The second American civil war: what it's about

townhall.com | 10/14/03 | Dennis Prager

[kattracks]

Whatever your politics, you have to be oblivious to reality to deny that America today is torn by ideological divisions as deep as those of the Civil War era. We are, in fact, in the midst of the Second American Civil War.

Of course, one obvious difference between the two is that this Second Civil War is (thus far) non-violent. On the other hand, there is probably more hatred between the opposing sides today than there was during the First Civil War. And I am not talking about extremists. A senior editor of the respected center-left New Republic just wrote an article titled, "The Case for Bush Hatred," an article that could have been written by writers at most major American newspapers, by most Hollywood celebrities, and almost anyone else left of center. And the conservative hatred of former President Bill Clinton was equally deep.

In general, however, the similarities are greater than the differences. Once again the North and the South are at odds (though many individuals on each side identify with the other). And once again, the fate of the nation hangs in the balance. The two sides' values and visions of America are as incompatible as they were in the 1860s.

For those Americans who do not know what side they are on or who are not certain about what the Second American Civil War is being fought over, I offer a list of the most important areas of conflict.

While the views of many, probably even most, Americans do not fall entirely on either side, the two competing camps are quite distinguishable. On one side are those on the Left -- liberals, leftists and Greens -- who tend to agree with one another on almost all major issues. On the other side are those on the Right -- conservatives, rightists and libertarians -- who agree on stopping the Left, but differ with one another more often than those on the Left do.

Here, then, is Part One of the list of the major differences that are tearing America apart:

The Left believes in removing America's Judeo-Christian identity, e.g., removing "under God" from the Pledge, "In God we trust" from the currency, the oath to God and country from the Boy Scouts Pledge, etc. The Right believes that destroying these symbols and this identity is tantamount to destroying America.

The Left regards America as morally inferior to many European societies with their abolition of the death penalty, cradle-to-grave welfare and religion-free life; and it does not believe that there are distinctive American values worth preserving. The Right regards America as the last best hope for humanity and believes that there are distinctive American values -- the unique combination of a religious (Judeo-Christian) society, a secular government, personal liberty and capitalism -- worth fighting and dying for.

The Left believes that impersonal companies, multinational and otherwise, with their insatiable drive for profits, have a profoundly destructive effect on the country. The Right believes that the legal system, particularly trial lawyers, lawsuits and judges who make laws, is the greater threat to American society.

The Left believes multiculturalism should be the ideal for American schools and for government policy. The Right believes that the Americanization of all its citizens is indispensable to the survival of the United States.

The Left believes that the Boy Scouts as currently constituted pose a moral threat to society. The Right believes the Boy Scouts continue to be one of the greatest moral institutions in the country.

The Left believes in equality more than in liberty. The Right believes more in liberty. For example, the Left believes that for the equality's sake, men's clubs must accept women. The Right believes that for liberty's sake, associations must be free to choose their own members.

The Left believes that when schools give out condoms to teenagers, they are promoting safe sex. The Right believes that when schools give out condoms, they are promoting more sex.

The Left believes that poverty, racism and psychopathology cause violent crime. The Right believes a lack of self-control, lack of religious practice and lack of good values are the primary causes of violent crime.

The Left believes that "war is not the answer." The Right believes that war is often the only answer to governmental evil.

Any one of these differences is enough to create an entirely different America. Added together, the differences suggest people who live in different worlds that are on a collision course.

And I have only listed some of the conflicting views.

Next week, in Part Two, I will discuss the other major conflicts making for the Second American Civil War.

©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Contact Dennis Prager | Read Prager's biography

[Keyes2000mt]

Bump!

An excellent summary of where we're at.

[John H K]

Yawn. Whatever.

Seems there's about a normal level of division in the country.

It's normal for there to be a great deal of political hatred and conflict; cooperation and consensus is ABNORMAL in US history.

Really sort of odd in the last 10 years or so that people are suddenly getting their panties in a bunch over any sort of political conflict or disagreement at all.

[Support Free Republic]

"Please contribute to FreeRepublic and make these posts go away"
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar! Thanks Registered

[lainde]

excellent insight!

[henderson field]

But...but...but...I thought diversity was good for us. That's what I've been told. Over and over and over.

[GladesGuru]

For what it is worth, my first girl friend at college was a member of the DAR, was quite bright and a history buff as well. She made that same comment about the level of devision in contemporary America to me over five years ago.

And she is as far from a violent revolutionary as one can conceive of. But I felt then, and still do, that she was right.

Thanks to many decades of work on the part of our schools, America no longer acculturates its children. For the non-educators, that means we are no longer teaching them what America is and how to be an American.

Multi-culturalism is a poor substitute for their birthright as citizens of what is unquestionably the most successful social experiment ever undertaken. And I don't refer to the Clintoon's gender games with the military.

The problem is all too real. Yawn at all of our risk.

[Torie]

Good post. Praeger really lacks an ability to intelligently weight the various and sundry factors at play in America. Sometimes, he is so Manachean, that I just wonder about his judgment. America is far more sensible, and resilient, than he posits, and far less interested in meaningless cultural wars at its critical mass, than he wants or will believe, becuase it does not suit his purposes.

[JoJo Gunn]

How dare those of us who recognize the deep divisions bore you!

[ForGod'sSake]

Yawn. Whatever.

Wake up a pi$$; the world's on fire!

The growing animosity between the Dims/victims and the Pubbies is obvious to me. Civil war may be stretching a bit, but it appears to me that both sides are fast approaching irreconcilable positions.

FGS

[orlop9]

Great Post, but with a title like that it won't be long before this gets turned into the nightly North/South argument.

[MissAmericanPie]

If both sides wore distinguishing uniforms the war would have begun already, I'm guessing.

[steplock]

bump!!

[Snerfling]

Praeger really lacks an ability to intelligently weight

To put it more simply, he don't know jack. The US is by far and away the most secular country in the world.

Personal story: I spent my high school junior year at an oveseas British base school (one of only a handful of Yanks). In addition to mandatory chapel attendance once a week, there was also a mandatory religion class. (This class actually is a college board qualifying course for the Brits' O and A levels.)

Guess what the principal did when I returned to the States for my senior year? Yep, out went my credit for the religion class. Had to make up the units in addition to my normal senior course load.

[There's millions of'em]

"Of course, one obvious difference between the two is that this Second Civil War is (thus far) non-violent..."

Only if you choose to ignore abortion.

[Tactical]

Really sort of odd in the last 10 years or so that people are suddenly getting their panties in a bunch over any sort of political conflict or disagreement at all.

Probably the most significant things that are obvious to many are the methods used in politics these days, as compared to the pre-80's. My view might be tainted somewhat, as I tend to lean towards the conservative side of the marker, but the REPUBs seem to try to handle things more fairly and business-like. The DEMs on the other hand have resorted to out and out lies and distortions of facts in order to accuse someone of something, they want to voters to think is wrong.

For instance...

Should the USA have gone to war against IRAQ?

The obvious answer that uses the most of common sense, says yes we should have. We know the outrageous activities of Saddam Hussein and for no other reason than to free the Iraqi people of his terrorist government, he should have been overthrown.

But the DEMs, would rather not look at something as trivial as the lives of a people such as Iraqi's. They rather point fingers and tell how President Bush has made the world hate America. Or how he distorted the facts on Iraq to get support to go to war against that country.

The obvious most common sense answer to those claims are quite simple, but no one seems to look at them.

There are always a group of countries in the world that want nothing more than the USA to take a beating over any issue. Whether European, Asian ir the Arab states. It doesn't matter some countries have always had a thing for newby America being so free, powerful and prosporous.

Some love us when we are a benefit to them, then want nothing to do with us as soon as that benefit goes away. It's called national pride. We have it, they have it. Nothing wrong with it either. We all just need tough skins and a hell of a state department to keep a grip on things. We'll survive with or without some of those countries. Most don't have much of an effect on our daily lives anyway. Unless you count all of the crap good Walmart is selling from China. Speaking of which, want more jobs in the USA? Then buy American made goods.

If the DEMs were fooled and taken in by a White House plan to get their support for a war with Iraq, then where the hell have the DEMs in the Congressional Committee's involving security and foreign relations been for the last 20's years? There's nothing new in what Bush said about Iraq, Clinton, George H.W. Bush said the same things as well. What it amounts to is a continued distortion of facts to disorient the voters of America.

A second Civil War is quite possible and maybe the author is correct in that we are already in it. Personally, I think the division lines are just being draw and the voters will come awake and solve the mess before it gets out of hand. California voters (of whom the DEMs are in the majority) at least came to their senses enough to oust Davis before he totally destroyed the state. I know that doesn't say much, but it's a start.

I have a suggestion about the whole thing though...

Let's give the liberals all of the coastal states on the west coast. I know, at first it sounds crazy, but I'd be willing to bet for that deal, they'd give us all of the states like, Utah, Idaho, Nevada and Arizona. When that damn big earthquake hits, we'll now own the coastal states, cause there won't be any California, Oregon or Washington State. What a plan huh?

Or better yet, let's just all keep an eye on each other and not let the looney's get out of hand.

[Qwinn]

Good link.

I buy the premise. When I was growing up, the overarching theme was "United We Stand, Divided We Fall". Both sides of the political debate agreed on at least that unifying principle.

Today, half the country stand for "United Is Bad - Diversity Is Everything". There's the profound difference that is bringing us ever closer to civil war.

Qwinn

[hedgetrimmer]

Seems there's about a normal level of division in the country.

If California is the vanguard then you are devastatingly wrong. Just today, if you called the DMV(Department of Motor Vehicles) you got a message in English or Spanish, your choice. If you choose english the message is, " the DMV is closed today for the Columbus Day holiday". If you chose spanish you got the message " the DMV is close today to celebrate "la dia de Raza" (the day of the (Hispanic)race). You do not think a day of some sort of reckoning is in our future?

[KC_Conspirator]

On the other hand, there is probably more hatred between the opposing sides today than there was during the First Civil War.

Yeah, I agree with you. We killed over 600,000 of our fellow countrymen during the Civil War. The bad feelings ran for decades until the turn of the century when most of the Civil War generation died off and new immigrants came to America and did not have the vendettas others had.

However, similarly there is a Culture War going on since the 60's and the radical left had sewn bad feelings that last until today. I believe that this will only be remedied when the radical 60's generation passes on as well.

This is still not even in the same league as the Civil War.

[Eastbound]

I don't see it as a second civil war, ala north vs south, but more like a Second War of Independence.

[Torie]

ever closer to civil war.

Folks who really believe that, really amaze me, because I think they are so divorced from reality. They don't seem to notice just how powerful American culture is across the US, and indeed the planet, is, as a unifying force.

[Heyworth]

The obvious answer that uses the most of common sense, says yes we should have. We know the outrageous activities of Saddam Hussein and for no other reason than to free the Iraqi people of his terrorist government, he should have been overthrown.

The problem with this argument, which seems to be the current favorite since they can't actually produce the WMDs for the cameras, is that A) the administration didn't really make that argument in the run-up to the war, and B) If that's the criteria, there's lots of other places with equally bad human rights records that we show no interest in invading and liberating the people of. Is anyone from the White House arguing that we should invade Zimbabwe, or China, or Cuba, or Burma, or any of a dozen other repressive Third World hellholes with mass graves there for the finding? So there must have been some other reason for invading Iraq at this time.

And, just for the record, I supported the invasion for exactly that reason. I just don't believe that's why the administration did it. I think they did it because they wanted to settle old business with Saddam, and they wanted to reshuffle the deck in the Middle East. They did the first. We're waiting to see how the second turns out.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

The Second Civil War will not be about the Dem/Rep divide, it will be the Citizens against the Government tyranny, as it was in the first Civil War.

We have many divides with apparently deaf politicians. Tho there are many differences, the three biggies appear to be:

Immigration and Illegal Immigration vs. taxpayers and American workers, Free Trade vs. American Workers and Sovereignty vs. Globalist government.

THAT will cause the War, not Dem/Rep ideals.

[Kozak]

On the brighter side our side has far more and better weapons. Bring it on baby....

[clamper1797]

Re post 23 .... you are EXACTLY right

[clamper1797]

Oh ... and remember which faction "won" Civil War 1. May the outcome of Civil War 2 be different ... for liberties sake

[ETERNAL WARMING]

As a Northerner, I always related to the Blue coats. As a thinking adult, I side with Dixie, barring the slavery issue. Dixie had every Constitutional right to succede.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

As a Northerner, I always related to the Blue coats. As a thinking adult, I side with Dixie, barring the slavery issue. Dixie had every Constitutional right to secede and every right to look after it's interests.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

Multi-culturalism is a poor substitute for their birthright as citizens

An excellent line, GG.

[budwiesest]

Freedom and Liberty got together and had a baby--America.

America grew, prospered, came of age, and is now pregnant with socialism. Who planted the seed?

With the water about to break again ('04) we may soon witness a new dynasty of socialism and tyranny that our forefathers would have risen in arms against, and yet, one we will have no sway over.

The only optimistic thing of late that we have to console us is California's recent debunking of socialism.(In time, assuming Iraq fulfills it's role as a democratized nation, it too could build confidence.)

That's not a lot to hang a hat on. The further we get from the 'one that brung us' to the dance(our nation's founders), the more likely we are to find trouble brewing.

The divisions that Dennis speaks of are symptomatic of people's survival instincts which include a tribalism that replaces a sense of nationalism when assimilation is abandoned (and thwarted by the left at every turn).

I just hope that when things hit the fan that the side that I chose to affiliate with will have an appreciation for Scruggs-style five-string-banjo.

[Ladypixel]

Hey, now, I'm a Californian non-liberal non-Democrat, and I rather like my state -- even if the politics are all wacky. Don't give it all to the liberals! It's already screwy enough as it is...!

(Besides, even with a major quake, we won't fall into the ocean. So sayeth the geologists at CalTech, and so believeth I. Nyah!) ;)

Seriously, though, I must agree with you; the Democrats seem to be resorting to lies and distortions in virtually everything. It truly disturbs me; I prefer to see the good in people, but it's mighty hard when there's folks out there who lie, cheat, and steal in the name of doing good for the populace.

[Qwinn]

"THAT will cause the War, not Dem/Rep ideals"

Well... it seems kinda similar to me. I definetly agree they will be big issues in the war - but they'll be a subgroup of the overall ideas/conflicts.

Dems today support open borders and multilateralism. Republicans support tighter border controls (at least of illegals) and national sovereignty. Both of these are new arguments - The Dems are now supporting policies that I don't think have ever been endorsed by a party in all of U.S. history

Both sides seem rather split on the issue of free trade vs. globalist trade... with most people not sure -how- to deal with the pros and cons. But unlike the two just listed, this debate is REALLY old. What we're really talking about is the return to the debate over protectionism and tariffs, and this is what I call the "Forgotten Argument" in American politics. It used to be huge. There's plenty of history to draw on this one.

Me? I think the problem is - as usual - taxes! If we didn't have taxes -here-, then we wouldn't have to worry about the fact that offshore companies get tax breaks giving them an economic advantage, causing companies to flee the country just as they are fleeing California's higher taxes to neighboring states. Want business to stay in the U.S.? Get rid of or privatize all our happy little socialist experiments, return to the olden days of revenue for the limited federal government functions, and then repeal the 16th Amendment (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm fairly certain that's the amendment that permitted direct taxation) that was never properly ratified in the first place. Sit back and watch businesses in other countries beg to set their businesses up -here-.

Although you see many leftists opposing the WTO and being "anti-globalist", I think it's more of a bizarre juxtaposition of goals vs. means between the Left and Right. The Lefties think the WTO is run by the U.S. - whereas I, as a right-winger, oppose the WTO because I have a severe problem with a bunch of guys in Brussels setting U.S. trade policy - that little sovereignty issue. Given the Left's insistence on multilateralism and rooting for global government, I have to blink every time someone calls -them- "anti-globalists". I still haven't figured this one out.

Torie: I am separated from reality? Nah. The war won't happen unless the Left just goes completely off the rails and actively begins repressing conservative media spokesmen and applying religious tests to government positions and agitating about voter fraud at every single election and starts endlessly chanting memes like "imperialist warmonger" and "Nazi! Hitler!" about a conservative president...

Oh. Wait. They have, haven't they?

Hmm. I wonder what "unifying culture" around the world you're talking about. Would that be... Hollywood culture? Ah, yes, Hollywood, that awesome unifying cultural force that we can all rally around. *sigh*

Qwinn

[ETERNAL WARMING]

Dems today support open borders and multilateralism. Republicans support tighter border controls (at least of illegals) and national sovereignty.

Tho slightly better on sovereignty, the Republicans are equally pushing open borders and all forms of immigration. The Dems have their own reasons, but the Republicans want to please their business donors. They are equally complicite in the sell out of our citizenry. Both groups support the H1B and L class visas. Both groups ignore the fact that 730,000 American workers are displaced every year by illegal aliens. Both groups have no problem expecting the taxpayer to subsidize their cheap labor. It's nearing crisis proportions.

Thank God for those who are active in opposing their actions. The only thing holding them in any sort of check is our anger and activism.

Now that it's election time, the pols are flapping lips...but actions speak louder than words and people will be watching. I for one will not vote for anyone supporting the business as usual position.

[Greybird]

On the other hand, there is probably more hatred between the opposing sides today than there was during the First Civil War.

Clueless. Utterly clueless. Go to the microfiche, or any of a host of scholarly books, and actually read some of the vitriol that poured out of newspapers of the 1860s, before, during, and after the war. That was before shibboleths of "objectivity," honored more in the breach, took over and made journalism into pious posturing.

Newspapers had viewpoints then, and made no hypocritical bones about them. And John Brown could have been goaded into the Harpers Ferry raid from a few New England anti-slavery papers alone.

[Qwinn]

"Tho slightly better on sovereignty, the Republicans are equally pushing open borders and all forms of immigration."

Are you serious? Equal to the Democrats on open borders? No -way-.

While I absolutely agree that Republicans and Bush should do -more- to close the borders, fact is, they don't come close to Democrat's complete sellout on the issue. Look at California - both Davis and Bustamante (endorsed by a zillion Democrats) push for licenses for illegal aliens. Both Arnold and McClintock (endorsed by a zillion Republicans) opposed it.

I can understand (and agree) with your feeling that Republicans aren't going far enough in this area. But saying they're just as bad as Democrats on the issue? Not even close. Republicans at least aren't making things -worse-... and it was conservatives who called attention to the Visa Express program of the State Dept., among other serious issues. And it is conservatives, I believe, that are currently testing UAV's to patrol the borders to stop illegal immigrants.

Nah. I definetly think it's becoming more and more of a partisan issue. But (for the 3rd time) I will again agree that the Republican Party is not far enough to the Right on this issue.

Qwinn

[Ogmios]

It has, it is the red and the blue.

[Ogmios]

Excellent post, will you ping me for part 2?

Thanks

[backhoe]

Civil War II "The Comming Breakup of America" A Checklist, by Thomas W. Chittum
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/991163/posts

[Qwinn]

"On the other hand, there is probably more hatred between the opposing sides today than there was during the First Civil War."

I think he overstates the case by saying "during". But "before"? From my own reading, in terms of the level of vitriol, I don't think we're -before- the war, not during. It's heating up quickly now though.

What makes the current situation so different is that due to mass media, the two sides aren't really separated by geographic regions anymore. Where people were generally influenced mostly by their neighbors, it's much more likely now that people will be influenced by more distant sources. I personally live in New Jersey, and have -no- allegiance whatsoever to any old feelings for the Confederacy, but I'm a hard core conservative, and according to Southerners who want this to be a North-South thing I should be siding with them.

North-South won't be the nature of this conflict. It's all interspersed now, and if there is any geographic boundaries to it it's Coastal vs. Heartland. Which means I'll be having to move, I guess. Not that I'm complaining.

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

Bah, correction: "I don't think we're -before- the war, not during." should be "I think we're -before- the war, not during." And I'll add that I think we've got about 15 years. I fear 2017.

Qwinn

[SAJ]

Odd? It's not odd at all. For decades, no matter the makeup of the Regress, or which party the President belonged to, the Left enjoyed paramouncy; for so long indeed that the Left came to regard the power(s) so conferred as a matter of their natural ''right'' (no pun intended).

In 1994, they lost absolute control of the House of Dipsticks. Subsequently, they lost absolute control of the other house, in the figurative commissary of which waitress sandwiches were occasionally served (or should that be ''serviced''), and possibly still are today. Later on, because their well-honed tactic of electoral fraud failed them, the Left lost the Presidency.

These events were entirely contrary to the Left's perception of the natural order of things, and so, today, they pout, they cavil, they whine, they pettifog, they obstruct, and -- most of all -- they betray, consistently and every time, the Constitution to which each elected member of the Left (the very number of which speaks poorly for the existence of representative gov't) has, putatively, pledged and sworn an oath.

Orwell understood, and explained in full and in writing in his most famous dark satire, all our Clintons and Kennedys, Nixon (if you believe he was anything other than a Leftist, a totalitarian-wannabee, you're either historically illiterate or smoking ciggies w/o any lettering), the abominations and treachery of L B Johnson and Jimmuh, that one-worlder hypocrite G H W Bush, the assorted decades-spoiled garbage infesting the Dep't of State and the CIA, and the cooptation and practical ruination of that once classically American institution, the FBI. Orwell put it this way, in the words of his character O'Brien:

''The object of persecution IS persecution. The object of torture IS torture. The object of power IS power. Now do you begin to understand me?''

Nine years after the publication of ''1984'', Ayn Rand re-described this entirely parasitic philosophy, and its practitioners' presumption of its permanance as part of the natural order of things, in even more detail, most specifically in Floyd Ferris' speech to Henry Reardon (p. 411 of the Pocket Books edition of ''Atlas Shrugged'').

While I do not and would never pretend to belong to or even to aspire to the company of these two giants, I will add just a thought here: they were optimists, purely, simply, naively, and...sadly. They described the truth, but never the extent of its consequences, and only approached describing the explicit evil of the Left, these would-be controllers, these macromenaces to liberty, these Stalins-in-waiting. There is no describable depth of deceit, depravity, or dishonour to which the Left, of whatever nominal ''political'' or ''philosophical'' orientation, will sink in order to attempt to quench their craving and their lust. These filth never quit, and so also never will they acknowledge the advantages of liberty -- not to be confused with the misbegotten notion of universal license, anything goes, how dare one be ''judgmental'' -- to every person.

The only question that remains is whether there is a sufficient quantity of citizens, whether actually American or American in spirit, of whichever nation or nations by birth, to stand together and say to the tyrants of the Left, "Leave us. Leave us alone to prosper among ourselves, and if you refuse to do so, the consequence will be yours to ponder, and to suffer.''

The tyrants and their syncophants will not do so voluntarily, of course, and the next question will then become: at what point will Americans say to these thieves and murderers, in so many words, ''You refuse to leave us to our own lives -- we refuse to surrender our lives to you, any longer or any further. Draw your weapon.''

Privately, I would rather that matters not come to such event, but, I see no alternative, ultimately.

With best wishes to you and to all, ... FReegards!

[Travis McGee]

Road to Civil War Ping.

[Travis McGee]

Exactly. Just wait for a REALLY big case of election fraud, say rampant 'rat vote rigging in urban areas through hacked "touch screen voting."

If a Hillary-Clark ticket won through obvious rampant fraud, all bets would be off.

[Jack Black]

ping

[ravinson]

On the other side are those on the Right -- conservatives, rightists and libertarians...

Libertarians are not on the right; we're in the middle of the political spectrum -- but on a plane of thought high above the stuck-in-the-mud left and right wingers.

[driftless]

We always have to remember that most Dems are not liberals even though ultra-libs call the shots and have been for the last thirty years. My own solution would be a temporary (and highly impractical) split for five years where Dem-voters would get their freedom from us nasty right-wingers. Ninety percent would be demanding to be let back into the Republican country after one year of being ruled by Comrades Nader, H.Clinton, Kucinich, Chomsky, and Sharpton.

[Jimmy Valentine]

"And the conservative hatred of former President Bill Clinton was equally deep."

I for one do not consider this to be in past tense.

regards,

[driftless]

You're right. California will not slide into the ocean, it will become an island in the next million years or so due to tectonic plates. It's just too bad that San Francisco can't break off in the next ten years or so.

[Publius6961]

And the conservative hatred of former President Bill Clinton was equally deep.

I love Dennis and normally he is quite rational and sober about discussions like this one.
But his pandering for PC and weasel attempts at moral equivalency in this case makes me cringe.

No matter how disgusted we non-liberals were with the First Rapist, we felt no need to mutter daily about our hatred and frustration at being unable politically to do him in.
We suffered through the "politics of destruction", and the Orwellianisms, but as adults, accepted the fact that nothing is forever.

By way of contrast, the petulance and physical seething childish behavior of the "progressives", the frustrated socialists, is palpable real ever more vicious and verbal; in your face.
I literally refuse to discuss anything political with these neurotics, and just wish Dennis would call a spade a spade.

[Publius6961]

It's normal for there to be a great deal of political hatred and conflict; cooperation and consensus is ABNORMAL in US history.

What planet did you just arrive from?
Dennis is not talking about anything new in the way of dissent.
It's the way that this dissent is now expressed that is scary, irrational and ultimately explosive.