Posted on 10/13/2003 9:41:44 PM PDT by kattracks
Whatever your politics, you have to be oblivious to reality to deny that America today is torn by ideological divisions as deep as those of the Civil War era. We are, in fact, in the midst of the Second American Civil War.
Of course, one obvious difference between the two is that this Second Civil War is (thus far) non-violent. On the other hand, there is probably more hatred between the opposing sides today than there was during the First Civil War. And I am not talking about extremists. A senior editor of the respected center-left New Republic just wrote an article titled, "The Case for Bush Hatred," an article that could have been written by writers at most major American newspapers, by most Hollywood celebrities, and almost anyone else left of center. And the conservative hatred of former President Bill Clinton was equally deep.
In general, however, the similarities are greater than the differences. Once again the North and the South are at odds (though many individuals on each side identify with the other). And once again, the fate of the nation hangs in the balance. The two sides' values and visions of America are as incompatible as they were in the 1860s.
For those Americans who do not know what side they are on or who are not certain about what the Second American Civil War is being fought over, I offer a list of the most important areas of conflict.
While the views of many, probably even most, Americans do not fall entirely on either side, the two competing camps are quite distinguishable. On one side are those on the Left -- liberals, leftists and Greens -- who tend to agree with one another on almost all major issues. On the other side are those on the Right -- conservatives, rightists and libertarians -- who agree on stopping the Left, but differ with one another more often than those on the Left do.
Here, then, is Part One of the list of the major differences that are tearing America apart:
The Left believes in removing America's Judeo-Christian identity, e.g., removing "under God" from the Pledge, "In God we trust" from the currency, the oath to God and country from the Boy Scouts Pledge, etc. The Right believes that destroying these symbols and this identity is tantamount to destroying America.
The Left regards America as morally inferior to many European societies with their abolition of the death penalty, cradle-to-grave welfare and religion-free life; and it does not believe that there are distinctive American values worth preserving. The Right regards America as the last best hope for humanity and believes that there are distinctive American values -- the unique combination of a religious (Judeo-Christian) society, a secular government, personal liberty and capitalism -- worth fighting and dying for.
The Left believes that impersonal companies, multinational and otherwise, with their insatiable drive for profits, have a profoundly destructive effect on the country. The Right believes that the legal system, particularly trial lawyers, lawsuits and judges who make laws, is the greater threat to American society.
The Left believes multiculturalism should be the ideal for American schools and for government policy. The Right believes that the Americanization of all its citizens is indispensable to the survival of the United States.
The Left believes that the Boy Scouts as currently constituted pose a moral threat to society. The Right believes the Boy Scouts continue to be one of the greatest moral institutions in the country.
The Left believes in equality more than in liberty. The Right believes more in liberty. For example, the Left believes that for the equality's sake, men's clubs must accept women. The Right believes that for liberty's sake, associations must be free to choose their own members.
The Left believes that when schools give out condoms to teenagers, they are promoting safe sex. The Right believes that when schools give out condoms, they are promoting more sex.
The Left believes that poverty, racism and psychopathology cause violent crime. The Right believes a lack of self-control, lack of religious practice and lack of good values are the primary causes of violent crime.
The Left believes that "war is not the answer." The Right believes that war is often the only answer to governmental evil.
Any one of these differences is enough to create an entirely different America. Added together, the differences suggest people who live in different worlds that are on a collision course.
And I have only listed some of the conflicting views.
Next week, in Part Two, I will discuss the other major conflicts making for the Second American Civil War.
©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Well said.
FGS
You're trying to make a point of some kind?
FGS
Aw, heck, we're still arguing over what the FIRST one was about! ;^)
"...a secular government..." - hmmmmm. Where did THAT come from. As a conservative, I realize that "separation of church and state" is a totally bogus lie made out of "there shall be no state control of any church", i.e. there will be no state church (e.g., the church of england).
I believe our currently, VERY "secular government" is a big part of the problem and is being very successfully manipulated by liberal social pondscum (LSP) to destroy our great country from within.
I'm in general agreement with the remainder of the article and am looking forward to seeing part II!
Meanwhile, never trust a wahabbi muslim or LSP, both being terrorists, differing only in weaponry and technique.
It's pretty bad when even on FR there are so many rose-colored-glasses wearing Pollyannas.
The sheeple will lap up the ABCNNBCBS version of a "Stadium Massacre" or a rigged presidential election.
The aware will find out the truth via the internet and talk radio.
There's the split, right there.
As it turned out, it ended quickly because the rabid revolutionary liberals were just pissing off the more pragmatic reasonable liberals who actually had jobs.
I agree with your take that it's more likely the radicals will over-reach and get smacked down with a major loss of credibility of the Dem party.
I expect they will continue to lose elections and increase the shrillness of their rhetoric in a self-reinforcing process. They will try increasingly absurd tactics until the mainstream begins treating them as the enemies they are.
Agreed for the most part. BUT, they are pretty good at UBL tactics; hit and run, slink of into the crowds after their dirty deeds. They will resort to their own form of terrroism, uh, HAVE resorted to their own form of terrorism on civil society. Would that Homeland Security saw it the same way.
They will try increasingly absurd tactics until the mainstream begins treating them as the enemies they are.
See above ;^)
FGS
Throw in a good double-pickin' flat top and I'll join your scruggy ban.
Throw in a good double-pickin' flat top and I'll join your scruggy band.
Thanks for asking, and for the kind words!
I won't disagree with that. The New Left was only a small part of the population, and the division didn't run on party lines, in so far as many Democrats were, by today's standards, rather conservative on foreign and social policy. Since then leftist ideas have become more diffused in the population. But "diffused" in both senses of the word: more widespread, but also weaker and more diluted. We don't have that mass of conservative Democrats in the South and in White ethnic communities, but we don't have student radicals bombing and celebrating arson and mayhem. We are more equally divided at the polls, but less bitterly divided in attitudes.
And the liberal or leftist ideas that have been spread are social and cultural ones, while leftist economic programs have largely languished. What it amounts to is a chunk of the middle classes becoming influenced by swingers and leftist academics. But how large a chunk is it? And isn't it offset by academics and swingers becoming "bourgeoisified"? How much of today's political attitudes are simply poses and consumer choices, rather than programs of radical action?
The right wasn't anywhere near as radical as the left, but its ideas have also become "diffused" in both senses of the word. Dole, Bush, and Limbaugh are regarded as being more in the "center" than Goldwater or Wallace, either because conservative views changed or because conservatives moved the center to the right or because issues today don't inspire the kind of venom that they did thirty years ago. The right has become as "bourgeoisified" as the left.
I'm inclined to think that the political system has more or less worked. True, people argue with each other and call each other names, but that was true in the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian periods, the Progressive era and the New Deal, and the country survived. A generation ago conflicts over abortion, homosexuality, drugs and other social issues were something of a departure from the early bread-and-butter political issues (which caused quite bitter divisions at earlier times) and it was natural to think that culture wars might tear the country apart.
But we've been living with such divisions for a generation and the country's still here. It's entirely possible that a future election or court decision will put us at each other's throats again, but for the time being such conflicts are more or less "defused." Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like when the dust clears we are still one country, some of us a little more of this, others a little more of that, but few of us purely one thing or the other. Politics still matters, but I don't see the apocalypse around the corner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.