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.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/440006/problem-every-intellectual-defense-trump-ive-ever-read?utm_source=nr&utm_medium=facebook&utm_content=french&utm_campaign=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2Fcorner%2F440006%2Fproblem-every-intellectual-defense-trump-ive-ever-read
How do conservatives intend to re-establish a conservative voting majority in a country that is increasingly less white?
Now if you actually think that 2012 was the “Flight 93 Election” you don’t need to answer. You’ve already checked out.
But in that case your persistent criticism is little more than trolling.
According to Wikipedia, Beamer’s plan was to crash the plane
What does being less white have to do with anything? Are only white people allowed to be conservative?
The real question is, how is Trump supposed to win in a country that is less white by appealing primarily to white males and intentionally alienating almost every other demographic?
I found this to be fairly inaccurate. French clearly has decided that there is no possible reason that anyone could every rationally vote for Trump. Now, I am fine with him making that decision for himself, but here, he clearly wants to make that for others. In short, because French can see no reason to vote for Trump, he is not convinced by anyone’s reasoning. That is totally fair.
What is not fair, is to therefore declare that every argument is a straw man argument. That is not worthy of him.
I like this line.
I admit, I would vote for the Fake Trump that most Ever-Trumpers believe him to be. Unfortunately, the Real Trump is the only one around.
WOuld have been nice to have someone that appealed to white males without alienating others. Is that possible in today’s climate when saying “All Lives Matter” is racist?
The Flight 93 passengers knew of the World Trade Center attacks. Their thinking was more like: “This plane is going to be used in a similar attack. We’re probably dead anyway, so what have we got to lose? Let’s stop them from succeeding.”
I would like to think it’s possible, but I acknowledge it’s hard when the entire Democratic party believes that being white is an unforgivable sin.
Only whites can be conservative?
Yeah that’s not the point French was making at all.
Guess we differ on what point he is making. I think both Decius articles are powerful, and I do not see a “Fake Trump” argument at all.
But, since French speaks against all arguments, I assume he is accusing Thomas Sowell of doing this too. It is beyond belief that every argument made for voting for Trump is about voting for a “Fake Trump”. That is saying they are all straw man arguments. That is how I see it.
It is OK for us to see things differently. It is OK for me to take this article, and see French with less favor than I did before.
This is one of the prime reasons Trump has risen; the GOP touting short term tactical victories while ignoring the far larger strategic defeats. And we know those defeats are in part because the GOP’s Fraidy Cat caucus can always be counted on to cave and side with Democrats on scary issues.
A friend of mine says it thus: No Championship wins. Where are our titles?
We are both Atlanta sports fans, so that hit homes.
That’s the question. He made a start in Milwaukee. Among the many long-term strategies that the GOP should extract from the rubble of 2016 (no matter who wins, it’s Rubble Time) is that of winning over non-white voters exactly as Trump did: what have you got to lose?
It isn’t just that there are fewer white men to appeal to (as a percentage) but more and more white men have non-white friends, neighbors and family members. And besides, it’s unattractive and whiny.
Our ideas have failed to convince blacks to join us for decades…They have failed to convince Hispanics, other than those who suffered under Fidel. They have failed to convince Asians…
What is the action plan for principled conservatives that will bring about a future conservative majority? How do they plan to win?
Anyone can be conservative, but according to demographic grouping, who actually is?
On every election night for decades analysts have been quite open about predicting how areas with large majorities of minorities – non-whites – will vote. Nobody is offended.
Black Republicans like Tim Scott, Alan West and Mia Love win elections with white constituencies. None win in inner cities or “safe” black districts. (And why are they “safe?”)
California fell to the Democrats through rapid immigration from Mexico. So is North Carolina today. And so will Texas tomorrow – or at least the Democrats are working hard on that assumption – and given their record of success who can doubt their perspicacity?
Around the world wherever non-whites immigrate to predominantly white countries they overwhelmingly align themselves with the political party that favors big government. No matter how family-centered or entrepreneurial these non-whites are conservative principles and conservative politics have little appeal.
Haven’t you noticed?
Okay so in the French piece I linked do you deny that Trump holds positions often in direct opposition that stated by articles like Flight 93? Trump did indeed favor intervention in Lybia and the Iraq War – now he’s supposed to save us from decisions like that? Trump did indeed say Mitt Romney was “too harsh” on immigration and now we expect him to actually govern like an immigration hawk?
It has been a pretty common observation from Trump opponents that his fans tend to see in Trump what they desire rather than what is actually there.
What statement about Trump in the piece linked is actually false in your opinion? Please give me examples.
For me, it is not “modern eyes” so much as constitutional (yes, even conservative” eyes. Obamacare is a prime example. I personally think that it the law as passed and implemented is unconstitutional in several aspects. However, it was passed by Congress, signed by the President and the Supreme Court (with minor exceptions) has ruled that it is constitutional. To me, that means that we are stuck with it until we can elect a House, Senate and President who will work through the legislative process, including the inevitable court challenges) to repeal and\or replace the existing law.
My support and vote are going to the people who I think provide the highest probability of making that happen. Which means they have to at least be willing to try to make it happen.
I have no idea what the Skipper’s problem is. That tub is patchable.
As I recall, they were in need of six nails to do so, or something like that. They tried to fabricate some, but failed. (Why they couldn’t just pull some nails from a non-essential part of the boat was never explained).
So they glued the entire boat, and the glue failed, destroying the entire boat.
What I complained about was the “False Trump” defense. I have no idea what Trump is going to do. You, and French have decided that you do know what he is going to do, or you think that he will be worse than Clinton. That is OK. It means the articles don’t sway you, and you don’t agree with them. French is saying the articles are just BS. Lots of people do not agree.
Bryan, that is the false Trump defense. Not that Trump is lying and creating a false image, but that his supporters project whatever they want onto him because they have no idea what he’s going to do and then use that false image as proof of how great he is. French isn’t saying he knows what Trump will do in this piece. He’s saying that the Flight 93 piece and the subsequent defense of it use their own preferences to claim they will know what Trump will do.
Did you even read the French piece?
Point of clarification, it is Decius that has decided that he knows what Trump is going to do. That is the whole point of the Flight 93 article. Trump is going to save the country by being an awesome President, thereby singlehandedly reversing 25 years of the country’s slide to the left.
Yes. And he said it applies to everyone. That therefore includes Thomas Sowell, who clearly, with his jumping out of an airplane anology. I am rejecting the idea that every defense of Trump is using a false Trump.
Then again, I think far more highly of one man than the other.
True, but as I said above, French calls out every defense of Trump. If Trump is going to be attacked for hyperbole, then French gets called out on it himself.
I took Dr. Sowell’s analogy to be abandoning the plane entirely rather than turning it over to someone who will drive it into the ground a little to the right.
Even if Dr. Sowell is presenting an intellectual defense of trump in the podcast – even the smartest men can be wrong. As much as I admire him I’m not so deep into a cult of personality that I can’t recognize bad arguments.
Every “intellectual” defense of Trump. Quote accurately or not at all.
Meh. I think he just calls out the argument that Trump is going to save the country by being an awesome President thereby singlehandedly reversing 25 years of the country’s slide to the left by pointing that the very things Decius thinks Trump is going to do to be an awesome President thereby singlehandedly reversing 25 years of the country’s slide to the left are things that Trump did not advocate or support in any way prior to deciding to run for the Republican nomination.
Sure, it’s possible that Trump has had an actual conversion to conservatism, but I’m of the belief that if he had an actual conversion to conservatism, he would be able to describe his conversion and why he now thinks conservative principles are better for the country instead of what he’s believed for the first 68 years of his life rather than just mindlessly repeating the mantra “I’m very conservative.”
I don’t support Trump because I think he’ll be a great President, I support him because I think he’ll be slightly less awful than Clinton.
That is a perfectly legitimate argument and belief. It just doesn’t correspond with the argument Decius is making (if we elect Trump, the nation will be saved.)
If Trump is slightly less awful than Clinton, someone even more left-leaning than Clinton will be President in four years probably with Democrats controlling both the house and the senate, and we will have at best, slightly delayed the plane crashing into the field, not reversed its decline, with that slight delay possibly resulting in an acceleration of the decline just four years later.