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.
You and I differ on what “effective” means.
They could have done a lot more. Congress is the most powerful branch, and the House controls the purse. They did nothing serious to control spending. They should have retooled how spending was done and did it, funding only one thing at a time. Don’t tie things together. Use the power and stop worring about winning the next election all the time. The GOP wins elections and does not do anything with the win. Don’t tell me we stopped a legeslative agenda and that is a win. So what? So what? Obama has just done it all anyway via executive Order.
With Trump going full Santa Claus in his speech tonight it’s hard to tell where The Donald ends and the Left begins.
All is proceeding as I have foreseen.
People are unlikely to go for the half-caff when they can get the fully-leaded variety conveniently located just up the ballot.
We’re so doomed.
Nice. Repeating one of the egregious Peter Arnett’s anti-American lies to make your point. Is “Hands up, don’t shoot” next?
We should fight against the corruption of the language, or at least refrain from perpetuating it.
Luckily, you’re wrong.
Which part of The Constitution grants the federal government the power to mandate maternity leave?
Only Republicans consider ties to be wins.
And if you consider ties to be wins, you’ll never get any actual wins.
His history.
Up until the day before yesterday Trump was your run of the mill moderate liberal Democrat. He has made his fortune not by building buildings but by knowing how to work a bureaucracy better than his competitors. He doesn’t hate the bureaucracy its his competitive advantage.
He obviously fails to do any homework and so will have to rely on the judgement of his staff.
Then there is his attitude that “only I can”, which leads me to believe that he will not work very well with Congress and will attempt to get what he wants through executive order.
To roll back the administrative state, Congress is going to have to take back their powers. Now, maybe Trump will be such a weak, terrible President that the Congress takes their power back, but I greatly doubt it.
Finally, Trump’s predilection for conspiracy theory says a lot about the way his mind works. This in my judgement is his single most disqualifying trait. A mind that sees conspiracies everywhere doesn’t see how the world really works, and has a distorted view of the motivations of people and the competence of the government.
Agreed. You want central planning, I don’t.
You will never convince me that central planning is a good idea even if someone with a great brain like Trump is doing the central planning. I will never convince you that even someone with a great brain like Trump can’t effectively plan the economy.
So, let’s agree that you are brilliant for supporting Trump and I am stupid for believing that freedom is better than its opposite.
Every candidate, ever, has said the exact same thing. This comment is more insightful into how Trump derangement syndrome affects left and right alike. You are reading authoritarianism into Trump but not doing so for other candidates. If you think President Cruz would have self-regulated around some constitutional limiting principle when the entire administrative state is ideological and institutionally designed to fight against him, your smoking the funny stuff.
When people talk about holding the managerial class and its administrative state accountable, we are talking about bringing actual accountability to the people who wield that power. Prosecuting them when they break the law, and firing them when they make mistakes. Now, has Trump promised that? Honestly, I am not sure. But here is the catch. It is a necessary predicate to holding them responsible that their hold on the definitions of legitimate and illegitimate discourse be smashed. And that is Trump’s real value.
Every other candidate accepted the terms of the debate, which, as Decius points out, is predetermined to push leftism forward.
Sometimes I think I catch a glimpse of why Trumpers and NeverTrumpers seem to be talking past one another: you’re having two different conversations. One is about whether Trump-qua-Trump would be a good president. The other is about whether Trump, in spite of or even because of his manifold flaws, can force the system (including the media) to confront itself—seen as the necessary precondition for any actual reform.
Last week, I was one of those who happened to answer a robo-call for a poll that showed Trump running even with Hillary in the state of Maine. I “said” (pushing one for yes, two for no, etc.) that I am a registered Democrat, that I voted for Democrats in the last election, and then “declared” with a firm thumb on option 2 that I was going to vote for Trump.
I’m not for Trump, at least, not in the sense that I’m going to vote for him. Still planning to pull the lever for McMullin or Blank. But dadgummit, I am not voting for Hillary, and the strongest way to indicate my disgust with her and with the whole, cop-hating, race-baiting “Let’s Progress Back to 1972” crowd was to push #2.
A poll is the “Strongest way?” Really? I dearly want my home state to go for Trump, and I’d love for you to be part of that. Pulling the lever for Trump in November is the strongest way. IMNSHO, the only effective way.
Sorry: I meant the strongest way to indicate my displeasure and disdain in that particular poll—that is, rather than push #3 for “other” (which they might have interpreted as “Stein” given my identification as a Democrat).
I present this post with the coveted Midnight the Cat Award. Niiice!
An “Andy’s Gang” reference.
You are a sick man.
I could have used Froggy the Gremlin, but I didn’t want to be tarred as alt-right.
Once again the conversation has degenerated into an endless back-and-forth over personality and abstractions; but that is not the case Decius is making.
Decius calls this election “Flight 93” because he believes this is the last chance for people like us to regain the cockpit and to have a hope of steering it away from disaster.
“Last chance” is the key. Decius cites demographics and the commitment of Hillary, should she win, to accelerating the pace of fundamental American transformation through increased immigration. He asks if Republicans don’t win in 2016, how will their odds increase in 2020 against an incumbent with an augmented voting base? Will things improve for Republicans in 2024 as their white voting bloc continues to shrink? How about 2028 – what will bring victory to us then?
Our ideas have failed to convince blacks to join us for decades. They have failed to convince Jews to join us for decades. They have failed to convince Hispanics, other than those who suffered under Fidel. They have failed to convince Asians. Our ideas have failed to convince people in the universities and in the media.
What is the action plan for principled conservatives that will bring about a future conservative majority? How do they plan to win?
Decius sees that they have no plan. Conservatives see this election as Dunkirk – it is best to run back to the island and fight another day. Unfortunately, there is no USA to come to their aid this time.
I hope Gary the Rat doesn’t show up.
No, it is best to sail back to the island on a Cruise with all of your favorite Conservative Castaways for a 3 hour tour, a 3 hour tour.
As Mark Steyn said on a Ricochet podcast that probably can’t be found:
“I’m tired of talking about how we will lose
20122016, I want to start talking about how we can lose20162020″I think it’s the part that allows a President to submit bills to Congress to either pass or reject. Then he can sign them, if passed, into law. Of course, if the law then is deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, then Congress can reconsider and, if it desires, override the Supreme Court. Isn’t that how it works? And where has Trump ever claimed he would not follow those constitutional procedures?
Ah, so if the President proposed banning Christianity, congress passed it, and the supreme court said it was OK then its constitutional?
Trump would need to understand the constitution before he could make any claim about whether he intended to follow it.
He could always call the Great Scholar A-Squared if he had any questions.
Nope, I am aware of my own ignorance, and if I ever forgot, I could easily find an Ever-Trumper to remind me that I’m stupid and I don’t love my country.
More silliness. More evasion. More refusal to address the question Decius posed.
Did Todd Beamer know how to fly a plane?
The Village has actually been torched several times… The 1860’s, 1917, the 1930’s, the 1960’s. And every time it’s rebuilt in a newer, crappier modern architecture style. The Village is in fact on fire again right now. On lords and masters call the the flames “progress”.
What is question Decius posted that you would like me to respond to.
Todd Beamer did not know how to fly a plane. I’m not sure the relevance. He did not want to fly the plane, he wanted to crash it. If you want to fly the plane into the ground, then let Trump plan the economy as only a person with a brain as great as his can. He will undoubtedly crash the country into the field a couple of degrees right of where Hillary would.
As I’ve been told repeatedly, the next President will be Trump or Hillary. Neither one of them wants to pull the plane out its descent and return the passengers to the freedom to make their own decisions. We don’t have the option of choosing a President that will save our country, we are simply debating on whether the plane should strike the ground a few degrees left or a few degrees right of it current trajectory.
FWIW, I think 2012 was the last chance, the real Flight 93 election. When the electorate decided to re-elect a failed President who campaigned for re-election on cradle-to-grave government support (eg, the Life of Julia), the country decided that it wanted what the left was offering (free stuff paid for by other people) and did not want things like Freedom and Capitalism.
Of course they do.
Sadly that’s how modern eyes see it, yes.
Ummmm, no. The voice recorder is clear – “If we don’t get into the cockpit, we’re all dead”. The passengers most decidedly did not want to crash the plane.
The conversation probably went something like this:
“Those guys in the cockpit are going to crash the plane and take us with them, so let’s stop them.”
“But we don’t know how to fly the plane.”
“So we probably crash anyway. Let’s worry about that after we take care of the people that will definitely crash it”.