I heard it said recently that American is the most partisan, the most fundamentally internally divided, that we have been since the Civil War period. Do you think this is true? Does this mean that potentially there could be a new civil war? USA against USA idiologically based terrorism has happened in the USA. From bombing of abortion clinics, to anthrax letters mailed about. If we keep pulling apart as a nation, how bad could this potentially get?
Well considering I consider the US a shell of what it was, with the new huge battle over globalization, her role in the world, and her economic fundamentals hiding under the faux economic growth, with so many people unemployed, or even underemployed, and with communal strife at all time highs. America is destined to collapse on her own accord, with so much ignorance belying both sides of the isle, with so much partisanship to the point where the two sides can’t reach compromise the idea of democracy is coming to an end. With America under the guise of “patriotism” the sins of government can be hidden to the sheeple, with both parties being essentially the same in teleology American democracy is a joke. As I wrote in my political science essay about the “democratic deficit” in the US:
Civil War? No, I don't think so. Let's say that the federal government (especially the congress and the executive) keeps pissing away the wealth of the nation. Sooner rather than later (and the first cracks are starting to show) you're going to have states that are forced to decide between total bankruptcy and their only viable remaining solution - to stop sending money to the federal government. So now you have a sort of secession - economic rather than political, but not formalized to the extent that the state declares itself as a sovereign nation. In this case, who's going to stop the particular state from refusing to play? I don't think the federal government has the authority or the balls to go in and arrest the governor and the legislature and try to set up a new governmental structure. Once the ice is broken, however, you would then see other marginalized states either paying less into the federal government or nothing at all. Then wealthy states may decide "screw it - we're not gonna do it either". As less money flows into the national budget the federal government lays off workers and becomes progressively less able to function. In this model the national government just falls apart - states develop their own foreign policy with nations that are relevant to it (Massachusetts looks more toward western Europe and has more in common with it culturally and economically than it does with Oregon. Same goes for Califonia and Japan, or North Dakota and Saskatchewan.). If a state wanted to really go balls to the wall, they could sever economic ties with the federal government and then convert all their liquid assets into some other currency - like Euros, for example. It would be tough for a single state to pull this off, but I could easily see a larger region doing it - like part of New England: Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. These states could go it alone, especially with a little encouragement from Canada. If this happened, and if the states involved could get away with it, then you'd see the whole country come unzipped into regional coalitions of states that had more in common with each other or with other nations than with the rest of the U.S. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Best thing that could happen, in my opinion.
I wasn't thinking really of an organized regional battle of one side/state/territory against the other type of civil war, I guess I was thinking more along the lines of anarchy I suppose, with some rough moralistic/religious/political lines drawn between people living in nearly every city. Ann Coltuir and Rush Limbaugh and their ilk getting on TV and the Radio and saying "For the good of America, we need each God fearing Patriot to put at least one liberal out of their misery today''. Abortion clinics getting blown up, in retaliation - Church's getting blown up. Cars with liberal stickers on them getting blown up. In retaliation, Hummers, Denali's and Expeditions getting blown up. Etc.
As a non USA'ian, it looks to me more like you might well be divided, but nobodys wanting to get up off their fat ass and do anything about it. I dont see huge fault lines cracking across society, though I do see much argument going on. Its a bit like the 60's or so. I have read quite a few SF books based upon the premise of society cracking up like some people were thinking in the 60's, but yet it didnt get that bad. So, I would say that no theres no danger of an actual civil war, unless, there were some sever external pressures, like a combination of lack of oil and something else. Or else that combined with the rise of several demagogues. If you want a mission go and assassinate all the future demagogues, though how you'll know who the future ones are, I dont know.
A civil war (I think only needs be capitalized if you are talking about the *historical* Civil War) is not really the accurate term for what I see as possible. A civil war implys two organized forces battling each other. I see more of a possibility of sporatic idiologically based killing and terroro between two roughly roughly identifiable groups. Which for convienience you could simplify into ''right vs. left''. The only scary thing there for a ''lefty'' would be that right wingers in the USA tend to be the most armed and militant folks in general.
Or, don't worry about it - and as we do, just live a long way from any Ghettos -- then if the gangs rise up and feast on the bacon of the obese folks in the suburbs . . . . more power to them. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There already is Civil war in America. Undecided alludes to it. There is an ongoing war of the dissallusioned, the poor, the free thinking masses against conservative America. They are jailed in droves. More prisoners per capita in the US than anywhere industrialized. The biker gangs are an organized resistance to the restrictive US narcissisic, nepotistic power structure. The urban gangs are less organized 'generally', but still espouse locallized resistance to the establishment. The media refuse to acknowledge the groudswell of discontented Americans who are rising up individually to cast off the police state and it's broken moral compass. If the media centers weren't owned by the uberelite, a single person could harness this growing antipathy and take power and reform the gov't. Don't think that this is anything less than civil war. It is disguised in lawlessness, but it is at its heart a political movement. Struggling masses are yearning to be free. If Bush is reelected I predict these masses will escalate to full blown warfare. Targets will include: police stations, TV stations, power stations, jails, and gov't bulidings in general. They will be called homegrown terrorist or somesuch, but they will be freedom fighters in my book. When the crackdown comes where will you be?
question your states pay tax's to the fed gov? wierd we have 2 different tax systems and where money changes hands its actually going the other way, from the fed to the states
Civil war? Very unlikely, in any serious context. The corporate state has enough power and information control now that at most we might have a period of civil unrest; but "war" simply isn't going to happen. I agree that it is possible that there will be a period of change as the state economies continue to falter; and there is already a significant disruption in the cultural fabric due to the growing class divisions, but that's a long way from a "war". It's only a "war" if both parties in the conflict have enough power to mount an offensive, and that is not going to happen anytime soon in the US. The power vested in corporate America, realized through the Federal government, the military armed forces and the civilian police structures, and through the control of information and media, is so vast that it is hardly comprehensible by the average citizen. The idea of any viable "civil war" is far-fetched - this should be obvious to anyone who was living in this country at the time of the Kent State shootings. Its always interesting to hear the speculation and the theories though.
"her economic fundamentals hiding under the faux economic growth", Undecided Faux growth? When the economy grows.. it grows, nothing faux about it. "with so many people unemployed", Undecided Take a look at the unemployment level, it is actually low historically "communal strife at all time highs", Undecided Have you ever read about communal strife in the U.S. during the early 1900's? I am trying to figure out what strife you speak of? "with so much partisanship to the point where the two sides can’t reach compromise ", Undecided Be specific. If anything I think the problem is that the two parties essentially do exactly the same thing, and nothing gets done. Partisanship is usually in show only, but in action there is general agreement. "Abortion clinics getting blown up, in retaliation - Church's getting blown up. Cars with liberal stickers on them getting blown up.", Gravity This is a rarity. It is nothing compared to the civil rights movement or the Vietnam war protests. The 70's decades saw dozens of explosions in New York. Why is now so different? "The urban gangs are less organized 'generally', but still espouse locallized resistance to the establishment.", Insanely Elite Uh...They are not a rebel group, they are criminals selling drugs. "our states pay tax's to the fed gov?", Asguard State taxes are paid to support state functions. States, indeed do, receive money from the federal goverment, just as yours. People speak a little to much about the results of globalization on the economy, and how its effects nations. In the U.S. for instance, 81% of its businesses are considered small, and have few or no ties internationally. Of the remaining corporations, which is a tax distinction, only half of those have strong international ties. A little to much is made of how the global economy will destroy a national economy. Secondly, writers have been writing about the fall of the west, and the United States for that matter, for hundreds of years. There was a trend to write about how the Asians will take over the world in the early 1900's. Sound familiar? In the 80's everyone was talking about how Japan would overcome the United States, now its China. If you are talking about a civil war, China is a far more likely candidate for such an occurence. It is not far different from the Soviet Union in the fact that it is made up of many nations put together. Its source of water is questionable, and its agricultural policies are trading the present for the future. Of all the money its banks have loaned, 45% of it is now considered uncollectable. With the current political system in a state of confusion as to what it is, I would not consider that unlikely that a slowdown in its economy or a crisis with a natural resource like water could break it up. I do not see China overtaking the U.S. with the future problems it must overcome, including the treatment of its own citizens.
towards, Define criminal. Define political struggle. The great majority of incarcerated citizens are facing drug and traffic violations. There are millions of gang members, there are millions of illegal aliens. These people are involved in a political struggle for self determination. Insofar as they take up arms against their oppressors, there is the civil war. And it would be the third civil war. The war or independence was the first. I realize I am playing a little loose with the term, but so is the entire US when they talk about War. Congress has not declared war.
Very good point! But then we love to play footloose with that term. War on: Drugs, Crime, Terrorism, Iraq, etc,.
Hey Gravity, I can't stand this whole 'war' in IraQ. This is completely unchallenged in the media, and the democratic party. A vote to authorize compliance with UN has turned into a declaration of war against a soveriegn nation? I don't think so. I'm glad I'm not the only one.
Well, Karl Rove and his collegues have done a brilliant job of redefining the terms used in political disourse these days. They have the liberals and even moderate Republicans scrambling on the defensive - having to use BushCo buzzwords to make their own points. And they don't even have time to fight over something like the misuse of the word ''war'' anymore, they are too busy scrambling to try and stem the flow of far worse things.
The federal government has far too much power to allow an actual Civil War occur. I think it would be more likely for the government to become authoritarian under a neo-con, Orwellian agenda. Meanwhile, the Patriots will support whatever the Feds tell them, Moderates and most of the Left won't care enough to do anything: everyone's too ingrained in the System. The few who do go out and blow stuff up will get caught, and any serious dissentors will get in legal trouble. It's already beginning. Look at all the democratic senators who are not allowed on planes.
Didn't that Time Traveler guy (Tinton, was his name, maybe?) say that there would be a American civil war in 2005 or 2006? (cue orchestra hit) Dum Dum DUMMMMMMMMM!!!!!
