is coming undone—not because one side has failed, but because both sides have become hostile to reason, to freedom, and to the very idea of objective truth.

And in the midst of this collapse, Objectivism itself risks being misrepresented—associated not with its roots in radical individualism and principled thought, but with the cultural authoritarians who speak the language of tradition, order, and hard work while preaching power, loyalty, and submission. These figures gain credit for opposing the visible irrationality of their cultural opponents, but what they actually promote is no better. Beneath their veneer is an embrace of mysticism, tribalism, and force. Beneath the surface, they too reject reason—no matter how tightly they wrap themselves in the flag.

And these contradictions raise a serious question. At what point does a failure to see Trump for what he is cease to be an error and become evasion?

The Courage to Judge

No dishonest person can legitimately claim the title of “Objectivist.” Willful dishonesty would mean the repudiation of the method that Objectivism is built on: adherence to facts, non-contradiction, and integration. If a person knowingly evades or distorts reality while claiming to uphold Objectivism, they are no longer practicing the philosophy—they are using its name while acting against its essence. To support freedom in our time, one must be willing to stand against all who threaten it—whether they appear as moralist collectivists or tribal authoritarians, whether they cloak themselves in progress or patriotism. That requires a ruthless intellectual honesty, a refusal to evade, and an unswerving loyalty to facts.

Being wrong is not a moral failing—refusing to correct course when the facts are clear is. I urge Dr. Bernstein—and those who found value in his essay—to reconsider the evidence and the standard by which they are judging. One cannot champion reason and individual rights while excusing the fatal flaws of Donald Trump and his MAGA movement. The goal is to uphold the good—and that requires fierce clarity, not moral compromise.

That, and only that, is what it means to uphold reason—and to earn the name Objectivist.

Source - Patreon

Source - Patreon

Source - Patreon

Source - Patreon