after the flight 93 election, the vote that saved america - and what we still have to lose
Run into a Problem?
Thanks for telling u.s. nigh the trouble.
Friend Reviews
Reader Q&A
Exist the first to enquire a question well-nigh Subsequently the Flight 93 Election
Community Reviews
Within a few weeks Anton revealed his identity; afterwards the ballot he worked for several months in the Trump White Business firm, in the national security apparatus, until the swamp creatures managed to come up to boss the West Wing and the populism of Trump'south early months evaporated. And then he departed for Hillsdale Higher in Michigan, and, for at present, the life of a public intellectual. I hope he doesn't spend the residue of his days in that office; he would probably agree that nosotros have enough public intellectuals and not plenty doers. My guess is that soon enough, in the unsettled times ahead, he will find a new role.
This 2018 pamphlet reprints the original "Flight 93" essay, a follow-upwards "Restatement" as well published prior to the election, and a new essay, "Pre-Statement on Flight 93." This concluding tells united states of america what, exactly, it is that Anton wants our politics to be, to run across the criticism that he had before offered only a negative vision. In all these essays, Anton's bones point is the same one as I am always hammering—nosotros are in a new affair in American history, an existential struggle between the forces of Right and Left, respectively adept and evil, and at that place tin exist only i. The Left has always known this and acted accordingly, with malice aforethought; the Right, or part of the Right, is coming to realize it. Between the modern Left and the principles of virtue there is no eye ground; at that place is no compromise; at that place is no universe in which the principles of the Left tin go on to be allowed a seat at the public tabular array. They must exist defeated, and suppressed, root and branch. We must awake, and those Lotos-Eaters putatively on the Right who reject to rouse from slumber must be thrown overboard. And so says Anton, in essence, and I could non concur more.
Anton begins with a "Note," a epitomize of the reception of his original essay. This primarily means its reception on the Right; the Left didn't pay much attention then, deaf by their collective baying for Hillary's imminent ascension, and has not paid much attention since, either, which is probably a mistake. Within the Correct, considering the sclerotic organized Right of think tanks and little-read journals was Anton's main target, the backfire confronting Anton was fierce, though it was all of the pearl-clutching diverseness, gratis every bit a bird from all logic or reasoning. Those same segments before long enough coalesced into the noisome #NeverTrumpers, rats following their diminutive, tubby Pied Piper, Nib Kristol, who has unfortunately not led them into the mountain to disappear forever. Here, and in the "Pre-Statement," Anton in his usual pithy style refutes what few coherent objections to his claims have been made. I will note those late, merely Anton is willing to admit ane, and simply one, failure in his earlier essays—that in his original essay, he was insufficiently generous to and beholden of Donald Trump.
In his "Note," Anton also explains his option of pseudonym at more length, a proper noun borne by two Roman men, father and son, who each sacrificed himself on the field of battle. He cites interpretations by both Leo Strauss and Harvey Mansfield to rebut his critics, using close readings of my favorite Machiavelli text, "Discourses on Livy." Anton'due south basic point is that Machiavelli "says that a republic may exist led back to its beginnings 'either through the virtue of a man or through the virtue of an order' and goes on to say that 'such orders have need of being brought to life past the virtue of a citizen who rushes spiritedly to execute them against the ability of those who transgress them.' In other words, orders and men are both necessary and neither is superior to the other; virtuous men are necessary to execute good orders."
Anton hither leaves some ambiguity as to his ain goals. He says that "In 2016, I judged the modes and orders of my time—and peculiarly of conservatism—to be exhausted and imprisoned within an inflexible institutional and intellectual authority. I believed that its conclusions on the most pressing matters were false and pernicious and that its orthodoxy therefore required neat." Despite Machiavelli's warning that "nothing is more hard to handle, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than to put oneself at the head of introducing new orders," Anton chose to practice and then. But to what end? He refers to being led dorsum to beginnings, only he also speaks of new orders. Which is it? That is one of the things I volition examine here, afterward showtime evaluating the iii essays.
In the original Flying 93 essay, Anton notes that all American conservatives agree that things are very bad in America, have been for some time, and are getting worse. If conservatives truly believe the disquisitional importance to society of all the problems we face, from family unit breakdown to out-of-control regime to an disability to win wars, they must conclude "we are headed off a cliff." But—they don't really believe it, as Anton illustrates with an commodity from the Weekly Standard (ironically, in hindsight, given that periodical's fate), recommending for all issues the usual tired litany of conservative solutions, such as decentralization, federalism, and ceremonious renewal. "Which is to say, conservatism'due south typical combination of the useless and inapt with the utopian and unrealizable. . . . 'Civic renewal' would do a lot of course, only that'southward similar saying health volition save a cancer patient. A step has been skipped in there somewhere. How are we going to accomplish 'borough renewal'? Wishing for a tautology to enact itself is not a strategy."
This is the gravamen of Anton'due south complaint—conservatives proceed offering the aforementioned solutions that have solved nothing, to solve problems that only get worse, as their ability gets less and the Left grows always more dominant. You can't believe that things are atrocious and getting worse, but also that they can keep on their current path indefinitely; it is a contradiction. And that'southward what today's conservatives, that is, those in the public eye, believe. (In fact, since Anton wrote, "leading" conservatives such as Jonah Goldberg have come right out and admitted that they are happy to lose and for the Left to win completely, just a footling slower, please.) Even those few conservative solutions that accept been tried take failed or been quickly erased by the Left. "The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole and ongoing success is its own cocky-preservation." Such claims accept made Anton a prime number target of the happy losers whom he attacks, ranging from Goldberg (who specifically targeted Anton in his terrible 2017 book, Suicide of the West) to Michael Gerson. For reasons I volition hash out below, Anton's merely organized allies appear to be the Claremont Institute, and peradventure The American Conservative mag—both powers on the Right, to exist sure, but isolated from the invitations to cocktail parties and pats on the head from the cultural aristocracy of the Left that are so important to Goldberg, Gerson, and the other similar indistinguishable nonentities who cluster together.
So what passes for today's American conservatism is of footling or no value. I can get behind that. That doesn't hateful all alternatives are virtuous, or desirable. Anton makes a betoken I am ofttimes establish making, that Trump'southward mere being is a sign of the times, not of expert times, but every bit of an angel breaking a numbered seal. "Only in a corrupt democracy, in corrupt times, could a Trump rising. It is therefore puzzling that those nearly horrified by Trump are the least willing to consider the possibility that the republic is dying." Sure, if you lot're part of the professional-managerial aristocracy, the by two decades have been pretty good to you. For everybody else, and for the fabric of society, the reverse is truthful, and if you tin't see it, you lot're too embedded in the ruling grade, or too dependent on their tolerance and largesse for your daily bread. Others have expanded on this point, from Tucker Carlson to Richard Reeves to Kurt Schlichter, though few have made the focus of their ire the conservatives who are supposed to intendance about such things.
The non-Trump Republican presidential candidates, had any of them won, wouldn't accept done anything to stop or plow dorsum the tide of the Left, since "their 'opposition' is in all cases ineffectual and ofttimes duplicate from support." But a Hillary win would be a fatal disaster for America, cementing its destruction. It "will exist pedal-to-the-metal on the unabridged progressive-Left agenda, plus items few of the states have nonetheless imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled by a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal W only in the most 'advanced' Scandinavian countries and the well-nigh leftist corners of Germany and England. We see this already in the censorship practiced past 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 employ of the IRS to torment political opponents, the gaslighting denial by the media, and the commonage shrug past everyone else."
That all this would have come up truthful is proven by the Left'south behavior since the election. They do what they would accept done under Hillary, but lacking the power of the executive branch, the damage they can practice is somewhat limited. On the other hand, their rage at losing to Trump has fueled the fire. Not having executive power, for at present, doesn't stop, amid other evils, countless violence against any public brandish of support for Trump; aggressive campaigns on the state level to legalized infanticide and push button the latest in sexual fluidity as the moral equivalent of abolitionism; mass censorship of conservatives on all social media platforms; and the personal destruction of anyone within their reach, or within the reach of their allies in all large corporations, the media, or the universities. And, most of all, we come across it in their two years of whipping upward hate in the media and using bogus "investigations" to cripple Trump and persecute anyone associated with him.
Swinging around again to his punching bag, the weak betas of Conservatism, Inc., Anton notes that they certainly aren't going to pb resistance to the horrors of a Hillary administration. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't, since all opinion-making is controlled by the Left. But they don't want to; they "cocky-handicap and cocky-censor to an absurd degree. Our 'leaders' and 'dissenters' bend over backward to play by the self-sabotaging rules the Left sets for them." (I have complained earlier, for instance, of the conservative lust for pre-emptive apologies, a perfect case of what Anton complains of.) What we need instead is a leader who will fight, who volition punch dorsum. He will stop importing millions of Third World migrants, who erode our economy's strength and vote in lockstep for the Left. He will adopt trade and antiglobalization policies that benefit all Americans. "Who cares if productivity numbers tick downwards, or if our already somnambulant GDP sinks a scrap further into its pillow. Nearly all the gains of the terminal twenty years have accrued to the junta anyhow."
What we can't have is Hillary. Conservatism, Inc., is "considerately pro-Hillary." Anton concludes that if we do get Hillary, in the longer term, "the possibilities volition seem to be: Caesarism, secession/crack-up, plummet, or managerial Davoisie as far as the eye tin can run across . . . which, since nothing lasts forever, at some indicate will give mode to i 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 percent top marginal rate." We volition return to these options, and whether any are desirable, below.
Anton's initial piece got just about the warmth of reception i would expect. Actually, it got no reception at all, until Rush Limbaugh read the entire affair on his radio program. (That conservatives dominate talk radio is intolerable to the Left, and censoring it a prime number goal of theirs, even though talk radio can never gear up what the news is or what polite public opinion is immune to be, and the power of new thoughts similar Anton'due south to gain traction through that medium is why.) But then a wave of hatred and bile from those conservatives attacked (that is, nearly all of them) crashed into Anton, along with some tut-tutting from a few conservatives who saw that their rage was merely proving Anton's point. Anton responded a few days later with "Restatement on Flight 93."
Hither he briefly addressed the almost cogent attacks on him. Using the passengers of Flight 93 as a metaphor was simply standard drawing of inspiration from heroes. It wasn't "disgusting." "It's quite obvious that's what really disgusting to these objectors is Trump." Trump isn't besides immoderate to be President; he may exist a "buffoon," but "one must wonder how buffoonish the alleged buffoon really is when he is right on the nigh important bug while and so many others who are esteemed wise are wrong." Trump is not too radical; in fact, on the surface he'southward more progressive than other recent Republican presidential candidates. He's really quite moderate in his policies of "secure borders, economic nationalism, and America-get-go strange policy." The problem is that he is a threat to what is now called the Deep Country, as outlined by John Marini: he might win, and he threatens "the current governing arrangement of the United Sates, [which] is dominion past a transnational managerial class in conjunction with the administrative state." Trump is not "authoritarian," which is a meaningless term as used here (and as I have shown at length by analyzing post-election writings, simply means in practice "erosion of the power of the Left."). Trump does not desire to "trash the Constitution," which anyway is laughable, given that the Left'due south entire, open and acknowledged, program of the past hundred years is to trash the Constitution.
No, reiterates Anton, he was correct the first time. Conservatism is a miserable failure. Doom is at the door, and if you choose to let information technology in, your fate will be upon your own head.
We all know what happened adjacent. Trump won. The Left lost its listen, and unleashed fresh helpings of barbarous hatred upon the land. (I did not predict this; I predicted a new era of optimism and limited comity. More than fool me.) They marshaled all their resources, from that icky hate group the SPLC to Rod Rosenstein to Facebook to the FBI to Jonah Goldberg, to stop Donald Trump from fulfilling any of his promises. And we are still living through these days of rage, which are, probably, merely the foothills of our own coming hot ceremonious war.
Anton, however, appears to have been stung by the claim that he only offered a negative vision, although on its confront that claim is untrue. He therefore wrote a new piece, "Pre-Statement on Flight 93." Anton seems grudging about writing it; noting that since the Left'southward project is destruction, of all opposition and of all non-Left "people, institutions, mores and traditions," "It'due south a bit rich to be defendant by nihilists of defective a positive vision." This slice is, I think, the least successful. Information technology'south not that it's bad; information technology's excellent. The problem is that while it rejects what Conservatism, Inc. has to offering, information technology repeats an every bit unrealistic prescription, namely a plough back to the Constitutional and political framework of 1787 and 1865.
A combination of political philosophy, political argument, and history, in the Pre-Statement Anton cites Aristotle for the basic claim that all human activity aims at some proficient. Across food, shelter, and security, "mere life," the skilful life is happiness or felicity, which is achieved by developing our capabilities to reach the telos of man, "the completion or perfection of those traits which are uniquely characteristic of man." "Radical individualism and individual hedonism," the goals of (though Anton does non say then) the Enlightenment, undermine human flourishing. This much has been known, in the West at to the lowest degree, since the Greeks, but the American Founders brought political order in the service of these goals to most perfection (which was perfected by the post-Civil State of war amendments). Federalism, limited government, and representative republicanism created the best system e'er. Just it is non one that can be exported to all peoples in all times, nor can information technology work if in that location is inadequate "commonality in customs, habits, and opinions." Every bit everyone with any sense knows, diversity is the opposite of our strength.
This near-perfect system has been attacked repeatedly since 1787, Anton tells us. First, past the followers of John Calhoun, unsuccessfully. Second, by the early-twentieth-century Progressives, successfully and causing great damage. And third, fatally, past the acolytes of John Rawls, purveyors of and so-called social justice and of forced equality, and the New Left, advocates of the tearing down of America, group rights, and oppression theory. All these attacks are breathless and destructive, just they have collectively succeeded in destroying the Founder's vision, and erecting in its place a system that maintains many of its outward forms only within is itch with decay and worms. Every bit the Left's ability grows ever greater, they must either "compound the lies, or suppress and punish dissent." They choose both, following the dictates of Herbert Marcuse and his heinous "repressive tolerance." Nosotros need to "return to life and the conditions of life: the rule of police, responsible freedom, confidence in our culture, patriotism, and business organization for the mutual good instead of only the particular adept of groups claiming oppression or disadvantage."
[Review completes as showtime comment.]
...more than
When I initially read Anton's essay in September 2016 I thought he was too tough on bourgeois
Read this book if you hate Trump (Left or Correct). Read information technology if the outcome of 2016 shocked you. It took me less than one hour. Information technology's the about insightful, succinct, and in my opinion, correct summation of the true conservative part for authorities and what was at pale in 2016. Anton, one of the leading conservative intellectual voices, efficiently highlights the failures of both sides and a path forrard.When I initially read Anton's essay in September 2016 I thought he was too tough on conservatives past calling them ineffective losers that deed as paper tigers for the Left to slay on the road to expansive authorities. In retrospect, I now think Anton nailed it on the head. Conservatives were happy to conserve the condition quo that kept them employed equally useful speed bumps (a filibuster merely non an obstacle) to liberal policies but were completely ineffective at selling or implementing conservative ideas. I found Anton'southward writing refreshing because he seems one of the few that isn't driven insane by Trump (i.e. he is nonetheless capable of rational thought and non decumbent to emotive outbursts) and is able to give measured assessments of policies and beliefs. He'southward neither a MAGA, a NeverTrumper, nor a Leftist. Anton freely admits that Trump's a buffoon but doesn't find any tyrannical tendencies. His betoken: if conservatives (constitutional originalists) lose 2016 nosotros might as well give up on 2020 and 2024.
The restatement is Anton's response to major criticisms his essay and expands his insight as to why people were so frustrated by Trump. Deep downwardly inside they were afraid Trump could in fact win which challenged the ruling form (both Left and Correct). "…Trump might win. He is not playing his assigned role of gentlemanly loser the way McCain and Romney did…The professional Correct (correctly) fears that a Trump Victory will finally make their irrelevance undeniable. " [p 84] I think Anton more effectively summarizes this betoken in the preface when he identifies President Trump every bit the "real" resistance to the mission creep of the Administrative state and how both the Correct and the Left benefited from information technology.
In sum, Anton drew heavy criticism from the left and correct for his initial essay but the majority of his points have been proven correct in the aftermath. Nosotros haven't devolved into a tyrannical dystopian club (I'm not wearing a red robe or white bonnet) and Trump is successfully appointing judges who attach to the Constitution (some of whom and then oppose his policies) at a charge per unit greater than every president salvage one: George Washington.
My biggest complaint of the book was the corporeality of space Anton devoted to why he chose his pseudonym Publius Decius Mus. Information technology was overly academic, slow, and somewhat self-aggrandizing (expect how erudite I am).
Below are some quotations that I specially enjoyed from the book.
"These are unsafe times. The Left has made them and then and insists on increasing the danger. Leftists hold virtually every commanding elevation in our society – financial, intellectual, educational, cultural, and administrative – and yet they affect the posture of an oppressed and besieged 'resistance'. Nonsense, the real resistance is led by President Trump. It is resistance to the Left's all-consuming drive for absolute ability, its hostility to all American and Western norms – ramble, moral, prudential – and its dizzying destructive enmity." [p 11]
"In truth, the post-1960s Left co-opts the language of 'justice' and 'rights' as a rhetorical device to become what information technology wants: the transfer of power, award, and wealth between groups as retribution for by offenses. Since the concept of social justice denies both natural rights and revelation, its real ground is simply will: we want these things and therefore they are adept. We don't like you and therefore you are bad." [p 52]
"Democracy is no longer defined every bit a government 'of the people, past the people, for the people.' Instead it is a government of the people, by left-liberal experts and oligarchs, without consent. Globalism, broad-open trade, financialization, mass immigration, foreign war without end or clear connection to national interest…are simply held to be nonnegotiable. Dissent is punished." [p 58]
"If you haven't noticed our side has been losing consistently since 1988. We can win midterms, but do nothing with them." [p 69]
"Trump'south vulgarity is in fact a godsend to the conservatives. It allows them to hang their public opposition to his obvious shortcomings and to ignore or downplay his far greater strengths, which should be even more than obvious but in corrupt times can be deliberately obscured by constant references to his faults." [pp 73-74]
"Withal and all, for man – potentially me included – life under perma-liberalism will be dainty. If y'all are in the managerial form, y'all will probably do well – and so long every bit you lot don't say the incorrect thing. (And, as noted, the list of 'wrong things' will be continuously updated, so make sure you keep upwards)…For the residuum of you – flyover people – the refuse will continue." [pp 93-94]
...more
Information technology's a bit rich to be accused by nihilists of lacking a positive vision.
This is a collection of three essays; the center, The Flight 93 Ballot, is the first, written earlier the 2016 presidential election. It's a diatribe against the so-called intellectual correct—"Conservatism, Inc."—who, like their counterparts on the left mutter near a crisis that they clearly don't believe in. If they believed in their crisis, they'd human activity differently. They'd human activity like there was a crisis.
Instead, when faced
It'due south a bit rich to exist accused by nihilists of defective a positive vision.
This is a collection of three essays; the middle, The Flight 93 Ballot, is the first, written before the 2016 presidential ballot. It's a diatribe against the and then-called intellectual correct—"Conservatism, Inc."—who, similar their counterparts on the left complain almost a crisis that they clearly don't believe in. If they believed in their crisis, they'd deed differently. They'd human action like in that location was a crisis.
Instead, when faced with someone doing something most the crisis they claimed existed, they practise a 180. You can run into this recently on the left when suddenly war in Syria became a moral imperative, or when they create as many greenhouse gasses as possible compared to the average person. On the right, the exemplar is probably Jonah Goldberg, who wrote books such as The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the State of war of Ideas and Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Pregnant, but who, in the Trump era, supports the same tactics from the left and the media that he'd earlier made money complaining nigh.
Anton uses the example of the Washington Generals, whose "job is to testify up and lose, simply yous are a necessary part of the prove and you practice get paid." Information technology's an apt illustration, and one I showtime saw in the comments section at the Ace of Spades HQ, starting around 2009, first about the Illinois Republican Party and after about John McCain. "Information technology'south like he wants to be known equally the best thespian on the Washington Generals."
Anton'south essay is very smart, and of course pissed off a lot of previously Conservative pundits who had turned against, now that it was coming from Trump, the very conservatism they'd once claimed to fight for.
The third essay is a response to some of those critics, whose criticisms seemed utterly off the deep finish of the pundit pool, although there are still, three years into his presidency, people who complain publicly of Trump being a tyrant; it seems, as in the example of Syria and the Tyranny of Clichés, that they don't really believe it—they are, later on all, making a good living off of something that, if truthful, would put them in the modernistic equivalent of Siberia.
In this tertiary essay, Anton makes the prescient claim that Trump…
…is asserting the right of the sovereign people to make their government do what they want it to do, and not do things they don't want it to do, in the teeth of determined opposition from a managerial class and administrative land that want non merely unlike policies only above all to perpetuate their own rule.
Which, as an aside, mirrors a statement about the end of the Roman Empire from the book I'thousand currently reading, How the Irish Saved Civilization:
the creation of an increasingly unwieldy and rigid bureaucracy, whose ain survival becomes its overriding goal;
The first essay is much longer and very different than the 2d and 3rd; information technology was written later the election as, ostensibly, a foundation for what information technology ought to mean to exist Conservative if conservatives don't want to be the Washington Generals of politics. In that location'south a lot of reference to the classics, including his choice to use the pseudonym "Publius Decius Mus" for the pre-election essays. Information technology'due south very much what you would expect from a conservative intellectual magazine such as the Claremont Review (where the pre-election essays appeared) or the New Criterion (where this postal service-election essay outset appeared).
I recall it may also have been an I-told-y'all-so, as when he writes that "What the Kavanaugh matter has made clearer to me than ever is that the left will non stop until all opposition is totally destroyed."
It's the longest and, while interesting as background, the least readable of the three essays. It goes deep into the philosophy of human nature without actually going deep into its sources. I think it was probably a mistake to put this essay first, and might recommend reading the essays in lodge of publication instead of their order in the book.
All of these essays are bachelor online, although the starting time essay is "in somewhat unlike grade" from its online version, Founding Philosophy. This means that the to the lowest degree readable of the essays is the best reason for buying the book.
...more
Yet occasionally, very occasionally in fact, we humans do something extraordinary. Retrieve Jesse Owens winning the Gold Medal in Berlin with quondam Adolf glaring on. What would have happened if Owens had gotten a cold that day? Maybe he would have run the race iv years later – and won, but with his victory not juxtaposed against the dower gaze of a racist tyrant, would information technology take been remembered? Futile enquiry, because that isn't what happened – and Owens, a poor lad from Phoenix, defied history'due south most evil man; if just for a moment (though a very public one). Information technology is a one-act of errors which leads some people to a flash of fame; after which they fade abroad, always remembering – pointing back to the moment when they did something remarkable, when they were noticed, when they – for a flash – were important; and then they are gone, never to be heard from over again.
It is easy to alive in those moments. You wake up thinking "I did this!" and go to bed with your last jiff one of gratitude at beingness selected for meaning, if just for an instant.
So I just finished "Afterward The Flight 93 Election" past Michael Anton (no longer Publius Decius Mus). This book includes a new essay, an onetime(ish) essay responding to his critics (a way to stoke the controversy I suppose in the hopes that another ember will even so over again ignite some stale timber of outrage still lying around), and is built around a reprint of Anton's famous article "The Flight 93 Election", published in September of 2016 for the Clairmont Review of Books (I'd never even heard of that periodical before Anton's article) which crystallized the impressions of many of us regarding the quondam candidacy (and potential presidency) of Hillary Clinton, every bit Anton efficiently summarized, "I of the Journal of American Greatness's deeper arguments was that but in a corrupt democracy, in corrupt times, could a Trump rise. It is therefore puzzling that those most horrified by Trump are the least willing to consider the possibility that the republic is dying." Blast!
This article marches into history, taking its author with it and joining the likes of Robert Kaplan with "The Coming Anarchy"; Francis Fukuyama and the "End of History", Samuel Huntington's "Disharmonism of Civilizations", Lina Sergie Attar's "The Land of Topless Minarets and Headless Little Girls" (and my ain "Suicide of Venezuela", of grade) in crystalizing the narrative surrounding something epic happening at a particular moment in fourth dimension. "The Flying 93 Ballot" may in fact have paved the way for a Trump presidency – or not, its hard to prove a counterfactual. But information technology was Anton's courage and clarity of idea which brought the piece into existence at the right time to help us consider the dangers which might have befallen our benighted republic with some other eight years of Obama/Hillary madness.
Michael Anton himself has continued writing and reading and studying; pleased with the role he played in a pivotal moment in our nation's history and content (one would assume) to accept had the privilege to exist heard. And that itself is a remarkable matter.
Perchance we are not so powerless after all…
...more than 
This trilogy of essays is, at best, egregiously idealistic in regards to its views on America and, at worst, literally xenophobic. Anton indulges in many of the very same tactics and rhetoric he track against the Left for, and fifty-fifty manages to prefer a "they hurt my feelings, pity me" attitude while also coming off as cocky-righteous and "holier-than-thou". Information technology boggles the mind how one can be this willfully ignorant to the reality of the very land you cla
Whew I started this year off with a doozy.This trilogy of essays is, at all-time, egregiously idealistic in regards to its views on America and, at worst, literally xenophobic. Anton indulges in many of the very same tactics and rhetoric he rails against the Left for, and even manages to prefer a "they hurt my feelings, pity me" mental attitude while also coming off as self-righteous and "holier-than-grand". It boggles the heed how one can exist this willfully ignorant to the reality of the very state you lot merits to love and "protect". Just wow.
...more than
Related Articles
Welcome back. Just a moment while we sign yous in to your Goodreads account.
bumpusaliectalk91.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43837825-after-the-flight-93-election
0 Response to "after the flight 93 election, the vote that saved america - and what we still have to lose"
ارسال یک نظر