Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Decius Has Responded
Decius Responds to Critiques of Flight 93
Published in GeneralWell that was unexpected.
Everything I said in “The Flight 93 Election” was derivative of things I had already said, with (I thought) more vim and vigor, in a now-defunct blog. I assumed the new piece would interest a handful of that blog’s remaining fans and no one else. My predictive powers proved imperfect.
Which should cheer everyone who hated what I said: if I was wrong about the one thing, maybe I’m wrong about the others. But let me take the various objections in ascending order of importance.
I think they did work with Romney which is why we are seeing them again this cycle.
Which is why I see voting for Trump as not just voting for him but voting against coastal elites telling us that anyone who disagrees with them is either an idiot or evil.
I’m starting to think lots of conservatives care less about defending the Constitution than they do supporting candidates who talk about it a lot.
You hit the nail on the head. Nice avatar.
You are not the first person to notice that.
As a description of national sovereignty and self-governance (things I really like!) that ain’t half-bad. As a description of constitutionalism, however, it’s downright weird.
The Federal government — and specifically, the presidency — has been accruing power at an alarming rate for decades without giving a rodents’ rear for individual rights. For several obvious reasons, Trump is vastly preferable to Clinton on this metric, partially because he lacks Clintons’ leftism. I think Trump neither understands nor cares about the Constitution in any meaningful sense — and probably would not become a fan if he did become better acquainted — but, again, still better than Clinton on that point.
But Trump represents “the first serious national-political defense of the Constitution in a generation”? Apologies, but where the hell was this guy in 2010? Has he not heard of the Tea Party? Has Trump? That’s what I call a real push for the Constitution.
It’s this kind of thing that confirms to me that Ben Shapiro really had it right: Decius really thinks that presenting Buchananism in louder tones and a different accent counts as conservatism.
Two sides of the coin, Tom. Buchanan was Conservatism with We The People as first principle and Shapiro is Conservatism with it as not a principle at all .
A very old debate. Is ideology all Intellect and no Emotion or All Emotion and no Intellect?
It all depends on who sets up the Guillotine.
BTW, we have been trying the all Intellect branch since Reagan with a brief interlude for W’s compassion the donors approve of. I believe Reagan was the last guy who could balance the intellect and emotion components of conservatism tempered with nationalism.
Says the Trump supporter that thinks free-markets are unpatriotic.
A Canard, sir.
I said the illusion of deals called ‘free trade’ that are anything but are against the national interest. I find your labelling quite the Progressive smear job.
Specifically the last one, that we need to put the full weight and power of the government behind a single person to scare the “managerial” class into, apparently, doing something to re-assert control over the march of the administrative state.
In other words, we have to eliminate any constitutional limits on the power of the Presidency to reassert constitutional limits. That, as I understand it, is the entire argument for Trump. He will destroy everything, and destruction is good. But in order to destroy everything, he needs massive amounts of power that will, in this fantasy, never be used by any future President.
In what universe has anyone demanded Trump get more executive power? Certainly not this one.
That’s OK. I find your labeling of anyone that disagrees with you as unpatriotic as quite the leftist smear job.
As I recall, you were quite adamant that unemployed people should not be asked to move to where the jobs are, but the government needed to organize the economy to bring the jobs to them.
Trump has. That has been his entire campaign. Once he is given the power, he will be able to do great things because he has a great brain.
I think the broader context matters:
To your point, this is definitely the focus of the Tea Party. And there were chapters across the nation who made a difference in the 2010 mid-terms. However, this was not a focus of the 2012 campaign by either Romney or the majority of the Republicans in the House and Senate. To the extent there has been a national focus on the conservative side, it has been ineffective.
I think he has been saying once he is elected (get’s power), he will do great things because he has a great brain. I do not see any of his policy positions that demand more executive power.
It is certainly not one that I make for him, but OK.
I agree that Romney was not — to put it lightly — of the Tea Party, but the Tea Party had far reaching (and, over-all, very positive) effects on the Republican party as a whole. We threw a lot of our own people out of office and scared quite a few of the others straight, by and large for good reasons. The Republicans shot Obama’s legislative agenda post-2010 and haven’t budged on Garland. I’m hardly jumping up and down happy over it — how can I be with Obama in office? — but I call it darn effective.
Another canard.
People are free to move, but for smug scribblers to suggest that is the sole solution and not moving is a sign of moral decadence is crap of the highest order. Conservative Crap is still crap.
I do not recall saying the government needing to organize the economy, in fact , the government needs to stop screwing with the economy to please donors at the expense of citizens. Placing the Spotted Owl, the Delta Smelt, Solyndra investors, Wind turbine tax credit chasers, sugar subsidizers , and hedge fund bandits and large bank imbeciles over the citizenry is what got us here, fully enabled by “Conservative” politicians and scribblers.
It especially needs to stop prioritizing a few corporate donors markets overseas at the expense of domestic production and promoting outsourcing at the expense of the domestic asset base.
I want the crony thumb of government off the scale against the citizens and maybe on the citizens side when needed.
Agreed.
That is your citation of a demand for increased executive power?
This conversation is over.
Can I say I agree with this piece in almost every respect except his assessment of Trump? I don’t agree that Trump will do anything to roll back the administrative state. In fact, I believe Trump will make the administrative state worse.
Pseud, thou art Shrewd.
A fine retort to the smug and comfortable.
You are an asset and a gem for the deplorable rabble who want to fix things instead of just discussing them.
Thank you for your posting and your persistence.
Keep it coming.
Apparently we’re only 1 recommendation short of the Main Feed.
The threshold has been crossed!
Why do you believe this?