There have been innumerable editorials in various publications and opinion show broadcasts about a possible “civil war”. These comments have been made by both sides in reference to the other side, and are supposed to reflect a possible reaction to the election of either candidate. I find this rhetoric to be misleading and somewhat horrifying, an empty threat made by those who think that fright is a workable political strategy. It isn’t.
The threats are made by people on both sides who have probably never actually been under physical threat of any kind. The worst thing they may have endured is a stolen wallet that was carelessly left on a restaurant table, or a dented fender in a parking lot, or possibly a loud disagreement with a recalcitrant neighbor. But few if any have actually been in a situation where they had to use violent means to defend their own life, the lives of their families and/or loved ones, or protect their home from someone trying to break in.
It’s easy to brag about what you’d do in a fight for your life. But, truthfully, how many of us are prepared to take violent action in our own defense?
It’s time to stop talking about a civil war. It’s not going to happen. The differences between us are significant, but they do not justify a war. They can be solved politically through the legal process, which includes SCOTUS decisions and local/state elections. We have the means to change our own system, and we have done so throughout history.
The real problems are caused by those whose intentions are to upset longstanding customs, laws, and social constructs. There aren’t many of them, but they are able to use the mainstream media to make themselves heard. This should not be surprising at all, especially if you know anything about the “yellow journalism” of the early 1920s. For those who weren’t aware, it was Joseph Pulitzer (yes, he of the “prize”) who encouraged the use of bombastic reporting to raise the ire of citizens in the late 1800s over various social issues. Yes, media interference goes back very far.
It is the media organizations that drum up anger and sentiment on both sides. Today, it isn’t just the traditional media organizations either: it is an entire online industry – from web search engines to social media to homemade videos to individual web sites and blogs – that take part in attempts to shape opinion. The noise is loud and unavoidable.
But the noise is just that: noise. Many of those “journalists” are merely loudmouths who want someone to take an action that they are unwilling to take themselves. Although it was a comedy, one of the characters in the movie King Ralph proposes a philosophical observation: “It is far easier to whisper advice from cover than to risk its merit at the point of attack.” How many of those pundits are willing to stand up in public and face those whom they have angered? Are they willing to risk the merit of their accusations and insults when standing in front of those whom they have attacked and insulted?
No, there will not be a civil war. Not while we still have a mostly-working legal system. Yes, there are times that the legal system fails us individually, but we usually have recourse through higher courts. Even the SCOTUS has reversed itself when there is sufficient reason to do so.
But a civil war? No. And for the same reason I stated earlier: most law-abiding people are not prepared to initiate physical action against someone who has not attacked them first. It’s just not in their nature.
Even more, it’s important to note that Lincoln used federal troops to prevent the states of the Confederacy from seceding from the Union. A group of states. Not individuals. The disagreements were more than political. They were also social, financial, and legal. I do not intend to justify any of those arguments. I only use them to show that the civil war was predominantly northern states against southern states. North against South.
If we end up in a real civil war, it won’t be North against South. It’ll be Red vs Blue, and will be localized on a city-by-city/state-by-state basis. Unlike the civil war, it will be civilian against civilian, with anti-law out-of-state radicals outnumbered by lawful local residents.
People fight harder to defend their own land than invaders fight to conquer. And in today’s America, the “anti-” rioters are relatively disorganized. Yes, they”ll rip down signs and break store windows. It’s what they do.
If we end up in a real civil war, outside radical “anti-” rioters should have their masks forcibly removed by neighborhood defenders and their faces plastered on social media and the local newscasts. They should be arrested and tried in a court of law, and, if convicted, sent to prison. As a law-abiding people, our first action should be to defend the law, not violate it.
Sadly, some of those radical rioters, the ones causing actual destruction and physical harm, might be found dead. That would be the most frightening result because it would mean that law-abiding citizens took the law into their own hands. It would be a reminder of the civil rights workers murdered in 1964 in Mississippi – an event that should act as a warning against violence on both sides, both protesters and residents.
