So you say you want a revolution...

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

This started as comment on exiledv2's post but it started getting a bit out of hand...

There seems to be sense among many people in the US that not only are we on wrong track as a society but that the breaks have failed and the engineer is dead. The possibility of social collapse, an idea that would have been dismissed as fringe lunacy 10 years ago, is now the subject of serious discussion. If anything "Tomorrow will be a better day" has been a basic tenant of our culture since it's inception, even during the Cold War (when we realistically faced annihilation) there seems to have been an assumption that our children would survive and even prosper. So what changed?

I don't know, but if I had to guess I'd say that we(as a society) have lost our sense of unity. Black vs. White, Red vs. Blue, Rich vs. Poor, It is nolonger enough to simply be American. As we add more hyphens and divisions the bonds that keep us together are fraying.

So what prevents a second civil war?

Most would say The United States Army.

Because as someone(usually underlankers) always quips, "What chance do cousin-humping redknecks have against Predator Drones and Helicopter Gunships?"

But I know from bitter personal experience that all the hardware in the world don't mean shit when your opponent gets to call the shots. And don't think that our would-be revolutionaries have not been watching the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and taking notes. As usual the truth is a lot more complicated.

A lot has changed since the 1860s, at that time most Americans saw themselves as a citizen of their state first. Robert E. Lee, despite not supporting Virginia's choice to secede, turned down command of the Union army and sided with the Confederates out of loyalty to his home state.

The real deterrent is that we as citizens no longer see our loyalty as being primarily toward our State but toward our Nation. Furthermore, with the advent of easy high-speed travel, the State borders have no real meaning to us beyond the local laws, climate, and scenery. State borders aren't just unimportant, they are practically meaningless (unless of course you're a Texan)

Yes, the fact that we are even having this discussion is cause for concern but(despite the ravings of a fringe lunatic) we are still solidly in the "ballot box" phase of Paine's progression. Those who would advocate violence at this stage are either fools, or looking to use social unrest to forward thier own agenda, and should be treated accordingly.

That said, I would caution against out right dismissal. Remember that when honest discourse dies repression and violence become inevitable. In many cases this is the radical's true objective. By provoking the opposition he can marginalize the moderates by forcing them to pick between extremes.

Personally I have a certain amount of sympathy for exiledv2's would-be-radical. I do view our government's rapid expansion over the last 10 years as a grave threat to individual rights/freedom, not to mention our long term stability and prosperity. Likewise I do not believe that those currently in power have my, or my nation's, best interests at heart. But when the time comes I will vote accordingly because for the last 150 years we have had peaceful transitions of power(an admirable record all things considered) and I refuse to be the one who fucks it up.

If I fail there is always 2012.

Comments

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I think you're spot on.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Nonsense. In the 1860s the anti-capitalist and anti-freedom forces formed a government and an army to prevent capitalism from spreading to the Slave South. In the 1960s the tensions were severe but not a fraction on what they had been a century earlier. Both make today's tiny groups of old white people look like pussies, which they are. You fail history forever.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

I actually think the reasons why Lee and other Union officers went to the Confederacy would be even more in play here but not quite useful to either side. Back then lots of those men didn't want to fight their neighbors and family. So they sided with their home state. Since we think of ourselves more as Americans the desire to not shoot other Americans will be even more in play. It was easy for a boy from Georgia to shoot boys from Connecticut and vice versa. A lot harder to do it when it's American versus American.

I think we'd see a lot of chaos in who stays and who resigns and who defects.

[thies.livejournal.com]

"A lot harder to do it when it's American versus American"

good propaganda will demonize the other side to where they aren't seen as americans anymore

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And yet at least a few of the greatest Union generals and Admirals were Southern-born. Like say, General George Thomas and Admiral Farragut. While there were also Confederate generals who were both Northern-born and one immigrant general who was the rare good Confederate general in the Tennessee theater, Patrick Cleburne.

And of course after the war I can find less difficulty to support the likes of James Longstreet and even Lee himself as opposed to the apologists for a treasonous war that butchered so many good Southern boys in a doomed attempt to overthrow capitalist modernity.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I'm still voting for the military, which would be likely to remain more cohesive than the rest of the country if/when the societal shit hits the fan.

[thies.livejournal.com]

I still vote that there is no indication that in the foreseeable future it will be a net benefit to states and the vast majority of their citizens to engage in armed conflict to split from the union.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

But it's so much more fun to be dramatic and dire.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

I don't know, but if I had to guess I'd say that we(as a society) have lost our sense of unity. Black vs. White, Red vs. Blue, Rich vs. Poor, It is nolonger enough to simply be American. As we add more hyphens and divisions the bonds that keep us together are fraying.

New York City, the most diverse city in the nation with the most hyphens, and complex social and political identities is united. No we don't all love each other and there are points of disagreement-- but no one here wants to start a civil war. So, the sense of division has little to do with people not being "simply American" --



Here is our mayor along with religious leaders from all over the city showing his support for a mosque a few blocks from ground zero. The people of Manhattan are ready for it even if the rest of the country isn't and they are the ones who got hit hardest. The outer boroughs express less support, but still more support than you'll find in the rest of the country. And I know most people will come around. They always have before.

Imperfect? Yes? Ready for civil war? No. It would seem that diversity correlates with greater acceptance and less divisiveness.

How many in NYC would support repealing the 14th amendment to stop "anchor babies" -- possibly only some the rich right-wing pundits who live here and who broadcast from studios just off of Lexington or a stone's throw from Broadway. The rest of the town would be like "repeal the 14th WHAT?" --

Also, I still don't take this talk of civil wars seriously, even at the national level, that's why on the post about civil wars I asked for a source-- the source was "it came forwarded in the email" --If I took things that showed up in my email as credible national trends I would be buying gold and waiting for the erectile dysfunction apocalypse. (Whatever that is, emails says it's coming for certian.)

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

It is nolonger enough to simply be American.

Was there a time when it was enough? I think that it is a myth.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"If I took things that showed up in my email as credible national trends I would be buying gold and waiting for the erectile dysfunction apocalypse."

!

-DQ nomination

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

You raise an excellent point and perhapse, being young, I lack a certain perspective.

I would like to pose a question though, would you say that the people in that picture, despite thier various religions and orgins, posses(for lack of a better term) a certain "pride of ownership" in being New Yorkers?

I agree that we are nowhere near the point of civil war, and this post in-part was intended as a rebuttle to those who would say we are. However, I am less confident about the issue of general unrest. Is my generation going to look back on the Teens and 20s the same way my granfather's generation does the 60s?

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

I do view our government's rapid expansion over the last 10 years as a grave threat to individual rights/freedom, not to mention our long term stability and prosperity.

Yes, I concur with this, but the Tea Party rumblings have nothing to do with what I see as the most dire threat to liberty, the disregard for civil liberties and the state secret policies implemented by the Bush administration and carried on and even expanded by the Obama administration. Rather, Tea Partiers make ridiculous baseless claims about increased taxation and socialism.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Starve the gov't of funds and reduce spending and then you will be able to remove the police state apparatus more easily. If you don't, it will be almost impossible.

[rogerdr.livejournal.com]

Lost our sense of unity? When were we ever unified? Oh, do you mean middle class white unity? Because everything else has always been fractured, just not on TV.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Bollocks. The division today is less sharp and severe than the late 1960s when we had massive waves of riots all across the country. Wake me up when we have another Long, Hot Summer and then I might start taking this delusion of bitter division seriously. We are not at all bitterly divided. And in terms of creating a civil war, we are vastly far from the Germany of late 1918, let alone say, Russia of late 1917.

I don't think they really have, myself. I think they sincerely believe that with a few shotguns and peashooters they can march on Washington, lynch the Commie niggers, and revive Real True Americanism. They are equally as deluded as Jefferson Davis and his cohort of traitors with far less excuse.

In the 1860s, it was also not true that most Americans saw themselves as citizens of their states first. The larger armed forces *were* after all the ones loyal to the Union, and to liberty. The Confederate slaveholders were not even able to secure a majority of Southern *whites* on their side, and certainly the blacks were all too willing to go over to the Union when Emancipation got thrown in.

These people would be like the Taliban fighters in 2001 and stand right on hilltops and be turned to hamburger by cluster bombs.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

I'll second your 'bollocks'. I remember first hand the racial conflicts - even inside the military - during the late 60s. The political divisions are nothing new to this country, and far less violent than 40 years ago.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

The problem with any modern revolutionary movement is, as you mention, the large degree if geographical mixing of regions and the decreased relevance of local controls like county and state governments.

For instance, two of the major attractors of modern political conflict are the low density living experience versus the high density one... simplified as Rural versus City if you like. I think the conflicts that arise from that divergence are far more significant than things like foreign culture influx. Every state contains some of both, and so every state is a theater for the conflict.

Devision isn't new. But our devisions are more non-local than they ever were, and would-be minority revolutionaries largely lack a contiguous area in which to become predominant. Indeed, it is the increased difficulty of a local dominance of minority thought that is, in my opinion, driving that feeling of powerlessness that the 'out-group-of-the-moment' feels, urging them to speak of rebellion.

Thus the trend which is increasing the rancor of the opposing sides is exactly what makes armed rebellion at any level above local brigandage or riot improbable. There will be death and destruction from crackpot revolutionary wanna-bees, and that might increase. However, I don't see any real threat of civil war happening for the foreseeable future.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

An excellent post and I couldn't agree more.

This is the real crux of the issue...

"The real deterrent is that we as citizens no longer see our loyalty as being primarily toward our State but toward our Nation."

The problem is for the fist time in our history we have significant and deep divisions on what America is.

As others have noted America has always had divisions and was never the mythical unified nation presented in 1950's sitcoms, the difference between then and now is that the divisions back then were between those who benefited from American society and those who wanted to. For all those differences however there was little disagreement among the people, either the natural born citizens or the Immigrants who came here as to what America was and what it stood for.

Today that is no longer the case and all sides of the growing discontent claim to represent the "Real America".

This is why I have argued that the loyalty of the military to the central authority cannot be assumed. Yes soldiers almost universally take their oath to support and defend the Constitution VERY seriously, the problem is that oath also specifies "from all enemies foreign and domestic" and it doesn't take too much of a stretch to see significant parts of the military identifying the elected politicians in Washington as the domestic enemies of the Constitution.

That said I agree that we are probably not close to significant armed insurrection and certainly not anywhere near the point where reasonable people should be considering it The problem is we are very close to being in danger of a Greece style economic collapse with the difference being that should the US go through such an economic upheaval the entire global financial system will collapse in a depression that will make 1930 look like a boom and in that scenario riots quickly escalating to outright rebellion is highly likely.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Here's what's going to happen. Just a bit of a peek.

With economic collapse comes disorder. Federal aid will be Vigilantes will grow and the general attitude will be that civilian law enforcement and gov't is foreign. Gov't will pretend as if it's still relevant and controlling across its entire footprint but there will be areas of general inability to maintain their law. People who consider themselves "rebels" but still are citizens will integrate into the gov't much like what we see in some foreign nations where the national and local gov't are contentious but still cohesive.

Eventually petty skirmishes will break out but no real armed warfare. Mostly there will be a detente reached where local leaders control their turf and the Feds will be more or less hands off due to the inability to force issues but the localities will show respect to the national gov't. Imagine people's attitude regarding Prohibition but translate it to everything.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Why is it that this fucking bullshit always comes up when a Democrat is in office? What is this hem-hawing, faux-concerned, "oh I see where they're coming from" bullshit? It was stupid and retarded when wannabes talked about rebelling against Bush, and it is stupid and retarded when wannabes talk about rebelling against Obama.

Oh, don't mistake it, this has nothing to do with the structure of government. This is just pissy, sophomoric whining about losing. It's just that when right-wingers grumble, everyone nods their heads and sagely agrees that well, sure, maybe revolution is a bit overboard, but we can understand where they're coming from.

Good Christ, just can this horseshit already. It has nothing to do with reality. We are firmly ensconced within our system, our way of life, and our government. We are still as rich as we have ever been, and everyone is still generally fat and happy.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

there is a black man in charge do you understand how fucking freaked out this makes us

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

There seems to be sense among many people in the US that not only are we on wrong track as a society but that the breaks have failed and the engineer is dead. The possibility of social collapse, an idea that would have been dismissed as fringe lunacy 10 years ago,

Yes, it would have been dismissed 10 years ago as there is nothing fundamentally different now, except we have a black man in office.

This is not a new feeling and has existed before during and after the founding of this little experimental country.

I know from bitter personal experience that all the hardware in the world don't mean shit when your opponent gets to call the shots

I don't see anyone turning in the gunships for IED's.


don't think that our would-be revolutionaries have not been watching the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and taking notes

This is true of every military in the world, including ours.


this is the radical's true objective.

I think change is the radical's true objective. The mechanism is up for debate and moderates are often see as standing in the way of substantial change, so they get some heat for that....from radicals.

I do view our government's rapid expansion over the last 10 years as a grave threat to individual rights/freedom, not to mention our long term stability and prosperity. Likewise I do not believe that those currently in power have my, or my nation's, best interests at heart.

How was anything (other than our age, frontal lobes and world view maturity) any significantly different 10 years ago than today?

I wan't some evidence worthy of the leap the radicals are suggesting?

Its not like we're rounding people up on trains!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yes, the USSR was in the process of dissolving. Other than that, no.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

The only reason to use violence against our current government is when they either a) put American lives directly in danger or b) use violence as leverage against the American people in some way. As neither is happening (yet), I'm just gonna sit here with my Coke and a smile. :)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"the only reason to use violence against our current government is when they either a) put American lives directly in danger "


so, uh, BushII lying to get us into war with Iraq?

[readherring.livejournal.com]

Very good post.

My one comment is that during the Bush administration, there were a lot of people on the left that felt that America was on the converge of collapse, due to gross governmental mismanagement. The big difference between those pessimists and today's variety (besides one being anti-Obama and the other anti-Bush) is that the anti-Bushers were mostly content to mope about the collapse and describe it as an imminent event that would come about on its own. There's many more anti-Obama extremists that feel that at some point, they will have to rise up against the government and deliver a death blow.

I don't normally like to play the 'liberals over conservatives' card, because I think that in most cases, the groups can be equally obnoxious, but I think it is prevalent here. Very, very few people ever contemplated joining an anti-Bush militia.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

the anti-Bushers were mostly content to mope about the collapse and describe it as an imminent event that would come about on its own. There's many more anti-Obama extremists that feel that at some point, they will have to rise up against the government and deliver a death blow.

I don't think so. It seems about equal to me.

Tea Partiers disagree with you

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I don't think the Tea Partier gripe is so much on expansions of the last decade. I didn't hear a lot of Tea Party kvetching over the Patriot Act. It seems that the straw that broke the camel's back for the Tea Partiers was the effort to provide health coverage to the victims of predatory businesses.

Re: Tea Partiers disagree with you

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

lol No you still don't get it.

The straw that broke the camels back for the bulk of the Tea Partiers was TARP and the bail out of Wall Street and the Auto manufacturers.

And while there are significant numbers in the Tea Parties that are generally Republicrat supporters who didn't have too much problem with the Patriot Act there are an equal if not larger number who are far more libertarian in orientation who did.

As far as the Health Care bill, It is a safe bet that the bulk of the Tea Party members recognize the current system is broken however that does not mean they are going to support change for it's own sake and any idiot with 2 functioning brain cells can see that the system they actually got passed was the worst of all possible worlds in the it did absolutely nothing to change how Health Care is provided and almost nothing to change how it is paid for save to make it ALOT more expensive for everyone and ALOT more profitable for Big Medicine. We would have been better off if they had actually gone and passed single payer nationalized health care.

That said, had the Health Care bill been one designed generally along free market principals and contained some measure of cost containment it likely would have been unopposed if not outright supported by the bulk of Tea Partiers.