Promoted by Brendan -- could the political rancor of today actually spawn armed conflict in the future? Are the fault lines across American society deepening to the point of potential civil war? I don't think so, but it's worth examining what lines in the sand we draw as conservatives or liberals.
This diary is an outgrowth of this comment , so some related commentary may be found there. That comment was, in turn, a reply to this open thread topic from Ender:
Is there any doubt that some liberals are overreacting whining babies? Top recommended diary on dkos - Is there any doubt now that it is a coup attempt?
. You look at it, and all you can do is shake your head. Is there any doubt that the person who wrote that is
a lunatica bit off? At least we don't get much of that craziness here :)
The text of my original comment is reproduced here as a matter of convenience:
I have been saying for years that I think this country may actually be heading into a civil war some time in the (relatively) near future. I haven't ever put a time frame to it but I wouldn't be surprised if it occurred in my son's lifetime.
I don't have specific reasons to cite as to why. It is just more of a feeling, I guess, based on the observations of the people and the world around me. Based on what I know about the segments of society that I am most familiar with coupled with what I see happening in the world of politics.
Bill Clinton's reign of terror was the wake up call for me. I am sure that Bush 43 is the wake up call for anyone who would be on the other side of the fight. The ever decreasing level of civility in public debate is also a symptom. Look at the conversations between myself and Tlaloc if you doubt me on this point.
In the article that Ender referenced the author mentions that the tide may be turning, that perhaps things will subside. This is not the case. It is true that the balance of power has once again started to swing to the left, but this will only stiffen the resolve of those on the right. This will eventually lead to an even greater backlash of fury and tensions. I don't care who the next Democrat president ends up being, they will be excoriated even worse than Clinton and Bush have been.
I actually believe that the preaching of the "intolerance of intolerance" (as well intentioned as it may be) is a reasonable example (but by no means the only one) of what is driving all of this. As the left continues to demonize the right and to force their beliefs and values onto the right, the people on the right are going to continue to push back for their own beliefs. As the tensions grow eventually something will snap and the civil war will be upon us.
We were seeing the signs of what I am talking about under Clinton. White separatists who just want to be left alone being harassed and having their family members murdered. Religious groups being targeted on trumped up and in some cases falsified charges and eventually being incinerated in their home because they refused to submit to the will of the left. They refused to let the left dictate their beliefs and how they were going to live.
Now, I am not arguing that the beliefs of Randy Weaver or the Branch Davidians or others like them are mainstream or even correct. Whether they are or not is irrelevant to the point of this discussion. What is relevant is that they had they own belief systems and that they were willing to fight to the death for them.
These incidents are only the tip of the ice berg. These groups represent the extremes of the right, and as such they represent the first signs of what is to come if the left continues to try and push their beliefs onto the rest of us.
The people on the right are willing to fight for their rights, if need be, as these examples show. As the tyranny and the oppression sought by the left touches ever more portions of the right we will see more Ruby Ridges and Wacos since the left is willing to fight for their beliefs as well, and as these same examples show.
Look at the resurgence of the militia movements after Waco and Ruby Ridge if you doubt that the right is willing to fight. Obviously the Oklahoma City Bombing was a crime and a tragedy, but even that has ties to the oppression of the left at Waco.
Another American civil war? It is not as far fetched as you might think.
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
What's wrong with us?
I understand this concern, and I understand what GoRight means by choosing Waco/Ruby Ridge as examples, but I fail to understand how or why that immediately translates into the average person's view of politics.
Why do people take things so personally? Let's look at the situation for those two events. Very few among us actually do or desire to live the separatist lifestyle. Very few can realistically ever see themselves in this position, facing the government's force. So why does what happened get taken so to heart?
I'll be fair and pick on the other side too. So far, Padilla and maybe one other US citizen have been detained and denied their habeus corpus rights. Very few of us can realistically ever expect to be in their shoes. So again, why does what happened get taken so to heart?
Why do we insist on seeing events such as these in terms of absolutes? Why are we fighting for ideals instead of for each other?
GoRight is unusually forthright in this comment (gold star!) and I think the liberals are foolish to ignore what he's saying. Because he's saying the same thing you are. Except he adds the logical outcome: if we cannot agree to give and take, if we insist on "my way or the highway" that is exactly what we will get: civil war.
Part of the perils of a democracy is that people get to choose the rules they live under. And sometimes people make what seems like stupid choices. But people expect to have a say so and not to be overruled by an ideal.
For example, we can beat the Christmas topic to death and say "but it's the law!" only so many times before the underlying human needs and desire for expression and participation get trampled into hatred. What is so awful about a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn that is worth treating your fellow citizens this way?
Another example: We can certainly say that it is necessary to eavesdrop on personal communications in a time of war. But to do so without recognizing the revulsion this idea creates ignores a basic need of most of our citizens: to know that their privacy is not being unnecessarily invaded by their government. But instead of handling their concerns as valid and desirable in a free populace, they are reviled as traitors and terrorist sympathizers.
I may not be expressing this very well. But what we are doing to each other is not good.
__________________________don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
Good points all
From bitter "Jesusland" jokes to ill-conceived accusations of treason, there's a gulf opening that doesn't seem to be justified by actual events.
Two primary reasons, I think: (1) People online tend to be more passionate -- if someone doesn't care about politics, they're not gonna join a blog to discuss how much they don't care. (2) In the information age it's a lot easier to track every little thing, so outrages that used to pass with minimal comment are now echoed and amplified across the blogs, talk radio, and TV.
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Blogs amplify us
I agree that blogs tend to amplify. And I agree that people online are passionate. But I'm stealing GoRight's words
for the rest, because he's a Republican (and I am not) and said it well
And it's their game too. What I heard GoRight say above was that he sees these hints of feelings about civil war in life, not just in the tubes.
__________________________don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
Agreed. n/t
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Not happening.
A civil war seem extremely unlikely. The vast majority of the populous just doesn't care.
Even an amicable dissolution of the US into two or more nations (a far less drastic step than civil war) is extremely unlikely.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You might want to review your American History ...
during the period April, 1861 through April 1865.
Been there. Done that. So I agree, not gonna happen.
Maybe people on your side don't care, but I assure you that there are a lot on my side that care enough to fight and die if pressed into doing so.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Hmmm
There is no agreed upon "danger" level of pressure, is there? I would guess that each side would define it differently. And that each side would react differently. Maybe the reaction on the left would never reach the "fight and die" level regardless of provocation.
__________________________don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
:-)
I don't think that there is any "prescribed" thing to look for. It is intangible and defined on a personal level. On a societal level it is defined as "when enough people are fed up enough with the state of things that they just aren't going to accept it any longer". That would be true of either side.
I do suspect that the devolution into a civil war will occur as a sort of precipitating effect. One side or the other will reach a "critical mass" and will start either rebelling against the system or trying to impose martial law and this will inevitably draw others into the fight on an exponentially increasing basis.
Things will likely seem fine on the surface, but once actual fighting breaks out things will escalate quickly, IMHO.
[ Not that I am not advocating for any of this, merely relaying my thoughts on potential future events. ]
I would think that my perspective here would resonate with Texans, in general. Maybe not in the center of Houston but definitely in the smaller cities and rural areas. Any observations to that effect on your part to share?
I am in no way claiming some sort of organized plot on either side. It won't work that way, at least not before things have already started to spiral out of control.
Maybe I am wrong, and I actually hope that I am, but this is just my sense of things, offered as a means of helping you to understand alternative viewpoints on the matter.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Listening
I've heard the same hints from frustrated Republicans -- not just in Texas either. Not widespread, not overt, not strong -- more like the whiff of a potential. It made me stop and re-evaluate a few of my assumptions.
Would it happen? I seriously doubt it. I don't think that we'd ever let it get to that point, and there is a certain amount of interia in a country our size working in favor of the status quo. (And if I'm right about global climate change and peak oil, we'll have something more pressing to worry about in a couple of decades anyway ;} ).
What's important is that we try to grasp the differing depth of feeling over a given issue and quit brushing each other off on important matters. It only encourages more of the "we won so screw you" attitude we got with this Administration. Does that mean one side might have to feel that they are having to be a bit more accomodating than the other? Probably. But so what?
__________________________don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
Oh, there you go ...
being all reasonable and grounded and such. :)
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
If I may
say something....... here...... somewhat provacative.
There are a lot of people on your side that are willing to fight and die, if pressed?
And prey tell what ever would provoke such a thing. If pressed..... who is going to press you?
I mean there are other people in this world, willing to fight and die for a cause they believe in and we call them terrorists. Shadowy groups that operate outside the law.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Pressed, in this context and in my opinion
refers to the ever increasing application of social and legal pressures to force both the religious and the non-religious right to conform to Liberal ideologies.
[ And by that I don't mean arguing over tax codes, but rather things like gun laws, laws infringing on speech (even if they are well intentioned), demonization of christianity and religion in general, the maginalization of the right as Tlaloc advocates with his Star Chamber of Truth, demanding that our tax dollars be used to fund things like abortions which we consider the equivalent of murder while at the same time denying us the right to use those same dollars to educate our children as we see fit, seeking to strike any references to christian symbols while encouraging tolerance of other religious symbols and customs, etc. ]
Sure, go ahead with the accusations and jokes. I don't care. But this too is an example of what I mean. Feel free to keep turning up the pressure.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Fascinating how the right
wants to force their "moralistic" agenda on the country.....
....yet if someone criticizes their positions it's liberal tyranny and racheting up the pressure.
And the threat is push me and I WILL use force. What BS.
Like a child having a temper tantrum in the middle of the grocery store.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Be nice.
This wasn't an attack piece.
I was just telling you how I felt and how I think many on my side feel. That's why I felt no need to defend any of this in the first place. I am entitled to, and do not have to justify, how I feel about something.
Neither do you.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
The problem is that the fight has till now been pretty one sided
The right wing has had an easy time to advance its cause for most of my sixty years.
There was a time when there were people who thought that since so many axioms of history (majority of plants/animals coming from stuff like mud etc., instead of other plants/animals., 6000 year old flat earth as center of the universe, stars as pinholes into heaven, and so on) were literally unbelievable, that many of the corollaries to those axioms would (and should ) wither and blow away, except as mythological curiosities.
Quite contrary to expectations anti-intellectualism on both the left and right exploded. As could now be predicted, the low-RWA left made like a herd of cats and wandered off in dozens of directions, a very few became political activists, and quite a few more included that eventually, but not as a priority, and after Viet Nam/Watergate was over went back to being politically secular.
The Right, being high RWA, became much more focused, and set out on a fifty year plan (at the SDO RWA double high leadership levels) to conquer the world.
I saw those discussions, in a paper a right wing friend subscribed to called the Spotlight. I did not know where its connections were then, or believed that any but ridiculous fringe elements would ever be attracted by it.
Like a herd of animals who cannot realize at first that they are being shot, leader after leader was assassinated either literally or by poison pen swiftboating, and the Media went through a series of buyouts that also left them in hands that proved to be members of the same emerging Gang Of Pirates.
The Communist epithet had already wiped out the socially left leaning public speakers, but the "Liberal Bias" epithet I had chortled over when I first saw it in the Spotlight was used as an excuse to wipe out even Centrist speakers. By 1980 even those were almost gone, except at the very fringes. Still the herd did not wake up to what was happening to it.
Then along came Bill Clinton. The 1990 census provided an excellent opportunity for Gerrymandering, Democrats still had the majority power, but a massive campaign to tell Blacks that their vote was being diced up and they should insist on their own single race districts, it made all the surrounding districts lean right while their own district became near 100% Democrat. It was this, more than persuasion that made the next Congress majority Republican.
If they had just let Clinton be, they had to votes to only let his Corporatist stuff through, the herd would never have awakened. But swiftboating has worked so well in the past, they had to haul it out and increase the firepower yet again, and that began to wake up the herd.
Still there was a group with no organization facing one with 50 years of tight organizing, and was hard wired to be better at it in the first place, so the Democrats continued to fumble around badly.
Meanwhile the magic of Gerrymandering was paying off and putting Republicans in charge of voting in key states.
The vote theft would have gone off without a hitch without one really obvious move in Volusia County, and the now awakened Democrats
They were way to disorganized to stop it then, and it was not till the internet reached a critical mass, three years later, that they even believed it happened, but it was only then that they started learning and acting at all.
The GOP, who had not had serious opposition in years, has taken those beginnings and hyped them like a few guys in a cave were suddenly bigger than the combined might of a supposedly working in tandem Soviet Union and China.
Suddenly one voice in the wilderness was hyped to be overburdening to masses of centrally positioned Choruses.
And with each hype the herd is becoming more alarmed, and with the internet, what one knows they all are beginning to know, but their leadership is still sleepwalking, and there is no liberal counterpart to the massive planning for civil war on the right.
Among the scarier bits.
http://www.alternet.org/story/21372/
Secret Society- along with several such organizations on the right there is no such group on the left.
http://www.blackwaterbook.org/ and
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8992128
again it alarms the right that the left has noticed them but they only notice, while the right actually does them and the left unilaterally disarms.
http://yuricareport.com/Dominionism/OutingCreepingDominionism.html#ancho...
Outing Creeping Dominionism once there was much more open discussion of the intent to kill anyone who was not a part of their tribe, now those have been removed.
there is a lot more
So yes there is likely to be a Civil War but it will not be a long planned attack from the left, but more a last minute resistance to premeditated slaughter.
__________________________The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
unrealistic
I guess it depends on what you mean by "a lot." If you mean "most of the commentors on political blogs" then sure. If you mean "more than 2-3% of the population" then no.
The vast majority of Americans care far more about the next American Idol than they do about this huge red-blue gulf.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Believe what you want. n/t
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I believe you are incorrect.
I believe you are incorrect. I have heard such discussions openly in the grocery store.
People are waking up and they don't like what they are seeing, and it is going to increase over time.
Yes civil war is a possibility, even a likelihood as we continue to polarize politically and our government institutions appear to fail and we lose faith in them; the ability for the more impassioned of each of the camps to come together in an open forum and say to the other: "Yo' Momma." in every increasing tempo will be the key.
Because those people will win others less impassioned to their side through their rhetoric.
I disagree with goright on a vast gulf of things, but on this I agree.
At some point not to far off the odds favor however slightly that the current virtual world flamewars will blossom into an all to real and ugly real world flamewar.
Terrorists
"Maybe people on your side don't care, but I assure you that there are a lot on my side that care enough to fight and die if pressed into doing so."
So you are saying Republicans are more willing to kill Americans for political reasons than Democrats? I hesitate to link that party to another group that wants to kill Americans for political reason, but what is the difference between common terrorists and any others who would forego the ballot box for a rifle (or suicide belt, etc.)?
"War is politics by other means", after all, is the creed of the terrorist.
__________________________Socialisme ou Barbarie!
Not at all.
You straw man is showing.
What I am saying is, precisely what I said:
There is no lawyer like "in other wordsing" today. The words that I used are unique in the English language and there is no combination of "other words" which accurately reflect what I meant.
What I am saying is that I cannot speak to what they people on your side of the aisle care about, since they represent a sort of enigma with respect to the normal logic used within society. Hence my use of the word "maybe" in reference to your side. I am merely asserting that you shouldn't discount our willingness to stand up for what what we believe just because you may observe a lack of willingness on your side to do so.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
.
...
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
personally
I do not get any feeling at all that something like this might be on the horizon. I think there is enough balance in our country to bounce back or block the worst excesses of the Left (and the Right).
But I do think we've been on the Leftward path since FDR and subsequently since 1970-80s when we lurched too far to overcompensate for discrimination of the past and the Left took advantage of that to further their agenda of greater Social control.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Wrong headed
It is not about greater social control...... it is about social justice and living in a civil society.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
And you advocate this ...
by promoting an uncivil one through mechanisms such as PC? PC is by it very design uncivil because it seeks to use social pressure as a means to coerce a certain pattern of thought (i.e. a liberal one).
It is inherently about telling people what they are allowed to think and NOT about be accepting of what they think on their own. To me, the latter is an example of a civil society.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Well
You are being a martyr and a bad sport.
That's what I see.
You don't want to play by the rules. Fine. Break em.
But you might get thrown out of the game.
IN which case you say you are coming back armed. That is being even a worse sport.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Nobody has to worry about my coming back armed.
But show up at my door with the intent to infringe on my rights, then you should be worried.
I don't understand your point about my being a bad sport and not wanting to play by the rules of the game. Please explain more.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You don't have to
worry about anyone showing up on your door step tell you what to think either.
No one is taking away your freedom of thought. And here you are creating a war over it, egging and prodding for a fight and tyranically saying everyone just absolutely MUST agree with your else.
Like a child in a grocery store who has heard from the drive by media that starburst is the key to salvation so they can get your mother to give them some money.
Mom says no. Little GoRight says but I want my candy. And you can't make me not want it. I will think all day about how much I want that candy. Mommy is the thought police. You are a bad sport by throwing a violent temper tantrum in the middle of the grocery store crying foul of the powers that be, or a very bad sport.
You grow up hating Bill Clinton cause he got candy when he was little and still has good teeth. You have a closet full of candy but are not satisfied. You horde your candy. It is never enough and you will have your civil war or a temper tantrum like a spoiled child in the grocery store.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Civility
So, the PC promoted by the right is different than the PC promoted by the left? I though both versions were equally as absurd and ineffectual.
__________________________Socialisme ou Barbarie!
I agree with the first part
I don't believe it is as dire as GoRight says. However, I do understand the sentiment. It certainly does seem from my observations that the divide between the two sides is wider than ever. As passionate as GoRight is about his issues and feeling as if liberals are trying to oppress him - well, I have felt that same passion and fear and anger about the right trying to oppress me, so I get it. I know I would feel a need to become even more active in protests if Roe is overturned.
Sometimes though, while I am able to see their side, I feel very strongly that they are unable to see that they do things that would make ME feel as if they are forcing their religion on me, oppressing me or threatening me.
But, take to the streets in violence? Heck no. I am not going to have a sig line advocating the shooting of Republicans (like the RedState user who asks when he can shoot the Democrats). Perhaps it is the nature of the extreme right to react with violence or threats more quickly?
That may have been too rambling - but I think the point is that I can get what GoRight is saying, though not to his extreme.
and the right doesn't wish social control?
ermmmm m'kay.
The entire right to life movement is about social control and not being able to let somebody live their life according to the compass of their own judgment and beliefs.
The entire gay marriage debacle is about imposing a certain societal view...
The right is ALL about social control! That is their entire reason for being, as can be proved by a simple examination of the wedge issues they have used in the last few elections to get out the vote!
Hyperbole.
This may be true of some factions within the right to life movement, but certainly not all. I have been arguing the right to life side from a human rights perspective with an eye towards protecting the human rights of the unborn and seeking an objective and scientifically based definition of when those right begin rather than the current arbitrary notion of birth.
Almost all legislation is about imposing a certain societal view. This is neither an left or a right phenomenon. Legislation is the place where we, as a society, note down for all to see those things that we deem, as society, to be the norms we wish to follow. If society thus determines as part of the legislative process that marriage is between a man and a woman, well that is society as a whole speaking through their chosen process, is it not?
Perhaps, but the left is no better een though they like to pretend that they are.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
skbox
Totally agree.
And good to see another poster on the forum with common sense!
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
The rest of my comment
from here
:
What a civil war requires, really, is not just an ideological set of differences. Civil wars are geographical, ethnic, and occasionally religious. We don't have the first two (the red state/blue state divide is a fantasy), and I'd never argue that our ideological differences amount to a level of religious fervor. Tim McVeigh may be willing to die for white supremacy, but I can't imagine many on the Right willing to die for social security privatization. You can flip it on the Left, as well: I don't see anyone willing to take indignation at the current administration to the point of violence, and those who do are justifiably marginalized.
Honestly, and you may all disagree with me on this, but I see this as another case of crying-doomsday. As I posted on the previous thread, our political rhetoric is no more acidic than it ever was, our ideological divides are no more pronounced, and if there's any tangible difference it's in the nature and flow of information. The irony is that the political debate seems more intense nowadays only because we had a brief respite in public airways due to the Fairness Act, which prevented anger from bubbling over into a boil.
Likewise with the types of violence that GoRight lists as "canaries" in this proverbial coal mine. I'm sorry, but American history is littered with this kind of violence, and with one exception, it never turns into a civil war. Why that one exception? Because the opposing players were state governments - i.e. players who could escalate things to the point of war.
Otherwise, these canaries always fly away. Whether it's homeowners shooting at the TVA for building dams that destroyed their homes, or riots in Los Angeles over deep-seated racial divides, or the massacre at Matewan, we've been through it before, and often much, much worse. There's nothing new to see here that hasn't been here before.
We're protected by a number of things:
1. General public apathy
2. An ideological divide that doesn't extend into everyday quality of life
3. Lack of pronounced geographical, ethnic, or religious differences
All sound, no fury.
__________________________Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Nicely done, yet again!
Does cynicism fit in there somewhere? I suppose cynicism creates apathy.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
How about
# 0. Being indebted up to their ears and not willing to risk losing their jobs and everything they own once they start shooting full time.
__________________________Sic semper tyrannis
That all works well and good till you are faced with ruin
The chances of someone coming to GoRights door and telling him what he can think, particularly to think anything liberal is nil. There is no Liberal of any stripe who would do that.
However, if a policeman pulls you over, and you or even a friend says the wrong thing or causes a problem things can go downhill very fast, suddenly Kafka looks like an optimist.
If you find yourself trying to protest or fight against the latest outrage, it can get just as dicey. Maybe not as bad yet as if it really comes to more, but all the laws (and the lack of them) are in place.
In Germany under the Nazis people were inconvenienced very little, and most saw a good uptick in their standard of living at least for a while, it was only the odd eliminationist target, as well as those who tried to oppose them, and a few that just got in the wrong place at the wrong time had real problems. Of course those folk had pretty severe problems, but few heard the real story, or believed it when they did.
When Pol Pot took over I am sure your attitude was the majority of attitudes... at first. Here of course there was a sudden change that affected everyone, but by the time it was put into effect there was nobody to stop it, and anyone who even slightly resisted was killed.
I don't think the American experience will match those. The re is enough folk on the American Right who would be unpredictable in the face of open thuggishness to keep them from it (as indeed it kept Nixon then), but if they could whip up hysteria, like the Waco incident, or even a Terri Schievo incident, we could very quickly become Iraq.
Even now in Iraq the vast majority is just trying to get by, it is only a few percent who are fighting on any side, but it doesn't much matter. Eric Prince has a lot more firepower than Muqtada al Sadr and is busy building funding and known loyalty on our tax dime, and a greater eliminationist agenda.
If a Schievo, or Roy Moore type incident was blown up to be a liberal attack on humanity and religion even if the first strike is from the right, Blackwater could insist on "defending" the incident and things get very out of hand very fast.
A massive round up of Latinos accused as Illegals trying to "throw" the election to the Democrats, would also set off a spark. There are those who are saying that that is what the prosecutor story is really about, with only GOP Partisans ( honest conservatives having been purged) in the many UA spots around the country, could assure that such a partisan attack on the country is possible.
__________________________The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Pico.. god love you but I think you are missing the boat a bit
It doesn't have to be on the same scope or scale as the war between the states...
Because what is going on in Iraq IS a civil war and it is not of the same character. It can just be a generalized level of politically or religiously motivated violence.
I will make a horrible admission here:
There are some key issues that I will KILL over. And oddly enough one of them is religion, though I am not all that religious! I can not stomach the rights heresy on the ensoulment of human life and I would not wish to be made through State sponsored coercion to conform to their religiously motivated beliefs on when Human life begins, that I find to be heretical in the extreme.
I also have extreme issues with their apparent desire to build a big brother state.
And their desire to turn a segment of the population into second class citizens by their denial or marriage rights...
It is not outside the realms of my ability to imagine actually having to take up arms to protect the nation that I love against the advancement of the dark stain that is repressive conservatism.
Paranoia will destroy ya
I might've believed this in the mid '90s when the militias were in their heyday, but I don't think things are at a level of violence yet/anymore.
The dems have too much hope in the system to correct itself and the right lacks cohesiveness. Both sides lack numbers. Only 30% of the population considers itself democrats and the numbers are slightly less for republicans, which makes 40%+ somewhere in the middle or other. Out of this 60% (for both parties), maybe 1 to 5% would actually pick up arms to fight for an ideological battle.
Racism is not a valiant cause for enough people. Maybe guns and maybe abortion, but I still think those are doubtful to reach a stage of outright war.
Sorry, but I find this discussion ridiculous. Most people could care less about Waco or the PATRIOT Act. War? Nope.
I think you're missing the point
*Sigh* Why do liberals think that Republicans think like they do?
This is not about whether or not a civil war will happen. I think we all agree that it's highly unlikely. That's not the point.
Can you [generic you, not just you specifically] not see that, rightly or wrongly, some Republicans are fed up? Liberals may not agree that they have reason to be and may discount every reason offered, but they are fed up nonetheless.
Missliberties analogy is right, in a way, but leaves out the real issue: It's your child who's throwing the tantrum, a child you have to live with.
Unless you plan on being as ruthless as the Right.
People who believe they have no voice in their government are dangerous. You can either attempt to change that belief, or you can belittle it.
[Edit: Welcome back, BTW. I was missing your voice.]
__________________________don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
Wha????
*sigh* The whole point was NOT missed as the title for GoRights little rant was "the coming civil war. What part of that did I not understand?
If the title were how super frustrated Republicans are then the discussion would have been much different.
What makes you think that Republicans have a corner on the market for being "fed up"? They don't.
Of course Republicans are fed up. They don't even have a viable candidate for President. And the ones they do have try to out-cave man each other with responses to fear mongering questions, like lets double the size of Gitmo.
If you want to talk about frustration of the voiceless fine.
But allowing said frustration to lead to talk of promoting violence...... well, maybe we should spend some government funds on mental health....... as it would benefit the safety of our society as a whole.( Is Republican mental health a national security issue?)
Frustrated men with guns having temper tantrums is dangerous!
I fully agree with Specter that this whole topic is ridiculous.
I do see how it goes to a level of frustration. But the premise of "poor me", I can't say what I want, is absolutely and completely ludicrous.
The right is turning the PC debate into something out of control in suggesting that it is "thought control".
PC is just good manners, and being respectful in PUBLIC, period.
__________________________Nothing more or less.
It is the economy, stupid.
There, I changed the title to better reflect
the intent.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
:-) Okay then!
But will the inside commentary still make sense......
(Oh yeah and good morning to ya!)
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
I just can't figure you out.
Sometimes you're nice, sometimes you're mean. What gives?
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Well
I am a redneck liberal.
Call me complicated, or call me crazy. You are free to chose.
They talk about the old days when Congress would argue tooth and nail all day long, and at the end of the day, put it aside and both sides would go out for drinks and were friends.
Arguing ideas does not have to be personal.
What I highly resent is that imho, Republicans in the past few years have turned politics into personal destruction machine, on purpose for pure political gain, as if we all aren't human. As if being mildly to the left of center is a crime, and akin to being an enemy of the state. For example the sheer force of hatred exhibited by Tom Delay, towards other human beings that disagreed with him, was over the top.
IN the end we are all human, and bleed red, in spite of our differences.
Politics is looking for the art of what we have in common. IMHO Republicans have turned it into a blood sport. Your civil war scenario is a perfect example.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Ok, so
I'll put you in the "yes dammit I will be as ruthless as the Right because I don't care how they feel" camp. Fair enough.
But it's interesting that we just had a discussion on responsibility to community -- Is it a fair interpretation to say that ridiculous and misguided Republicans aren't part of your community?
Democracy. It's so messy.
__________________________don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
Maybe this is just an INTJ thing.
Only masterminds "get it"! :-)
[This is a joke]
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Are you trying
to make up for your very ungallant comment? Throwing me to the wolves like that. . . when I'm debating your side's side, too.
__________________________don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
No, I am sorry.
I never meant to throw you to the wolves. I appreciate your support (for considering this something worth exploring).
To what are you referring? This?
I never meant this as a throw anyone to the wolves type of comment. It was more of a "I'm not saying this is an absolute certainty and I want to be really pushy about it by writing a diary" comment.
I sincerely apologize for any misunderstanding.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
It was a gentle jibe, no more :}
I'm just feeling playful this morning. Yes that's what I was referring to, but no, I'm not really bothered.
If they want me to hush, they can say so, or just point out where I'm completely off track. Sometimes I try to explain things from my POV (in the middle) and end up not even making sense to myself.
__________________________don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
I think you are overreacting a wee bit.
Yet I am happy to see your passion.
We are talking about ideas.
I don't care how they Republicans feel? Where is this coming from. I don't like some of their ideas which I think are wrong headed, intolerant and selfish, and I choose to ruthlessly disagree with some of their ideas. I am not going to shoot them for it.
I am fiercely opposed to bloody violence as a solution to problems. I see that position as being socially responsible.
I am not opposed to a fair fight which I think is healthy and normal. The key is "fair".
This subterfuge of twisted logic, that GoRight says he is not free to think his own thoughts because of basically peer pressure is way off the mark, imho.
Is it not common knowledge that this fake PC issue is supported by the religous right, who wants to be able to inject ONE religon as the moral standard to improve public institutions with little things like supporting abstinence only in public health clinics, for example.
Don't you care about how the "left" feels? Or is it only fair for the right to be frustrated. I don't get your first statement.
Yes I think liberals should stand their ground firmly, and fiercely and I don't consider that ruthless. IN fact we haven't done it enough.... always eager to play nice, and being taken advantage of.
I really don't get what you are saying. Except it seems like a double standard, when I can ask you the same question. Why don't you care about how I feel.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
LOL
There you go with the peer pressure again. Subterfuge. Isn't that sort of negative sounding? Doesn't that just conjure up the idea that I am evil and mean and nasty, trying to subvert all that is right and good?
What is this attempt at demeaning me or shaming me or whatever supposed to accomplish? Make me see the light of your truth and thereby change the way I think? Or, if not me, perhaps influence others to see things your way?
Please enlighten me as to your intent here.
This is laughable.
First, I don't believe that there is any such agenda on the right, mush less that it is somehow "common knowledge" except perhaps among the paranoid among the left.
Second, even if this WERE true how would this be any different than YOU wanting to inject YOUR moral standard for the same reasons, because that is, in effect, what the Left has been doing for years. Again, the Left seeks to use the rule of law as an implement of oppression (of those they disagree with, i.e. the right).
Gee, one might consider you to be angry and full of passionate conviction. Where have I heard THAT before. So, as more and more people on the left adopt this position of unwavering indignation do you think that will have a tendency to increase or decrease the tensions between the left and the right? Is this attitude of "no compromise" which is evident on both sides of the aisle likely to increase or decrease the likelihood of things coming to "blows" in the form of a Civil War?
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Sorry am not buying it.
I assert that this is an effort by you to insert PC into my free speech rights, by suggesting that I use adjectives that you are pressuring me to use.
It's not like you haven't beaten the word liberal or the left into the ground as an implication of everything negative you could ever think of.
If you don't like my passion, oh well. If my passion threatens you. Sorry. I am not the one talking about a civil war, you are.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Strictly speaking.
Given the ratio of liberals to conservatives here you could hardly make the case that I am using peer pressue to do anything to you. Presumably the vast majority of people on this site are on your side of the PC issue so I doubt that you feel any undue pressure here.
I, on the other hand, am completely outnumbered. Some might say that YOU have all of the POWER, therefore, and by Specter's version of PC that means that you can't apply this notion in reverse. You are using you position of power to oppress me.
And I thought you were on the side of the oppressed. :-)
Hey Specter, did I get this right about the power structure angle of all this?
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
My god you make me insane
I am not talking about peer pressure liberal conservative ratio stats.
I am talking about your specific, individual comment that the use of the word subterfuge is not a PC acceptable term for me an individual to use.
As if I can't say subterfuge and conservative in the same sentence is somehow politically incorrect.
Live by the sword die by the sword. I reject you censorship of my adjectives.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Now you are arguing my side?
1) I illustrated, using your own words, the very mechanism by which PC applies social pressure to individuals.
2) You tried to turn it around on me. Presumably to illustrate my position with respect to PC in general.
3) I countered with one of the PC tenets (under Specter's definition) related to power structures and thus illustrated how PC uses this concept to try and exempt itself from having to follow its own rules.
4) Now you are arguing that my illustration of "PC in action" amounts to censorship, and is therefore "bad".
Given our little analogy we have going here, isn't that sort of like saying the PC = bad because it is censorship? I thought you were a member of the PC = good crowd.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
No.
You said PC was bad, then you employed it.
I have consistently said that PC is a fake issue. It is have good manners in PUBLIC or face the consequences. Nothing more nothing less.
You are tryingn to turn it into a liberal conspiracy which it is not.
If you want to be rude and insult the host of a dinner party. Go for it. You just want be invited back. Not a liberal conspiracy. Just good manners.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
And this is my point.
Which would be? Social pressure in the form of public ridicule or legal actions.
So, to review:
1) I claim that PC is a leftist attempt an thought control.
2) I adopt Specter's own definition of PC.
3) You object to my characterization of PC and being leftist mind control, because it is just about good manners.
4) I then select one of your statements and construct a PC-like argument to illustrate how you are using peer pressure against me.
5) You try to turn the tables on me by adopting my own position (gee, where did you ever get that idea) by claiming that I was using PC to stifle you.
6) I then utilized another one of Specter's tenants to negate your assertion in (5) on the grounds that you are the one in the power position on this site, not me. Hence there is no way for me to use PC against you, which is essentially the argument that the left uses. Again, illustrating the folly thereof.
7) You then call my use of PC to be nothing more than censorship.
8) I then point out that you are arguing my case in the grander scheme of PC.
It was my hope that this exercise would help you to understand my objection to PC, but it seems to have failed because you are now back to the whole PC is nothing but good manners meme, even though I have just illustrated how PC relies on the very antithesis of good manners to accomplish its goals.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Just a quick interjection.
I don't think PC is a leftist notion, because it exists on the right as well. Nor is it, by any measure, a new concept.
What it is is lazy thinking (of which there is plenty across the span of the ideological spectrum) -- the attempt to substitude pre-conceived rules and "taboo lists" for contextual interpretation and abiguity.
Carry on.
__________________________"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence." - George Orwell
Well, on this we can disagree ...
Regardless of who originated it and who propagates it, I think that we are in agreement that it is somehow focused on the wrong things ... and therefore society would be better off if we shifted our focus onto more productive areas.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I have never even heard of PC
except first and only from the right.
The closest thing I ever saw was when I said that boss x might not want Boss y's personal attentions (I have forgotten the specifics but they had no bearing on the fact that both boss x and Boss y were men) One gay person in the room made a very big deal that it was gay bashing, till I pointed out that the sex of the participants had no bearing on the joke.
If I had been paranoid about PC I could have blown the whole thing into a generalized PC nightmare. Instead I put it down to the hypersensitivity of one person, who jumped to a conclusion and took offense where none was intended.
By contrast I have seen such hypersensitivity a great deal from the religious right especially, giving me equal grief for a statement that indicated the the earth might be over 6000 years old, or saying Damn when I stub a toe or something, even as I was forced, on the job, to listen to a fund raising rant, with prayers and singing, from a hyper-religious teen rescue group, that I found very offensive.
__________________________The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
People need to get over themselves.
By all means, struggle against racism, sexism and homophobia -- particularly their manifestations in the form of physical violence, discrimination, and unequal treatment. Be vocal about it. Eroding acceptance of bigotry through dialogue, visible cultural