This is What Civil War Looks Like

The Daily Dose of Reason ^ | January 14, 2018 | Dr. Michael J Hurd

[huckfillary]

The partial government shutdown is about more than a shutdown. It’s civil war. There are not guns or violence, at least not yet. The U.S. military has not turned against any portion of the citizens. Nobody has openly called for secession yet, at least to the point where it can credibly happen. Not just yet. Yet all these things are just beneath the surface. Any one of these things could happen, almost at any time, although — for perfectly understandable reasons — most of us prefer not yet to know it.

Donald Trump came along in the midst of this growing crisis. He didn’t start the fire, nor did his supporters. He merely represents the frustration and outrage of the half or so of the population who has simply had enough. The people who dominate all those red counties on the political map, and who also comprise a sturdy but usually silent minority (bigger than you think) in those blue map locations.

A civil war, in psychological terms, happens when two sides reach a point of irreconcilable differences. The government shutdown and the border wall, while very important issues, are not the only issues dividing this country. The country is divided on even bigger things, such as whether we should move toward higher taxes and socialism or lower taxes and capitalism; more regulation or less regulation; more control for the Democratic-Republican establishment in D.C., or less. Should we use all our military force against militant Islam, or bow down and blame ourselves, as Obama did? Should we permit other countries — China, European countries — the advantages of capitalism while imposing on ourselves the disadvantages of socialism? Or should we fight back, as President Trump has done?

The root issue of all political conflict, including our own, boils down to one factor: The individual versus the state. Does the individual have the right to make up one’s own mind about one’s life, or should government be involved in making many or most decisions for us? Whether the issue is gay marriage, abortion, taxes, capitalism/socialism, whether or when to utilize military force, what the budget should be, or anything else, that’s what it all boils down to. Even the border wall issue applies here. To border wall advocates, it’s an issue of whether the federal government should set up boundaries between our (hopefully) free country and individuals or nations who are not free, who may be hostile and threatening, and should in some way be screened before coming into our (hopefully) free country. This didn’t used to be controversial. But the Democrats have moved so far left — no border wall, no borders at all — that the divide seems new, and it is new for that reason.

Our country today reminds me so, so much of a marriage at the end of its time. I am sorry to say it, but it’s true. Sometimes a marriage therapist tells a couple, “It just seems like so much work. You’re fundamentally divided on so many matters. Why don’t you just divide up your property and go your separate ways? Set yourselves free?” There are times when it’s rational to conclude this, which is why divorce and breakups are often rational.

The smart couples do break up and rationally divide up their property — even time with their children — and move on, often to better and calmer lives. Will that happen in America? Not a chance, based on the way it looks right now.

Americans no longer seem to agree on the fundamentals. The Second Amendment is now up for grabs. For years, Democrats have claimed to support the Second Amendment in theory, but now they are prepared to pass legislation in effect outlawing guns (or ammunition, which is the same thing). It turns out when they said, for all those years, that “the Second Amendment applies to the military, not to individuals, even peaceful ones,” they really meant it. This alone is an unsustainable and unresolvable difference. Am I wrong? Prove me wrong. I’d love to be wrong. I see no compromise on this point.

And now the First Amendment could be at risk too. Increasingly, it seems that leftists, self-described progressives and Democrats really mean it when they say, “Hate speech isn’t protected by the First Amendment.” Seriously? What is hate speech? I have been called a promoter of hate speech for supporting President Trump on many matters and opposing Democrats. Is that what we’ve come to? Is hate speech now speech I don’t like? And regardless of how one defines “hate speech”, how on earth do you reconcile the First Amendment with anyone’s speech — however it’s characterized — being subject to any kind of government regulation or chilling whatsoever?

When two or more parties disagree on matters of principle, you’re at a point of civil breakdown. The First and Second Amendments are at the top of our Bill of Rights for a reason. When the two major political parties disagree on these two most precious components of individual liberty — the right to defend your body and to speak your mind — then civility is over. What a literal civil war would look like, in the twenty-first century in the USA, I frankly have no idea. Maybe we’re already in it. The government shutdown is a metaphor for the impossible, irreconcilable differences between two schools of thought. I keep thinking: This is what civil war looks like. Each side wants the other to humble him- or herself. But it’s not going to happen. Never, ever with the Democrats, who have never once caved on anything, ever. And no longer with the dissenters or so-called “deplorables”, at least if President Trump is any indication.

I don’t know the answer or solution. I only know one thing: The cause of the breakdown, whenever it happens, always resides in the most important issue in any political or social matter: The individual versus the state. If there is any solution to find, it will be there.

[Windflier]

"When the two major political parties disagree on these two most precious components of individual liberty — the right to defend your body and to speak your mind — then civility is over.

The essential Democrat message: "Shut up and turn in your guns."

The essential Republican response: "Eff you! Come and take it!"

[Windflier]

The divide is not state-by-state as it was in 1860. The divide is county by county, and basically high-density population versus low-density population.

It's now worse than that. It's down to house by house.

The recent Senate race in Texas proved that to me. Everywhere I went in Dallas County, there were Beto signs intermingled with Cruz signs. I'm talking in the yards of individual residences on the same block.

My town is ostensibly red, but it was the same thing here.

When the SHTF, there's going to be a major sort-out, up close and personal.

[DesertRhino]

“so if this person in the foxhole with you happened to be the best hand to hand fighter in the platoon, you’d rather be in there with a coward, as long as his cultural values mesh with yours own...”

That’s almost never the case.

[Former Proud Canadian]

The cities are far more dependent than that. Water, energy, and food deliveries are needed 24/7/365 for a city to survive. These all come from the countryside and can be easily disrupted.

[Jimmy The Snake]

This is a Cold Civil War... We had Bush v. Gore & Clinton Impeachment etc. We can argue all day long about when it started, but IMHO it starts when one side tries to undo or fix elections

But agreeing that we are having a Cold Civil War, then the Govt Shutdown to get Wall Funding is our Battle Of The Bulge.

[central_va]

The trouble is all of the supposedly sovereign states are intertwined with one another. Everybody has relatives, property, business interests in many other states.

Not my problem. The other solution is for all those parties to kill each other. A solution I am good with too.

[Jack Black]

I’m out of sorts still. Any chance you could do the honors?

[DuncanWaring]

About the CWII Ping List

The CWII Ping List is short for Civil War II. It is NOT a list of people advocating another Civil War in America. It is a list of people who are interested in the parallels between the Civil War (or War Between the States, if you prefer) and our current situation, or more generally are noting the references to a 'coming Civil War' that are made in the press.

Of course sometimes this is merely a figure of speech, such as "The Tea Parties are fighting a civil war for the heart of the GOP". This would not merit a CWII ping.

On the other hand someone saying something like "The events in California are reminiscent of what happened in Yugoslavia in the period proceeding the Civil War" would merit a ping.

FR rules do not permit advocating for the overthrow of the Republic, and I am not aware of anyone doing so on the list. Still many do see that as the political climate worsens we may be heading in a direction that makes such a conflict all but inevitable, particularly if other avenues for resolving our differences are taken away. Such as widespread vote fraud by leftists making elections meaningless, or a small cadre of judges over-ruling all attempts to end destructive policies over the clear will of the people.

The correct keyword tag for the Civil War II ping list is "CWII". Please Freep Mail me to get on the list

[NFHale]

“...The Second Amendment is now up for grabs...”

No, it isn’t.

“...but now they are prepared to pass legislation in effect outlawing guns (or ammunition, which is the same thing). ...”

That is the day we HAVE them for.

[grumpygresh]

I see this as a Trump and allies vs deep state conflict.

The wall is all about deep state funding. Human trafficking and drug trafficking are extremely lucrative and an effective border wall with security enhancements will cut off the money supply coming form the drug & human trafficking cartels that are funneled through the money laundering banks and deposited into off shore accounts for high level DEA, CIA, DOJ, and Congress.

The local and national media is tasked with diverting the public’s attention when they report “big” drug busts of relatively petty players, “big” fines on banks which amount to a small fraction of a percent, and “drug dealing” doctors and pharmacies.

[Phlyer]

It's down to house by house.

The nonstop lies of the Democrat media have demonized Republicans so badly that there are people who believe the lies . . . sort of. They are the low-information voters who vote Democrat and will even put up a sign, but they don't really look into the details enough to form a live-or-die position. And in a civil war, they would be forced to live or die. Instead of doing that, some of them will just go along with 'the rest of the block' whichever way that goes. And I believe the preponderance will fall along the inner-city versus non-city lines.

The other factor is whether any individual - regardless of "theoretical" political position - would side with a rebellion against central authority or side with that central authority. One of those in our, predominantly conservative, neighborhood who had a Beto sign is a policeman. Would he feel honor-bound to serve a disarmament notice on his neighbor? Probably. And that's where a house-by-house battle might start. Or at least, police (central authority) versus an individual house . . . by house . . . by house.

The biggest danger, from an individual rights perspective, is that the central government will 'divide and conquer' by suppressing individual homes, one at a time. Would you die to defend your neighbor? Do you even know his/her name? In our society, local neighborhoods are almost unimportant next to work or other social systems.

The good news, such as it is, is that I think that sort of decision will be sorted out long before it gets to my mostly-conservative neighborhood. The government will either have 'won' by demonstrating over and over again that they can trample on individual rights and will kill those who resist (one at a time, or house-by-house), or others will have resisted with sufficient force that the invalidity of disarmament orders and other violations of individual rights will have become apparent.

And that is something that might happen state by state. The Northeast states are already gone. After the Boston Marathon bombing, the police (in armored cars, with automatic weapons) went house to house and seized all firearms (or anything else they wanted) and the people just let them. That could happen now in Texas, in Austin or in the inner cities of Houston or Dallas. But I don't think it would work in my neighborhood. I hope not, anyway.

I'm old enough that I'm not as afraid of losing my life as I once was, and I've determined in my own mind not to comply with an illegal disarmament order. If they came to my house first, I'd be one of the ones that died for the principle. But I don't expect them to come to my house first.

[Phlyer]

Once the USA is divided up into new countries, . . .

I don't see any reason to believe that the central government would allow itself to be divided. Nor would the state governments actually try to achieve it. Despite the blowhard talk, there hasn't been a declaration of secession in 150 years. If states actually start doing that, then perhaps we might see "new federal governments." But the state governments are all complicit in the centralization of power by the federal government. We, the People will have to refuse to comply with unconstitutional orders in a true Civil War (where at least one side are civilians/militia) rather than a second "War Between the States." Or not. We might just roll over like the citizens of Boston have already done when the police started house-to-house seizures of personal firearms (and whatever else they felt like taking) without benefit of warrants or legal authority. They just did it, and the state supported it fully.

[central_va]

Ok no secession - lets the kill each other then. I’m good with that.

[Phlyer]

. . let them kill each other then . . .

Well, at least that would be a true 'civil war' rather than a "War Between the States" or a revolutionary war. And I'm good with that, too, because the very dependency that makes inner-city residents so willing to embrace socialism makes them unable to fight a stalwart foe. They can riot, or commit crimes of greed or violence, but they don't stand up to those who stand up to them. If I had to pick a civil war, I'd very much like disorganized, moocher mobs coming up my street rather than cops in armored cars.

[central_va]

PS: The Federal Government doesn’t “allow” states to secede. They just do it. What the Feds do about it or don’t do is up to the Feds.

[Windflier]

The biggest danger, from an individual rights perspective, is that the central government will 'divide and conquer' by suppressing individual homes, one at a time. Would you die to defend your neighbor? Do you even know his/her name?

"Suppressing individual homes" won't and can't happen in a vacuum. As soon as the federal Gestapo shows up and begins their dirty work, the word will explode across the grapevine.

That neighbor you've never spoken to will be at your door, telling you that it's time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. In very short order, a militia force of thousands will gather to repel the tyranny that has come to your town.

There is a high degree of awareness among conservative Americans that time grows short, and that a very perilous moment is approaching - one which will see us put to the test to defend our very existence as a people.

As in times past, many will fail the test, but many will not. I feel that, today, more will answer the call of duty than in this country's very first fight for liberty.

Do not fear. Tens of millions of patriots will be right there with you, should worse come to worst.

[ecomcon]

“I would totally support an effort to return CA, NM, and CO back to Mexico”

WTH is the matter with you? MAGA. All the way. All of America. DEFEAT our enemies. Do not capitulate.

[MortMan]

Globalism is “the state”. It serves the interests of the elite over the people.

[kearnyirish2]

I know I’m ten years late with it, but I finally modified my ALICE packs into MALICE packs; while MOLLE gear is better in some ways, I don’t believe any of the rucks (assault, medium, or large) accommodate a cargo shelf like the ALICE packs...

[kearnyirish2]

The war in Bosnia was probably more divided along ethnic lines. Spain’s civil war was more of an urban vs. rural conflict - and urban people don’t grow food.