The Long Civil War

If anyone thought the status quo would fold up after the hammer blows of the 2016 populist revolt, they were wrong. Ben Rhodes noted the effects of unremitting resistance with approval. "Bibi backsliding. Boris flailing... Fight back. It will work." Victor Davis Hanson conceded the crushing weight of the establishment riposte: "After nearly four years of ceaseless attacks by Democrats and the press, the strange thing is not that Trump can be occasionally wearisome, but that he is even still breathing."

The tone of the fight was set by Greta Thunberg's declaration to a crowd of environmental supporters: "We can't save the world by playing by the rules because the rules have to change." It was a ringing call to victory over the Deplorables, victory by any means necessary. It was as if the old legalisms themselves had become too restrictive to allow the truly good guys to win. As Hillary Clinton told an audience at George Washington University: “You can run the best campaign and have the best plans and get the nomination and win the popular vote and you can lose the Electoral College and therefore the election.”

“This is one of those moments we stand at a crossroads of our own a crisis in democracy. Racists and white supremacist views are lifted up in the media and the White House. Hard fought for civil rights are stripped back. Rule of law is being undermined, our norms and institutions... are under assault, and that includes the single most important fight of our times…the fight to protect the right to vote.”

She deserved to win but the rules betrayed her. If you can't win the old way, change the rules. To avoid another setback to history, Elizabeth Warren proposes to abolish the Electoral College.

These are all fake hyped up entertainment (politainment?) piffles.

True.

But there is an uncomfortable portion of the population that appear to believe every word from cnncnbcmsnbc.

Additionally there is also an uncomfortable portion of the public school population that absolutely believe the global warming / climate change bs whom will be voting in 2024.

The crap must be brought under control by normal, sane, mature American Citizens.

“But there is an uncomfortable portion of the population that appear to believe every word from cnncnbcmsnbc.

Additionally there is also an uncomfortable portion of the public school population that absolutely believe the global warming / climate change bs whom will be voting in 2024.”

Yes.

That’s the most scary thing about the contemporary landscape.

I don’t mind disagreement, but irrationality is frightening.

Greta Thunberg's declaration to a crowd of environmental supporters: "We can't save the world by playing by the rules because the rules have to change."

1. GT is NOT an American Citizen so she has no business inciting "rule changes" in the USA.

2. If some rules can indeed change then any of the OTHER rules can change. It might be the ones the progs don't want to change...

3. What GT is proposing will in absolutely no way "save the world" but those propositions can very well wreck this and other nations.

This is the USA an we don't need any eurotwit spouting off about our business.

Democrats started a civil war in in 1861. They did so on the basic premise that cheap labor was good for America. The only thing that stopped in 1865 was the shooting.

Actually, it might be more realistic to suggest that the then-new Republican Party started a civil war in 1861, on the basic premise that a State, once acceeding to union, could never depart (although the Constitution nowhere prohibited State seccession).

The Democratic Party of that era was the 'constitutional party,' and generally promoted a literal or strict interpretation of the compact. The Republican Party of that time leaned towards actions based on feelings of moral outrage, rather than constitutional law. The party names have remained the same, but their philosophies have changed. IIRC, Ronald Reagan observed: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me." Today's political parties are not even the same as those our grandparents voted for...

You're an advocate of ‘’The Southern Switch’’ are you?

As noted above, Mr. Reagan believed that it was the Democrat party that had changed, not the constitutional conservatives who had formerly been members. If you believe the Democrat party did NOT change, in the century and a half preceding Mr. Reagan's presidency (as your previous post suggests), feel free to document your position.

The Democrat Party was the party of slavery. The Republican Party was against it.

The Constitution as it then existed did not prohibit slavery - in fact, it recognized the legality thereof. If the Republican Party position was that slavery should be unconstitutional, then amending the compact was clearly the only means available. You might review some of the amendments that were proposed in that regard (including one by Mr. Lincoln himself, on December 1, 1862).

The South fought to preserve that system as an economy and split from the Union.

Given that the Constitution nowhere prohibited either slavery or seccession, I must ask - why would the federal government use military force to prevent State seccession (and eventually slavery, via the Emancipation Proclamation)?

The Republican didn't go to war primarily to end slavery although it would eventually. It went to war to preserve the Union and won.

Again, the Constitution nowhere prohibited State seccession.

I'm somewhat reminded of today's political climate. For example, most Americans can legally travel by motor vehicle (the Constitution nowhere prohibits such travel). Let's say you're a government official, and you see your neighbor getting in his car. As he's preparing to hit the road, do you stop him? (You're probably saying, "Why would I, unless he's doing something illegal?")

Let's say he's going to Nevada to donate a kidney - would you stop him? But what if he tells you he's headed to Nevada, to get drunk, and 'party' with as many hookers as he can afford? Or legally purchase a firearm - or pay for an abortion, for his wife or daughter? What do you do? And do you act in your official capacity as a government official, or not?

Again, what he plans to do apparently violates no laws. Are his plans moral? (And is that question even relevant?) Would you shoot up his car, and maybe burn his house down? Or let him hit the road?

A more general question might be: is the federal government bound by law, or by morality?

;^)

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.