A Second American Civil War?

[MisterMike]

The first thing that's of interest to me in this topic is the extent to which extreme right-wing and fundamentalist Protestants in this country actively hope that some sort of national conflagration would break out.

Look at the fiction, from those loonbox "Left Behind," books all the way through to right wing sf by Pournelle, Ringo, etc. And I liked "Red Dawn," but c'mahn...

So are you saying you missed the extent to which the leftists hope to have the same? Or is it just "not as far?" One needn't look too far on the net, or even off this board.

And from what I remember, the "Left Behind" books don't mention Civil war, but rather the takeover by the "U.N." figure after a conspired nuclear attack on the U.S. Great stuff actually.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

So are you saying you missed the extent to which the leftists hope to have the same? Or is it just "not as far?" One needn't look too far on the net, or even off this board.

A good point; the gun control issues themselves concern a liberal attempt to control individual behavior, and a conservative resistance. I don't mean to imply that gun control is bad; in fact, I agree with it to some extent. But the issues over which revolution is being questioned, at least in this thread, concern individual rights from government intervention of both liberal and conservative origin, not just some Far Right members trying to impose their views through revolt.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah yes, I was wondering when the Terrible Plight of the Poor, Picked Upon White Men of America would come up as an issue. I too feel for them, what with their domination of the government, the media, the economic system, the military...oh, you poor, poor, poor lads. My goodness. It must be Terrible. A man cain't hardly beat his woman and slaves no more, on account of them damn liberals. Them Thoreaus and Emersons. Them Sojourner Truths and them Frederick Douglasses.

It's racist fantasy that lies at the bottom of these claims, from "Red Dawn," to whatever. And it's fear of women.

As for the "Left Behind," books, yep, Mike, thanks for the precise reinforcement of my point. They feature a) Millenarialist fantasy; b) civil war in this country and abroad; c) hatred of liberal ideas; d) an identification of the UN with Satan. All of which are long-standing, fully-articulated themes of such books as, "The Turner Diaries."

We can do better than Tim La Haye, David Koresh, Pat Buchanan, Michael Savage, and the rest of these clowns. Shame on them for their lack of faith in this country, and shame on those who take their ugly little notions seriously. We can do better.

Warning: later, I shall be engaging in a tirade about the way that some bespeak an utter lack of faith in the founding principles of this country--freedom of belief, of speech, of thought--and the utter lack of faith, for that matter, in democratic and humanist principles that it has taken the human race several thousand years to articulate and to begin to make realities.

I believe in what's best about this country, and in human history. Shouldn't you?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Strange, I don't remember anyone complaining about not being able to beat women and slaves anywhere earlier in the thread. Guess I should double-check.....

 

[rmcrobertson]

Absolutely right. When guys start in on "a second American Civil War," complain about gun control, mention things like gay rights and civil rights as causes of said war, then segue on to kvetching about the abuse of the Poor White Male, there is no reason whatsoever to say anything about misogyny and the rest, or to invoke the sorry history of race and gender in this country. Whatever was I thinking.

 

[Mark Weiser]

To quote a famous announcer in the recent years.

"Lets get ready to ruuuuuuuummmmmmmbbbbbbbblllllllleeeeee!!!!!!"

DING! DING!!

 

[RandomPhantom700]

My sincerest apologies to all other readers if this is too off-topic. I just didn't want to dedicate an entire thread to an argument.

Absolutely right. When guys start in on "a second American Civil War," complain about gun control, mention things like gay rights and civil rights as causes of said war, then segue on to kvetching about the abuse of the Poor White Male, there is no reason whatsoever to say anything about misogyny and the rest, or to invoke the sorry history of race and gender in this country. Whatever was I thinking.

The simple topic has been whether the current political conflicts over gay rights, religious rights, political abuses, and gun control (the latter seems to have included itself throughout the thread) could lead to any sort of revolutions, as did happen during the Civil War and Civil Rights Movement in the past. Asking whether such an event could unfold is not saying "get in the truck, boys, we got some liberal yankees to keel!!"

And mentioning that white males are subject to discrimination in political discourse (as I have seen happen in college classes myself) does not constitute a cry for the good old days when white men could beat their wives and slaves and lynch negroes whenever they want and without trial, nor a claim that they're being oppressed on all social fronts. I fail to understand why you think that the mention of reverse discrimination is nothing more than a call for the return of the Confederacy.

But wait, I forgot. Some of my ancestors may have ran a plantation, or beat their wives, so in a twisted version of original sin, I, as a white male, have no right to make any complaints about social discourse. Shame on me.....

 

[michaeledward]

So are you saying you missed the extent to which the leftists hope to have the same? Or is it just "not as far?" One needn't look too far on the net, or even off this board.

Please go on with this first thought. I am about as lunatic-left-wing-latte-drinking New Englander as you are going to find on this board or any other, and I missed my call for a civil war. The only weapons I have employed to stir others to my side of an argument is my superior intellect (I hope) and rigourous debate.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

My intent for this thread wasn't to get into the details of real or imagined issues, but examine what could possibly cause a revolution in the US, and if the US population would actually go through with it. If we can see some areas that require more indepth analysis, lets spin them off into their own thread where they can be more properly examined and debated and reserve this thread for the main topic.

Thanks.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I highly doubt any of the issues mentioned would actually spark any type of revolt. Reason being that they are political issues, and for any major part of the population to revolt over such issues, there would have to be a great deal of unity among them. If there is one thing that can be said about the common man's politics, it's that it's fragmented.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I think that a large-scale political or racial injustice would trigger...something in this country. Like the LA riots after the Rodney King verdict - but on a larger, national scale. I'm not quite sure what that would be, but I can envision it happening.

People are getting squeezed out of the middle class, and the failing economy - as measured by the "typical" or "modal" American - is putting social stresses on each person, and on society. If an(other) election is "stolen".... I'm not sure. But I think the feelings of discontent are there.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Again, my point is that these notions about, "revolution," especially violent revolution, are typically right-wing fantasies these days.

Exceptions, I suppose, would be LeVar Burton's "Aftermath," and Eric Flint's "1633," but far more typically these books and films and what-have-you revolve specifically around the notion that white men are somehow pushed to revolt by gun control, gays, feminists, the abolition of forced fundamentalist prayer in schools, and similar oppressions.

The difference from, say, the REAL Civil War is that in this case, members of the very race and gender that's in power are doing the complaining. Hm...maybe it's not so different, given the extent to which white slaveowners portrayed themselves as victims.

Of course, the other weird thing is that these very same guys are supporting "leaders," and issues, that contribue to their oppressions--like, for instance, working class men who support Bush's awarding gigundo tax cuts to the wealthiest members of our society on the grounds that this will somehow magically help the economy, and respoding to criticism by claiming the the people doing the criticizing are the real enemy.

 

[Kane]

working class men who support Bush's awarding gigundo tax cuts to the wealthiest members of our society on the grounds that this will somehow magically help the economy, and respoding to criticism by claiming the the people doing the criticizing are the real enemy.

Who says those tax cuts only help the rich? I support the tax cuts and yet I am not near rich. Oh and just to clarify, the rich does pay most of the taxes, why do you think it benefits them the most? I just wanted to point that out.

 

[michaeledward]

Who says those tax cuts only help the rich? I support the tax cuts and yet I am not near rich. Oh and just to clarify, the rich does pay most of the taxes, why do you think it benefits them the most? I just wanted to point that out.

Kane, How is the Kool-Aid?

Those tax cuts for the wealthy (people averaging 87 million dollars a year in income) aren't being cut ... they are being shifted to you and me. Yes, our tax rate has dropped as well, under Bush, but look at the countries' credit card debt .... In the last three years, the country has piled billions and billions of dollars onto the Federal Debt. Who do you think is going to pay when that bill comes due? (Hint - After Reagan / Bush1 - Clinton Raised Taxes on everybody in 1993.)

Our Federal Income tax system is a 'Progressive Tax System', this means that those who are most able to pay, pay more. Those who are less able to pay, pay less.

For years, the right has been selling the idea that you, too, may one day be rich, and therefore, anything that benefits the rich today, might possibly benefit you tomorrow. The problem with this argument is the deck is stacked against you. You are never going to be rich. You are never going to have to worry about the 'Death Tax'. You might, someday have to worry about Social Security, but by that time, it will have imploded in on itself, in no small part because President Bush did not treat the Social Security trust fund as he promised to during his campaign; he gave it all to his rich buddies (and you ain't one of them - oh, yeah, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity both are).

Kane, I don't want to re-hash all of the debates we have already had about fiscal policies. There are enough news reports (not editorial opinions) that show how bad the Bush Administration has been for the 'Average Joe' when it comes to monetary policy.

And me telling you this here, isn't going to change your opinion. But Please Please Please ... read some newspapers, read some books, turn off the radio, turn off the television.

Good Luck, Mike

 

[PeachMonkey]

Who says those tax cuts only help the rich?

Anyone who actually looks at the facts. In fact, over the long run, those tax cuts will hurt *everyone*.

I support the tax cuts and yet I am not near rich.

The only thing more depressing than the fact that the wealthy have been so successful in waging class warfare is that so many of their victims happily buy into it.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Kane, How is the Kool-Aid?

lol

Those tax cuts for the wealthy (people averaging 87 million dollars a year in income) aren't being cut ... they are being shifted to you and me. Yes, our tax rate has dropped as well, under Bush, but look at the countries' credit card debt .... In the last three years, the country has piled billions and billions of dollars onto the Federal Debt. Who do you think is going to pay when that bill comes due?

Not only will the costs be shifted to the rest of us in the future (paying off the whopping, mind-boggling, record-breaking National Debt), but we are paying for it *now* - as federal funding is cut from state programs, and states have to raise taxes (which we pay), states cut programs. The large, well-known university I work at has been hiking tuition, and trying to "cut corners" every way possible, while still remaining a leader in education and research. Now that the state is in such a bind (due to having to take over funding more programs that the federal govt used to fund), programs and institutions will either fold, or pass the cost on to each of us in other ways.

Luckily for those poor rich folks, they can afford whatever they would like to begin with, and now even more with these huge financial gifts from Bush the Second to his buddies. Too bad for the rest of us.

 

[Kane]

And me telling you this here, isn't going to change your opinion. But Please Please Please ... read some newspapers, read some books, turn off the radio, turn off the television.

Good Luck, Mike

Mike, Are you telling me just because I have a different opinion on this than you that I am wrong and never read a book, read a newspaper, and only get my info on TV? My friend, I have probably read more books on political perspective than you might ever read. What you are basically saying is that just because my views are not mostly liberal means I am ignorant and only get source from off the TV. No Mike, it doesn’t work that way.



Now that we are on the subject, can you tell me specifically where you get your sources? I actually think TV is liberal bias, so I don’t see how you think I only watch TV. Anyway, please name a few sources. Cheers!

 

[DoxN4cer]

Short answer is yes. We aren't going to use things like close air support in our own communities (one hopes...). Many "gun nuts" are prior military. The best historical example is probably the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Without entering a debate, a handful of starved, beaten, mostly unarmed Jews held off the German army, if only for a little while.

Chad

I have to agree with Chad. Look at the historical examples of insurgency, even the examples of today in Iraq. A handful of highly motivated gueriilas in their home turf can really play havoc on highly trained military troops; particularly when those troops are restricted by rules of engagement that limit what course of action they may take.

Tim Kashino

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Now that we are on the subject, can you tell me specifically where you get your sources? I actually think TV is liberal bias, so I don’t see how you think I only watch TV. Anyway, please name a few sources. Cheers!

Gee, didn't we have a whole thread on that where we essentially established the fallacy of such a notion?

Kane, I find it difficult to believe you've read more than Michael insofar as books with a political perspective. Don't take this personally. After having read his posts, I think he's probably read far more than most of us here, including me.

But you left yourself open with the line stating that GWB's tax breaks benefit more than just the wealthy. How did you miss the Congressional Budgeting Office's report on taxes last week? The tax burden has shifted off of the wealthy and on to the middle class. Two thirds of all tax breaks were directed to the top 1% of the nation's wealthy.

Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

Mike, Are you telling me just because I have a different opinion on this than you that I am wrong and never read a book, read a newspaper, and only get my info on TV? My friend, I have probably read more books on political perspective than you might ever read. What you are basically saying is that just because my views are not mostly liberal means I am ignorant and only get source from off the TV. No Mike, it doesn’t work that way.

Now that we are on the subject, can you tell me specifically where you get your sources? I actually think TV is liberal bias, so I don’t see how you think I only watch TV. Anyway, please name a few sources. Cheers!

Kane, I am not saying anything about your views because they are different from mine. I am calling you willfully mis-informed; specifically, when you make statements like :

Who says those tax cuts only help the rich?

after I have posted hyper-links to stories such as:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5689001/

WASHINGTON - Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign.

According to this news report, the answer to your question is "The Congressional Budget Office" says those tax cuts only help the rich.

As long as you are willing to ignore statements by organizations like the CBO, which is supposed to be politically neutral (even if both houses of congress are Republican), you are behaving in a willfully ignorant manner, much like the followers of Jim Jones in Jonestown, Guyana (e.g. Kool-Aid).

Now, the statements about the newspapers and books, yeah, that was perhaps a bit over the top. But, reading Sean Hannity's book, is not the same as reading, say, "The President of Good and Evil - The ethics of George W. Bush" by Peter Singer of "The Myth of Ownership" by Laim Murphy & Thomas Nagel. (which are two of the books I have recently read, although there are others).

Now, since you asked:
I rarely watch TV News, either broadcast or cable. I do watch occassionaly, 60 Minutes and Now (with Bill Moyers). When there is a big political story, I may tune in to the Sunday Morning News Discussion programs.

My internet home page is 'MSNBC'. I regularly visit the 'CNN' website and the 'BBC' website. I also have 'The Nation', 'Altercation Blog', and 'MichaelMoore's' website stored on my favorites list.

As my vocation is a 'Field Service Representative', I spend a great deal of time in my car, I regularly listen to 'Don Imus', 'Bill O'Reilly' and 'Laura Ingraham'; as well as local voices 'Jay Severin' and 'Mike Barnicle'. All Conservative voices.

My library of books is decidedly from the left point of view. Although I do own, and have read both 'The Way Things Ought to Be', and 'See, I Told You So' by the GRAND poo-bah of talk radio.

So, I am guessing, that I willingly seek out and receive more information from the other side of the political spectrum than my counterparts from the right. So, Kane, can you tell me where you get your information concerning 'Liberal' ideas. What Liberal Books have you read? What Liberal Radio shows do you listen to (OK .. there is no liberal radio ... so you can forget that one).

Thanks for playing - Mike