Posted on 10/16/2004 2:52:52 PM PDT by GaryL
We’re all familiar with the American Civil War, the war between the “Blue and the Gray.” Could there a new War Between the States simmering just over the horizon, this time a war between the “Red and the Blue”? Not a “shooting” war certainly, but an ideological one, with the end result being a permanent split between the factions into two separate countries. Hear me out on this, as it may not be as far-fetched as it first appears.
In the Civil War, the geographical, economic, and cultural divisions of the country between the industrialized North and the agricultural South were readily apparent. Festering just beneath the surface were the deeper Jeffersonian/Hamiltonian philosophical questions such as federalism vs. centralization, and free trade vs. protectionism. And of course, intermixed with all this was the great moral issue of the day – slavery – which served as the catalyst to ignite the conflict.
Similarly there are serious divisions coalescing today, but now the fault lines are less tangible, and harder to define. There is no simple regional division. The states of the old “Union” have now expanded to include virtually the entire industrial Northeast, the Pacific coast, and some states in the industrial Midwest. The old “Confederacy” has expanded to include all the Mountain states, the Southwest, and also some Midwestern states. A few states, like the old “Border states” of the Civil War era, including Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, can swing either way.
Today the division is almost purely ideological and cultural. On the surface, it manifests itself as the division of the country into “Blue states” and “Red states.” Superficially defined, Blue states are those which tend to support the Democratic candidate in any national election, while Red states are those that tend to support the Republican candidate.
On a deeper level, the ideological division can be seen as the difference between “progressive” secular humanism, summed up in the word “liberalism” vs. the “traditional” Judeo-Christian value system, summed up as “conservative.” This liberal/conservative division is apparent in all the major issues of the day. Domestically, Blue state opinion favors any policy that increases dependence on an ever-expanding federal government, such as higher taxes and expansion of the welfare state; whereas Red state opinion favors decreasing the power of the federal government through lower tax rates and individual responsibility. It is the difference between governmental dependence and personal liberty. Also, liberals favor a “living” constitution while conservatives favor “original intent.” Space and time does not permit developing all the political and cultural ramifications of this difference in constitutional philosophy.
On social issues, the divide runs equally deep, with liberals favoring unlimited abortion rights enshrined into the Constitution and protected by liberal justices on the Supreme Court, all other elements of extreme feminism, and “gay rights” to include same sex marriage. Conservatives, while ideologically anti-abortion, tolerate a limited abortion culture, including a ban on partial birth abortion and parental notification, with each state deciding the issue for itself. They are also reflexively opposed to the extreme elements of both the feminist and the “gay-rights” agenda. Foreign policy liberalism can be summarized, in the words of Jeanne Kirkpatrick, as “Blame America First.” It is internationalist in nature, with a strong reliance on the United Nations, summits and treaties, and favors humanitarian, rather than militaristic, uses for the Armed Forces; whereas conservatism is nationalistic, strongly pro-military, and highly suspicious of the United Nations – which it views as a corrupt, anti-American and anti-Semitic organization - and any “New World Order” tendencies. These are just a sampling of the many profound differences from across the political playing field between Red and Blue ideology.
Having defined the divisions, the question becomes: Where do we go from here? How will this all play out? These newly coalesced ideological divisions are neatly personified in the forthcoming election between George Bush and John Kerry. Bush is viewed by the Left as an intellectual light-weight from the culturally backwater state of Texas; whereas Kerry is view by the Right as a rich, arrogant, liberal snob from Ted Kennedy’s out-of-touch state, Massachusetts. The divisions could not be plainer or the rhetoric more shrill. The hatred runs deep on both sides. We’ve seen these political divisions before in our history, but this time the hatred has reached a level that can only be described as “visceral.” As in the 1860’s I think the time is fast approaching when it will be necessary to ask: Can the two sides continue to coexist as one country? Is it time for a parting of the ways?
Democrats, being secular humanists and the party of big government, have a totalitarian addiction to power and can no longer tolerate the likes of George Bush and his ilk having control of the government, which to them borders on the sacrilegious. As such, they will say or do anything to win back control. For them, the stakes are extremely high. Likewise, Republicans, having recently endured eight years of torture under Bill Clinton - who they considered a moral reprobate - choke at the notion of a Kerry administration. As we will soon see, something has to give.
Should George Bush win, what will be the Democrats’ reaction, especially if they perceive that they have evolved into permanent minority status? Their pathological need for power and control - especially of the government – will have been thwarted once again by people they despise. I suggest that a second Bush victory would be intolerable for them. Should they lose the election but manage to regain control of the senate, I’m convinced that they will immediately attempt to impeach him, probably over the War in Iraq. Baring that, is it too far-fetched to think that they will start talking about succeeding the Blue states to form a separate government of which they and their political descendants will forever be in control? This would end the fear of ever again losing power to political Neanderthals like George Bush and the people who support him.
Nor is this idea unprecedented in our history. In 1814 at the Hartford Convention, many of the Northeastern states who opposed the War of 1812 as well as the Jeffersonian tendencies of the federal government seriously threatened succession from the Union. Later, there were also secessionist cries from Northern states over the enforcement the whiskey act, the Mexican War, and the Fugitive Slave Act. Are today’s passions from the Left any less inflamed?
Their hatred of Bush and the culture he represents is so deep seated and so pathological that I don’t think this is an impossibility. Try to imagine if we have a repeat of the 2004 election where Bush wins the electoral vote but loses the popular vote. Do you really think the Democrats are going to meekly concede again? What would be the final resolution? Were the passions that ignited the Southern quest for independence in 1860 that much deeper than today’s Democratic passion for political control, combined with their hatred of George Bush and Red state ideology? I doubt it.
Are these divisions permanent and are they combustible? I think they are. Historians Thomas DiLorenzo, Charles Adams and others have argued in recent books that slavery was a moral cover used by both sides in 1860 to hide the real economic divisions that precipitated the Civil War. Similarly today, could “abortion rights” be the issue used by both sides to provide cover for the underlying irreparable ideological divisions of the country, divisions that can have no resolution by normal political discourse? Or maybe we are at about the year 1850, with the conflict about ten years into the future. Perhaps we will know the answer to these questions sooner than we think.
"Try to imagine if we have a repeat of the 2004 election where Bush wins the electoral vote but loses the popular vote. Do you really think the Democrats are going to meekly concede again?"
If that was meek concession, I dread the thought of resistance. What do you mean, "meekly concede"?
No, I actually think that it is possible for conflict, perhaps even armed conflict. There are many outside forces that would like to see the UNION weaken or crack.
You're probably right, "meekly" is not an accurate word there. But that only reinforces my point. If it was a "violent" reaction the first time, what would the second time be like? In other words, will they just accept the verdict? I'm not so sure.
There has been an ideological battle between many of the States for years now, and inside quite a few others, you will find that the real pro-Democrat supporters are found in the bigger cities while most level-headed people in the country see through a lot of the BS. Most common-sensical people want the same things, and security is right at the top of the list. Big government, higher taxes, massive welfare for those unwilling to work, passing children who haven't learned up the chain, and not holding people personally responsible for their actions are not.
A shooting war would cause major blue cities to fracture into areas of crime and violence, consuming themselves from within. The resources used to control the internal strife could not be utilized for other use.
I would probably go a step further and say that the potential conflict of ideology will be between suburban/rural America and Urban America. The big cities against everywhere else.
Just a quick thought.
My view on this is yes, it is too far-fetched to assume secessionism at the state level. Would it not be closer to the realm of possibility that you have regional secessionism? San Francisco Bay Area and NYC come to mind in this scenario. While both these scenarios are not likely, I would postulate that urban secessionism has a higher probability. Massachussetts may be the odd-ball in these scenarios.
We use the term "Red State/Blue State" as if these areas have an overwhelming preponderence of either being liberal or conservative, but in my opinion it is not the case. I believe it is more a regional trait, like the NYC and SF Bay areas. In the case of NYC, it's influence is not only in Manhatten but also in Northern NJ. Same thing goes for Philadelphia where it's influence extends throughout Southeastern PA, Southern NJ and Northern Delaware.
I would love to pursue this discussion further, but I have to go. Looking forward to your thoughts.
Your article is excellent and very thought provoking. Thanks for a good read!!!
bump for putting all this in God's hands
1. Loyalty to family and friends
2. Loyalty to your community
3. Loyalty to your church, club, etc.
4. Loyalty to your roots (birthplace, childhood memories, et al)
5. Loyalty to your job or career
The above list summarizes why it would be highly unlikely that you would have a mass exodus of conservatives from Blue States to Red States.
During the Civil War, there were no mass exodus due to ideological, moral, or societal pressures. Communities literally fought with each other (Bleeding Kansas comes to mind). Heck, West Virginia was part of Virginia. It became a state in 1863 precisely because this region was against secession and slavery. This immediate point tenuously supports my leaning towards regional secession rather a straight state-by-state secession.
It is also, IMHO, a stretch to think that conservatives or liberals would simply pull up and move to a state that identifies with their ideological preferences precisely because of the loyalties et al that I listed at the beginning of this post.
Currently, I live in Northern MD (not far from Gettysburg) but I am originally from NE PA where I was born and raised. It is also the place that I consider "home" even though I have lived in PA, VA, DC, IL, AR and TX (I've been around). The whole point in THIS paragraph is that I am emotionally attached to my roots in PA and to this part of the country. Many of us identify ourselves according to the region we grew up (just like in the Civil War era, in which most of the citizens identified themselves with the state they were from). My point is that what would prevent me from telling the liberals to get the hell out of Philadelphia, the birth place of this nation and the biggest city in my state? Whether the emotions tied with this is logical or not, it is still an emotional tie.
Friend, I noticed that the time is getting late so I will have to take up this discussion with you another time. Please keep it coming. I too, am enjoying this hypothesis.
I guess first I should tell you that I am biased against the disintegration of this great nation (even with the liberals in it). The purpose of the previous paragraph's rather long-worded preamble is to place in context why it is hard for me to envision a division of the nation based on current political boundaries, namely states. I would probably react to America's disintegration in much the same way as our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln did, war! I love the idea that America is America because she is a united democracy.
I know that your original premise is based on a peaceful seperation, but in all honesty, human nature does not "naturally" allow "you go your way and I will go my way". If anything, we are at the very least, territorial hence; hamlets, villages, cities, states and countries. We have a need to be part of a community that has history before it and a future after it. It is this sense of living history and participant community that denies us the ability to say "OK, you go your way and I will go my way" without a fight.
Now, for the political (government) side of the equation. No government in history has ever voluntarily allowed itself to become extinct. The Civil War itself was primarily a battle of states rights vs. central government (the classic Hamilton/Jefferson battle which incidentally extends to this very day in the form of the Republican and Democratic Parties).
Also, in the interest of continuing this discussion I have a question for you which will flip the original discussion around: Has there ever been a "peaceful" civil war?
I look forward to continuing this discussion with you.
I will comment more on this tomorrow.
Unfortunately I am in my office right now so I cannot spend much time at this moment. I will give you my thoughts this evening.
Having a little background on where you and I are coming from certainly helps in understanding our individual perspectives.
Will write later.
Oh...I forgot to mention another "successful" separation that was not peaceful: United States from Great Britain!
(I'm off on Wednesdays so I have time to spend on the computer!)
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.