Scott once opined that he believed that the political debate over American ideals had become “a non-shooting civil war of sorts for our own country”. Tim Oren at Winds of Change recently presented a post focused at the same topic, asking the question without providing a conclusion.
At first, I am tempted to dismiss such a conclusion as over dramatization of historically American political debate, but then I look at the facts on the ground and wonder: Are we in the midst of a crisis of definition that looks a lot like a cold war? As I consider those facts, I find myself beginning to believe that maybe we are.
If we are in a cold civil war, as Oren asks, how is it defined? What are the sides? The objectives? The final goal? How does a cold civil war end? Does it go hot, or does some remarkable change or event render the issues underlying the conflict irrelevant?
Posts
16 comments:
In large part, I think we're still seeing the tension created by the Enlightenment. There are any number of axes (is that the plural of axis?) upon which the struggle can and does turn: fact vs. faith; haves vs. have nots; strong vs. weak; educated vs. un-educated; new vs. old; dialogue vs. action; negotiation vs. violence; etc.
It shouldn't be surprising that it appears we're in the midst of a Cold Civil War. We are a diverse country of people. We're not surprised when we have conflict with other countries, why are we surprised that there is internal conflict? Someday, violence will result. It is only a question of when and to what degree.
We've had proof in the last eight years that there are those among us who eventually lose patience with debate and take action to get what they want or what they think is right. When they do so, legality is not a barrier to action and violence is an acceptable course of action. Our current leadership has shown that. Should they succeed in defining their opponents as the "other" -- something they are clearly and systematically attempting -- the door will be open to violent action against that other. It may be quiet violence -- taking people from their homes in the night -- but it will be violence nonetheless. I'm not predicting this course of events. I'm merely suggesting that we are not immune to them taking place should the current trend of politics and public rhetoric not be reversed. We have shown an ability to do so in the past. Can we do it again?
I think the author was more inclined toward thinking that the Cold Civil War will go hot when you carry out your threat to punch Denny in the face. :)
It's not just the "current leadership" who gets to define the enemy (especially in a Civil War). It's members of the population who define the leadership as the enemy, too. Or their neighbors of opposing political stripe, etc.
When did I threaten to punch Denny?
"It's not just the "current leadership" who gets to define the enemy (especially in a Civil War). It's members of the population who define the leadership as the enemy, too. Or their neighbors of opposing political stripe, etc."
Well, the neighbor on neighbor conflict isn't likely to evolve into a Civil War, hot or cold. That's more like an individual skirmish. For a Civil War, hot or cold, to occur, the sides have to be systemically drawn (which is why we might actually have a cold civil war in progress). That might include something like your comment about the population defining the leadership as an enemy.
That kind of raises a question: what differentiates a revolution from a civil war? Is it merely who writes the history, or is there a qualitative difference?
That's a good question (the one about the difference between a civil war and a revolution).
I think, in large part, the winners get to decide what to call it.
But yeah. That definition comes into play in this discussion.
Why do I always have to get punched in the face? Oh, well, taking one for the team I guess...
I think that the qualitative difference between a civil war and a revolution is outcome. Civil wars tend to rend societies but leave nations intact (cite Britain's several civil wars). Revolutions tend to rend both societies and nations apart (cite American independence).
My specific reason for wondering about the idea of a cold civil war is the very kind of general polarization mentioned. Further, this general polarization has the quality of being irresolvable through the normal means of societal disagreement. That is, the disagreement between the various (I think there are more than two (the Spanish civil war is a good example of what might be happening)) sides cannot be resolved by compromise.
If we look at American history, I think the same factors preceded the Civil War. The significant difference in that war was that the specific issues were both regional and patriotic, which provided for far more monolithic unity on both sides, which is what allowed that war to go hot.
Perhaps that lack of regionalism and patriotism to cause is what makes the current conflict cold. Perhaps a cold civil war is more like a brown dwarf--big and energetic but never destined to be a star--than a supernova.
So, for speculation's sake, how does a cold civil war get fought? How does it end? Does a cold war have to go hot?
I think Cold Civil War is fought by merely threatening to punch you in the face, instead of actually doing it.
That's all I've got for now.
A 'cold' Civil War? I prefer to think of it as a Rhetorical Civil War. Fewer punches flying in this manner. And I don't feel that trenchant political punditry must necessarily rise to the level of a shooting civil war. What an appalling thought.
If we fight a civil war anytime soon I think it will be over water rights or some equally quatifiable regional matter. But that's just me.
Maybe to make it a cold civil war, we would all need to agree to punch one another to an equal degree guaranteeing pain and damage to such a degree that we can achieve Mutually Assured Bloody Noses?
From the "For what it's worth" Department...
Global Security.Org defines a Civil War as: "A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations."
www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020gl.htm
Princeton Wordnet winnows the hundreds of possible definitions of "Revolution" down to the admirably succinct: "The overthrow of a government by those who are governed"
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=revolution
Further, this general polarization has the quality of being irresolvable through the normal means of societal disagreement.
This is why I don't like the easy acceptance of all the shouting and punditing going on. I think so many of our disagreements COULD be resolved if we could just be civil with one another. Here's a quick crack at what I consider to be reasonable compromises on some of the issues that tend to divide.
1) Abortion
Rather than shouting about "baby killers" and "fascist tyranny over a woman's body" can't we agree that a woman exercises control over her body when she decides whether or not to have sex, that we really don't know when life begins so we should err on the side of caution and only in the most extreme circumstances (such as when the life of the mother is threatened or maybe even in the case of rape where the woman did NOT have choice at the moment of conception) should we allow abortion to occur and that in those circumstances we could rely upon the woman to make the choice? Do we really have to get militant about being more exacting than that?
2) Gay Marriage / Civil Unions
Is it really so hard to accept that "marriage" has a religious meaning to people so we should respect those people by not tarnishing the word. But that in the spirit of the rights that come to us from God, that same sex partners should be able to partake in whatever legal benefits might accrue to a Civil Union? No church will be forced to perform the service. How is respect for one another's beliefs and right to freedom not achieved by this compromise?
3) War
It really shouldn't be so hard to agree that war is the worst and last option in any conflict or threat to our interests. It should be undertaken only under the most extreme circumstances. On an individual level, our law recognizes that force should be met with reasonable like force. If someone hits you in the face (Denny) you aren't entitled to kill them, but you are entitled to defend yourself. If someone comes into your house to steal from you, you can kill them if you need to, but you're not entitled to go kill your neighbor just because the person who was robbing your house slept there last night. Why don't these reasonable measures apply to our country as a nation?
4) The Economy
How hard is it to let someone try their approach? We know how to assess the strength or weakness of our economy. Let's be willing to let someone try their approach. If it works, great. If not, we try something else. Is that all that hard?
5) Taxes
I'm a flat taxer on this one. Why wouldn't we all pay the same relative tax? If there is a revenue problem, we either raise the tax rate on everyone -- no loopholes -- or agree that we have to cut some spending. Sure, sometimes we'll end up spending more than I think we need to on bombs and sometimes we'll spend more than you think we need to on homeless shelters, but that's why we get a vote.
I know that isn't comprehensive and it's way simple. But seriously, we have very few problems that we haven't created for ourselves from shear obstinance in the face of reason. I can understand a person's strong emotional rejection of certain aspects or our society or people within it, but really, must we marginalize everyone? There's a whole lot of stuff that God's going to sort out in his own time, so in the meantime, let's support freedom and opportunity to pursue happiness.
Ok, that didn't really answer Denny's questions. The only one I can answer definitively is that a cold war does not have to go hot. I think we've seen proof of this.
Next.
David, your post is about the farthest thing I've ever seen from the "normal means of societal disagreement."
In making any number of fantastic points, I think you also made Denny's.
I can agree with that.
Chris, I think you're right. Hurrah, Denny. All that being punched in the face finally paid off.
ow....
This is such a violent blog...
The results of the survey from the post that started this particular conversation.
More results from the originally cited post.
Post a Comment