Are we headed for a second civil war?
And now for something more serious:
What are the chances that the U.S. is headed for civil war anytime soon?
Let me quickly assure any readers that I do realize that war is a terrible thing and something to be avoided if there are reasonable alternatives. I'm just looking at the question as an academic exercise.
Of course, the question can't be analyzed in a vacuum, so let's lay out some background.
Democrats have controlled congress since 06, and the White House since 08, and for the last 18 months they have been cramming 2,000, 2,300 and 2,700-page laws down our throats--laws that even the Dem leadership admits they haven't read and don't know the content or effect of.
Do you think they'll suddenly see the light and stop doing that any time soon?
Yeah, I don't either.
Okay, second nibble: Three states--Arizona, Virginia and now Missouri--have taken overt action to try to stop the Leftist revamping of the United States--with the complete support of a huge majority of Democrat congresswhores and the "Resident." Given the widespread anger by voters in so many states about government arrogance and power-grabbing, do you think voters in other states are likely to throw in with the first three (i.e. against the Dems)?
I think that's highly likely.
Okay, next step: If this happens, will Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the rat's nest of Dem strategists have the good sense to back off their breakneck pace of trying to destroy this country?
Yeah, I thought you'd find that amusing. I think the Dem leaders truly believe the pushback by the residents of the three states mentioned is just an anomaly and doesn't represent the will of most voters. Accordingly, why should they back off ? After all, they've got every branch of the federal government firmly under their control.
Okay, next question: Can the Dems find a way to either make enough states back off, or just stall any action long enough to get past the critical point without armed revolt? That is, there seems to be a period after the introduction of any hugely unpopular law, by a government that's become totally unresponsive to the will of the people, when popular anger is high enough to ignite direct action. On the other hand, if some period of time passes without such action, the anger and determination of the populace seems to dissipate below some threshold, so that even a hot spark won't ignite armed conflict.
If the Dems can get past this crucial period without shots being fired, they're probably home free.
I see two ways this might happen: First, Obama and the pro-statist Dems could stop cramming new, destructive bills down the nation's throat. As noted above, I don't think they see any reason to slow down on their breakneck agenda, so I think this isn't gonna happen.
A second possibility is a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Whether successful or not almost doesn't matter--either way at least half of conservatives will try to form a united front with the Dems while the crisis is sorted out. And they'll react negatively to any action that threatens to divide the country.
But it seems to me the most likely way the Democrats can skate past this period is both simple and obvious: They'll use the money-dispensing power of the federal government to economically threaten states that have taken overt action against the Dem agenda. Withholding or delaying federal funds for highway projects or medicare block grants from a state would be a serious economic blow.
Moreover, local Democrat politicians in the affected states will use the threatened loss of funds to beat their opponents into rolling back whatever action the Dems found objectionable.
Now, in earlier times we could have depended on the courts to quickly slap down any such threat by the Dems to withhold federal funds. Unfortunately, today the chances of any court siding with the states seems vanishingly small. After all, most judges have decided that in this progressive age, the law means whatever they say it means on a given day. And is to be applied differently depending on one's political connections.
Of course, just because all the gates are set to give "civil war" as the outcome doesn't mean that's inevitable--because it still takes some intolerable "precipitating event" to be the spark. A Fort Sumter moment.
The most likely scenario for such a trigger is a misunderstanding or mistake--such as a nervous federal cop who sees a gun at a Tea Party rally. (The fact that in most states this isn't illegal will be overlooked and omitted from news reports.)
Another possible trigger would be if the New Black Panther Party shows up at Glen Beck's rally at the D.C. mall on 8/28, as their nominal leader promised. (The key in that scenario is to see if the D.C. police suddenly vanish as the members of the NBPP arrive.)
So...as far as I can see, the only thing that will keep us from civil war is divine providence.
What are the chances that the U.S. is headed for civil war anytime soon?
Let me quickly assure any readers that I do realize that war is a terrible thing and something to be avoided if there are reasonable alternatives. I'm just looking at the question as an academic exercise.
Of course, the question can't be analyzed in a vacuum, so let's lay out some background.
Democrats have controlled congress since 06, and the White House since 08, and for the last 18 months they have been cramming 2,000, 2,300 and 2,700-page laws down our throats--laws that even the Dem leadership admits they haven't read and don't know the content or effect of.
Do you think they'll suddenly see the light and stop doing that any time soon?
Yeah, I don't either.
Okay, second nibble: Three states--Arizona, Virginia and now Missouri--have taken overt action to try to stop the Leftist revamping of the United States--with the complete support of a huge majority of Democrat congresswhores and the "Resident." Given the widespread anger by voters in so many states about government arrogance and power-grabbing, do you think voters in other states are likely to throw in with the first three (i.e. against the Dems)?
I think that's highly likely.
Okay, next step: If this happens, will Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the rat's nest of Dem strategists have the good sense to back off their breakneck pace of trying to destroy this country?
Yeah, I thought you'd find that amusing. I think the Dem leaders truly believe the pushback by the residents of the three states mentioned is just an anomaly and doesn't represent the will of most voters. Accordingly, why should they back off ? After all, they've got every branch of the federal government firmly under their control.
Okay, next question: Can the Dems find a way to either make enough states back off, or just stall any action long enough to get past the critical point without armed revolt? That is, there seems to be a period after the introduction of any hugely unpopular law, by a government that's become totally unresponsive to the will of the people, when popular anger is high enough to ignite direct action. On the other hand, if some period of time passes without such action, the anger and determination of the populace seems to dissipate below some threshold, so that even a hot spark won't ignite armed conflict.
If the Dems can get past this crucial period without shots being fired, they're probably home free.
I see two ways this might happen: First, Obama and the pro-statist Dems could stop cramming new, destructive bills down the nation's throat. As noted above, I don't think they see any reason to slow down on their breakneck agenda, so I think this isn't gonna happen.
A second possibility is a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Whether successful or not almost doesn't matter--either way at least half of conservatives will try to form a united front with the Dems while the crisis is sorted out. And they'll react negatively to any action that threatens to divide the country.
But it seems to me the most likely way the Democrats can skate past this period is both simple and obvious: They'll use the money-dispensing power of the federal government to economically threaten states that have taken overt action against the Dem agenda. Withholding or delaying federal funds for highway projects or medicare block grants from a state would be a serious economic blow.
Moreover, local Democrat politicians in the affected states will use the threatened loss of funds to beat their opponents into rolling back whatever action the Dems found objectionable.
Now, in earlier times we could have depended on the courts to quickly slap down any such threat by the Dems to withhold federal funds. Unfortunately, today the chances of any court siding with the states seems vanishingly small. After all, most judges have decided that in this progressive age, the law means whatever they say it means on a given day. And is to be applied differently depending on one's political connections.
Of course, just because all the gates are set to give "civil war" as the outcome doesn't mean that's inevitable--because it still takes some intolerable "precipitating event" to be the spark. A Fort Sumter moment.
The most likely scenario for such a trigger is a misunderstanding or mistake--such as a nervous federal cop who sees a gun at a Tea Party rally. (The fact that in most states this isn't illegal will be overlooked and omitted from news reports.)
Another possible trigger would be if the New Black Panther Party shows up at Glen Beck's rally at the D.C. mall on 8/28, as their nominal leader promised. (The key in that scenario is to see if the D.C. police suddenly vanish as the members of the NBPP arrive.)
So...as far as I can see, the only thing that will keep us from civil war is divine providence.
posted by SF at
7:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home