Posted on 10/20/2003 9:31:19 PM PDT by kattracks
In part one, I described nine areas of major conflict between the Right and the Left in American life, a conflict that rivals the First Civil War in intensity, though thankfully not in violence. Here in part two, I describe 15 others.
The Left regards American nationalism as dangerous, is more comfortable celebrating world citizenship and prefers that America follow the lead of international organizations such as the United Nations. The Right celebrates American nationalism, distrusts world organizations, prefers that America lead humanity and regards the United Nations as largely a moral wasteland.The Left believes that sensitivity to minorities' feelings trumps the majority's will. The Right believes that when not immoral, the majority's will trumps that of the minority. For example, because some employees do not celebrate Christmas, the Left believes that organizations should rename their Christmas party the "holiday party." The Right believes that because the vast majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, the party should be called a Christmas party.
The Left believes that a woman must have an unrestricted right to choose an abortion but no right to choose a silicone breast implant. The Right believes that society must decide when abortions are moral and legal but a woman has the right to choose to have a silicone breast implant.
The Left believes that attacking world poverty will greatly reduce Islamic terror. The Right believes that poverty is largely unrelated to Islamic terror.
The Left believes that George W. Bush attacked Iraq mostly for economic gain. The Right believes George W. Bush attacked Iraq to protect America and to change the Arab world for the better.
The Left believes that a high rate of taxation of people who earn more money is a moral imperative. The Right believes that allowing people to keep as much of their money as possible is a moral imperative.
The Left identifies with the values of most university professors in the liberal arts and values their insights. The Right regards most of these professors as moral idiots.
The Left believes that the greatest danger to mankind, as former Vice President Al Gore wrote in his book "Earth in the Balance," is the threat to the environment. The Right believes that the greatest danger to humanity is, as it always has been, human evil.
The Left believes that marriage should be redefined and that judges alone are entitled to do so. The Right believes that the millennia-old definition of marriage as between members of the two sexes is inviolable and that it can't be redefined by jurists.
The Left believes that in terms of parenthood, all a child needs is love, whether that love comes from a single parent, two men, two women or some other adult. The Right believes that children do best with the love of two married parents of the opposite sex.
The Left believes that opposing race-based college dorms, graduation ceremonies, congressional caucuses or professional organizations is racist. The Right believes that race-based college dorms, graduation ceremonies, congressional caucuses and professional organizations are racist.
The Left believes that labeling any enemy of the United States "evil" is wrong. It was wrong when President Ronald Reagan labeled the Soviet Union an "evil empire," and it was wrong when President George W. Bush labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea an "axis of evil." The Right believes that not labeling such regimes "evil" is a sign of moral confusion and appeasement.
The Left is preoccupied with health. Leftist parents are more likely to believe that it is preferable that their teenager cheat on a test than smoke. Parents on the Right are more likely to believe that it is better that their teenager smoke than cheat.
The Left believes that just as America and the Soviet Union were equally responsible for the Cold War, Israel and the Palestinians are equally responsible for Middle East violence. The Right believes that just as the Soviets were responsible for the Cold War, the Arab enemies of Israel are responsible for Middle East violence.
The Left believes that criticism of Christianity is important and that criticism of Islam is bigoted. The Right believes that criticism of Islam is important and that most criticism of Christianity is bigoted.
I am well aware that not everyone on the Left agrees with every leftist position and not everyone on the Right agrees with every rightist one. Nat Hentoff is a leftist who doesn't support abortion rights; Pat Buchanan is a rightist who doesn't support Israel. But the existence of individual exceptions does not negate the fact that all the positions listed here as Left or Right are correctly labeled.
The fact is that this country is profoundly divided on virtually every major social, personal and political issue. We are in the midst of the Second American Civil War. Who wins it will determine the nature of this country as much as the winner of the first did.
©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Oh. My. Effing. G-d.
They ARE planning a coup.
1. Additional geographic stratification (red zone / blue zone) Current trends have to continue so that states or regions are strongly self identified as "conservative" or "socialist" or "liberty" or whatever, and those who oppose these views are a small minority. Even the blue/red zones are not this way now. If you pushed the threshold for coloring in the map from 50% majority in county to 60% it would totally chnage it. If you imposed a 70% majority to color a state red the entire map would be blue.
The continuing *Mexicification* of Texas, NM, Colorado and California, to include the continued free entrance of illegal immigration to create *Azatlan* gets pretty close, and includes both Democratic and Republican turncoats and Quislings permitting it to continue.
2. One or more states disobeying the federal government. I think a State is the obvious unit for CW2 flash point. Until a State (or several) elect leaders who are anti-federal I think we have a long way to go.
A long way to go, perhaps, but the genesis could well be right in front of you with the recent vote of 5000 *Porcupines* of the Free State Project to pick the state of New Hampshire for their project. At present growth rates, the 5000 will double to 10K by this time next year and double again to 20K a year after that, at which time the migration is to begin. They've been welcomed by the state's current governor, excorciated by the Democrats who see their party sinking into a fourth place of registered voter numbers, and may well be a critical factor in the 2008 election. And an even more ambitious *Free West Project* has grown out of the Eastern group, looking to accomplish similar results in three adjoining Western states. That could easily provide your state defiant of federal policy or direction from on high, or even more intrerestingly, a *competition* between the Western and Eastern groups to see which can more spectacularly and effectively poke their pointy stick in the fed.gov eye.
3. "Lines in the Sand" are clearly drawn and understood. To some extent the 2nd Ammendment is already one such line. When new more explicit lines are drawn saying "we won't tolerate this" that is a big warning sign. Such things did take place at the start of CW1.
The abortion question is certainly another with little liklihood of a simple compromise between either set of proponents. So is the illegal immigration issue and possibly, the widespread deployment of U.S. troops in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, with Iran. Syria, and Korea all recently mentioned as likly venues for additional US troop visits.
4. One or more political parties form with a focus on seccession or radial change. Not "reform". These parties attract 1 million or more members.
What do you figure will happen in the South in two years if the FSP is successful in NH? Bet on the liberal urban newspapers and TV stations in the south wailing and bemoaning this terrible *racist* movement to the heavens, offering them better advertising than they could pay for. Likewise expect the Republic of Texas movement to take off as the murders and other violence from illegal invaders continues; the question there is whether Texas will go independent or become a Mexican satrapy.
5. Military or militia units are formed outside the control of FedGov. These are large scale an include heavy arms. Tom Chittum's book has a bunch more, some of which I don't think are significant, some of which are.
Chittum's list can be seen here, or you can find it or other CWII-related posts on FR by using the FR keyword search for CWII.
If you count militia units forming in 6-vehicle tank platoons and shopping for coastal patrol vessels, that can be quickly and effectively armed with *sea skimmer* antiship missiles, we're already at that point; if the US government will not protect its citizens from enemy civilian invaders there's no particular good reason to depend on them for defence against a military force either; accordingly an *armored volunteer fire department* has begun to form and train, and likely will grow.
Note that some such local Civil Guard forces are constitutionalist and see the present fed.gov activities [usually 22 Nov 1963 is given as the cutoff when the legitimate governance was overthrown via coup] as illegitimate and maintained only by force of arms, not morally by virtue of law. There's a variance of opinion as to whether the Constitution can be salvaged and reestablished, would have to go through the entire ratification process again, or should be replaced with another existing contractural agreement between governed and government.
But of even more grounds for concern are the independent platoon and company size groups comprised of those of more of a survivalist bent and intent on expanding with less well prepared supernumeraries in the event of more hostile circumstances in their home localities. There's an excellent chance of local police or military units or individuals from those orgasnizations throwing in with those neighbors, especially if the forces that bring them into the open are clearly identifiable as *outsiders* or *the enemy.*
They ARE planning a coup.
No. They considered enforcing a coup with military assets.
In response, more than a thousand officers, from junior lieutenant platoon leaders to at least one Major General said no, and took steps to act in accordance with their oaths if it was tried. I don't think they were bluffing, and they weren't taking chances.
-archy-/-
Thanks.
You're on, and welcome to the crew of the leaky ship.
-archy-/-
Two words: Open Season!
Not gonna happen.
Yes! Exactly! If they can't bring on their fuzzy social utopia through the ballot box, they will do anything to wreck the present status quo, turning over the table and hoping that from the chaos they will emerge on top.
They won't.
That is a major fault line in the coming conflict.
We're increasingly starting to see this happen before our very eyes right now. One area is laws banning marijuana, another is in granting de-facto citizenship rights to illegal aliens. Many states are becoming bolder and bolder in open defiance of federal statute in these areas.
Wait until it's a form of state defiance on federal tax monies, particularly if it takes the form of federally mandated *standards* for the return of state federal highway funding. If the feds fail to return state tax dollars in response to a state failure to mandate federally-directed speed limits, motorcycle helmet laws, or restroom standards at highway rest areas, don't be surprised if a state quits collecting the federal tax on gasoline sold in the state and dumps 50 tons of sand here and there on their interstate highways, deferring maintenance until the feds return to their senses.
And I've had conversations with at least one congressman who's become a Second Amendment absolutist not because he sees it as so envisioned by the founders or for the benefits it brings to American citizens, both of which he acknowledges, but because he really fears the reaction of his state government in the event of federal excess in attempting to disarm the citizens.
-archy-/-
HELLO????
Ever hear of RUSSIA, in 1917, among many examples????????
YOU: Tell that to the Cold War that Ronald Reagan bloodlessly won.
I respectfully disagree. The Cold War included a large number of proxie wars. Reagan brilliantly avoided the all-out land war in Europe that would have led to nuclear exchange, but he fought the proxy war with arms. The most well known were:
Vietnam 1955-75
Nicaragua 1980s
Guatamala 1980s
Angola 70s and 80s
Korea 1950s
Grenada circa 85
Two words: Open Season!
Not gonna happen.
Then any American who supports the United Nations or their troops is supporting foreign invaders, treason as constitutionally defined. Following a military tribunal comprised of three officers, who may be militia officers, hang 'em, shoot 'em or let the rookies bayonet them for practice, as the Finns did during their four month civil war, or as the Japanese did upon their occupation on Nanking/Nanjing in 1938. Good training for 'em.
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.