A Nation Divided (Conservative Roundheads vs liberal Cavaliers – who will win the war?)

The Seattle Times ^ | January 9, 2004 | Joel Kotkin [The Washington Post]

[quidnunc]

America 2004? Actually, no. This was the lamentable state of affairs in mid-17th century England, as it teetered on the brink of civil war. But there certainly is something disturbingly familiar about this description of a body politic dividing into two unbreachable camps.

Like England under Charles I, when the Cavaliers — the royalist supporters of the king — and the Roundheads — Puritan upstarts led by Oliver Cromwell — went at it for seven years of war, the United States today is becoming two nations. This is not merely the age-old split between income groups, as Sen. John Edwards kept suggesting in his unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, but something even more fundamental — a struggle between contrasting and utterly incompatible worldviews.

Some describe the conflict as one between the "red" and the "blue" states, the right and the left, conservatives and liberals. But even though no one is about to behead our ruler and overthrow the government, as Cromwell's forces did when they captured Parliament in 1649, I find the parallel of the Cavaliers and the Roundheads to be the most apt. They grew to hate each other so much that they could no longer accommodate a common national vision. "I have heard foul language and desperate quarrelings even between old and entire friends," wrote one Englishman on the eve of conflict, and much the same could be said of us today.

The questions in our own uncivil war are: Is anyone winning? Which America most likely represents the future of our country?

The political division has grown wider in recent years. Now a clear geographic and cultural divide is emerging as well. Demographic studies show that Republicans and Democrats are less likely to live next door to each other, attend the same churches or subscribe to the same media.

America's Roundheads cluster in the South, the Plains and various parts of the West, while the Cavaliers inhabit the coasts, particularly the large metropolitan centers of the Northeast and Pacific Northwest. Each side has its own views, confirmed by its favored media. Fox TV, most of talk radio, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Sean Hannity speak for the Roundheads, supporting President Bush and America's global mission. The mainstream media, the universities and the cultural establishment, including most of Hollywood, are the voices of the Cavaliers, whose elites, like many of England's Cavaliers and Charles I's French wife before them, are most concerned with winning over continental opinion and mimicking the European way of life.

-snip-

[The Scourge of Yazid]

They might have. Imagine if they'd written a song about the English Civil War. It would probably have been more interesting then this article. Then again, there's always Ziggy Marley.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Likening liberals to Anglican and Catholic "Royalists"???
What will they think of next?

[billbears]

Uh, what was the score in that last dust-up we had with you guys?

The 'Late Unpleasantness' you mean? Better check the population numbers again. Along with the amount of firearms. Don't think we're outnumbered four to one this time ;)

[The Scourge of Yazid]

Yeah, but the surge in population is a by-product of people fleeing the Northeast. That's why you have guys like Johnny Isaakson for congressmen-who'll be a U.S. senator in a few months-and real pizzerias sprouting up for a change.

[Uncle Miltie]

I can confirm the geographic self-division, having moved from Seattle to Fargo, and happily.

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

I posted this on an earlier thread and will repost that section now, the author of the article may never know just how right he is.

"I never thought I could have come to the cold hatred I am beginning to feel for some in this country. I think I now have some small understanding as to what made the American civil war one of the most bloody conflicts in history. It was the mutual hatred of two distinct peoples who no longer had a common middle ground, and we are now moving ever closer to that disaster once again."

[billbears]

And Elizabeth Dole and bagel shops. Ugh, don't remind me...

Although in all seriousness about this article, I can't see that in some way sooner or later, it will happen. Maybe not in our lifetimes but as the article already points out, the non violent divisions are already there. There will be a break point. Human nature

[GOPcapitalist]

But even though no one is about to behead our ruler and overthrow the government, as Cromwell's forces did when they captured Parliament in 1649, I find the parallel of the Cavaliers and the Roundheads to be the most apt.

I have to disagree with the author in that he's got the comparison backwards.

The political left has always had more in common with the Roundheads than the Cavs, and does now more than ever. Think about what a Puritan is: A loud obnoxious person from the northeast who thinks that he knows everything, thinks that everyone else is less "pure" and less intelligent than him, and spends his energies trying to tell everybody else how stupid they are while enforcing his dictates on how to live one's life upon them. Add the bitter hatred that they exhibit towards the sitting head of state and you've got a perfect description of none other than John F. Kerry.

[LibWhacker]

Has nothing to do with this. The militia is enshrined in the Constitution, serves at the pleasure of Congress under command of the President. As I understand it, the Army, Navy, Air Force, etc., are seperate entities and cannot be used for purposes of civilian law enforcement, per the PCA. The militia can, however, be used to quash seditious and rebellious groups acting within the country to cause it harm. Sorry, but imho, traitorous rats have risen to that level already.

[The Scourge of Yazid]

Yeah, it's pretty much the exact same situation. Except that slavery's been abolished, there's no more contention between people who want to expand westward across the continental United States versus anti-expansionist citizens, and there aren't armed bands of militia with bitterly clashing ideologies roaming the countryside. Other than that, it's like 1861 all over again.

[throopmanley]

Truly.

This article bothers me on many levels. The complete and utter twaddle which comprises the author's understanding of English history is just one of those levels.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Watch out. The "palaeos," the Menckenites, the neo-Confederates, the Birchites, and the Puritan-bashers will skin you alive for not seeing the Roundheads as the liberals and the Cavaliers as the conservatives!

"Palaeos" think religion is excellent if used to conserve the values of the ethnoculture, but they don't like people taking it too seriously.

[GOPcapitalist]

Likening liberals to Anglican and Catholic "Royalists"??? What will they think of next?

Exactly. The fool that wrote this thing got his analogy so backwards it is laughable. The northeaster city dwelling liberals that he praises as cavaliers are in fact the descendants of puritans in both ideology (which ammounts to being loud, acting obnoxious, and constantly imposing oneself upon innocent and undesiring others) and blood.

[Zionist Conspirator]

See? I told you!

[throopmanley]

This article makes me think that some juniour editor said to an intern: "write a summary of the national political scene, throw in the words 'Cavalier' and 'Roundhead', oh by the way, the 'Cavaliers' were the good guys."

[The Scourge of Yazid]

Exactly. And don't think that this genius has any better grasp on the fundamentals of American history either. If becoming a history professor didn't entail going through an extra six years of college, I swear I'd go for it. Then again, I'm a pretty indolent bastard, so maybe not.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Cavaliers supported state religion and ecclesiastical courts.

Yes, and they were actually freethinkers, occultists, and had loose morals.

It's the eternal pattern: the "old" churches harbor the worldlings and compromisers (because their religion is basically utilitarian) and the newer Fundamentalist "heretics" are the ones who take their religion seriously . . . and then get bashed for it by the people who supposedly oppose liberal church/state separationism.

[glaseatr]

marijuana anyone?

No thanks all it's ever done for me is make me puke...could be the reason I'm a recovering alcoholic. LOL

[GOPcapitalist]

the Puritan-bashers will skin you alive for not seeing the Roundheads as the liberals and the Cavaliers as the conservatives!

The puritans were hypocritical freedom-hating heretics. They attempted to create a kingdom of God in this world and ended up only creating the very worst elements of a kingdom of man. That is why they resemble the liberals, only they supplant their ancestors' religious claims (and I do mean ancestors in both the literal and ideological sense) with the false idols of today - "diversity" and "multiculturalism" and "social justice" and "liberation theology."

You should also take note that the direct theological heir of New England puritanism today is the unitarian church - a fringe leftist denomination that emerged out of new england and is enamored with all of the aforementioned "causes."

[Zionist Conspirator]

Likening liberals to Anglican and Catholic "Royalists"??? What will they think of next?

Oh sure. Charles I and II were rightwingers and Cromwell was a proto-Marxist.

Did you know in Louisiana it's the Catholic Cajuns who chase the women and the "heretical" Protestants who are strait-laced and "uptight?"