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.
The “Flight 93 Election”
Way back in 2016, before we knew for sure that the Obama administration had weaponized the Department of Justice and was using it to tamper with an election, and ultimately to undermine an incoming administration, the upcoming presidential election was described by some as a “Flight 93 election.” Flight 93, of course, is the plane that was brought down in a field on 9/11 by a group of heroic passengers who were determined not to let Islamic terrorists fly the plane into a building.
The idea is pretty simple: some believed that it was crucial that we win in 2016 because another four years of Democratic control could put the nation on an irreversible trajectory to ruin. The analogy with Flight 93 has to do both with the desperation of the situation and with the slim hope for success. In the event, the passengers of Flight 93 died as heroes but died nonetheless. America was more fortunate in 2016: we gambled on a Republican candidate about whom a great many of us were skeptical, and we won more than many of us expected or even hoped.
In recent years I’ve heard the phrase “Flight 93 election” casually dismissed in a disparaging tone as if it were a discredited idea. I don’t understand why people would believe that. We won in 2016. We don’t know what would have happened had we lost, but it seems reasonable to assume that the corruption we are just now coming to appreciate, corruption in our intelligence and federal law enforcement institutions, would have been swept under the rug by a Clinton administration; swept under the rug, and then quietly mobilized by that famously corrupt woman to further her boundless political ambitions.
Far from being discredited, the idea of a Flight 93 election, of an election on which far too much rides and for which extraordinary risks are justified, seems to be supported by subsequent revelations, including the unfolding chaos we’ve witnessed in the past few weeks and the abuses of power (though, notably, not of federal power) we’ve seen across the nation during the recent epidemic.
We should feel free to describe 2020 as another Flight 93 election and to do so un-ironically. It shouldn’t be necessary; we should have a nation with two parties both committed to the survival of America as America, and not as some progressive dream of an anarcho-socialist identitarian utopia. Unfortunately, that isn’t our situation. So it’s our job to retain control of the cockpit.
Published in Elections
Matt, I think your comments highlights something important. It’s easy to make the leap from “we think this is extremely important” (e.g., the analogy to the desperation of Flight 93) to “if you don’t agree you’re a traitor to the cause.” It’s easy, and it’s wrong. It should be possible to express ones own degree of urgency and conviction without implying that anyone who doesn’t share that view is treacherous. And I think you’re right that, too often, we ascribe bad intentions or moral failings to people who don’t agree with us. Sometimes — probably usually — they aren’t warranted.
However, I don’t think the analogy with Flight 93 is the problem, but rather the conclusions some choose to make based on that analogy. The point of the analogy isn’t (at least, not in my usage) to suggest that our opposition is evil, but rather to suggest that we face a looming catastrophe if we don’t make a serious effort to avert one.
Incidentally, my post doesn’t mention Trump. We don’t need to hold the White House, though I think it would be great if we did: I’d love to get a bunch more originalist judges and a lot more deregulation. But we need to hold something. Those conservatives who argue for support of a Democrat victory in any branch are, I think, playing with fire, since we’re dangerously close to Democrat control of both the White House and Congress. In the current climate, I think that would be disastrous.
We can hope for a return to normalcy, eventually. Before the recent insanity, I thought that it had to get worse before it could get better. Perhaps this will be the turning point, though I’ve been disappointed before. I once had hopes that the Tea Party response to Obama’s radicalism would be a significant shift, and this did not materialize.
I’m not quite as dismissive of President Trump as you seem to be, though he does seem to be driven by ego in many of his actions. He also seems to be quite reactive much of the time, and to lack a long-term plan. But this may be unfair to him, as I don’t actually know his goals, beyond something generic like Make America Great Again.
You have a great point about internal party criticism appearing to be treasonous in these circumstances. I think that such disagreements can still be addressed respectfully, but this requires caution. It is particularly important, in such disagreements, not to lend support to the lunatic radicalism of the Left.
All of this does result in what appears to be a tribalist, us-versus-them mentality. I do not think that this is properly applied to the Right, though the Left does appear tribalist to me. On the Right, I think that this polarization is the result of the vastly increased radicalization of the Left, and the frustrating dominance of false narratives peddled by Leftist academicians, media personnel, and politicians.
It is quite rational to band together, and put minor differences aside, when faced with a truly serious external or internal threat. From Horatius at the Bridge:
For Romans in Rome’s quarrel spared neither land nor gold,
Nor son nor wife, nor limb nor life, in the brave days of old.
Then none was for a party; then all were for the state;
Then the great man helped the poor, and the poor man loved the great.
Then lands were fairly portioned; then spoils were fairly sold:
The Romans were like brothers in the brave days of old.
Now Roman is to Roman more hateful than a foe,
And the Tribunes beard the high, and the Fathers grind the low.
As we wax hot in faction, in battle we wax cold:
Wherefore men fight not as they fought in the brave days of old.
Or to put the flight 93 analogy a little more on the nose, accept a lesser tragedy [Crashing the plane and killing all aboard/Elect Donald Trump] to avoid an even a greater catastrophe [Plane crash into the White House or Capitol Building, killing many more people and destroying historic buildings plus everyone on board anyway/Elect Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden]
We can
tortureexplore the analogy in various ways, I suppose. I prefer to think of it as a choice between accepting the path we’re on and facing almost certain catastrophe, or making a personally risky (“I support Trump in 2020; I reject the Green New Deal and Black Lives Matter; I reject the thesis that capitalism is broken; I reject socialism”) choice in hopes that we’ll manage to safely land this plane despite the great danger that we won’t.Part of my point in writing the post was to observe that, for all the derision the “Flight 93 election” line gets these days, it may actually have been descriptive of 2016: it’s quite plausible that we held disaster off a few years, and may yet do it again.
Sure it can be compared. Anything can be compared to anything.
The Clintons did a lot more to send us down this path than expand some social programs. The Clintons taught the Democrats how to walk in lock-step conformity, or else. It was interesting to see how Democrats who became concerned about the Clintons’ illegalities and abuses of power were whipped back into line.
This is not consistent with my recollection. I recall quite a bit of disagreement among the Democrats back in the Clinton days. Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, despite disagreement by the more radical elements of his coalition. He instituted Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, rather than the open permission of military service by homosexuals advocated by part of his coalition. He had his “Sister Souljah” moment, pushing back against the radical black agenda. He made his peace with welfare reform, despite howls of protest.
I think that the Clinton administration was insidious, mainly for beginning the implementation of radical ideas within the administrative agencies.
It can be compared, but poorly.
I’m talking about the period after Clinton concluded, “Well, then we’ve got to win.” A lawyer who was on a social media platform with me was very concerned about the illegalities that had become known, but soon was quiet about it. And then I noticed it was not just him.
Phil, I reject your criticism as shallow and needlessly specific. It isn’t obvious that the tragedy of Flight 93 is greater than the tragedy of America sinking into socialism as a consequence of a few elections gone horribly wrong. In fact, in my opinion the tragedy of Flight 93 pales in comparison to the latter.
Then we disagree. I will always consider comparing any election to citizens who sacrificed their own lives to save others as an abomination.
Does it follow from that that you consider comparing the results of any election to citizens who sacrificed their own lives to save others to also be an abomination?
“As long as we vote this way, we’ll be just like those people who crashed the plane. See how brave we are?”
This is a small enough thing, but I like to be understood and I’m not sure that I’ve been clear.
The analogy is not to the heroism of the men (and perhaps women) of Flight 93. As I said in my post, the “analogy with Flight 93 has to do both with the desperation of the situation and with the slim hope for success.” I didn’t say that voting was as dangerous as attempting to take an airplane back from terrorists. That would be silly.
Having said that, there is a risk to being outspoken. It isn’t the risk of crashing and dying. It is the risk of losing a job, being driven out of a career, alienating friends and family, failing a class, and, very occasionally, having your head stove-in by an Antifa peacenik with a baseball bat — none of which is pleasant, but none of which, except maybe that last, is quite as bad as dying in a plane crash.
Phil, while you and I obviously differ on this, I admit that I have some sympathy for your perspective. I’ve never cared for the figurative use of the word “cancer,” as in, for example, “anti-semitism is a cancer in the upper classes of Europe.” Having lost loved ones to cancer, I think it’s a grim and exceptionally horrible thing, and I find use of the word distasteful in non-medical contexts. But I understand why people use it, and appreciate its illustrative value.
Apparently there will be temperature checks on Flight 93 from now on.
So, you think he has no concern for the people who support him? I grant the ego but when was the last president without a big ego ? Obama was a combination of ruthless ideology, incompetence and huge ego. I consider Trump a big improvement but I guess you don’t.
That, and also a tendency to treat a symbol as if it’s material and material facts as if they were symbolic.
Whether 2016 === 93 or not, the thing to be concerned about now is whether 2020 will be our Flight 800 election.
I consider Obama an ACP. I’ll let everyone figure out what that means.
Democrats, on the other hand, seem to want to dismantle every local police force in sight. They probably will not succeed at this in the near future, but you can be sure that they will be putting their people in authority at every opportunity and not be concerned with finding a bipartisan solution. In Pennsylvania, communities that have no local police force may find the state police acting in their place. This has not become an issue yet, but in the light of the recent Covid excesses I am beginning to see where it could be. @jeffhawkins
The Supreme Court wouldn’t be so vitally crucial if the saps we elect to write our laws actually lived up to their oath to protect and defend the Constitution. It’s a rare thing to hear a legislator say something like, “I like the idea, but this bill would violate the Constitution, so we cannot pass it.” The typical member of Congress only considers the Constitution’s limits on power when it can be used to oppose something they already oppose on other grounds.
But Gorsuch!
For years, Trump Skeptics were told that we should accept Trump because of his excellent judges. The abbreviation was “But Gorsuch!”
Right now, Trump is batting 1 for 2 in the Supreme Court. This is very disheartening.
You’re absolutely right: rather than the 200 judges recommended by the Federalist Society that this President has appointed, we’d have been better off if Clinton had chosen 200 progressive judges with a more creative sense of the Constitution.
I mentioned elsewhere, in response to some lame comment, that progressives have a problem with scale and balance. They see imperfection and want revolution in response, rather than correction and improvement.
I also am disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision. I don’t think, however, that we would be better off with a far more radical judiciary.
I don’t think the DNC cares. This is about the blacks that the DNC worried might be abandoning the plantation. It is all theater. The question is how many blacks are smart enough to see this? The Marxist BLM are in this for other reasons.
1933 Germany ?
And? Re-litigating the 2016 GOP nomination continues to be a misleading and useless endeavor. Trump’s flaws be what they are, he is the standard-bearer for the pro-American option in the upcoming election – that’s unlikely to change.
Vote for America or against it. That’s the reality we’re looking at.
Not sure how this is any different from anyone else’s main governing concern. It’s been the norm for political leaders everywhere, yet when Trump show that he, too, is normal, people set their hair on fire.