Posted on 11/18/2019 4:47:55 AM PST by Kaslin
Next to a nuclear strike, foreign invasion, or global pandemic, it’s hard to imagine something as bone-chillingly terrifying as a second hot Civil War. The first one was bad enough, what with the endless carnage and the deaths of over 620,000 soldiers in a time when the U.S. was sparsely populated and wartime technology was in its relative infancy, at least compared to today. Even if the military withheld its most destructive weapons, a modern hot civil war would be disastrous on a scale that’s barely imaginable.
It’s a prospect no sane person wants, even on the fringes of the right or the left. Yet, in today’s polarized age, most people now genuinely believe civil war to be a very real possibility. An October Georgetown Institute poll found that the average American believes we are “two-thirds of the way to the edge of a civil war,” while a solid majority believes that “political, racial, and class divisions are getting worse.”
From where I’m sitting, it sure seems that way, and it’s a topic that’s getting an increasing amount of coverage in the media from both conservative and liberal perspectives.
The Atlantic devoted its entire December issue to the topic of “How To Stop A Civil War.” Interestingly, it includes an article relating how marriage counseling techniques can help bring some sense of mutual understanding to people on both sides of the political spectrum. Because in truth, the kind of ‘contempt’ that research says ends marriages for good, the kind that left and right clearly have for each other these days, could very well end our nation.
In an article for The American Conservative titled, “Civil War Begins When The Constitutional Order Breaks Down,” Michael Vlahos writes of a “daily torrent of unfiltered evidence” that suggests that “our constitutional order is fissuring before our eyes.”
Leftist author Joseph Natoli, writing for CounterPunch about the “Looming Shadow of Civil War,” sardonically but accurately described how conservatives see the ideological opposition: “Liberals retain the old tax and spend/baby killing on demand profile, taking from working Americans and giving to lazy shirkers and on the way killing babies. The profile grows darker: gay marriage, gender choice, LGBTQ rights, amnesty to illegal aliens, open borders, confiscation of guns, cars, cattle, Jesus, Robert E. Lee and white privilege. The ‘extreme Left’ and Progressives have a thinner profile: Communists.”
The left, then, according to Natoli, sees Trump supporters as being motivated by “ignorance and stupidity at the top of the list, followed by racist, bigoted, misogynist and homophobic. In brief, if you voted for Trump, you were a troglodyte with a gun.”
Now, which of those characterizations appears more accurate and which are just a personal attack? Does the left not favor abortion, tax and spend, gun confiscation, and open borders? Don’t they, for example, incessantly yammer on about the ridiculous, nonexistent concept of “white privilege?" The only thing slightly offensive to some might be the “Communist” label, but many on the more extreme left likely only publicly eschew that label for fear of turning people off.
Trump supporters, of course, don’t cotton to the idea of being labeled as “racist, bigoted, misogynist and homophobic,” not to mention "ignorant" and "stupid," by condescending, virtue signaling leftists full of their own self-defined "morality." Yet, at least for now, we are all in the same boat, as HBO host Bill Maher pointed out in a somewhat-joking, mostly-serious “Real Time with Bill Maher” segment on Friday night. To Maher, the “single shining truth about democracy” is “sharing the country with assholes you can’t stand” in the same way families don’t typically choose their Thanksgiving dinner guests. (Sure, we all know who he’s talking about when it comes to “assholes,” but that doesn’t negate the overall point).
“You don’t get to choose the guests, because those freaks are your family,” Maher joked. “Think about that the next time you think you can own someone politically. Think about how you can see politics so differently from people who share your very blood.” The HBO host lamented the desire, on both sides, to “own” the opposition - a tactic that never actually changes minds - before grimly observing that, while a second civil war may sound “impossible,” it is actually “is not.”
Then the comedian, like Natoli, juxtaposed how both sides see each other: “We all talk about Trump as an existential threat, but his side sees Democratic control of government the exact same way. And when both sides believe the other guy taking over means the end of the world, yes, you can have a civil war.”
“We are going to have to learn to live with each other or there will be blood,” Maher soberingly concluded.
“We are going to have to learn to live with each other or there will be blood,” Maher soberingly concluded.
Is he right? It’s a bit lengthy, but I highly recommend read this article titled “How America Ends.” In it, Atlantic senior editor Yoni Appelbaum acknowledges both the demographic plight faced by the political majority in America – something “no rich and stable democracy has ever experienced” – along with the fact that democracy is imperiled when one or the other side feels hopeless at the prospects for future electoral victory. A 2020 Trump defeat, writes Appelbaum, would “only deepen the despair that fueled his rise, confirming his supporters’ fear that the demographic tide has turned against them.”
“When a group that has traditionally exercised power comes to believe that its eclipse is inevitable, and that the destruction of all it holds dear will follow, it will fight to preserve what it has—whatever the cost,” he continued. Appelbaum’s ‘solution,’ as it were, is for the rise of a center-right party that embraces immigrants and minorities in the same way the Democratic Party expanded its tent in the 30’s.
The article truthfully lays out the landscape in a way that few liberal publications have acknowledged, but the ‘solution’ it offers is simply more of the same. Can America survive when its elites are, against the will of a majority of Americans, importing millions of immigrants from cultures that have little to nothing whatsoever in common with that of the current citizenry? To Maher’s analogy, we may not “choose” our family any more than we “choose” our country-mates, but imagine the tension at Thanksgiving if said “family” included different members every year brought in at random with absolutely nothing culturally in common with the original members. At what point does the concept of assimilation, something that predictably isn’t mentioned in the article but has always been the key to a stable country, become impossible? Still, just turn some into right-of-center conservatives, Appelbaum smugly advises, and all will be well.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for recruiting minorities of any stripe into the conservative tent. Hispanics and African Americans who are courageous enough to outwardly support President Trump, despite the pushback they get from their own communities, have my unending respect and gratitude. However, when has ANY conservative leaning party been able to recruit even Hispanics, the group with which they have arguably forged the greatest inroads, at a level that could equal electoral victory in a Hispanic-dominated state? Even George W. Bush, for all his pandering, only managed to win 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004. Most political analysts concede that even Texas will go blue by 2024, if not sooner. What chance will Republicans have on a national scale then?
Thus, the apocalyptic concerns of Michael Anton mentioned in the Atlantic article, laid out in his seminal 2016 essay “The Flight 93 Election,” are even more concerning now than ever. And contrary to Appelbaum’s contention, it is in fact Trump and his supporters who are trying to save America from collapse by curbing immigration to manageable levels. Because as daunting as the prospect of a civil war may be, many conservatives would choose that and all that goes with it – if some form of extreme federalism or non-violent secession doesn’t work – any day of the week over the even more disturbing prospect of being dominated by the political left for the foreseeable future.
One side openly embraces everything that can be described as evil and calls it “good.” The other side opposes the evil. You cannot compromise with two such opposing forces to find a “middle ground.”
The Red Left see any opposition to Marxism/Communism as a threat to their utopia.
They play for keeps.
The same agitators we see today have a direct bloodline to the violent extremist Left of the 1960s and 1970s.
Some of them are nearing the end of the human life span and desire to see the takeover happen in their lifetime.
They infiltrated the media and academia. They have been directly indoctrinating for 50 years.
Reagan and Thatcher are still demonized because the Soviet Union collapsed (and the Soviets used to financially prop up Communist dictatorships around the world).
With the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the talking point has been making the rounds that it was the Socialist Left in Germany who were responsible for it. Reagan’s “tear down this wall” didn’t play any part.
And still they revile the statue to the fallen victims (100,000,000 dead) from Communism.
This pretty much sums it up. Evil cannot be reasoned with or appeased. The article makes it sound like both sides want reasonable but different outcomes, they don't. Our side wants to live our lives free and be left alone and let others do the same. They want to control, dominate and murder.
It’s a domestic Cold War with the same sides as the other Cold War.
What I see is IF TRUMP IS TAKEN OUT, then history follows with millions marching on the Capitol and burning Congress to the ground.
What follows will make Hong Kong look like a picnic.
I have never advocated violence or revolution before, but the time we are living through now is the first to awaken me as to why pacifist men have been compelled to fight in revolutions of the past.
I don’t think I am alone in this by a long shot and if the sentiment reaches into my life, it means millions and millions of others are in the same way.
I don’t like when my spirit wishes ill-will on any human being but the image of Schiff and Pelosi hanging by the neck is one that I find appropriate.
This is not a good sign.
The problem with war is that once it breaks out, it is difficult to stop or control. I can see law enforcement quelling early uprisings only to find dissension in their ranks over the ensuing weeks with hot skirmishes breaking out at random making for intolerable social breakdown.
In any event, there will very likely be certain persons like Schiff and Pelosi that I see will not escape the backlash of Hell they brought the Nation.
Maybe it’s all just talk but when people like me have such thoughts, it literally means it’s the beginning of the end for the traitorous deceivers, and not in a good way such as a legal or legislative way, but in a way that ushers in something we would rather our children not see.
So how does this start?
Do they remove Trump from office and conservatives start shooting liberal politicians?
What’s the frequency Kenneth?
"When a group that has traditionally exercised power comes to believe that its eclipse is inevitable, and that the destruction of all it holds dear will follow, it will fight to preserve what it has—whatever the cost,”
Given the source, it's understandable, given it was written by a writer for the Antlantic. Undergirding said authors argument I suspect is the Left's "white privilege" bromide.
I can't speak for others, but maybe the Atlantic author should consider I just want to be left alone to live my life as I see fit. It's not the non-Left in recent years that has:
1. Used the tax agency of the government to punish perceived political opposition.
2. Stood by as goons of their same ideology shut down speakers, vandalize property, and even harm people.
3. Demonize their "opponents", even to the point of espousing blatant falshoods
4. Lie about their actions, motives, etc.
5. Use forced compliance (law or otherwise) when their ideas/policies are rejected. In fact, it goes beyond compliance to require acceptance.
And maybe it's just me, but it sure seems the bigger concern about a civil war is coming from the Left, and it's not from a place of altruism. I think what they fear most is being called to account for the vile things they do to people who have done nothing to deserve it.
Rant done.
One side wants to keep the constitution, the foundation of our country.
The other side wants to destroy the constitution and our country.
The FASTEST way to bring on a second civil war is for enough ‘conservatives’ to stay home, because so-and-so isn’t a ‘perfect’ Republican, and bring about Democrat rule, and particularly Democrat judges, who WILL throw out the Constitution in their rulings.
It’s NOT the GOP leaders who pay the price of whiny conservative voters looking for perfection - nope, they have all the money they need to escape the country if needed, it will be YOUR CHILDREN and YOUR GRANDCHILDREN, who will have to take up arms to stay out of re-education camps.
...and those idiots who sat out the November election will only have to look in a mirror to find out who was responsible for ruining the lives of their kids and grandkids.
Your flaw is that you think the left would fight.
They will use the gangs from Chicago, LA, New York and Miami against the people. They will use selected illegals who helped shock Venezuela into socialism and brought about Chavez.
Those people have been brought here and are working with the Democrats. They will be their shock troops and cannon fodder against those on the right who are willing to fight.
The left will have access to everything...National Guard Armories will be pillaged by the gangs (liberals will turn a blind eye) and their arms will be superior.
The military will stay out or the gangs within the military activated against us.
Anyone who thinks a Civil War would be the armed and skilled against the unarmed snowflakes is fooling themselves.
The solution is simple. No democrat should ever be allowed to hold any public office. It’s when they get into positions of power that the problems start. Just look at a few of them like AOC, Waters, Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff, Obama, Harris, Omar, and on and on.
They are the problem along with their street soldiers, antifa, and their propaganda arm, the enemedia. Take these underwear stains out of the picture and the division goes away. I’m sure they would be quite happy in some inner African muslim province.
Exactly.. This is pre 1860s on steroids.
You are probably correct.
I would conjure up the memory of the American revolution that was supported by perhaps a third of the American colonists. Never the less, revolution was accomplished
We know that something like half of American presidential voters supported Hillary Clinton. We know that most American cities are controlled by the coup instigators.
When it comes to serious opposition to uncles or brothers or mothers or neighbors, fervor might fade.
We can look to Venezuela. People are literally starving and barely existing. And yet, the cause of the suffering, those in power, are not opposed in sufficient numbers to prevail against them.
All that said, to save America, President Trump must destroy the progressives and eliminate their political power
Don’t equate Robert E. Lee and Stone Wall Jackson, with the likes of Schumer, Schiff, Pelosi etc.
You must be a product of when schools actually taught something?
You cant be a youngster.
Back in the day, when I went to high school and was in civics class, the teacher said this, and its true, federal income taxes are voluntary. No kidding. AND HE WAS CORRECT.
He has long passed away, but his daughter is a strict conservative.
Anyone who sends their child into a godless government school ( America’s first socialist entitlement) is AWOL.
Any split will have to be worked out politically. If the US military is ordered to become involved, then politicians will become legitimate targets. I’m NOT advocating that at all, just stating the obvious.
I seriously challenge your assumption that gangs of the Northeast and Left Coast could put together even a semblance of guerrilla war that would challenge the good old boys that we have in just one Alabama county....
“ It’s just that our Fort Sumter hasn’t happened yet.”
*
There will not be a civil war such as our previous civil war. Our demographic make up is much different, population is much more diverse and people of different politics, races, cultures, economics are commingled as neighbors, workmates, etc. thereby, although there most likely be stand-offs, shoot-outs, maybe some militia incidents and such, there won’t be any large military units representing each side going at each other. More likely, in my opinion, what we may experience is the political Balkanization of the states into semi-autonomous regions. There’s already examples of this occurring. A few that come to mind without researching are Spain, Germany, Kurds, Canada, even the PRC. This is already occurring here in the U.S. California being a leftist example. My guess is that Texas May be the first conservative example being it already has possession of its own gold reserves and has its own separate electrical power grid. Anyway, my two bits....
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.