A Divided America Does Not Mean Civil War

Observer ^ | 7/04/18 | John R. Schindler

[foreverfree]

bump

[x]

We are united when we have a common external enemy (and when the government doesn't mess things up by overreaching). Barring that, I don't see much opportunity for harmonious unity. Somebody is always going to be bitterly discontented.

The reason why that seems strange to us is because we have dim memories of when the country was united against the Soviets or against Germany and Japan (and dimmer memories of when government didn't have much power, so there wasn't much to fight over).

That doesn't mean we'll be taking up arms against each other, though. At least not as long as the economy still functions. Most of the country wants a quiet life and doesn't care for ideological warfare.

[gogeo]

What a twit...

[gogeo]

Unfortunately, we don’t.

[frank ballenger]

Good post.

If I can be permitted a little levity in this serious matter, this reminds me of a cartoon in the Detroit Free Press a few years ago by Guindon.
About 100 armed hunters were walking through the woods and two guys were talking.
“There’s about a million of us hunters in Michigan. All of us well armed. The heck with the deer—let’s take Wisconsin!”

[Little Ray]

Try Lebanon.

If we have another Civil War, it will be like Lebanon.
It will be Urban vs. Suburban and Rural. The enemy won’t be in another state, but just down the road.

And it won’t happen in a vacuum. Imagine what the Chinese are going to be up to while we’re tearing ourselves apart.