Can We Avoid Eventual Civil War?
A Conservative Agrees With A New York Times OpEd

As a conservative I find myself surprisingly in agreement with the following New York Times OpEd:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/opinion/the-governing-cancer-of-our-ti...

Here is my reaction posted on Facebook. It is not intended to be complete, just illustrative of the concerns I share with the author of the OpEd.

 ***

Terrific OpEd in the New York Times, one I largely agree with, though as a liberal columnist he seems only to casually acknowledge that the problem he addresses is equally a phenomenon of the left and of the right.

As our society grows more polarized politically we seem to have forgotten that the only real alternative to political compromise is LITERALLY either civil war or dictatorship. Granted there are degrees of compromise and even degrees of civil war. But because the degree of polarization between left and right has grown so severe, people on both sides of the aisle have grown so disillusioned with compromise that they have begun to engage in a civil war that, for now, falls short of overt armed confilct, but seems logically and eventually to be headed in that direction.

On both sides we grow so weary of what to each side is the radicalization of the other side (and there is merit to this judgement on both sides), we grow so weary of getting what seems to be the opposite of what we want, that we demonize anyone who practices the necessary art of compromise as "just a politician."

But would we rather have to deal with generals instead of politicians?

There is no doubt that corruption is rampant in government. It has always been so, and always will be that people with power will abuse that power for themselves and their friends. (Read the history of any US period and with the exception of a few reform periods you will find that corruption was rampant.) The massive growth of big business and big government has significantly exacerbated that problem.

The current mood of the electorate in both parties is to "throw the bums out!" Of course, in each case it is the bums of the OTHER party that is primarily intended. The Democrats don't want to deal with the Republicans, and the Republicans don't want to deal with the Democrats. Each wants to vanquish the other rather than persuade.

And herein lies the problem. Each party represents fully a third of the country, and a third of the people are caught between. But the only ways to vanquish the other party are first to delegitimize them, portray them as evil or as fools, or to silence them either socially or legally, which many seem to advocate, or literally conquer them and kill them off to some degree. There seems to be an increasing few who prefer this latter course.

To the conservative, the constitutional, social and financial foundations of this country have become so threatened that should they lose the upcoming election they will become more militant. Equally on the verge of militancy are the liberals, who see the logical progress of the Enlightenment and the social revolutions of recent decades are being held up by neanderthals who refuse to change with the times. Each feels the fabric of society would (or has!) become unlivable with the other imposing it's way.

What the constituencies of both parties need to reckon with is that such an intractable divide has happened before in this country over the subject of slavery. People with only a vague familiarity with the Civil War would do well to read up on it, especially social and political leaders.

Because it very well may be that's where we are headed unless each party begins to recognize that compromises must be reached to avoid it. A mentality of "shove your agenda through without regard to the legitimate concerns of the minority party" held by the ruling party of each four or eight year presidential cycle, threatens to destroy the republican democracy. There are those who feel this might indeed be the actual goal of some.

The obvious solution is for each party to seek to advance its agenda by persuasion, but such a course is abandoned when each party feels the other's constituents simply will not listen.

Comments

1

There is a rapidly growing class of people who, either disinterested in political matters, generally uninformed, or disillusioned with their current state, convinced that the American dream is beyond their reach, have narcissitically turned from any consideration of the country's future to whatever entertains them or floats their boat. Gimme my stuff and I'm content. And oh, by the way, [shut up] if you say anything that makes me feels uncomfortable. As an aside, we seem to have raised a generation of college students that, apart from a few technically oriented individuals, have been indoctrinated more they they have been educated.

Also, many feel the system is rigged to frustrate any aspirations they might have because of racism, poverty, etc., so why aspire to anything. Don't worry, be happy as long as you can.

2

One interesting aspect of the overall situation is that the liberals feel with some justification that time is on their side. They believe that conservatives are a dying breed. It's just that they are impatient to "get on with it." They want to hurry along the triumph of progressivism, and they long for the day when traditional and Christian values as understood by traditionalists are passe.

In my view, they may well get their wish, though how long that will take is impossible to predict.

To me this is a day to postpone as long as possible, because in my personal convictions the consequences will go far beyond what they envision, and in my opinion they are not good. But that's just my opinion, and I'm not really disposed to defend it in this thread. Our grandchild is coming over, and I have better things to do! :)

3

Good stuff. Politics is like sport: warfare by other means. If we didn't have a vibrant democracy, we'd be killing each other like we see in the Middle East. Messy, loud, full of hokum and lies and spin, and absolutely vital. Hopeless?...Well, we've seen worse. Seattle is no longer the bombing capital of the world, like it was in 1969-70 when the Weathermen didn't know which way the wind blew and half a million soldiers were in Vietnam. The college kids may be pushing around a bunch of spineless adminstrators, but they won't get far outside their trigger safe zones - so long as there is no draft to fight in foreign wars.

I appreciate the liberals that visit this site. Hey guys, we don't always agree, but we respect you. Our respective political parties are fighting for our respective souls. Good luck with your battle, and send us some wishes our way as well.

How do I find you on Facebook? If you prefer, look for me on Facebook and friend me: Rick Michels (a dude with glasses on). If there are too many Rick Michels to choose from, I'm the anti Trump, pro-Rubio guy.

4

Had sort of assumed James was wayyyy out in front, saying things that sound preposterous now and that might be taken as givens in 30 years.

Fear you're right but hope you're wrong DaddyO.  Sometimes it only takes a single Reagan to damp down the flames and kick the can of napalm down the road 25 years, but hard to see any Mt. Rushmore candidates in this field.

5

Sorry if I'm being redundant, but I believe this election season is replacing the X axis of conservatives/GOP vs. liberal/Democrats. I believe the alternate Y axis is the very few at the top (who have rigged the system and fomented the anti-goverment, anti-poliitics mania over the last couple decades) vs. the people who aren't going to take it anymore--both Trump and Sanders supporters (although obviously not the same people).

Congress is controlled (both parties, although the GOP more) by the oligarchs.  I think to many this sounds like tin foil hat stuff, but the evidence is not only available...but many of the people responsible for this are happily willing to talk about it. Interesting to note that Trump's campaign manager is a former state director for one of the Koch brothers' owned and operated think tanks.  Rubio's campaign manager is the former chief political director for the Koch brothers.  To them, the unseemly, no-holds-barred food fight now underway between the two candidates is a good thing.  It will further disgust and infuriate Amerian voters.  And in the absence of a participatory democracy...they win.

I'm not quite as pessimistic as you about a Civil War.  Your point about people here being able to disagree without (usually) being disagreeable is a sound one.  (OK, I plead no contest to charges of sometimes being one of the disagreeable ones :)  )  I think this kind of civil airing of differences still applies to the majority of Americans.  And I believe if the regular commenters here formed a cabinet under President Doc, a lot of agreement and sound thinking would result--but unfortunately, there would still be a truly corrupt Congress to deal with.

Footnote #1: count me as a liberal who is absolutely disgusted by the laughable extreme PC mania now swirling on college campuses.  I think much unnoticed was the dismissal this week by the U of Missouri of the communications professor who refused to allow a student journalist to walk on a section of the quadrangle there because she said so.  No matter that his tuition was helping fund this public space.  (And we wonder why journalism is in such a sorry state?)

Footnote #2--the NYT Op Ed guy is a conservative, not a liberal. They actually have two very good (IMO) conservative voices there...Brooks and Ross Douthat.  I read them regularly and enjoy them, even thought I frequently disagree with them.  They're a good way for me to see how the (logical) thinking of the other half works.

But anyway, thanks for your post.

6
GLS's picture

I was going to point this out as well, that Brooks is generally thought of as a conservative. But, the reality is that he may no longer fit that mold. I like Brooks quite a bit. In my view, he's a voice of reason squarely in the center. 

8

The compressed expression of my thoughts probably gave the impression that I felt war might soon break out. Actually, I don't think so. At least not a full-blown Civil War.

My intent was to show where current trends lead, and I supposed if pressed I DO feel that in the very long run the "battle" between the secular progressive worldview and the Christian traditional worldview could lead to some form of social-political Balkanization with attempts by Christan traditionalists attempting to secede the best they can from what they view as an unconstitutional,  hostile government that simply will not let them practice their faith and raise their children in peace.

I do not believe in the long run that secular progressives will view Christian traditionalists as compatible with their society, and I do not believe in the long run they will be able to restrain themselves from acting on that view.

Still, all this said, I think there is a much better chance in the near term for an explosion of Baltimore-style racial violence in our country similar to what happened in 1968 but worse.

It is my sincere hope that none of this transpires.

I am not the sharpest tool in the shed of SSI, but in my lifetime history has played out much as I envisioned as a young amateur analyst of trends in the '70's and '80's. As Doc said, the only hiatus in these trends was during the Reagan years. It merely postponed the operation of the forces at work.

9

I really thought your Civil War analogy was pretty much euphemistic.  If there really were a shooting war, that would pretty much be a walk over for the conservatives, since they have all the guns, right?  :)

More seriously, I honestly don't know one liberal who wants to change anyone's religion.  However, there are a lot who don't want anyone's religion to influence how the non-religious elements of society work.  I'm guessing there would be a lot of pushback on this point of view...but I think it's an argument well worth having.

But I think most intriguing is your dichotomy (which Doc presented earlier) of a battle between secular/progressive and Christian/traditional worldviews.  I want to believe that not only is middle ground possible in a peaceful way...but that this is the history of America.  We've moved past slavery and segregation, allowed women to vote, failed at prohibiting alcohol and marijuana, etc., and I don't see how any of this 'progressive' stuff has prevented anyone from practicing his or her faith.  

But then again, I guess ignorance is bliss...

10

This is conspiracy corner, but let's remember, before we paint everything in dark undertones, that the Tea Party has been successful in tossing out some pretty entrenched fellows, including many in leadership: Eric Cantor comes to mind. The left has benefitted from much of this by painting those grassroots Tea Party candidates who challenged existing power structures as exteemist no nothings who go after the sensible center. What we end up with is another six years of a Harry Reid. I am sure many of you see this as a good thing, but then when you rail against the evil Koch brothers- it kinda defeats your argument. 

Power resides with the people. We vote these folks in, and we can vote them out. A Bernie Sanders can rise out of obscurity and threaten the powers that be. That is a good thing. Get involved, and please talk to your Black friends: Sanders was fighting for civil rights when Hillary was still a Goldwater girl, for heavens sakes. 

Koch brothers managing Trump and Rubio campaigns?  What did Lincoln say about a house divided? Oh no, you may reply, they are both working to will of David and Charles Koch, evil masterminds pulling the strings to destroy this planet because (if you are on the left) they are greedy for more riches or (on the right) they are working for the Rochchilds, masterminds of the coming New World order. I hear them both. Yes, put on your tin foil hats, this is KK. But the truth tends to be more pedestrian: smart political people with ideological leanings go to work in politics, and want to do what they think is best. They get jobs, and they change jobs. They take contributions because people who have lots of money agree with their ideological leanings.

But power resides with the people. C'mon people now, let's get together.

11

LOL. So you are advocating THE YOUNGBLOODS position!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCiLxRCBf40

I do agree with you that the people, properly motivated for the good of all, have a serious check on the designs of the few and the powerful. No doubt that has already played a huge role in our history.

And I definitely agree with you that we need to engage both black and Hispanic communities, and not just with the sense that we need them to win elections. Rather, we need to seek the good of all.

12

Why is it that the GOP establishment is being run over by Donald Trump?  Where does his appeal really come from?

(Also, if you read the book Dark Money I'd be interested in your response.  People might conclude, "I don't care--rich people are always going to seize power", or, "It's OK--the liberals have it coming to them."  But I don't think it's possible to deny the facts that it lays out. )

13
GLS's picture

1) I don't see anything wrong with Harry Reid as the leader of the Democrats in the Senate. The voters of Nevada seem to like him well enough. Presumably, whichever Democrat happened to be in that position would draw the ire of conservatives. 

2) I think there always has been a sensible center, that's what Brooks is talking about. It's necessary for a functioning society and the Tea Party has eroded that to a significant degree.

3) The Koch brothers are pretty evil. I don't see how you can look at their actions, particularly with regard to funding of climate change denial, in any other way.

15
GLS's picture

Not especially. I've never heard anything to that effect. Obviously, he takes campaign donations, etc., but so does every other member of congress. Is there something you know about him that I don't? I'll freely admit that could be the case. 

And yes, the issue of climate change isn't a matter of opinion or political ideology. Greenland is melting for God's sake. We KNOW this is happening and we KNOW it's caused by humans. 

16
GLS's picture

Okay, I looked it up and there is quite a bit published on Reid from mostly conservative websites. There's probably some truth there. He is from Nevada after all. I really don't know how far beyond the pale he truly is, however. But yeah, where there's smoke there's usually fire. 

18
GLS's picture

If you're getting your news from mostly right-leaning outlets, beware of quotes about sea ice. It's become a talking point among climate change denialists that there are record amounts of sea ice in the arctic, so how could there possibly be a problem with warming? The answer to that is that big chunks are breaking off from the land. So yes, there is more sea ice, but land ice is what really matters, and that's the stuff that's melting. 

19
jokestar's picture

I consider myself an Independent...with a left leaning bent. My ballot was a split between Dems and GOP candidates until "W" got elected. Harding and Fillmore are not spinning as much in their graves now because of the younger Bush's ineptitude while in office. For example, my oldest sister is a dyed in the wool conservative, she even voted for Goldwater for president, but after Bush, she voted for a democratic president for the first time in her life. Let that sink in.

After Obama was elected, Mitch McConnell stated that the primary function of the GOP was to make sure that Obama didn't get elected to a second term! It wasn't to work together for a better America, their job was to undermine anything and everything that Obama and the democrats proposed. How'd that work out for them? Now McConnell is trying to stick one last jab at Obama by saying that no matter who Obama nominates for the Supreme Court, the GOP will block it in committee and not even let it get to the floor, even though the Constitution, they supposedly love, is very clear that the president should nominate a replacement as soon as he can. Obstructionism is a tool that is commomly used by one party, or the other, as a united way of getting their point across. The problem that the GOP faces is that the minority fringe, using bullying tactics and threats, are coercing the rest of the party into following their lead.

Voters, across the nation, are fed up with the stagnation in Washington D.C. That's why, both, Trump and Sanders have some support, Trump more so, across the board. Unfortunately for the GOP, the party tends to be controlled by vocal fringe groups like the Christian coalition, for a while. That faded into the Tea Party, who, led by Cruz, had no compunction about shutting down the government because thay didn't get their way. All this is to show that if Trump gets the GOP nomination, that he'll be lucky to get 45% of the vote in the general election. Independents and Democrats, almost universally, have no love for the Donald. And I wouldn't be surprised if he took a lot of Republican candidates down with him.

 

20
GregfromSpokane's picture

Jeff, I have read your websites for years and have not felt worthy to comment. However, I have long wanted to find a non-mouthfoaming conservative to ask a few questions. Respectfully of course. Why does the deficiet only matter to Republicans when the president is a Democrat? When Clinton left office The budget was in balance as far as the eye could see. So W. Bush gave top earners a HUGE tax cut, started 2 wars and established a new Medicare benefit without funding any of it. Do you like the current crop of Republican hopefuls want perpetual war? Why does the party that purports to get the government out of our lives want the government to decide who you sleep with? Why does government employment go up more under Republican administrations? Historically speaking, why does U.S. economy do better under Democratic administrations? And why do Republicans, despite no evidence of fraud, try to keep people from voting?

21

Polarization is considered one of the larger problems from a Development Economics point of view.
Countries that are more polarized, in general, have a lot more difficulty achieving economic growth.
This can be income polarity or political polarity.

Centrism is very hard to sell because there's no 'winner'.
Maybe it's a good thing to have ties in sports?

I think that for a lot of people the idea that being just 'American' isn't enough because it doesn't totally identify you.
Which is dumb because ANY label, be it American or Asian-American, is by its very nature insufficient to identify you.
The language itself is a generalization, but people get wrapped up in getting labeled right... When that part should be the least of your concern.

American Superiority is something that should probably be sold more by both sides, instead of using it as a hammer to bludgeon the other side.

It's easy to be liberal until you pay taxes.

You could argue that being disinterested in Political discourse is a freedom as well.
If you can build a perfect system where things just work and life is fair, that in itself is a freedom.
This seems to be the model that occurs in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and any number of the developed nations of Asia.
None are perfect, and have a nightmare of problems, but many just 'work' for the middle class and up.

There's an interesting book called "The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future".
It's quite interesting and I recommend it as one view into the younger post-Internet age.

Add comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><p><br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

shout_filter

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.