Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Charge the Cockpit!

Will you fight or will you complain?

This was published two days ago in the Claremont Review of Books.

You're probably aware of the article already. Among other things, it was read over the air by Rush Limbaugh, which apparently shut down the Claremont site for hours.

So, this reprint post is written for those who may have been vacationing on Mars for the last few days.

Attentive readers of this blog may know that I don't completely agree with all the issue positions that the author identifies as "conservative." But he made the best case for some of those (especially immigration) that I have ever seen.

Publius Decius Mus (does anyone know who that is?) declares this the "Flight 93 Election." In other words, we must do this. We may fail. But we must do this.

I cobbled together the choicest excerpts, but you should read the full version here.

Do you want to be a hero, or do you want to be able to smugly declare that you voted for Gary Johnson?

Not to bias the question or anything.   

The Flight 93 Election 
By: Publius Decius MusSeptember 5, 2016 
2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees. 
Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances . . . 
A Hillary presidency will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most “advanced” Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England. We see this already in the censorship practiced by the Davoisie’s social media enablers; in the shameless propaganda tidal wave of the mainstream media; and in the personal destruction campaigns—operated through the former and aided by the latter—of the Social Justice Warriors. We see it in Obama’s flagrant use of the IRS to torment political opponents, the gaslighting denial by the media, and the collective shrug by everyone else. 
It’s absurd to assume that any of this would stop or slow—would do anything other than massively intensify—in a Hillary administration . . . For two generations at least, the Left has been calling everyone to their right Nazis . . . And how does one deal with a Nazi—that is, with an enemy one is convinced intends your destruction? You don’t compromise with him or leave him alone. You crush him . . . 
. . . The sacredness of mass immigration is the mystic chord that unites America’s ruling and intellectual classes. Their reasons vary somewhat. The Left and the Democrats seek ringers to form a permanent electoral majority. They, or many of them, also believe the academic-intellectual lie that America’s inherently racist and evil nature can be expiated only through ever greater “diversity.” The junta of course craves cheaper and more docile labor. It also seeks to legitimize, and deflect unwanted attention from, its wealth and power by pretending that its open borders stance is a form of noblesse oblige. The Republicans and the “conservatives”? Both of course desperately want absolution from the charge of “racism.” For the latter, this at least makes some sense. No Washington General can take the court—much less cash his check—with that epithet dancing over his head like some Satanic Spirit. But for the former, this priestly grace comes at the direct expense of their worldly interests. Do they honestly believe that the right enterprise zone or charter school policy will arouse 50.01% of our newer voters to finally reveal their “natural conservatism” at the ballot box? It hasn’t happened anywhere yet and shows no signs that it ever will. But that doesn’t stop the Republican refrain: more, more, more! No matter how many elections they lose, how many districts tip forever blue, how rarely (if ever) their immigrant vote cracks 40%, the answer is always the same. Just like Angela Merkel after yet another rape, shooting, bombing, or machete attack. More, more, more! 
This is insane. This is the mark of a party, a society, a country, a people, a civilization that wants to die. Trump, alone among candidates for high office in this or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live. I want to end the insanity. 
Yes, Trump is worse than imperfect. So what? We can lament until we choke the lack of a great statesman to address the fundamental issues of our time—or, more importantly, to connect them. Since Pat Buchanan’s three failures, occasionally a candidate arose who saw one piece: Dick Gephardt on trade, Ron Paul on war, Tom Tancredo on immigration. Yet, among recent political figures—great statesmen, dangerous demagogues, and mewling gnats alike—only Trump-the-alleged-buffoon not merely saw all three and their essential connectivity, but was able to win on them. The alleged buffoon is thus more prudent—more practically wise—than all of our wise-and-good who so bitterly oppose him. This should embarrass them. That their failures instead embolden them is only further proof of their foolishness and hubris . . . 
By contrast, simply building a wall and enforcing immigration law will help enormously, by cutting off the flood of newcomers that perpetuates ethnic separatism and by incentivizing the English language and American norms in the workplace. These policies will have the added benefit of aligning the economic interests of, and (we may hope) fostering solidarity among, the working, lower middle, and middle classes of all races and ethnicities. The same can be said for Trumpian trade policies and anti-globalization instincts. Who cares if productivity numbers tick down, or if our already somnambulant GDP sinks a bit further into its pillow? Nearly all the gains of the last 20 years have accrued to the junta anyway. It would, at this point, be better for the nation to divide up more equitably a slightly smaller pie than to add one extra slice—only to ensure that it and eight of the other nine go first to the government and its rentiers, and the rest to the same four industries and 200 families. 
Will this work? Ask a pessimist, get a pessimistic answer. So don’t ask. Ask instead: is it worth trying? Is it better than the alternative? If you can’t say, forthrightly, “yes,” you are either part of the junta, a fool, or a conservative intellectual. 
And if it doesn’t work, what then? We’ve established that most “conservative” anti-Trumpites are in the Orwellian sense objectively pro-Hillary. What about the rest of you? If you recognize the threat she poses, but somehow can’t stomach him, have you thought about the longer term? The possibilities would seem to be: Caesarism, secession/crack-up, collapse, or managerial Davoisie liberalism as far as the eye can see … which, since nothing human lasts forever, at some point will give way to one of the other three. Oh, and, I suppose, for those who like to pour a tall one and dream big, a second American Revolution that restores Constitutionalism, limited government, and a 28% top marginal rate. 
But for those of you who are sober: can you sketch a more plausible long-term future than the prior four following a Trump defeat? I can’t either. 
The election of 2016 is a test—in my view, the final test—of whether there is any virtù left in what used to be the core of the American nation. If they cannot rouse themselves simply to vote for the first candidate in a generation who pledges to advance their interests, and to vote against the one who openly boasts that she will do the opposite (a million more Syrians, anyone?), then they are doomed. They may not deserve the fate that will befall them, but they will suffer it regardless.


  1. Thanks for publishing this Oakes. Hillary is surely a fatal attraction for the unthinking, the angry, and the desperate. And for the rest of just plain fatal.

    But I wonder if there is anyone who visits your site that wouldn't consider a vote for Hillary utter madness.

  2. In sum: If you have balls, and are a Patriot, vote for Trump. If you vote for anyone else you are a spineless traitor. A vote for the Constitution Party is not actually a vote for the Constitutuon Party. REALLY, it is a vote for Hillary, Democrats, abortion on demand and Islamic invasion.

    This is the only argument left, this article above, comparing a vote for Trump to Flight 93 (!). Without ever taking the necessary steps of explaining detailed policy positions and upon what basis we are to trust this lying, liberal man who says one thing and does another. Just get on board, dammit, you spineless coward, and vote for him! I've been banished from Catholic Trad blogs for simply taking this Never Trump position. As if I am going to hell for voting my conscience in favor of the Constitution Party against Trump and Hillary both.

    There is never an answer for Trump's compulsive lying, his erratic behavior, his dangerous thoughts on application of unlimited Executive power (esp towards the military), dishonest business deals, constantly changing policy positions, a lifetime supporting liberals and liberal policy positions, and how such a man elected by conservatives will change conservative politics FOREVER!

    Just, "he is not Hillary", and that's enough.

    And if anyone doesn't believe and go along they are a traitor.

    I talked to a grocery cashier yesterday, and on his own he randomly brought up his fear of both candidates. He was considering moving to Canada. This article does nothing to address those fears. For me, it just elevates them.

  3. If we're going to allow in another million "Syrians" I suggest we send them all to Northern Virginia, Georgetown, and Chevy Chase.