My post a couple of days ago on the Publius Flight 93 Election essay drew a hefty amount of discussion, and quite a few people have suggested that I look at a further offering of his: this interview with the writer on essentially the same subject. So now I’m going to tackle it.
My opinion? No, it’s not better than the original essay.
Publius is not a stupid person. On the contrary, he (or she? let’s go with “he”) is very smart, and uses that intelligence to weave a web of argument that just doesn’t make sense to me when I reflect on it. I remain puzzled not only as to why so many people I respect find him persuasive, but also in particular why they think that such reasoning might persuade me. It’s mostly very familiar stuff, the same sort of thing we’ve been hearing about Trump for over a year, trotting out the same old strawmen, the same old assumptions and generalities, and the same omissions.
In the interview, Publius says some very generalized things about “conservatives,” such as this:
We just lived through a summer in which police were targeted simply for being police officers””risking death to protect low income, primarily non-white lives. It wasn’t Trump supporters who were doing that or egging it on. But the Left and its propaganda arm instantaneously disavow any connection between that kind of fringe violence and official leftism or Democratic politics and that norm is enforced….
“The ‘conservatives’ have at least two motives for band-wagoning with this nonsense. One is that they simply don’t understand higher principle anymore, because their whole mindset is unconsciously leftist, so they believe that everything the Left calls “racist” is in fact racist. Oppose more immigration? Racist! Don’t believe the police systematically try to kill blacks? Racist!”
The other is simple cowardice. Conservatives are terrified of being called racist. I don’t know if this is bad conscience or what””maybe at heart they really believe it? Maybe living in all-white neighborhoods perhaps makes them feel guilty. But being called out for it scares them above all so they are always desperate to make public declarations of their purity as non-racists. They think they will get credit from the Left, which of course they never do, but that never stops them from trying.
I had to read that passage several times to even try to comprehend who and what Publius is talking about in it. What conservatives are “band-wagoning” with what “nonsense”? I missed the news of all the conservatives jumping on the Black Lives Matter bandwagon in order to not be called racists. I missed the conservative non-Trump supporters who were “egging on” the police killers or making excuses for them.
Nor does Publius see fit to help us out by naming those conservatives or offering something as concrete as a quote from them. Now, it’s certainly possible that some very moderate GOPe/RINO type said something or other that was a bit hedgy about it; I don’t pretend to have scoured the comments of every single member of the Republican party on the subject (which of course is not the same as conservatives, who seem to be Publius’ target). I can’t escape the notion that Publius has a bee in his bonnet about a couple of pundits and is generalizing to a huge huge group he wants to discredit, and thinks he can get away with it by being vague about it.
Apparently he is correct about that; he’s not only gotten away with it, he’s been highly praised for it and widely read.
As for Publius’ statements about conservatives’ cowardly “terror” at being called racists: that isn’t necessarily cowardice nor are they terrified. If a person is called a racist and knows that he/she is not, why not say one is not, and why? No one in America wants to seem racist or be called racist if that person knows that he/she is not. Hey, actually, even Donald Trump has gone to some pains to deflect the charge of racism. Is he, too, “terrified” about it and a coward?:
“Well, I am not a racist, in fact, I am the least racist person that you’ve ever encountered. I’ll give you an example. It’s funny, I just got this, it was just sent to me by Don King. Now, Don knows more about race than anybody. He owns this newspaper, you know ”” Don’s made a lot of money. He just sent this to me, look at this.”
He handed me a copy of the latest edition of the Call & Post, a black weekly based in Cleveland that King owns. On the back of the paper was a full-page announcement endorsing Trump for president and Bernie Sanders for vice president.
“Isn’t that funny?” Trump continued. “You know, Don endorsed me. You wanna take that back with you? You know, this could be a story…
If it’s a story, it’s a story Publius seemed to miss. He misses it because it suits his argument to miss it, and then he invents another story: that conservatives sympathize with Black Lives Matter and cop killings because they are cowards who are afraid of being called racists, unlike the unafraid Trump.
Publius also claims that “[Trump] wants to assert the right of the sovereign American people to control their government, which is the core constitutional principle… I think the idea that Trump wants to be a tyrant is preposterous.”
I submit that if he thinks that it’s preposterous to disagree with him on that, then he hasn’t been paying attention either to history or to Trump. Of course, Trump may not want to be a tyrant, and it definitely is possible that Trump really does want the American people to control their government. But the idea that Trump wants to be a tyrant (or at least somewhat of a tyrant in terms of executive action and the balance of powers, or to ride roughshod over certain rights such as free speech), and that Trump’s wanting the people to control government is a mere rhetorical device of Trump’s in order for him to gain power, is not the least bit “preposterous.” In fact, I’ve written several posts giving evidence that Trump is quite interested in being a tyrant, such as this and this. Whether you agree with the idea or not, there’s nothing “preposterous” about the notion or having the discussion.
Then Publius makes a statement with which we’re very very familiar—the old “Trump’s the only one who…” argument:
…Trump did something no one else has done in a long time. He broke through the taboo on talking about immigration, trade and economic policy in ways not reflective of Davos-class, administrative state ideology…
All the other “conservatives” who’ve run in the past 20 years either opposed Trump’s take on those questions or ran from them or ignored them.
No, Trump did not break through a taboo on talking tough on immigration. I’ve written several posts about that, the earliest being in October of 2015. No one has talked quite as tough as Trump, it’s true (although it’s a matter of slight degree if you compare him to Cruz, and mostly a matter of tone)—but funny thing, Trump has retreated from just about all the toughest of his initial statements. And who can forgot (of course, Publius has) Trump’s post-2012-election statements about Romney’s “mean-spirited” stance on immigration?:
“Republicans didn’t have anything going for them with respect to Latinos and with respect to Asians,” the billionaire developer says.
“The Democrats didn’t have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants, but what they did have going for them is they weren’t mean-spirited about it,” Trump says. “They didn’t know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind.”
Romney’s solution of “self deportation” for illegal aliens made no sense and suggested that Republicans do not care about Hispanics in general, Trump says.
“He had a crazy policy of self deportation which was maniacal,” Trump says. “It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote,” Trump notes. “He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.”
The GOP has to develop a comprehensive policy “to take care of this incredible problem that we have with respect to immigration, with respect to people wanting to be wonderful productive citizens of this country,” Trump says.
Moving right along, nothing PC to see there.
Ah, but Trump’s changed, don’t you see?
Then there’s Publius on Trump’s character issues:
I’ve read troubling things about Trump’s character so I don’t dismiss those concerns. But character isn’t everything. Aside from smoking a lot of pot, Obama’s character seems sterling. He’s a good family man, was a good student, has had a good career (in the narrow sense), does not appear to be corrupt in any way, and so on. But he is an ideological disaster for America.
He’s read troubling things about Trump’s character? He hasn’t observed them himself? Is he too busy trashing his phantom “conservatives” to notice? And then there’s more:
If I thought Trump were an Aaron Burr, I would feel differently. But I don’t. He’s a showboat and a ladies’ man and I gather he has done some shady things in business. But I don’t think he wants to use the presidency for his own ends, beyond self-aggrandizement, which I noted above, can correlate with the common good. Bottom line, if he builds a wall, gets serious about trade and economics, stops the bleeding overseas, and takes on the administrative state, then I can overlook his sins. I would rather have a sinless president, sure. But I wonder if a sinless man could win in these times. Plus, all the sinless men””such as Jeb””are horrible on the issues that really matter.
There are so many errors there and so much wrong there it’s almost overwhelming, and that’s just one paragraph (his entire interview is shot through with things like this). Publius minimizes Trump’s character flaws, lists only his least important ones and acts as though they’re what’s being criticized (no, we’re not against him because he’s a ladies’ man), ignores evidence that Trump might indeed have impulses towards tyranny or at least executive power squared, and advances the irrelevant argument that self-aggrandizement can correlate with the common good (so what? It so often doesn’t).
And then there’s Publius’ statement that “if [Trump] builds a wall, stops the bleeding overseas. etc. etc.” all will be forgiven. Those are some mighty big “ifs,” and they leave out an awful lot, such as the fact that many of those who oppose Trump doubt that he’ll actually do any of that, and think it more likely that he’ll do things that are worse in certain fields—particularly in foreign relations.
Also, what “bleeding” overseas is Publius talking about? He sounds like a leftist himself at this point (or a Buchanan-esque paleoconservative, which is actually what I think he is). ISIS? Afghanistan? What magical powers does he think Trump has? How will Trump do this?
And then Publius introduces the familiar straw man of a “sinless president” vs. Trump (some people prefer a “perfect candidate” as the Trump foil, but it’s the same idea and the same sophistry). Publius acts as though pointing out the deep and myriad and really quite potentially dangerous character flaws of Trump is the same as a request for a “sinless” president, which no one has made.
There’s a lot more in that Publius interview with which I disagree, but I think this essay is already long enough. I’ll just mention that one of those other things is Publius’ general insistence on ignoring the mutability of virtually all of Trump’s statements and positions, and picking and choosing among them, taking seriously only the ones Publius prefers. Publius seems to be one of the many many people who invent the Trump they want Trump to be rather than the Trump that is (a criticism Publius blithely and characteristically dismisses in the interview as “silly”).
I well understand the impulse to believe the best of Trump, since I’m a person who may end up reluctantly voting for him. I can assure you that if Trump wins the election, I will be very happy that Hillary Clinton has not, and I will sincerely hope the Trump that shows up to be president is the Trump I would want him to be, or at least a lot better than the Trump I believe him to be. But if I do vote for Trump, nothing Publius has said or written has done a thing to convince me to do so.
