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-

[visualops]

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.

That's fairly accurate.

[Texas Eagle]

And they say smoking marijuana is a victimless crime.

[Cicero]

He's gotten it backwards. The leftists are much more like the Puritans, and the conservatives are much more like the Cavaliers. The leftists are intolerant spoilsports; they think of themselves as revolutionaries and progressives. Conservatives value honor and loyalty; they value tradition and the past.

Even though the Puritans were motivated by religious fervor, it's no coincidence that virtually all the academic leftists who study the seventeenth century favor the puritan revolutionaries. Similarly, they don't let Muslim religious fervor bother them, because they admire folks who ruthlessly blow up women and children in the name of a revolutionary cause.

[edeal]

More overly dramatic gobbledygook.

[The Scourge of Yazid]

If I hear this over-used analogy one more time I'm going to request a beheading, for whoever used it in the first place. I'm almost as sick of this conventional wisdom as I was of the repeated invocation of "gravitas" during the 2000 presidential race.

[LibWhacker]

I say again . . . Call out the militia, Mr. President. If you act now, we could round up the pinheads, avert civil war and win the day with a minimum number of casualties. If we wait until Hillary is in the White House, we're all dead.

[XEHRpa]

> But even though no one is about to behead our ruler and overthrow the government

I wish I could believe this, but the Clinton's don't give me any warm fuzzies on this.

[concerned about politics]

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.

We have the hunting lands, guns, and farming lands. They have the public sewer systems and city dumps to eat from.
My guess is we'll do fine, and if they don't like us any more , they can starve to death.

[concerned about politics]

And they say smoking marijuana is a victimless crime.

LOL!! Good one.

[The Scourge of Yazid]

Uh, what was the score in that last dust-up we had with you guys? Thought so. All gentle ribbing aside, this article has no more validity then Roy Texeira's prediction of an "Emerging Democratic majority."

If you want some real analysis, bone up on your Michael Barone. He's possibly the most thorough political analyst we have in this country.

[throopmanley]

Cavaliers supported state religion and ecclesiastical courts.

Roundheads abolished ecclesiastical courts and allowed the jews to return to england and tolerated religious dissent.

marijuana anyone?

no victim no crime

[Publius]

Back in 1688, the English called this return to common sense their Glorious Revolution. May we look forward to our own.

The author has confused the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (the removal of Catholic James II and replacement with Protestant William & Mary) with the Restoration of 1660 (replacement of Roundhead Cromwell's descendants with Cavalier Charles II.)

In the long run, the Cavaliers won.

[The Scourge of Yazid]

That was a great Bob Marley song! Wait a minute...

[Viking2002]

'This happy state of affairs eventually resumed in 17th-century England after the bloodshed of the Civil War. Gradually, civility and a rational balance were restored to the political system, with results that turned England into the world's most important country and mother to this one. Back in 1688, the English called this return to common sense their Glorious Revolution. May we look forward to our own.'

May the next civil war drive the Godless Cavaliers from our land entirely, never to return.

[concerned about politics]

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

Sorry bud? You lost me on that. What dust-up?

I suppose the logic in this article is fine. I feel the conservatives would survive much better than the liberals in a war. We wouldn't sit around crying and blaming everyone else in an emergency. We'd fight to win.

[Destro]

This was already posted before and your views were in the majority.

[throopmanley]

Yeah, I sometimes wonder if they changed the lyrics to get it released in the US.

[The Scourge of Yazid]

I don't think it would actually come to a war. Most of the liberals would probably get sick of fighting and go back to playing hackey-sack. Afterwards, most of the conservatives would probably just go back to work as stock-brokers, farmers, etc. Though, that's just one man's opinion.

[billbears]

Call out the militia, Mr. President.

Posse Comitatus Act isn't very important to you is it?

If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.