Editorial Election Roulette – Do you want a Semi-Auto or Revolver? Recoil Staff September 27, 2016 Join the Conversation Last night we saw the first presidential debate between two of the three leading candidates; Hillary Clinton (D) and Donald Trump (R). Gary Johnson (L) was not invited to participate. Any presidential election is important, but there are many arguing the 2016 contest is particularly significant — and for a wide array of reasons. A recent article from The Claremont Institute provides an interesting perspective on what that might be. In fact, it makes the contention that this election could make or break our republic. The Left, the author says, believe they are on the cusp of a permanent victory that will, “…forever obviate the need to pretend to respect democratic and constitutional niceties.” He says they believe that because they are. You can express your opinion on the matter in the poll below, but first… The Flight 93 Election Election Roulette – Do you want a Semi-Auto or Revolver? Says the author, writing under a nom de plume, 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. Alarmist much? Perhaps, but the article makes some cogent points. Consider this: Let’s be very blunt here: if you genuinely think things can go on with no fundamental change needed, then you have implicitly admitted that conservatism is wrong. Wrong philosophically, wrong on human nature, wrong on the nature of politics, and wrong in its policy prescriptions. Because, first, few of those prescriptions are in force today. Second, of the ones that are, the left is busy undoing them, often with conservative assistance. And, third, the whole trend of the West is ever-leftward, ever further away from what we all understand as conservatism. If your answer…is for conservatism to keep doing what it’s been doing…even though we’ve been losing ground for at least a century, then you’ve implicitly accepted that your supposed political philosophy doesn’t matter and that civilization will carry on just fine under leftist tenets. Indeed, that leftism is truer than conservatism and superior to it. They will say, in words reminiscent of dorm-room Marxism—but our proposals have not been tried! Here our ideas sit, waiting to be implemented! To which I reply: eh, not really. Many conservative solutions—above all welfare reform and crime control—have been tried, and proved effective, but have nonetheless failed to stem the tide. Crime, for instance, is down from its mid-’70s and early ’90s peak—but way, way up from the historic American norm that ended when liberals took over criminal justice in the mid-’60s. And it’s rising fast today, in the teeth of ineffectual conservative complaints. And what has this temporary crime (or welfare, for that matter) decline done to stem the greater tide? The tsunami of leftism…has receded not a bit but indeed has grown. All your (our) victories are short-lived. More to the point, what has conservatism achieved lately? In the last 20 years? The answer—which appears to be “nothing”—might seem to lend credence to the plea that “our ideas haven’t been tried.” Except that the same conservatives who generate those ideas are in charge of selling them to the broader public. If their ideas “haven’t been tried,” who is ultimately at fault? The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation. Conservative intellectuals never tire of praising “entrepreneurs” and “creative destruction.” Dare to fail! they exhort businessmen. Let the market decide! Except, um, not with respect to us. Or is their true market not the political arena, but the fundraising circuit? Only three questions matter. First, how bad are things really? Second, what do we do right now? Third, what should we do for the long term? The author addresses those questions, and focuses a spotlight on Trump's perceived failures in conservatives' eyes. 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. Which they self-laud as “consistency”—adherence to “conservative principle,” defined by the 1980 campaign and the household gods of reigning conservative think-tanks. A higher consistency in the service of the national interest apparently eludes them. Agree or not, it's a thought provoking and eloquent piece. Take the time to read the rest right here. Note that the original article stirred up quite a response. More so than the author expected. To read the author's response to the article's detractors, take a look at this article. When you're done, we'd like to hear your opinion on the author's stance — take part in the poll below (which contains language from both the original article and the follow-up). Take Our Poll Explore RECOILweb:G-Code Announces Scorpion Softshell Modular PouchesPreview - AftermathKDG SIDELOK™ - Aimpoint Micro MountSentinel Concepts 'Vehicle Low Light CQB'