I was reading another article on the high % of white evangelicals who support Trump, and one mentioned the “flight 93 election”, which I had NFI what it meant. So I clicked the link and got the below article, which was written shortly before people voted in the 2016 election, by someone who appears to be writing from the evangelical point of view. The Flight 93 election was the argument that things are so bad, that even if you don’t know you’re going to be successful, much like the passengers on flight 93 (one of the 9/11 flights, the one that went down in the middle of nowhere) it is worth rushing the cockpit because it might come off.
Now, I don’t really know if this person was correctly summarising the views of this group, but if he is, it is really interesting to read the long article on why the evangelicals and conservatives should vote for Trump. But it captures in doing so an insight into the wider world view. Some of which was eye opening. A few bits and pieces below:
- It is quite incredible how they view history. In their view, the left has been winning for years. It appears the Bush years, Republicans controlling congress for most periods since 1994, the dominance in the courts and states, doesn’t matter. The liberals have been winning, and winning handsomely.
- His view of Trumpism was “I mean Trumpism, broadly defined as secure borders, economic nationalism, and America-first foreign policy”. How little of that would actually fit the historic view of a Republican.
- There are a number of times he is completely contradictory. For example, he is vehemently anti-government and low taxes (wants to cap taxes at 28%). But also really against the rich (or junta as he calls them) and would prefer the current pie be more proportionately distributed. He doesn’t seem to understand that weak governments mean a strong elite rich group, who are also the predominant benefiters of a 28% tax cap. Oh, and of course the ‘junta’ are aligned with the left. Heh, its liberals like the Koch brothers funding elections isn’t it? He also wants more democracy, but then advocates the breaking of traditions and following the system’s precedents.
- He says "But they (Republicans) don’t dream up inanities like 32 “genders,” elective bathrooms, single-payer, Iran sycophancy, “Islamophobia,” and Black Lives Matter". Whether or not some of those are exaggerations, the idea that BLM is an “inanity” says an awful lot about his world view.
- He appears to honestly believe that the media is all against them.
- This bit caught my eye “A Hillary presidency will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most “advanced” Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England.” I mean, the disconnect between reality on both Clinton and those European countries is mind boggling. Does he think Norway is trussing up Christians or something?
- He thinks people on the left calling people on the right Nazi is extreme, and although in a small number of cases warranted indicates that the left isn’t willing to negotiate.
- He is vehemently against immigration, on the grounds it hurts jobs, but moreso that it dilutes the country, destroys the “American” way of life and ideals, and is only a huge plot to give the left more voters.
My takeaway from all of that is that this group are not really conservative on a number of economic issues. They want small government, less interaction with the world, less trade, and less change. I think the possibility of pulling these voters away from Trump while supporting equality of rights, BLM, MeToo, etc. is quite impossible. Dems need to ignore them, and look at how they maximise the voter turnout in the rest of the electorate who support them.