A Second Civil War?
Oct. 6th, 2005 01:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenite0I just discovered a post that eloquently describes a fear I've been grappling with for years now. The level of vitriol the liberals and conservatives are flinging at each other keeps growing. I was worried about that before the 2000 election and it's kept getting worse since. There's less and less tolerance of people in the middle. If these keeps getting worse, where will we end up? Possibly in a civil war, right here in America.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
rjlippincott thinks cycles of history make this civil war inevitable. I sure as hell hope not. Our system does seem to reward the factions for upping the pressure, so we may need to make some structural changes to fix thing. Proportional representation, instant runoff voting, and none-of-the-above could all adjust elections to give people options other than Good vs. Evil (as defined by whichever circle of friends you've landed in). The other option would be finding a centrist leader who can pull off a win in the current system. There's clearly a hunger for that--the votes for Ross Perot, John McCain, and Arnold Schwarzenegger show that. It's so strong that Kinky Friedman is being forced to take his own campaign for governor seriously, because so many people want him to be the alternative they're looking for. But the way the system is built it'd take a real hero to beat it, and I don't see an obvious one out there.
rjlippincott thinks cycles of history make this civil war inevitable. I sure as hell hope not. Our system does seem to reward the factions for upping the pressure, so we may need to make some structural changes to fix thing. Proportional representation, instant runoff voting, and none-of-the-above could all adjust elections to give people options other than Good vs. Evil (as defined by whichever circle of friends you've landed in). The other option would be finding a centrist leader who can pull off a win in the current system. There's clearly a hunger for that--the votes for Ross Perot, John McCain, and Arnold Schwarzenegger show that. It's so strong that Kinky Friedman is being forced to take his own campaign for governor seriously, because so many people want him to be the alternative they're looking for. But the way the system is built it'd take a real hero to beat it, and I don't see an obvious one out there.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 06:12 pm (UTC)Hello, moonbats, the Right has all the guns.
More seriously, I don't see a revolution coming any time soon, but I am interested in some of the alternate election methods. The thing is I dread the horrid cobbled together coaliton goverments that can result from such systems.
Watching Israel, Germany and other with recent election woes, makes me think our system, while not the best, is certainly not the worst.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 06:22 pm (UTC)2) I'm a gun owner.
3) You'd be surprised how many "liberals" are also gun owners, have no interest in gun control, and would be members of the NRA if the NRA would actually represent *all* gun owners rather than right-wing gun owners.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 06:30 pm (UTC)I'm a mod-right, former mod-left, so I get where you're at.
I'm a bit curious at your NRA position. A number of my Right friends don't like the NRA because the say it doesn't do enough for their interests.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 06:35 pm (UTC)Go figure. :-)
no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 06:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 06:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 09:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-07 12:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 06:19 pm (UTC)Q: "what's the longest lived democratic republic in history?"
A: "the USA."
hmm - so we're on uncharted waters, and we need to be careful, because we want to make sure we don't lose those things which make this a great country...
I do notice what you're saying - it's tough to be a moderate anymore: I'm stuck in my group of friends as one of the people who says that President Bush really isn't like Hitler or Satan or anything like that.. It seems like the motives for the other side are now suspect, which only coursens the discourse further...
no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 06:31 pm (UTC)Arnold, since he announced he was going to run for relection after all, has been kowtowing to the right wing in California. Who seem to be holding their noses to vote for him. A lot of the cross-party support he had seems to have evaporated.
John McCain has built somewhat of a rep as a moderate, but the fact that he was "swiftboated" so fast in the 2000 campaign shows he's open to attack. Mixed choice there.
Gen. Wesley Clark would be a very good choice to appeal to moderates. The lack of previous political experience may run for or against him. Though the fact he did win at least two democratic primaries during his short runnin he the 2004 election (more than Roberts), and consistantly tied for 2nd and 3rd, shows appeal. If he has a stronger leadup time *and* the support of the DNC, he could be a viable choice with cross-party appeal. And his solid West Point education and military experience, coupled with an advanced degree in Economics would be a great benefit to the White House
If it came down to a choice between McCain and Clark, I think the ultimate winner would be the american people, Sadly, I think 2008 is going to be a choice between tweedledum and tweedledummer.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-07 02:37 am (UTC)John McCain has built somewhat of a rep as a moderate, but the fact that he was "swiftboated" so fast in the 2000 campaign shows he's open to attack. Mixed choice there.
I think the fact that he has stated he thinks abortion should be a woman's choice would hurt him as well in some areas.
If it came down to a choice between McCain and Clark, I think the ultimate winner would be the american people, Sadly, I think 2008 is going to be a choice between tweedledum and tweedledummer.
Most likely, yes.
DV
no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 06:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 06:49 pm (UTC)The problem, I think, is that the left has forgetten how to showcase it's moderates... making the entire party seem full of the moonbat creed.
For the right, they can always point to Mccains, Gulliani's, Governators, Powells etc whenever they are accused of being controlled by neo-cons, wing-nuts. the 700 club...
... but there are NO well known moderates on the left anymore. They exist, but they are not showcased anymore. That makes it really seem like their p;atforms are significantly father left than is far - and the same holds true of the right.
IMO, the majority of american voters are somewhere in a 60% center majority. I don't think we'll face civil war because I think the hold-outs on the most divisive issues are... well, dying off on both sides of the aisle, but at a faster RATE on the right. That means the *remaining* right has a better chance of inheriting the center when both parties platforms are destroyed by the shrieking moonbats and wingnuts of unusal size.
; )
Moderate Democrats
Date: 2005-10-06 08:37 pm (UTC)Of course when he ran for a leadership position in the DNC he was pelted from the political stage with rotten tomatoes.
There's Dick Gephardt.
Of course his last presidential bid ended even before the tallies were all counted from the Iowa Caucuses.
There's Sam Nunn.
Is he still alive or did he die the same year Bob Dole did?
It is not that there are NOT popular moderate statesmanlike attractive Democrats to support. Or Republicans, either. It's that the "wings" capture the podium. Howard Dean used to be a fairly rational person but now he is largely the mouthpiece of Soros-financed "reform" factions. I kinda like Barak Obama but he has a short track record and his calm and reasoned speeches get much less support than do his "red meat" soundbites.
The money and the favors of the rich drive princes and judges to error and foolishness. This is not a new problem. Micah 7:4.
Re: Moderate Democrats
Date: 2005-10-06 09:34 pm (UTC)And I agree on Gephardt and Nunn. *sigh* And Obama has great potentional.
Perhaps the perception then is that the left doesn't WANT moderate statesman... for all I forgive poor Dean his shriek of enthusiasm, maybe the error is that they seem to *embrace* the wackos, rather than shut them up.
On the right, I sense a sincere stuggle for domination of the party.The wingnuts want control, the moderates aren't quiet about refusing them. I have always seen more in-party disgreement on the right than the left... which kinda surprisesm e, because as the left seems more encompassing politically, you'd expect more disagreement in *their* ranks.
I mean, it's a scary DNC when Hilary looks conservative. But you know that's not indicative of the entire party... except you can't find the any dissention in the ranks. A friend of mine theorizes that's because the left stands for nothing anymore, thus there can be no dessention from anything. It rings a bit truer than I wish it did, sometimes. Especially with Dean in charge. I think the general appearence of the partystems in party from it's current leader... and Dean, like you said, doesn't seem anywhere near as rational or compromizing as he used to.
I am really concerned we may end up with another Republican in the oval by default in 08 with a Dean in charge on the left - people may be fed up with Bushies, but if the GOP puts together a ticket that seems less... shrill, pecky, and divisive than the DNC manages to put together, they're gonna vote on party image for the first time in ages, NO MATTER how bad Bush and Co have messed up when it comes time to pay the piper.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 09:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 09:36 pm (UTC)Bah, I just posted anonymously to the other reply. *headdesk*
That's me up there I swear!
no subject
Date: 2005-10-07 02:41 am (UTC)I think putting Hillary up would be a bad idea. Because there's too many people who are going to have knee jerk reactions, and NOT vote for her, even if the other choice is Satan.
We don't need a repeat of "Well, Bush isn't so hot, but I'm not comfortable with Kerry either...."
DV
no subject
Date: 2005-10-07 04:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-07 03:03 pm (UTC)If Hil runs ever, it has to be now, because in 2012, she's just too old. If she wants it, she just might get the nom.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-07 05:53 pm (UTC)Honestly?
From talking to people I work with (and yes, I realize the Army's a pretty small piece of the American population, and leaning more towards the conservative side), there's a lot of people who would not vote for Hillary because of what she has been.
1. Wife to the President that many in my age group in the military feel "screwed us up".
2. Screechy, meddlesome woman who should have just stuck to being a good little Stepford first lady.
3. Too bossy, too assertive, and too confident.
Granted, this is mostly a military sample, but I think you're going to find a great deal of it in conservative areas. I don't know enough about her politics to know what kind of job she would do, but the way they run elections these days, I don't really think it would matter. Perception equals reality in *that* sphere.
DV
no subject
Date: 2005-10-07 06:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-09 04:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-09 10:01 pm (UTC)Senator Clinton has made strong statements in favor of prosecuting the war. If she keeps that up, I'd be willing to vote for her.
Briefly onto my soapbox...
Date: 2005-10-08 02:25 am (UTC)But on a more personal note, I remember her pushing back in 93-94 to try and get her husband and the congress to pass into law a certain socialized medicine program. ( Why I think THAT was and is a very very bad thing is a whole different subject. ) What's relevant to me here is that the Clintons decided that since they were having a hard time getting the medical program to pass, they wouldn't waste any political capital on anything as trivial to their goals as mere science. Specifically, Hazel O'leary, then energy secretary was sent out to say that she "didn't feel passionately" about a little project south of Dallas called the Superconducting Super Collider.
At the time I had just graduated with a masters degree in Physics and obtained a job in the SSC Cryostat and Interconnect Group. I had been working towards a job there for several years. Pretty much as soon as I heard the project was coming to Texas, that was where I wanted to be.
But because the Clintons were more interested in power than in the good of the country ( IMO ), the project was canned. Our whole group was terminated 9 months after I got there.
The claim has been made by some that we saved a lot of money by shutting the SSC down. The truth is that every penny we would have spent to get it all built was spent instead on closing out contracts. The whole project was cheap compared to most government programs. No telling what we'd know by now if we'd only finished the machine.
The 8 billion dollar hole in the ground is really very impressive, BTW. I've been there.
And that rant didn't even get around to the second amendment. The Clintons don't seem to like that one. I do. It's the one that makes sure we all get to do things like exercise our first amendment rights by blogging away here.
So no thanks. No Clinton will ever get my vote for office again.
Your mileage may vary.
Huh?
Date: 2005-10-07 10:32 pm (UTC)What do you mean "other" choice?
no subject
Date: 2005-10-06 11:41 pm (UTC)Much more of the same as we have and I'm switching to straight ticket Libertarian on principle.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-07 03:05 pm (UTC)My prediction for years now has been Gulliani/Rice, Clinton/maybe Obama. I think Rudy would manhandle Hil in the presidential debates. But Rice and Obama would be spectacular.
It's just too much to wish for a Condi/Hil debate. *sighs longingly*
no subject
Date: 2005-10-07 06:30 am (UTC)The Republican idea of a moderate is often the best of both worlds: someone who doesn't want your money and doesn't care what you do in the privacy of your own home.
And George Bush is a lot more of a moderate Republican than many people want to give him credit for.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-07 03:07 pm (UTC)*chuckls* on your moderate democrat comments. So true!
no subject
Date: 2005-10-07 12:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-07 04:52 am (UTC)Yeah, but ...
Date: 2005-10-07 01:04 am (UTC)These are the county-by-county results for the past two "closely contested" elections.
Let me guess ... a pincer move of armor coming from Madison WI, Taos NM, and Little Rock AK is going to swallow up all of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska, before meeting up with similar thrusts out of San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle to "mop up" Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakotas ... while the Mighty Massachusetts Marauders sweep through Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois?
Something tells me that if there was a civil war, it would be surgical, with those necrotic blue areas being isolated, quarantined, and purged of the Leftist infiltration.
Re: Yeah, but ...
Date: 2005-10-07 04:26 am (UTC)No. That is NOT fine. I don't want one group of Americans wiping out another, whether it's the ones to the right of me or the ones to the left of me or any of them.
Re: Yeah, but ...
Date: 2005-10-07 06:47 am (UTC)Not that I want to fight, but there are real, substantive differences, and even if I'm willing to live and let live, a lot of other people aren't willing to extend the same courtesy to me.
I don't, for instance, want to tell anyone they can't smoke a little weed or shoot a little smack. I certainly don't want to create a massive criminal market for the stuff, and all the side effects that entails. It's a war, people are dying, more people than in Iraq, incidentally, and on American soil. I didn't want it, I didn't ask for it, but someone did.
It's a little hard to accept warm fuzzy "they're us and we're them" rhetoric when they are already holding a gun to my head.
(frozen) Re: Yeah, but ...
Date: 2005-10-10 02:08 am (UTC)All this talk of Civil War I keep seeing on blogs is NONSENSE. The vast majority of Americans may get all hot and bothered about politics when they're chatting over a few beers, but are quite happily living out their boring lives regardless of who gets appointed to the Supreme Court or what we are or aren't doing in Iraq or whatever. We have our bread, and we have our circuses. Joyce's German teacher was agast that Americans were so apathetic politically.
For every Ann Coulter there's a Michael Moore, and for every Pat Robertson there's a George Soros - but the idea that the whole country like that is a media mirage, propagated by people who spend all day reading and posting in blogs.
The notion of red vs. blue is an artifice of our outdated electoral college system. Any given city will have people whos politics run the whole spectrum. I'm really annoyed that when I vote for president, I have to vote as a resident of Georgia...
The scenario described, though, is very real now in Iraq. "Don't worry about a civil war, because if one happened, this group of Iraqis could kill of lots of THAT group of Iraqis quickly!" That's definitely not fine, but I don't see how to avoid it. I think we'll get three countries out of one (sorry for random topic change.)
Re: Yeah, but ...
Date: 2005-10-07 05:02 am (UTC)One thing to keep in mind is that the folks you're talking about "purging" include friends of mine. So a "red" attack on the "blue" would get a lot of opposition, probably including the active-duty Army. And if the "blues" decide to strike first, well, there's as many of them in the little blue spots as there are people in all that red, and how long does it take to learn the AK-47? Not very.
Let's put some effort into figuring out how to avoid a civil war, not win it.
Re: Yeah, but ...
Date: 2005-10-07 10:03 pm (UTC)Sorry.
Re: Yeah, but ...
Date: 2005-10-08 01:29 am (UTC)* Which side has the presidency
* How the Army reacts (neutral, back President, revolt, split into factions)
* How much preparation there was (ie, Soros importing a million AK-47s to help enforce the gun control laws)
* Whether there's foreign intervention
The only certainties:
* Both sides will be convinced they'll win.
* Thirty years later students will write papers explaining what fools the losers were to even try.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-07 07:36 am (UTC)Just to make this even more cheery -- and to give one more reason why we need to find a non-war solution -- consider how, say, Pyongyang or Beijing would react if U.S. forces suddenly became too busy putting down a domestic insurrection to pay much attention to the rest of the world...
Something to smile about
Date: 2005-10-07 10:02 pm (UTC)Seriously, it was nice to see that only 12% of the glossy magazine people couldn't tell the difference between qualified candidates and and a famous person.
(frozen) Re: Something to smile about
Date: 2005-10-10 02:15 am (UTC)(random topic change)
no subject
Date: 2005-10-08 06:52 pm (UTC)