EXACTLY.
Just as our economy is not truly capitalism, but a mixed, mishmash of capitalism, socialism and whoknowswhatism, so our politics is a mixed up mishmash which reflects flawed metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, based on some reason, but mostly irrational whim and mysticism. It makes no sense attempting an Objectivist Party until the three things politics is based on can be rationally achieved. The only way to do that is to start with the present politics and by correcting the irrational aspects one by one over time, arrive at a reasonable foundation for politics to exist.

Politics is based on more fundamental philosophical principles, but this has practical implications: A better politics cannot be implemented in practice without the proper philosophical ideas spreading through the culture first, not necessarily in full depth to everyone, but enough to establish an intellectual base. It's not enough to have the right ideas yourself and then use them to rush into politics. A small minority with the right ideas cannot suddenly appear and achieve success in politics regardless of what anyone else thinks in the entrenched establishment and the premises of the general culture. Ayn Rand addressed and emphasized this repeatedly.

According to The Journals of Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand was interviewed by the New York Times on the day after the 1964 Goldwater-Johnson presidential election. She told them (over the telephone):

"I am not a 'conservative,' but an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism. I think that this campaign was conducted very badly, that this is the end of old-fashioned, anti-intellectual 'conservatism'—and that the advocates of capitalism have to start from scratch, not in practical politics, but as a cultural-philosophical movement, to lay an intellectual foundation for future political movements. It is earlier than you think. The status quo of today is a mixed economy with a fascist, rather than socialist, trend—and [Lyndon] Johnson is the conservative in the exact sense of that word. Today, the advocates of laissez-faire capitalism, which Sen. [Barry] Goldwater is not, are and have to be radical innovators."

In the Dec 1964 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter she expanded this in an article "It's Earlier Than You Think", in which she wrote in part" https://estore.aynrand.org/p/210/the-...

"Unbelievable as it is, Sen. Goldwater seems actually to have believed that philosophy is a matter of the heart, not of the mind, that ideas are of no importance, and that the most profound ideological conflict in history could be won without recourse to the intellect. He believed, apparently, that the principles of 'the American way of life' were a kind of self-evident primary, clearly understood and firmly entrenched in the souls of the people, and that a few old-fashioned slogans were sufficient to bring them forth. He believed, apparently, that statism and collectivism were merely the corrupt aberrations of a small, inconsequential minority: of the intellectuals-but that the broad masses had remained pure in heart, loyal to their American 'tradition,' and that they needed nothing, in order to save the country, but a chance to rally behind a leader who announced himself as a 'conservative'.

"'Conservatism' is a loose term, embracing many different groups; it cannot be said that Sen. Goldwater represented any one of them. But what he did represent was their common denominator: a folksy, 'cracker-barrel,' mass-oriented kind of anti-intellectual reliance on faith ('the heart') and on 'tradition'. The question, of course, is: what tradition? And since a 'conservative', in the original meaning of the word, is one who seeks to preserve the status quo, the question is: what status quo? The status quo of today is welfare statism, of a semi-socialist, semi-fascist variety. So is the explicit tradition of the past thirty years (and the implicit one of over a century)...

"The political philosophy of America's Founding Fathers is so thoroughly buried under decades of statist misrepresentations on one side and empty lip-service on the other, that it has to be re-discovered, not ritualistically repeated. It has to be rescued from the shameful barnacles of platitudes now hiding it. It has to be expanded-because it was only a magnificent beginning, not a completed job, it was only a political philosophy without a full philosophical and moral foundation, which the 'conservatives' cannot provide...

"This is no time for social metaphysicians, band-wagon-climbers, camp-followers, mystics, 'traditionalists' or any of the shaky amateurs who believed that 'conservatism' is safe, easy or fashionable, and were willing to collaborate with any dubious group so long as it was 'anti-socialist'. This is no time for the 'antis' -- it is a time only for the 'pros', in both meanings of the term.

"The job to be done belongs to professional intellectuals. The battle has to be fought-and won-in colleges and universities, before it can be carried to the voting booths. Not until a cultural movement is ready to answer such questions ... can the advocates of freedom hope to be heard or understood at the polls."

For more on what Ayn Rand advocated should be done, see especially her anthology Philosophy: Who Needs It?, in particular the title essay and the last two essays "What Can One Do?" and "Don't Let It Go" https://estore.aynrand.org/p/218/phil... But aside from what one can do, she thoroughly rejected the Libertarian Party as naively a-philosophical, rushing into politics without a philosophical base as it half plagiarized and half contradicted her own ideas. It's failure is there for all to see.

This does not mean that you should not engage in politics at all. That is necessary for survival and self-defense, both personally and for the country. But maintain the context of what is possible, what is needed for more fundamental reform, and the long range time-scale of changing a culture. America was the consequence of the Enlightenment following centuries of intellectual evolution and development overthrowing the established culture of ideas with a new emphasis on reason and individualism. It took hundreds of years for the counter-Enlightenment, and in this country a hundred years of Pragmatism, to overthrow it into today's worsening decline. That will not be reversed overnight and cannot be reversed with only a better minority third political party trying to appeal to people whose fundamental premises have been corrupted.

This is silly. At most, politics ought to be derived from ethics. In reality, politics is the screaming and fighting of any two monkeys that want the same banana. "Politics should be discussed on all fours."

EVERY innovative product has gone through the Rearden Metal process. Initially, there's no demand at all; no one knows what's there. Then, an early adopter uses it, with outstanding results, beginning a tsunami of acceptance. Then, more and more people use it for purposes not originally imagined. After that, demand explodes. That was the history of the products brought to market by the Robber Barons.

They aren't Objectivist but it is instructive to see how they've fared. In 40 years they've rarely been elected to any office above city mayor. Here in Colorado they've grown dramatically to 32,000 registered voters. But that's out of 3.2 million. It's hard to get elected by promising to do nothing.

Probably most important, if we win, will the resulting benefits of our rule be so obvious that everyone will want in?

Interesting questions.....

Good for Reardon,,,,at least in theory

From each according to ability to each according to need?

I would add that a successful Donald Trump is the end of the republican party as described, and they know it. He is self funding, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, pro-business, "make America Great again", with smart work. If successful, all of the cronies that have bought influence and feathered their beds will have to compete in legitimate business activities. Can you imagine the house of Morgan approaching banking with a succeed or parish model, rather than do what we do and fix it later?

I read an article yesterday by a former Bush cabinet member that stated "they would kill him before they allowed him to be President". William Bennett,

I tend to agree with that. It is now the financial-military-industrial complex running things, and they will not be denied. They have been stuffing ballot boxes and fixing things since the days of Grover Cleveland.

It doesn't matter to them who wins, as long as they are controllable. Hillary is just a s good as JEB, Marco, or the others. Trump is self funding and uncontrollable. He could prosecute the former Attorney General, President, Secretary of State, and others and not be called down. That could lead to terrible disruption and perhaps legal exposure for the modern day robber barons.

Only "terrorists" can defeat current "money politics."
(That would be the label placed on anyone who effectively opposed the statist money politics.)

It still exists, as least as a Web page: http://www.objectivistparty.us/

Impuco the reason is that not enough people have read AYN RAND.