James Kirchick’s post at the Daily Beast nearly has me convinced. The post takes as its point of departure an essay in The Claremont Review of Books, “The Flight 93 Election”. The kernel of that essay was that voting for Trump despite his temperament, manner, or views was a move in desperation, necessitated by the nomination of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate. Flipping that argument on its head Mr. Kirchick writes:
Anton’s case was hyperbolic. It was also hypocritical. For if any candidacy posed an existential threat to the American republic, it wasn’t the unexciting, predictable, left-of-center continuity represented by Hillary Clinton, but the reckless, impetuous, populist disruption promised by Donald Trump. The Flight 93 moment, in other words, is now.
In the real-life situation, as in Anton’s metaphor, individuals are asked to take risks for the good of the country by dislodging a dangerous individual from power. But now that Trump is president, and barring his unlikely impeachment or resignation, it is essential that he be joined in the cockpit by competent, experienced, patriotic individuals, who, unlike their Commander-in-Chief, put the best interests of the country before their selfish and venal desires. To the extent they can, they need to wrestle Trump from the controls—perhaps by convincing him to be a largely ceremonial president. At the very least, they can lessen the damage Trump can do. Ultimately, it is better to have them there than to have Trump flying alone. Which is why it’s unfortunate to see commentators urging high-ranking administration staffers to resign.
I see the present day as very similar to the period leading up to the American Civil War. As I see it there are several possible ways forward for the United States and one way that is distinctly not forward.
The way that I do not see as “forward” is to treat those with whom we disagree as a conquered, subjugated people. Humiliate them. Demean them. Destroy them. IMO that’s no way forward. It’s merely a preparation for the final battle.
The ways forward are reconciliation, separation, or creating a new kind of society de novo. I am not by nature a revolutionary and, consequently, I do not believe that creating the sort of networked society that some envision, replacing today’s businesses, governments, and other institutions with networked interactions that have no relation to geography is possible.
What Mr. Kirchick has very nearly convinced me of is that reconciliation is impossible. Reconciliation is hard. It requires treating your enemies with respect and relinquishing some of what you might want in the name of a greater good. If both those who support Trump and those who oppose him see what they’re doing in terms of a last, desperate but necessary act, how is reconciliation possible?
That leaves separation. It could be formal or de facto. That’s what federalism is for.
