This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1prosfilaes
http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/ :
"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."
This has got a lot of responses, these being two interesting ones.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/an-attack-on-founding-princi...
http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2016/09/08/flight-93-election-rush/
IMO, our government will keep rolling along, as will most established republics without outside interference. The mid-term elections for Congress tend to hurt the sitting president, which I would say is part and parcel of how Americans keep the system rolling. I'm no Trump fan, but unless he manages to actually start a nuclear war, there will be another election in four years. Him getting elected would terrify me, and not speak well for our body democratic, but it would get at least another two Presidential elections to pull stuff back from the edge.
Another thing I noted was the "morality" talk. Part of the reason Republicans are losing the morality argument is because people see them as hypocrites. Trump doesn't even bother to cover up things that others did in secret; I fail to see in any way how he is going to advance the Republican morality argument.
"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."
This has got a lot of responses, these being two interesting ones.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/an-attack-on-founding-princi...
http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2016/09/08/flight-93-election-rush/
IMO, our government will keep rolling along, as will most established republics without outside interference. The mid-term elections for Congress tend to hurt the sitting president, which I would say is part and parcel of how Americans keep the system rolling. I'm no Trump fan, but unless he manages to actually start a nuclear war, there will be another election in four years. Him getting elected would terrify me, and not speak well for our body democratic, but it would get at least another two Presidential elections to pull stuff back from the edge.
Another thing I noted was the "morality" talk. Part of the reason Republicans are losing the morality argument is because people see them as hypocrites. Trump doesn't even bother to cover up things that others did in secret; I fail to see in any way how he is going to advance the Republican morality argument.
2enevada
Time to split up. The Republic is over, lasted longer than many thought it would but what a crappy death, eh? Texit first and then, I hope, Maine will become part of the Maritimes.
3proximity1
Really? We have some calling it the "Flight 93" election even as the departing president writes --in Wired magazine-- that this is the greatest time in all human history to be alive. Not even HRC with her Lincolnesque public vs. private positions can square that circle.
There may well have been other presidents even more smug, self-satisfied and complacent than this one but not, I think, in living memory.
Understanding this about Obama's world view goes a long way toward making some twisted sense of this most Pollyannaish of modern presidents.
As the world burned and lurched from disaster to catastrophe over his two terms, this fucker leaned back in his oval office desk chair, interlaced his fingers behind his head and contemplated how, in his rosy view, "the long arc of history" is ever so slightly but surely bending toward justice and a brighter tomorrow. With that he could, did and does exempt himself from criticism that he has done so amazingly little and so poorly.
We've seen crises, war deaths and mass migration of refugees not known since world war two.
"Well, the long arc of history..."
Obama apparently always viewed all battles and risks and challenges this way--no matter the cause, it was never make-or-break, now-or-never, do-or-die, because there'd always be more briefing-books tomorrow and "Well, the long arc of history..."
What? Armed muslim fanatics have commandeered your airline flight and you're informed that their plans are to crash it into some crowded site? Relax and remember "Well, the long arc of history..."
There may well have been other presidents even more smug, self-satisfied and complacent than this one but not, I think, in living memory.
Understanding this about Obama's world view goes a long way toward making some twisted sense of this most Pollyannaish of modern presidents.
As the world burned and lurched from disaster to catastrophe over his two terms, this fucker leaned back in his oval office desk chair, interlaced his fingers behind his head and contemplated how, in his rosy view, "the long arc of history" is ever so slightly but surely bending toward justice and a brighter tomorrow. With that he could, did and does exempt himself from criticism that he has done so amazingly little and so poorly.
We've seen crises, war deaths and mass migration of refugees not known since world war two.
"Well, the long arc of history..."
Obama apparently always viewed all battles and risks and challenges this way--no matter the cause, it was never make-or-break, now-or-never, do-or-die, because there'd always be more briefing-books tomorrow and "Well, the long arc of history..."
What? Armed muslim fanatics have commandeered your airline flight and you're informed that their plans are to crash it into some crowded site? Relax and remember "Well, the long arc of history..."
4barney67
"a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.""
Hogwash. Neither presidency will lead to full blown collapse or Armageddon. That's partisanship panic. The analogy is so weak. I thought Claremont was better than that. We are not supposed to bring religious feelings to our politics. Conservatives especially are supposed to know how lethal that can be.
You have an experienced politician versus one who has never held office, never elected to anything, was never even a hall monitor in grade school. I have always had trouble accepting Trump as a candidate because of it. It's a reality show and he's pretending to be a candidate. There's only one candidate and this bozo. You might as well elect the White House janitor or a pro wrestler. He knows nothing about government, politics, law, history, diplomacy, military, current events. I doubt he could behave appropriately at a state dinner.
Hogwash. Neither presidency will lead to full blown collapse or Armageddon. That's partisanship panic. The analogy is so weak. I thought Claremont was better than that. We are not supposed to bring religious feelings to our politics. Conservatives especially are supposed to know how lethal that can be.
You have an experienced politician versus one who has never held office, never elected to anything, was never even a hall monitor in grade school. I have always had trouble accepting Trump as a candidate because of it. It's a reality show and he's pretending to be a candidate. There's only one candidate and this bozo. You might as well elect the White House janitor or a pro wrestler. He knows nothing about government, politics, law, history, diplomacy, military, current events. I doubt he could behave appropriately at a state dinner.
5barney67
The "morality" argument is that The People need to be guided by a moral sense, otherwise it doen't matter what system they live in. Has nothing to do with electing a paragon of virute. Democracy and capitalism allow a lot of freedom, but what people do with that freedom matters.
If you want proof of the declining moral sense, look around you. What kind of people give us candidates like this? It wasn't me.
Liberals are more hypocritical because they are the ones who bring relgious attitudes to politics. They are the self-righteous ones who are always talking about doing good. A party that has given us the Clintons, among others, has no business talking that way.
I do give credit to Obama for trying to conduct himself as a decent human being, an adult man, while in office, unlike the Clintons, whom he despises.
If you want proof of the declining moral sense, look around you. What kind of people give us candidates like this? It wasn't me.
Liberals are more hypocritical because they are the ones who bring relgious attitudes to politics. They are the self-righteous ones who are always talking about doing good. A party that has given us the Clintons, among others, has no business talking that way.
I do give credit to Obama for trying to conduct himself as a decent human being, an adult man, while in office, unlike the Clintons, whom he despises.
6prosfilaes
>5 barney67: The "morality" argument is that The People need to be guided by a moral sense, otherwise it doen't matter what system they live in. Has nothing to do with electing a paragon of virute.
The Government lecturing the People about their moral sense works just fine in totalitarian China, where the people can't hear or publically complain about the behavior of the people in Power. It doesn't tend to work so well in democracies where people can talk about the corruption they see. Our leaders should exemplify the behavior they expect to see from their followers; that's part of being a leader.
The Government lecturing the People about their moral sense works just fine in totalitarian China, where the people can't hear or publically complain about the behavior of the people in Power. It doesn't tend to work so well in democracies where people can talk about the corruption they see. Our leaders should exemplify the behavior they expect to see from their followers; that's part of being a leader.
7JGL53
The U.S. went through two world wars, a President's assassination, another President's resignation to avoid impeachment, Korean and Viet Nam "conflicts", the oil embargo and 500 per cent increase in gas prices, Ronnie Raygun and his idiocy and George Bushes, Sr. and Jr. and their idiocies. Etc., etc., etc.
And somehow we are still here and most of us have no real reason to complain.
But people just like to imagine the end of the fucking world is just around the corner and then wring their hands and crap their pants. Just for fun, apparently.
OK.
And somehow we are still here and most of us have no real reason to complain.
But people just like to imagine the end of the fucking world is just around the corner and then wring their hands and crap their pants. Just for fun, apparently.
OK.
8enevada
#7: hardly, the crapping out of the current political situation is an opportunity for small-scale, spontaneous secession. The New Acadia!
From Thomas H. Naylor’s Secession: How Vermont and all the other states can save themselves from the empire
“The decision to secede necessarily involves a very personal, painful process. By far the most difficult step in the process of deciding to embrace secession is the emotional one of letting go of one’s images of America as “the home of the free and the brave” and “the greatest nation in the world.” These images have been ingrained in most of us since early childhood. The decision to secede involves reaching the point where you are unwilling to risk going down with the Titanic and must seek out other options while there are still other options on the table. Secession is one such option. It may very well be the only viable option available to us.”
Let’s get on with it.
From Thomas H. Naylor’s Secession: How Vermont and all the other states can save themselves from the empire
“The decision to secede necessarily involves a very personal, painful process. By far the most difficult step in the process of deciding to embrace secession is the emotional one of letting go of one’s images of America as “the home of the free and the brave” and “the greatest nation in the world.” These images have been ingrained in most of us since early childhood. The decision to secede involves reaching the point where you are unwilling to risk going down with the Titanic and must seek out other options while there are still other options on the table. Secession is one such option. It may very well be the only viable option available to us.”
Let’s get on with it.
9barney67
>6 prosfilaes: You understood my point completely. That's exactly what I'm in favor of – Chinese totalitarianism.
10JGL53
> 8
I'll believe it when I see it. In the meantime I will make fun of the whole idea of secessionism.
On the other hand - unless I dreamed it - I remember a kind of fireside chat by R. Reagan during his Presidency wherein he predicted that at some future date the U.S., Canada, and Mexico would become one country. I think the odds are pretty much against that also.
I'll believe it when I see it. In the meantime I will make fun of the whole idea of secessionism.
On the other hand - unless I dreamed it - I remember a kind of fireside chat by R. Reagan during his Presidency wherein he predicted that at some future date the U.S., Canada, and Mexico would become one country. I think the odds are pretty much against that also.
11krolik
>8 enevada:
Interesting, but as Naylor implies, it goes against the grain of narcissism.
Good luck with that!
Interesting, but as Naylor implies, it goes against the grain of narcissism.
Good luck with that!
12enevada
>11 krolik:: It's been a while since I've read Christopher Lasch but I think what we're witnessing now is the pathetic, attention-grabbing end of the age of narcissism (I remain an incurable optimist). I see soft signs of a new communitarian era: gratitude is having a moment; Rod Dreher's getting some mileage out of the Benedict Option, that sort of thing. And, I think it would be pretty easy to snap off a place like Maine - at least the 2nd congressional district - and annex it to the Canadian Maritimes. The first district would be a better fit for Naylor's 2nd Vermont Republic, with upstate NY.
The benefit to the extreme political polarization and the inevitable disenfranchisement of roughly half the population at a time, is that the losing side goes through what I'd call an emotional secession (the 'painful process' of which Naylor writes. Personally I find it refreshing, but then I also swim in Maine waters - some people think that is painful). Once that hurdle is cleared, the pragmatic appeal of small, geo-cultural regions, much easier, more effective, and cheaper to administrate, will help compensate for any loss of the idealized empire.
Fun to think about, anyway.
The benefit to the extreme political polarization and the inevitable disenfranchisement of roughly half the population at a time, is that the losing side goes through what I'd call an emotional secession (the 'painful process' of which Naylor writes. Personally I find it refreshing, but then I also swim in Maine waters - some people think that is painful). Once that hurdle is cleared, the pragmatic appeal of small, geo-cultural regions, much easier, more effective, and cheaper to administrate, will help compensate for any loss of the idealized empire.
Fun to think about, anyway.
