The Second Civil War

Eric Medlin

History instructor. Writer. Rising star in the world of affordable housing.

Related Post Roulette

49 Responses

  1. Damon
    Ignored
    says:

    “They need to harness the power of grassroots movements and protests, threading the needle between denouncing violence and supporting peaceful gatherings.”

    Seems that this part is going to be a hard row to hoe. The last time I saw a “peaceful protest”, parts of downtown Baltimore was in flames. When you objectively lie to people of about riots and arson, I’m going to find it hard to trust you again.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Damon
      Ignored
      says:

      Good to know you no longer trust both political parties then. I guess that makes voting tough. Good luck.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        It actually makes it pretty easy!Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        It just means voting is more work because I have to look at the candidates and not just the party.Report

        • Chris in reply to Oscar Gordon
          Ignored
          says:

          Given the way American politics works, at least above the local level, this seems almost pointless. Defection is extremely costly for politicians, except in specific circumstances (think Sinema and WV Coal Baron), so you’re effectively voting for the party when you vote for an individual.

          I could see hoping specific individuals influence the parties in good ways (I know this is the justification some leftists give for voting for Democrats), but in the end, you’re still voting for the party, and all the baggage that comes with that.Report

      • Damon in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        When you live in a state that reliably votes Democrat, and incumbent, and has so for decades, does it really matter who you vote for? Only the occasional Democrat that is either so useless, campaign’s terribly, or gets indicted (and sometimes not even then) doesn’t get elected, why bother to vote at all?Report

  2. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    And today I found out that the Boogaloo Boys are liberals.

    News to me but I agree they should stop fantasizing about murdering their neighbors.Report

    • Chris in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      The Boogaloo Boys are difficult to categorize. In 2020, for example, they marched with the anti-police violence protestors (in fact, one of them was killed while protesting, here). Boy do they love their guns, though.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Chris
        Ignored
        says:

        Not for me they aren’t.
        They are reactionary and align with white supremacists and militias.Report

        • Chris in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          They’re not liberals, and they’re not leftists, but they present a problem for a political spectrum represented as a mere line. They’re culturally conservative in certain ways, but not others; they are anti-cop, but as an extension of their hyper-individualism, etc. To me, they look like gun toting, hyper-masculine versions of 1990s libertarians and ancaps, complete with a tendency towards conspiratorial thinking.

          Don’t get me wrong, they’ve definitely aligned themselves at times with folks like the Proud Boys, but at others, they’ve aligned themselves with folks like BLM.

          I don’t mean this as any way to defend them; only to point out that if you try to shove them into popular two-dimensional American political classification scheme, you’re going to end up with people calling them liberal and people calling them far right and both being both right and wrong at the same time.Report

          • Chris in reply to Chris
            Ignored
            says:

            Also, unlike Proud Boys, e.g., and more like BLM, individuals within the group vary a great deal in their politics. The young man who was killed here during a protest was a gun-toting libertarian/ancap who had very strong racial justice politics. Others I’ve run into are openly racist. It’s just hard to pin them down, because they have a looser structure and are less hierarchical, at least nationally, than groups like Proud Boys with whom they’ve sometimes aligned.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Chris
            Ignored
            says:

            I’ve never seen any sort of alignment with anti-racist causes. If by “aligning with BLM” you mean they want to burn stuff down and murder police officers, then that’s just a tactical alliance of convenience.

            You’re right that the old linear scale no longer works, but it no longer works for anybody really.

            What makes the new rightwing different than the old one (of say the Buckley variety) is that it has abandoned the economic libertarianism and is largely agnostic about economics. The Reagan/ Romney type of conservatism has collapsed and is now an exiled rump.

            The new rightwing has dropped the focus on economics but is still fueled by the same seething resentment of racism and misogyny.Report

            • Chris in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              If you haven’t seen any alignment, it’s because you didn’t go to any protests in 2020. Which is cool, protests are not everyone’s thing, especially with as tense as they got, both with cops and far right provocateurs (but I repeat myself, hiyo!), and hey, I don’t even want to assume you agree with their purpose. However, they were there, some of them for days, weeks, or months, often with the express purpose of protecting BLM protestors. As I mentioned, one here died doing just that, when a man showed up and began pointing a gun at protestors from his car:

              https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/01/garrett-foster-indicted-murder-daniel-perry-austin-protester/Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                I’d say that is an anomaly.

                Anti-racism rallies and causes rarely have any significant Boogaloo presence.

                During the Floyd protests I wrote a lot about here in downtown LA, the demographics of the rallies was strikingly different than the riots.

                In my neighborhood the majority of violence was done by young white men, hooligans without any apparent political orientation.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                If there were an actual civil war, the Proud Boys would be with the reactionaries without doubt or question. They don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      This article is doing the Lord’s work. It’s hard to accept criticism from your opponents, but when you start rejecting your allies’ warnings, you become unreachable.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        So maybe good patriots shouldn’t rise up and use 2nd Amendment solutions and water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrannical government agents?

        Well, shucks.Report

  3. John Puccio
    Ignored
    says:

    Of all the current problems, it’s hard for me to believe that abortion would be the issue that sparked a civil war. The issue has zealots on both extremes but the majority of Americans fall somewhere in the middle (i.e. abortion but w/ restrictions).Report

  4. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    If we want to have a second civil war, we’re probably going to need to solve the obesity crisis first.Report

  5. CJColucci
    Ignored
    says:

    Liberals need to stop talking about a “second civil war.”

    Why just them, in particular?Report

    • InMD in reply to CJColucci
      Ignored
      says:

      Hear, hear!Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to CJColucci
      Ignored
      says:

      I’d be interested in hearing from a liberal who is calling for civil war.
      Maybe subscribe to their newsletter, even.Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to Chip Daniels
        Ignored
        says:

        It comes up from time to time in various forms among the commentariate at Lawyers, Guns & Money. There’s the “if the red states want to go, let them” version. There’s the widespread civil unrest version. There’s the “the red states’ imposition of a theocratic authoritarian government is inevitable” version. (That’s not the liberals calling for a civil war, merely asserting that a successful one will happen. There’s the “it’s time for the blue states to start thinking seriously about leaving” version. Some of them are venting. None of them are actually serious. You can tell they’re not serious because if you suggest concrete steps to achieve a partition, everyone shouts you down.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to CJColucci
      Ignored
      says:

      Murc’s law is an iron lawReport

    • LeeEsq in reply to CJColucci
      Ignored
      says:

      Because it is easier to get the virtuous to act the way you want than the people who lack virtue.Report

  6. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    As much as people like to talk/fantasize about this, the evidence of it happening anytime soon is rather slim. I take the number of blase casual think pieces about this happening as evidence that is unlikely to happen. If we really were on the brink of civil war, most of us would not be casually discussing it over the internet.

    Anyway, a civil war will not be red state v. blue state, it will be census tract v. census tract and a lot of people will suffer and die. But how we discuss it to build our brands.Report

  7. Michael Cain
    Ignored
    says:

    Interesting. The following comment — run through rot13 — simply disappears when submitted in plain text. Doesn’t get held for moderation. Doesn’t go into the spam folder. Just disappears.

    Gur zrqvn nyzbfg nyjnlf zvfhfr gur grez. Jung gurl’er gnyxvat nobhg vf “jvqrfcernq pvivy haerfg”. N erny pvivy jne unf bar bs gjb tbnyf: cnegvgvba (rt, gur Nzrevpna Pvivy Jne) be ercynprzrag bs gur shaqnzragny fgehpgher bs gur tbireazrag (rt, gur Ratyvfu Pvivy Jne(f)). Irel bppnfvbanyyl gur svefg vf bar vf zragvbarq, vr, pbhyq gur HF ghea vagb n gurbpengvp nhgubevgnevna fgngr? Gur ynggre nyzbfg arire, rira gubhtu fhpu unir eryngviryl pbzzba tybonyyl bire gur ynfg 80 lrnef. Va 1940, gurer jrer ~100 oebnqyl erpbtavmrq fbirervta fgngrf. Gbqnl, irel pybfr gb 200.Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to Michael Cain
      Ignored
      says:

      Apologies to Eric in advance, but I’m going to put up a series of comments under this one, trying to sneak up on what makes it disappear a sentence at a time.Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to Michael Cain
        Ignored
        says:

        The media almost always misuse the term. What they’re talking about is “widespread civil unrest”.Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to Michael Cain
        Ignored
        says:

        The media almost always misuse the term. What they’re talking about is “widespread civil unrest”. A real civil war has one of two goals: partition (eg, the American Civil War) or replacement of the fundamental structure of the government (eg, the English Civil War(s)).Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to Michael Cain
        Ignored
        says:

        The media almost always misuse the term. What they’re talking about is “widespread civil unrest”. A real civil war has one of two goals: partition (eg, the American Civil War) or replacement of the fundamental structure of the government (eg, the English Civil War(s)). Very occasionally the first is one is mentioned, ie, could the US turn into a theocratic authoritarian state?Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to Michael Cain
        Ignored
        says:

        The media almost always misuse the term. What they’re talking about is “widespread civil unrest”. A real civil war has one of two goals: partition (eg, the American Civil War) or replacement of the fundamental structure of the government (eg, the English Civil War(s)). Very occasionally the first is one is mentioned, ie, could the US turn into a theocratic authoritarian state? The latter almost never, even though such have relatively common globally over the last 80 years.Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to Michael Cain
        Ignored
        says:

        The media almost always misuse the term. What they’re talking about is “widespread civil unrest”. A real civil war has one of two goals: partition (eg, the American Civil War) or replacement of the fundamental structure of the government (eg, the English Civil War(s)). Very occasionally the first is one is mentioned, ie, could the US turn into a theocratic authoritarian state? The latter almost never, even though such have relatively common globally over the last 80 years. Today, very close to 200.Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to Michael Cain
        Ignored
        says:

        To The Powers That Be… There is a string Z.e.d (with dots omitted) in the trash filter. This matches the word recogniz.e.d (with dots omitted) in comments and throws those comments in the trash. (The trash filter strings are case insensitive.) I know this string was probably placed in the trash filter for a reason. You might want to consider if there’s some alternative way to accomplish whatever. Oh, and for what it’s worth for testing purposes, the trash filter doesn’t seem to be applied if you submit a comment while you’re logged in.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Michael Cain
      Ignored
      says:

      Check the trash.Report

  8. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    Oh look, here is Republican Governor Abbott furiously accusing President Biden of providing food to babies:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/evanasmith/status/1524839662392594453?cxt=HHwWqsCyhYLmqKkqAAAA

    Man, those Democrats have terrible messaging!Report

  9. DrSloperWazRobbed
    Ignored
    says:

    Well and humorously put. Liberal need to remember also that not only do they usually own way fewer guns, but that “the Hamptons is not a defensible position”(a phrase I’ve heard used a few times to try to make the point) in strategic military terms.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *