Another civil war is coming. Not since the days of slavery has our country been so passionately divided politically. Not since half of our country wanted to secede from the union of states has there been so much anger and highly charged debate over political topics. And the biased media is making it worse. Watch a weekend of news and see how many extremists – for one party or the other – the media throws on screen to prove or disprove their case or make one side look like a truck bed full of tools.
I believe this civil war will be divided between the red and the blue. By that I mean what the media means when they use the terms "red states" and "blue states." Conservative (red states) vs. Liberal (blue states – because they're sad?). But I don't think the media has a clue when they start breaking things down by red-state/blue-state. The only time I think those terms are appropriate is when talking about the electoral college. When talking about the division of the country, which I've heard the media do a lot lately as red-states/blue-states, they're forgetting that even in a "blue-state" the rural areas are still predominantly conservative. It's the same in the "red-states." The urban areas – larger cities – are primarily liberal.
This puts a whole new spin on the civil war scenario. With the "battle lines" so obviously blurred, it will be a much more volatile situation. But I don't think the war will be fought with people taking up arms against one another, right off the mark. I believe it will start with a war of information – which I believe is already happening. Then it will slowly progress into one "side" keeping the other side from getting essentials they need to survive. And then the other side will retaliate in kind, and so on.
But the ultimate beginning of this civil war will be rooted in the coming year's election. Whichever candidate wins, democrat or republican, people are going to be angry. If the Democrats win – especially if we give away the House and Senate to try to inspire the American people to elect a Republican President to keep balance, which, by the way, there has been some talk of lately – they'll make some decisions that will not sit well with the rest of us; decisions that we will take as devastating to our way of life and our livelihood. Say they were to give all the illegal immigrants in this country amnesty and allow them to become citizens with no reprisal for breaking our laws by entering the country illegally. That's a remarkably passionate issue with most of the conservative community. And there are many out there that will likely be mad enough to "take matters into their own hands," especially if it costs them their job when it is given to someone who'd pay rate is cheaper. The conflict that issue alone could insight is vast. And don't even get me started on what's going to happen when they try to put us under gun control. If we foolishly allow the House and Senate elections to go to the Democrats, they'll have the power to do more than we can imagine to our way of life. Think about the government having free license to put their fingers in every piece of American pie. It won't be pretty.
And by the same token, if the Republicans win the election, they'll infuriate the liberals in just the same way. They'll, hopefully, decide we want to make sure we keep the war on terror outside of our own country and continue to pursue our continued right to live free from terrorist attack on our homeland. They may even send more troops over to aid the heroes currently risking their lives to bless us with that freedom. The egos and passion over this situation has already incited demonstrations and violence – though how it's logical for our own citizens to oppose the war on terror by bringing violence about inside our own country, I will never understand. I realize the incidents of violent protests have been fairly limited, thus far, but the war of words will get so hot, should we send more troops, there will certainly be more violent protests in the future.
But I don't think the violence is where the problem will lie, at first anyway. It will be with the cities making it difficult for the rural areas to get what they need. And, in turn, the rural not providing what the urban areas need. And that's where the violence will start, blurring the "battle lines" even more. Neighbors (especially in huge cities where most people are bottomholes already) will be wanting what neighbors have. And the neighbors who still have guns will be using them to keep their stuff theirs and make other people's stuff theirs, as well. By this, I mean if the liberals succeed in passing their gun control laws, the law abiding citizens who acquired their guns legally – and for no other reason than to protect their families and themselves – will be left defenseless at the hands of the criminals. When the next community over finds out your town has gas powered generators and the gas to fuel them, they "invade" and "occupy" your town, making the gas powered generators and gas to fuel then the spoils of war.
Another twist to this scenario will be the fact that 65% of the black citizens in this country are registered/voting democrats, while only 6% are registered/voting republicans. Likewise, 40% of Hispanic people are democrats and 20% are republican. With the majority of many ethnic groups being democrats, I can think of several scenarios that could make the coming civil war look like a race war and there are undoubtedly plenty of groups that would use it to promote that type of agenda. So on top of having to defend your gasoline, food and water, you now have to worry about being attacked based on the color of your skin, no matter how you, personally, feel about races other than your own.
Take a look, also, at who controls what, too. The media – the information – is controlled primarily by the liberals. A civil war in this day and age would rely on non-media controlled lines of information to get any kind of accurate communication about the state of the union. They also control the schools – including lower education, colleges and universities – and many of the technology companies.
The conservatives, on the other hand, control the military. The liberals can't wait to give their guns away. So it should be pretty easy for the conservatives to take them away.
But if you look at the big picture – at what's going on in this country right now – you can see there are a lot of problems that can only be resolved by some type of restructuring of society. The welfare system, for example, or the way our economy is based so highly on credit that most people can't even afford to pay. Another civil war would certainly serve to resolve these kinds of issues.
Whatever the case, there's not a whole lot we can do about it, either way. Have a nice day.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I unfortunately also have been thinking a civil war is likely in my lifetime. I had anticipated that it would be the liberals and moderate conservatives vs the neo-conservatives (aka the radical conservatives) but I fear that your assessment could be correct in that it would just be liberal vs conservatives but with radicals in power on both sides. I pray that we are both wrong.
There is no doubt that we are quickly pushing the limits on both sides of the debate. I have hope though that most normal people are becoming disillusioned by the rhetoric and are moving more toward the middle. Those on the right will have to start acknowledging that some of the better answers are on the left, and those on the left will have to acknowledge that some of the better answers are on the right, and that issues, when evaluated in perspective are not always mutually exclusive.
To say this carefully, for those of us who adhere to a particular faith, there are some areas that we can’t budge on; the sanctity of human life, or certain perspectives on morality are obvious ones. However, we shouldn’t try to browbeat these things into the heads on those of the other side; rather we should open the conversation in the middle and offer consistent and proper rationale for our perspective. Because the same rationale supports our willingness to come together on the middle ground we can start there and use logic and conversation to discuss more difficult positions. Starting where the people are used to be the hallmark of the Christian faith, it is a legacy that should be reclaimed.
To digress a little, and provide a poor modern analogy, I am reminded of the scene in Highlander where Connor Macleod met with the Kurgan in the chapel to discuss the final battle that was to occur between them. There, in the midst of the drive to fight and under the urge of the Quickening, both mortal enemies paused to take stock of and recognize the other. There was no choice with regard to the fact that there had to be a battle, after all, “There could be only one,” and the Kurgan certainly didn’t have nice things to say, but at least it was Macleod that gave the Kurgan a shot at coming clean.
Today, the right is as quick to smear the left as the left is to smear the right, and unless someone ratchets down the rhetoric the conversation will quickly turn to fighting. Let’s slow it down, meet on neutral ground and start a proper logical discourse on the outlying issues. If we can’t win the battle the right way, perhaps we shouldn’t win at all.
Post a Comment