The coming civil war (No not alarmist, but an observation)

[nadinbrzezinski]

So the other day I was listening to the radio, usual Air America... and a guy calls the morning show... and starts talking about how the country is gong down to a civil war.

BIg secret, we have been in one, but a cold one

So that night I am listening to the radio and we had a rightie, this time, call and say that only a civil war can finish the liberals

Ok I have said it in the past that the country is heading that way

So then I was talking to my brother in law, who cannot talk to his brother, a hard right wing fundie

And I have "friends" I cannot talk to for the same reasons

If nobody has been paying attention these are bad signs, and point to a country heading straight to a HOT civil war

It does not give me any pleasure to point this, but there are more signs of this

Anybody watched the debates?

Leave the fact that the Pubbies scared the living daylights out of me... the conversations were NOT the same

While one side spoke of guns, gays and god, and terror, the other talked of issues. Care to tell me how many Democrats reached any in the base of the repubs and how many of them reached us? (Gravel and Ron Paul do not count here folks... they won't get beyond the first contests, the system is rigged)

I cannot tell you when it will start, but for the moment I can almost smell the first shots will be fired by a rightie, no, not because we don't have our own nutsos, but because if we have a Dem elected to the White House and we keep house and senate, there goes their agenda... and we are not talking about the same things, or the same priorities or the same language.

Oh and before anybody says this, what I have just posted gives me no comfort... for I fully know what this means...

[Selatius]

1. I predict one within a 120 year time frame.

I don't know what will cause it or how it plays out, but I think the differences between the several states are going to accumulate faster than they are resolved.

One thing I keep hearing from the more xenophobic element of society is that Hispanics will become a majority in the US Southwest in the mid-21st century and then push for secession with more in common with Mexico City and Latin America than with the District of Columbia.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. I predict it faster than that

within the next 10 years

[Selatius]

8. I'd buy that timeframe if Bush goes off the deep end with Iran.

It would cause a constitutional crisis, and the oil shock caused by such a conflict would slam the US economy, which isn't as robust as some economists try to point it out to be. I don't know how much of a shockwave it will send through the US economy, but I believe 6 or 7 or more dollars per gallon of fuel will wreck the economy. Nobody would be able to get to work if they lived far away from it, and the cost of food will skyrocket, unless we could somehow move food around without burning fuel, which is really possible without thinking outside the box.

A lot of people will become unemployed over night, which will add to the numbers who are already unemployed. They are going to be very upset and very hungry and ill-tempered.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. I am thinking Serbia

before all hell broke loose, or the US oh circal 1860

Your thinking 1929, and great depresion

;-)

By the way, we are already in the midst of a Constitutional Crisis, no need for Iran, taht will only deepen it

[Selatius]

13. There's usually a catalyst that's economic in nature that precipitates these events

With Yugoslavia, corrupt communist party leaders likely took bribes and kickbacks from the IMF/World Bank to impose "Shock Therapy" economic "reforms" on the command economy, which differed from other communist bloc countries in that it was the only one that practiced co-management with workers which resulted in living standards roughly 2/3rds of Italy next door. These reforms ended up leaving a quarter or more of the entire workforce unemployed, something unseen in Europe since the Great Depression and the Second World War.

With the US Civil War, the economic issue was the idea that hundreds of billions in today's dollar value in "property" in the form of slaves would essentially be "confiscated" from the landed gentry. Abe Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist; he was simply trying to keep the Union together, but other Republicans were abolitionists or were sympathetic to their cause, and that angered many southern Democrats, many of whom were plantation masters.

Following that, I would think a major economic displacement caused by a war with Iran that disrupts oil supplies would get the ball rolling. Whether the authoritarian right will be allowed to scapegoat liberals, socialists, unionists, Muslims, and other groups is, in my mind, left up to Wall Street, and Wall Street seems set on defending their profit margins, and a civil war likely won't do that unless they were defense contractors or mercenary companies.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. The economy plays a role

but also the sense of social isolation (anomie) as well as atomization of a society

If you do it with measure you control a population, but after you break through a certain point, it is diminishing returns territory

And I have the feeling, (not that I can prove it, nor do I want to, I know the consequences) that the debates were a sign of just how many conversations across each other, not with each other we are having

And also... I have the sneaky feeling that we no longer share the same values as citizens.

Oh there is the mushy middle that mostly does, but I am talking of extremes here, the ones who start the wars, not the mushy to be surprised and later radicalized middle

One thing is for sure... if I am right, if you have not chosen a side, you will be forced to

[Selatius]

16. I believe Americans no longer share a common set of social values anymore, I agree there.

We don't really agree on social issues anymore as a nation, and the differences have grown wider since World War 2 and the New Left movement of the 1960s, and on that basis I have argued elsewhere here that maybe it's time for a peaceful dissolution of the United States in favor of regional nation-states that are more in-tune with the views of the local population. As a result, I have nothing but admiration for the secessionists in Vermont who push for independence. Peaceful dissolution would be a damn sight better than ending up like Yugoslavia.

[Tesha]

39. Have you always had this remarkable talent for understatement?

> And also... I have the sneaky feeling that we no longer share
> the same values as citizens.

Have you always had this remarkable talent for understatement? ;)

Have you read the '70s book The Nine Nations of North
America? It was way ahead of its time.

Tesha

[Oak2004]

75. What mushy middle?

The pollsters aren't finding much of one. The mushy middle exists mostly in the minds of triangulators.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. The middle that historiically does NOT get invovled

in wars until wars come to get them, anywhere from one third to one half of any population

Read the hsitory of the War of Independence, or any civil war

THAT mushy middle, not the one in the mind of pollsters

[Oak2004]

90. Okay, yes, those people

Though I'm not sure those people are truly neutral. I think they're in survival mode and feel that they can best survive by laying low.

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. And usuall;y are forced to take sides on the end of a gun

indeed

[Tesha]

37. I believe the economic catalyst will be the end of cheap energy.

I believe the economic catalyst will be the end of cheap energy.

The US is in no economic position to withstand the massive
energy price shocks that are coming.

Tesha

[Decruiter]

5. Within the next couple of years. Read Howard Zinn and A People's History.

It is right around the corner.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Look at any nation

who has had one

It is preceded by 10-15 years of radicalization and a cold civil war before it goes hot... yes even the Ameircan Civil War and the war of Indepenence had that 10-15 period before bullets flew

[krispos42]

21. This was a sub-plot in a Clive Cussler book, IIRC

A fear of unchecked Chinese immigration splitting the West Coast off, and of Mexican-dominated Southern states trying to seperate from the Union.

And yet, despite these fears, many blue states are aggressively pursuing disarmament policies. Just what we need: only red-state fundies having all the guns.

[onenote]

24. we'll let you know if you're right in a 120 years.

[Decruiter]

3. Yes, it is coming, Lou Dobbs works on it every damned night of the week.

n/t

[wake.up.america]

4. I suggest we refrain from personal attacks and concentrate on

facts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. It is not about personal attacks

fact is nations go through a period of cold war before going hot, and we are quite possibly at the end stage of that cold war

[SteelPenguin]

62. True, but

Just because a country goes through a period of internal cold war, does not mean that it will become a hot war. It's not unavoidable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. It is becoming increasingly unavoidable

and that is due to the policies from the top and divisive tactics

[SteelPenguin]

95. Such as?

What has contributed, or is contributing, to this being increasingly unavoidable? I just don't see it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. Listen to the debaes

they are not talking about the same issues

Listen to hate radio (a sign and symptom)

Look at the general malaise

Lack of leadership to fix what is wrong

Gifts to the rich that affect the middle class and the poor

Economic policies that basically are braeking the back of people

Wedge issues

Need I go on?

[illinoisprogressive]

9. I'd say there is going to be a huge struggle between the haves and have nots.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. A revolution, which is what you are thinking off, is a type

of civil war

;-)

And it gives me absoluttely no pleasure either

[Decruiter]

12. I like still what Mario had to say one day.

We have to throw ourselves upon the gears of the machine. Then and only then will they listen.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. I'm not saying tis is not the case

but civil wars or revolutions, with very few exceptions, never go the way people expected them to go

Nor are they bloodless...

It is coming though and it will be a surprise for most, since most people are extremely isolated... it is the extremes who start these things, and ones it starts

Grab on...

[Oak2004]

87. As someone who made an academic study of the process of political revolution

I regrettably agree. And when it happens it will be a surprise even for those central to it, if it is at all typical of revolutions past.

It's possible to identify the politically unstable state that is often the precursor to revolution, but it is not possible (to the best of my knowledge, and to the best knowledge of those scholars I'm familiar with) to predict when (or even if) a revolution will occur with any accuracy. The tipping points for revolutions (or for the resolution of instability) are essentially random events.

I disagree with those above who say economic isssues precipitate revolutions. They don't, generally. They create the instability that leads to revolution, but the last straw is generally some kind of grab for or exercise of power (sometimes merely a symbolic one) by one side which is seen as illegitimate and intolerable by the other side. The Intolerable acts were what pushed our colonies over the edge, even if Britain's attempts to interfere in colonial commerce set the table; Lincoln's election precipitated the US Civil War; the mowing down of innocent protesters set in motion the events which concluded with royal blood spattering the walls of a basement in Ekaterinburg; an attempted coup precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Conversely it's possible to prevent instability from becoming revolution (at least for the short term) through effective suppression of dissent (recent examples: China, Burma), and to resolve political instability through bold and wise leadership (example: FDR).

(PS: There may be exceptions to the pattern I describe here, and exceptions to patterns of human behavior (as well as diversity of interpretations of history) don't surprise me (this isn't physics, after all). But I also don't consider a few exceptions to invalidate the general pattern).

As far as the current political instability goes, my biggest concern is that the extreme right is very well organized to take power (though they are a clear minority), and the structures that exist on the left are too afraid to acknowledge the fact of our political instability to prepare for it. Preparation for a breakdown of political order doesn't require that one welcome such a breakdown, and in no way interferes with simultaneously working to prevent the breakdown. Preparation, for example, doesn't and shouldn't mean forming militias (it would be seen as a provocation): it does mean forming well organized and led networks which are in a position to do whatever it takes to further their interests, whether it be fostering and supporting the kind of leadership that can resolve the instability, or filling the streets in a velvet revolution, or quickly raising a militia if necessary.

I guess what I see is much of the Right chomping at the bit for violent revolution, and much of the left fearing it. Fearing it is as sane as fearing an F-5 tornado, but fear ought not to turn into paralysis when it ought to be directed into digging a good storm cellar.

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. Yep, I fully agree

that is what I see

Again as a student of history I know it is comming and the radio calls were a clario call that it is coming

Another sign... when people start advocating for it... which is exactly what people are starting to do

(Me have seen the effects of them, hence not looking forwards to any of this... an F-5 tornado is actually mild in comparison)

[WinkyDink]

50. And the haves, with their gated-communities, yachts, & private planes, know it, too.

[TransitJohn]

55. Yep. It's like

one big Philip K. Dick scenario.

[SteelPenguin]

63. no, most of them don't

For the most part they're too clueless, selfish, self-centered, and so on to notice.

[Oak2004]

99. From what I have seen and heard they are more schizophrenic about it

(apologies to real schizophrenics, who in no way resemble the metaphorical use of the word)

They know trouble is brewing. They know things are becoming unstable. They know their actions are fouling their own nest. And at the same time they can't imagine doing anything differently -- they feel compelled to continue in a direction which they know will lead to a disastrous conclusion.

I think it's too easy to stereotype the "haves" as oblivious, even indifferent to suffering not their own. That's an oversimplification. Most of them have at least some awareness, some have a great deal of awareness, but almost all feel compelled to act as they do by current business practices. That doesn't absolve them of complicity (they often have more agency than they believe they do). But understanding that the "haves" are made of the same DNA as you or I is important for us have-nots: good strategies can only be built on good understanding.

[SteelPenguin]

105. They have no clue

Sure they have awareness of suffering, they just don't see it as their problem, and therefore don't care, because they're self-centered. They're not blind, just callous. They have no idea. I know and have spent time recently with numerous relatives and friends of family who live in high end gated communities and believe me they're not thinking about things like this at all. They're thinking about their porfolios and what car to buy

They're not oblivious, they just are reading things totally wrong. These are people who decry illegal immigration in public but are perfectly happy to save a buck hiring the 'right' landscaping company. They demand creationism be taught in public schools, and put their own kids in private schools that don't teach it.

These are people, in the higher end gated communities, who are so out of it, that they would argue for social darwinism the likes of which we haven't seen in 100 years, and still most of them don't care and are the model of the apathetic american consumer. They have no real idea what's going on.

[WinkyDink]

120. Why the gates, then?

[wageslave71]

129. Another status symbol and...

a false sense of security.

[wageslave71]

130. You're on the money

when you say they oppose immigration, but are their principles go out the window when it comes to saving a dollar, which shows you their priorities.
I voiced this same observation last week to my wife except I used the construction crews that were building these houses instead of landscapers. Its like deja vu!

[leftofthedial]

17. I think we need it

this country has become a sick parody of what it was supposed to be

[blogslut]

18. I'm leaning towards Class War

And I mean a real one. Yes, civil technically. But more similar to that little reign of terror the French kids had, back in the day.

[blogslut]

20. Let me add

Maybe it won't get as bad as I fear. However, I do believe humanity is at a crossroads. It's like Ned Beatty said in "Network" - There are no governments anymore. There is Halliburton, WalMart and Exxon. The planet is going corporate and that isn't good for the general population.

[Virginia Dare]

30. True, we are already all slaves to the corporate world..

we do their bidding and get virtually nothing in return, except some fancy gadgets and other various sundry toys and nonessentials. Things that simply can't be sustained over the long term the way the economy is going in this country.

[Virginia Dare]

28. Les Miserable...

but it will take a while for things to get that bad. You'd have to have people starving in the streets on a large scale. That's not happening YET. Hopefully we won't get to that point.

[Matsubara]

19. I agree that's where we're heading, but for different reasons.

It's the gaping maw between rich and poor that is going to to it, not political polarization.

As more and more of the middle class find themselves falling into poverty, the GOP will find their smugness a lot harder to sustain.

It happened before in the thirties and FDR was able to keep the peace. I'm afraid it will be worse the next time.

[Boo Boo]

22. That's exactly right. It's economic. The rift in this country is really

more like a wound. It's about betrayal.

[roamer65]

23. If one happens, its the result of 25+ years of Rethuglican divide and conquer.

All this crap started with that loser Raygun.

[onenote]

25. I predict: its not going to happen.

[Virginia Dare]

26. Not gonna happen any time soon..

the younger generation, who are the ones who generally fight wars, would have to put down their IPODs, Blackberrys, Bluetooths and Starbucks long enough to pick up a musket.

[yardwork]

31. As the mother of two teenagers, I think that you're overlooking a lot of strengths

My sons' generation is remarkably more tolerant and aware than I was at their age. Look at any poll or study - vast majorities of the younger people in our country are aware of exactly what is going on in the social, political, and environmental spheres.

[Virginia Dare]

32. Are they in the mindframe to physically fight for it though?

Not yet, we're not at the point. The middle class has a looong way before they get there.

The young generation of today has been brought up in an environment of the constant barrage on their senses by the corporate controlled media based world. They've been brainwashed into thinking they "need" things that are in fact frivolous and serve no real purpose, other than to stay in constant contact with the corporate controlled media based world.

I think it is all designed to quell revolution rather than nurture it, but I could be wrong.

[Firespirit]

67. It's no different than the postwar boom

The boomer generation, which was the "young" generation in the 50s and 60s, had to have things like televisions, new cars at age 17, etc. They had to keep up with the latest fashions (poodle skirts? bell bottoms?) and have Cool Stuff. It's not a Gen-Y specific thing at all, just different technology now. You guys've just forgotten. ;)

Like any generation, there is a faction of Y and the Millennials that doesn't care about anything worth caring about, but for the most part, the younger generation is very interested in making a difference and improving the world. We just find it deeply frustrating that the power structure isn't interested in us except for cannon fodder and votes.

[Virginia Dare]

70. Probably true...

the world changes so much between generations, especially since the 20th century, it's hard for one generation to relate to the next any more. I guess the point is that no generation since World War II has ever HAD to fight for anything, so I think it would take something pretty drastic to make it happen.

[Tsiyu]

150. Wow

How many young people do you know?

I speak, work, party, grieve, make music and celebrate with a great many young people.

99% of them are either liberals or anarchists. They see through our charade of a two-party system and appear to be simply waiting and watching until that system falls in on itself from its own weight.

They are amused at my generation's embrace of image over substance, and disgusted by the hypocrisy of generations that elect a coke-fiend as president then turn around and write laws that turn their youthful mistakes into lifelong felonies.

They watch as the drunks and the perverts moralize to everybody else about "addiction" and watch stunned as a gang of chickenhawks demands that their friends keep at war.

But just under the surface, they know about guns, warfare, fighting. If you think they will run into the hills and hide, you know nothing of today's young people.

Why do you think law enforcement all over this nation is rounding them up? I will guarantee that many on DU know some decent kids getting arrested for bullshit, or else harrassed. You think you're alone? You think you should be ashamed because your young people now have "a record?" More importantly, do you think these kids aren't disgusted enough to take out their anger if conflict breaks out?

They are more patient than my Instant Gratification Generation. I put my faith in them. Most men (and women) my age are cowards through and through.

And remember, the kids didn't make this f'ed up world. WE did.

[SteelPenguin]

64. They said that before world war 2 as well

They didn't think the kids had the gumption.

Take today's kids and put their backs to a wall and they'll fight, but won't drop their iPods. Those things are highly portable.

[Virginia Dare]

71. I'm not that old...

I grew up in the 60's and 70's, but I really find this whole fascination with IPODS frustrating. Every kid in my office (professional, white collar) has one of the damned things permanently attached. Every time you want to say something to them, you have to repeat it, because they've got to get unplugged before they can hear you. It's very antisocial in my view. But, maybe it's just a generational thing.

[SteelPenguin]

74. Yeah the "up and down wave"

I don't bother even talking till I have their eyes on me...

From what I understand, being able to listen to music while they work, can actually increase productivity. It doesn't really bother me that much. I think it's anti-social when they're just sitting around waiting in a group and instead of talking have it on, but if they're plugging away at work, I'll take whatever I can get to make them as productive as possible.

Even if I have to wave my hand in front of their face to get their attention.

[Virginia Dare]

112. Yep, that's pretty much what we've concluded as well...n/t

[conscious evolution]

121. Keeps me from being distracted

My Ipod ear peices also act as ear protection from loud saws and drills at work.

[Mr. Blonde]

69. I think we young people would be far more willing to do so if

it appeared that it would make a positive change. No one in my generation has ever been aware of a time when the government wasn't trying to fuck everyone over.

It isn't that we are too lazy or unaware to do anything, we are far too cynical to do anything. Just because one party uses lube and the other doesn't really doesn't change things to most young people.

[loudsue]

83. Thank you for weighing in, Mr. Blonde.

"It isn't that we are too lazy or unaware to do anything, we are far too cynical to do anything. Just because one party uses lube and the other doesn't really doesn't change things to most young people."

I believe that there will be a huge global melt-down within the next 8 years -- and probably more like 5. The situation as we know it, is simply not sustainable any longer. While there is a HUGE portion of the human population that is evolving, mentally and spiritually, much faster than ever, the balance, and counterpoint to that, is that there is another HUGE portion of the human population that is DEvolving, mentally and spiritually, at warp-speed. The Devolutionists are going back to the non-thinking, bloodlust revolutionary meme of the 1100's to the 1600's, and some seem to be totally STUCK in the mentality of the crusades.

The evolutionists, on the other hand, have expanded their consciousness to embrace the whole of the planet as groups of people who want peace, and who want to live their lives within their communities, being treated fairly, making an honest living, and expecting their governments and legal systems to act like ADULTS: to make appropriate laws, to keep the population healthy, happy, and at peace, so each individual can prosper. But good government also ensures that individuals can prosper NOT at the EXPENSE of their neighbor, but in cooperation with, and support of their neighbor. The evolutionists are often people who are well-read, usually well-educated (either formally or informally), and are often people who have travelled extensively to other countries, and been at the "mercy" of people of another culture and/or language, and have found that kindness, not greed, is what best rules the world. The evolutionists are also mostly people who have good moral fiber.

As long as the corporations are running free, and uncontrolled by governments (indeed, idolized/deified by our government, in particular), rather than being regulated and controlled by governments, there will continue to be the building anger and despair and poverty and bullying tactics that are on the rise. Corporations were not created to make PEACE. They were created to make PROFITS: To strive, fight, compete, raid, war, and whatever they needed to do to make PROFITS. CORPORATIONS were NOT "instituted among men" to govern. GOVERNMENTS were.

The problem REALLY started when the leaders of the biggest corporations started convincing the GOVERNMENT of the free world that the government should be run like a corporation. Then, these same corporations that had control of the means of communication began to "sell" (again, the job of a corporation) the message to the masses that this was in their best interests....to have a government run "like" a corporation. It was, and is, a lie. And lies belong to the realm of darkness of spirit.

There now exist several huge, global corporations that take in more money than a great many COUNTRIES in a year's time. And the only way they are making PROFITS is to take from, rather than build with, their workers and customers.

The reason young people see us getting screwed by both Dems & repubs is because they have all been "hired" by the CORPORATIONS, NOT the people, to govern. The electronic voting machine problem is just an extension of that collusion.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Virginia Dare]

113. I think the old tricks of the 60's are actually counter productive too..

I know quite a few aging activists who are still using the old methods and they just seem to be spinning their wheels. Personally, I think this was partially what was behind the Cindy Sheehan episode. I think it's time for the young generation to come up with some new, fresh and innovative ideas. Unfortunately, my generation (late late baby boom) and the Gen X'ers never stepped up to the task. Just my two-cents worth.

[jeffrey_X]

96. Agreed.

Even the have-nots are still distracted by consuming, tv, hollywood, etc.

it's just not gonna happen.

[Blackhatjack]

27. Economic interests will be the catalyst for any civil war ... so if the US Economy crashes...

IT will set off unimaginable pain for those already struggling, and will clearly define the massive gap between the 'haves and the have nots.'

Quick look at the conditions that set off the French Revolution might be instructive here.

The same scenario has played out in other countries as well.

When ordinary middle class and working citizens cannot provide the necessaries for their families(food/housing/med care etc) and the rich just get richer because the Economy has crashed, you will see desperation set in because they feel there is nothing left to lose.

I hope this never comes to pass, but we are headed straight for this eventuality unless there is a complete reversal in the policies of our government, and that goes further than just turning out the Bush Administration and its loyal flunkies.

[Jed Dilligan]

29. Since the government is retreating

from its roles in educating us and caring for us when we're sick or hungry or old, we can assume that other entities are going to take on those roles.

For much of America, the faith-based organization will be that entity.

I see a few city-states hanging on (SF, NY, LA) with their own welfare systems, against a hinterland that is basically feudal in character.

[Sapere aude]

33. Suppose Bush declares a national emergency and takes over the government like his latest

presidential directive gives him power to do. He can cancel the elections. He becomes the dictator of this country. He determines when the emergency is over.

Now people will have to take sides in this. Do you support the dictator or do you resist. Thus, civil war.

[onenote]

52. uh, where does the directive say he can cancel elections? Link?

Have you read the directive?

[Sapere aude]

56. I've been listening to the reporter from World Net daily on the Coast to Coast radio show.

That is what he says. The directive gives Bush dictatorial powers so it is right to assume he could cancel elections. If Bush is a dictator in Jan of '09 will he hand the dictatorship over to a Dem or even another Repuke? Why was this directive needed? Anything can be a national emergency according to this directive. Even a storm like Katrina could make Bush a dictator for as long as he says there is an emergency. Think about it.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55824

[Sapere aude]

59. Here is the directive

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive


RSS Feed White House News

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20

Subject: National Continuity Policy

Purpose

(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.

Definitions

(2) In this directive:

(a) "Category" refers to the categories of executive departments and agencies listed in Annex A to this directive;

(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

(c) "Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;

(d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

(f) "Executive Departments and Agencies" means the executive departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1), Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1), and the United States Postal Service;

(g) "Government Functions" means the collective functions of the heads of executive departments and agencies as defined by statute, regulation, presidential direction, or other legal authority, and the functions of the legislative and judicial branches;

(h) "National Essential Functions," or "NEFs," means that subset of Government Functions that are necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency and that, therefore, must be supported through COOP and COG capabilities; and

(i) "Primary Mission Essential Functions," or "PMEFs," means those Government Functions that must be performed in order to support or implement the performance of NEFs before, during, and in the aftermath of an emergency.

Policy

(3) It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.

Implementation Actions

(4) Continuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received. Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions. Risk management principles shall be applied to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences.

(5) The following NEFs are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions:

(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;

(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;

(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;

(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;

(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and

(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States.

(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.

(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.

(8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.

(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.

(10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.

(11) Continuity requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and executive departments and agencies shall include the following:

(a) The continuation of the performance of PMEFs during any emergency must be for a period up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and the capability to be fully operational at alternate sites as soon as possible after the occurrence of an emergency, but not later than 12 hours after COOP activation;

(b) Succession orders and pre-planned devolution of authorities that ensure the emergency delegation of authority must be planned and documented in advance in accordance with applicable law;

(c) Vital resources, facilities, and records must be safeguarded, and official access to them must be provided;

(d) Provision must be made for the acquisition of the resources necessary for continuity operations on an emergency basis;

(e) Provision must be made for the availability and redundancy of critical communications capabilities at alternate sites in order to support connectivity between and among key government leadership, internal elements, other executive departments and agencies, critical partners, and the public;

(f) Provision must be made for reconstitution capabilities that allow for recovery from a catastrophic emergency and resumption of normal operations; and

(g) Provision must be made for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel capable of relocating to alternate facilities to support the continuation of the performance of PMEFs.

(12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee.

(13) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall:

(a) Conduct an annual assessment of executive department and agency continuity funding requests and performance data that are submitted by executive departments and agencies as part of the annual budget request process, in order to monitor progress in the implementation of the Plan and the execution of continuity budgets;

(b) In coordination with the National Continuity Coordinator, issue annual continuity planning guidance for the development of continuity budget requests; and

(c) Ensure that heads of executive departments and agencies prioritize budget resources for continuity capabilities, consistent with this directive.

(14) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall:

(a) Define and issue minimum requirements for continuity communications for executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President;

(b) Establish requirements for, and monitor the development, implementation, and maintenance of, a comprehensive communications architecture to integrate continuity components, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President; and

(c) Review quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities, as prepared pursuant to section 16(d) of this directive or otherwise, and report the results and recommended remedial actions to the National Continuity Coordinator.

(15) An official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall:

(a) Advise the President, the Chief of Staff to the President, the APHS/CT, and the APNSA on COGCON operational execution options; and

(b) Consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in order to ensure synchronization and integration of continuity activities among the four categories of executive departments and agencies.

(16) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:

(a) Coordinate the implementation, execution, and assessment of continuity operations and activities;

(b) Develop and promulgate Federal Continuity Directives in order to establish continuity planning requirements for executive departments and agencies;

(c) Conduct biennial assessments of individual department and agency continuity capabilities as prescribed by the Plan and report the results to the President through the APHS/CT;

(d) Conduct quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(e) Develop, lead, and conduct a Federal continuity training and exercise program, which shall be incorporated into the National Exercise Program developed pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 of December 17, 2003 ("National Preparedness"), in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(f) Develop and promulgate continuity planning guidance to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators;

(g) Make available continuity planning and exercise funding, in the form of grants as provided by law, to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators; and

(h) As Executive Agent of the National Communications System, develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity communications architecture.

(17) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall produce a biennial assessment of the foreign and domestic threats to the Nation's continuity of government.

(18) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide secure, integrated, Continuity of Government communications to the President, the Vice President, and, at a minimum, Category I executive departments and agencies.

(19) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall execute their respective department or agency COOP plans in response to a localized emergency and shall:

(a) Appoint a senior accountable official, at the Assistant Secretary level, as the Continuity Coordinator for the department or agency;

(b) Identify and submit to the National Continuity Coordinator the list of PMEFs for the department or agency and develop continuity plans in support of the NEFs and the continuation of essential functions under all conditions;

(c) Plan, program, and budget for continuity capabilities consistent with this directive;

(d) Plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to evaluate program readiness and ensure adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems; and

(e) Support other continuity requirements, as assigned by category, in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities

General Provisions

(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.

(21) This directive:

(a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;

(b) Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and

(c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.

(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.

(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.

GEORGE W. BUSH

[onenote]

77. nothing in it gives president power to cancel elections

Consider the following: The ACLU doesn't find this directive to be alarming: “These presidential directives on the continuity of government have existed for a long time,” says Mike German, ACLU policy counsel. “All it does is establish that they should have a policy and coordinate that policy with legislative and judiciary. It doesn’t change the order of succession, or anything like that.”

[Sapere aude]

80. You are probably right but it doesn't give me any comfort that Bush and Cheney are in power.

If it were Clinton or even Reagan I wouldn't worry so much but I am in the LIHOP crowd and if the can do it once they can do it again.

I have asked myself many times why would this administration fight so hard to change the way this country operates and then just be willing to turn it over to another administration. The answer that comes to me is that they don't ever intend to hand over power. I hope I am wrong.

[Chemical Bill]

101. He already "canceled" two elections...

Using Florida, Ohio, Diebold, and the SCOTUS to deny the public's expressed preference in presidential candidates. Why would he need permission to do it again?

Bill

[porphyrian]

34. So, do we just wait for it or try to make something else happen?

If we're talking about inevitability, if it doesn't matter what we do, why not do something unpredictable? I don't know what exactly, but I think we should discuss some ideas. Almost any alternative would be preferable to a violent civil war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Agreeed, and we can still step off the edge

I fear though we lack leaders with the vision necesary to do that

As others have pointed out, FDR prevented exactly this in the 1930s

Do we have another FDR?

Hillary Clinton? Hardly

Barack Obama? Perhaps

Edwards, I'm not sure

Gore... not really

And on the Republican side the only one who could would be Ron Paul, who is batshit crazy when it comes to national economic policies and will blame
them for the civil war

Perhaps there is a leader out there... but I don't really see it

[porphyrian]

51. Maybe we just need to stop looking for a leader.

Maybe the problem is that too many people are looking for someone else to change their lives for them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. When you have national economic policy

I hate to tell you this but you need a leader.

On personal matters it is up to you, but as a NATION you need leaders

And this cohort has failed us

Perhaps one will emerge before we step off the ledge

[zippy890]

35. its going to start with people shooting each other at the gas pumps

when the rationing of gas starts, or whatever happens in the next 5 - 10 years that will affect the ability of people in this country to put gas in their sacred vehicles.

I'm just glad I live in New England- away from fundie extremists and lots of people with guns.

[MedleyMisty]

38. Yeah, I agree with that.

My husband and I actually talked about that - we were like, if there are ever long lines and rationing at the gas pumps, we are staying far far far away from gas stations because we don't want to get shot.

But people who would shoot over gas live in every single state.

[MedleyMisty]

36. I don't think it would be red state/blue state

Because people are individuals, no matter where they live. And as much as some people on here like to generalize and stereotype and show their prejudice, I live in a Southern "red" state and most people here are cool. It's not the mid 1800s. A lot has changed in the last 147 years, and the people who still think that Lincoln is president and that we all still go around in buggies and that slavery is still acceptable in the South are a minority.

I really don't think that the words Republican and Democrat mean that much to most people. To most people, they're getting screwed either way so what's the difference?

So I'm joining in with the people who say that if anything happens it'll be along economic lines. And yeah, I do think it would require a huge jump in unemployment rates. You don't really have the time or the energy to set up barricades when you're working 35 hours at Wal-Mart and another 20-25 hours at Arby's just to pay the bills.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Oh fully agreed, the red state, blue state

is a political device, but one used to help divide.

It will be local in the begining and ugly

[ncrainbowgrrl]

60. I agree with you, my fellow North Carolinian!

We are, by no means, a "red state." It's not really red or blue states anyway.

I think that here in NC, there are places that are more progressive than those in solid blue states... it's really about the local level. There are also very scary places in NC. But, there are equally scary places in upstate NY.

So... Like many political items- it's all about the local area...

[SteelPenguin]

65. You're absolutely correct

Here in Pennsylvania, just because it's a blue state, doesn't mean that most of the state is very deeply red, only offset by the cities.

I don't think there will be a hot civil war anytime soon in this country, but if there was it would not be as cleanly cut as the first one. It will be chaotic, splintering, and local and probably burn itself off pretty quickly leaving the country disjointed and....well weird. There won't be any lines of tanks meeting on the plains of Kansas to battle red vs. blue.

[malaise]

40. Well you can't go around the globe breaking up

other countries and not expect the blow back. I predicted this after the fall of the Soviet Union. The right wing elements in the South want to restart the last civil war.

Additionally, as Bush moves to dissolve state rights, expect some state to scream secession. I think Vermont is already buzzing. Expect serious problems as the right are put on the back foot.

[Oak2004]

107. We certainly are

and I find my heart, if not quite my head, aligned with the secessionists.

It's a very serious, calculated movement. Their stated strategy is, interestingly, to wait and prepare. They don't believe the Unites States can sustain itself indefinitely as a continental power, and their plan is to move to secession as the nation begins to unravel.

[shimmergal]

142. Please tell us more.

Maybe start a separate thread referring us to some info. they put out?

[Zodiak]

41. Ever read about John Titor?

Look it up on the Google and prepare yourself for an entertaining read.

He's a guy that claimed to a be a time traveller from 2036. He appeared in the late 90's and predicted we would have a civil war in the U.S before he disappeared again. He left just after G.W. was elected, as he said he would do. Even though I am very dubious about the time travel claim, his predictions for the state of this nation are eerily accurate and disturbing. At the time, it was pure nutbaggery.....how things have changed since then!

I am not a "believer" in the Titor story, but I still think there is a nugget of truth to his words that we should all read.

Give it a shot...read about "John Titor". Fun stuff.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. I've read it, and this is not Titor, this is based on real world

observations I have been making since oh 1997

By the way, John is also a social observer, not a time traveler and he's been off for his predictions already

[Zodiak]

57. As stated clearly, I do not believe in the Time Travel element

But I do believe that he somehow knew what was to happen and decided to create this character to get the memes out there without raising hackles (and possible compromising his security clearance). That's my hypothesis.

Regardless, his prediction of a coming civil war in the United States seemed totally preposterous at the time. It doesn't seem that way, now, does it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. No, but i have had the fieeling that it is comming

for the last oh since shortly after Bush took over

Then I started looking at the damn indicators of one

The cold phase started in '96 in earnest, you could argue that it truly started with the planning sessiosn for the Arckansas project

And on edit perhaps you are right, a voice warming us of what was comming, and anybody observant can feel it

[Zodiak]

133. I placed the "change" at 1997, but you and I are of like minds

in that we observe and we fear may come next.

Polarization is dangerous, and that is all that has gone on in this country for ten years, now. Honestly, I do not see it as bad on "our side" because we are still willing to look at facts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

140. Well depends, read this thread

there are way too many people with their head in the sand

People truly cannot believe that it is happening and what is happening in front of them

[Occulus]

53. MASSIVE hoax.

I think it was all based on a P&P strategy game of some sort.

Clever marketing, though.

[Zodiak]

58. Groan...how about addressing the issue at hand and not

your judgment on his validity as a time traveller (which I believe the Time Traveler aspect is part of...sensationalism to get you to look). As I said CLEARLY, I do not believe in his claims to be a time traveller.

But I do think that an authoritarian shift in our policies and a rift between the federal government and the citizens is growing and growing. I also think that the possibility of a hot civil war in this country is much greater now than it was then.

[michreject]

42. Just curious

If nobody has been paying attention these are bad signs, and point to a country heading straight to a HOT civil war

With the population pretty evenly split, who do you think would win if it came down to a left/right conflict?

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Once teh bullets start flying all of us loose

I don't expect the country to survive as one nation. so who'se the winner depends on where you are I guess

[michreject]

103. There won't be a geographical separation

between winner and loser. The winning side will dictate the political direction of the country. And the losers................


BTW. The right has the guns by volume. It would be over before it started.

[Oak2004]

108. The country isn't evenly split. The left now has a strong majority

But revolutions are often won by the side with the best organization (and foreign support), not the majority (example: the Spanish Civil War). This makes the American Right particularly dangerous.

What disturbs me especially is that politicians seem utterly oblivious to the crisis. I can understand Bush and the Right choosing to make provocative moves (they seem to really, really, want a civil war). But Democrats, even progressives, continue to make the exact wrong moves to resolve the situation.

[rug]

47. Bullshit.

There are too many layers of social cohesion and no mass organization to start a violent civil war.

[gulfcoastliberal]

76. All it takes is one weak link.

Then those layers unravel pretty quickly. How about the role of religion causing strife around the world. Huge cause of social unrest and extreme violence. Europe really is a powderkeg right now, as the huge riots in France last year amply demonstrated. Things are extremely tense in the Netherlands, the vast majority of the millions of immigrants refuse to integrate or liberalize. Hence the bloody murders of perceived threats, Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh come to mind. Also don't underestimate the barely concealed racism and bigotry running right beneath the surface of our social "fabric". That plus the economic repercussions caused problems in Germany when they got flooded by Turkish immigrants willing to work for much less, driving down wages for everyone in the country. Historically speaking, we appear doomed to repeat some extremely nasty history. Throw in the effects from the worldwide catastrophe that is global warming and things look a little rickety, to say the least.

[rug]

110. I don't think Pim Fortuyn exists because immigrants refuse to liberalize.

It's not just 160 years that separates Europe from 1848.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. Some folks in the Boston of 1859 would have used

those same words, in fact some did....

I would not be too fast to claim this.

[rug]

109. If you compare 250 years of institutional slavery and the economic system based on it

to today you have a parallel.

But it's not the same at all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

128. I hope I am wrong

but as a student of history the parallels to many civil wars are just eerie

[WinkyDink]

48. So: will Bush stay on for the power, or go to Paraguay for the safety?

[TahitiNut]

49. Well-founded fear of civil war or revolution led the robber barons to give FDR his way ...

... in the Great Depression. A great many knowledgeable observers of the time saw all the earmarks of a violent revolution and blood in the streets. Leading up to the Depression, we had bonus marchers and Hoovervilles ... and labor riots. There's a real limit to what the profiteers and exploiters can get away with. As we contemplate the ever-widening gulf between the haves and the have-nots, I remain convinced it's gonna get a LOT worse before it gets better. Reversal of the 30-year corporatist trend is gonna take blood in the streets - and nothing less will do it.

[Virginia Dare]

73. Similar situation in the late 19th century...

fear of widespread socialism and increasingly violent labor protests brought an end to the gilded age. It just keeps getting recycled. The next wave will begin with the immigrants once again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. Yep

Agreed, and we are going in for really, REALLY rough times

[rucky]

54. Thank God a majority of citizens are apathetic! n/t

[Unvanguard]

61. It won't happen - not liberals v. conservatives, anyway.

Half the population doesn't even care enough to vote; where would you get enough people willing to risk their lives?

[SteelPenguin]

68. That wouldn't necessarily prevent it

I don't think a hot civil war is likely, but just because half the population is apathetic now doesn't mean anything. Just look at Iraq. The vast majority before the war just wanted to get along in peace. There were no shiite death squads hunting down sunni's and vice versa. They lived in the same neighborhoods, side by side, intermarried, etc.

Look at it now. Things change. Apathetic people can easily be made to care by blowing up their mothers, sisters, brothers, children, etc. It's how they divided Iraq, and don't think it couldn't happen here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. US War of Independence

about half the population didn't care either...

history is a tough well you know what. (Kiddies may be readying and gosh darn it, I should clean my language anyhow)

:-)

[EstimatedProphet]

66. I think you have a point

I've seen something like that coming for a long time. And 'll tell you this too: it's not the reality-based community that's driving it. What I see is a core of people in the 'conservative' movement (really an imperial movement) that are bound together by a few basic beliefs, namely;

The US is better than everyone else;

Republicans fight for the US' due place as the best country there is, therefore they are better than everyone else (this also includes why they revere the military so much, in abstract);

The rest of the world owes the US, because we carry them by giving them all our money and are nice to them.

What it all boils down to is that this core of people think the world should suck up to them, And along with the world, people 'not like them' in the US should too. That includes any minority, anyone non-straight sexually, anyone unsaved; in short, anyone that disagrees with them. They think they should be carried around in litters and kowtowed to by the rest of us. this is what people who try to argue with them on an intellectual level don't get - they think we OWE them, and they will only get more angry the more they don't get what they feel like are their just desserts.

[Firespirit]

72. I've had this bad feeling for awhile too

Shots have already been fired. There are political murders in this country already taking place. The murders of abortion providers, gays, the assassination of that liberal talk show host some years back (name?), the anthrax sent to liberal politicians, the Freeper terrorists like Castagana.... Right wing hate radio stirred it up in the 1990s, with thinly veiled calls for gun-owning wingers to prepare for a war against liberals. When they got control of the government, they decided that it would probably be unnecessary to use militias.

I am NOT sold on the idea that the Democrats will win back the White House in 2008. I cannot easily forget that even in the face of daily, ongoing corruption scandals and a CHILD PREDATOR and leadership coverup, the GOP still almost retained control of the Senate, and took in 45% of all votes cast nationwide. But if we do get the Presidency, we should expect to see a return to the calls for political murder by the extreme right-wing fringe.

Going out on a limb from this point onward....

If the Democrats get control of the government, the right-wing corruption of the military and the Rovian stacking of the entire federal government still leaves a ready-made "force" for a revolt. This is the real danger behind the U.S. Attorney story, the fact that EVERY position of any power in the government has been filled with a right-wing neocon ideologue. This is the natural end of the "purging" of anyone who doesn't lockstep with their agenda. I can definitely see a right-wing military coup, aided and abetted by neocon plants within the government in high places.

A civil war here wouldn't be fought with two armies. What would happen would be more akin to a dictatorship government (with the power of the military and the nukes) opposed by a loose organization of rebels. The bulk of the citizenry probably wouldn't be involved on either side.

I also don't see this scenario ending well.

Insurgents wearing down a weak government in Iraq are one thing. Insurgents wearing down a strong, closely knit government, where every hire is a neocon plant, and the military has the power of tactical nukes, are another matter altogether. I don't think they'd succeed at it, frankly.


:scared:

[catmandu57]

78. There are divisions in our own families that grow deeper

all the time. I have several brothers that I've just written off, after trying every method I could to make them see the light about this idiot* and what his thievery would bring down on us, they still blindly loved the bastard.
Mainly I think because of a racist attitude and a feverent desire to be better than "them", there are relatives of my wife that I will do whatever possible not to be around, same story, only these people have just enough to think they have something, and "they" the no good lazy bastards just want to take it away instead of working for it.

So, I can see it coming, economic and social divisions are going to get worse, I won't make it too long if the shit does hit the fan, I fully intend to be a grain of sand in the gears than try to survive through whatever comes, because I won't.

[ddbaj]

79. A civil war between WHO?

If you're thinking left vs right, most Americans fall in the "I don't know what left or right means" arena.

We may see violence if a crisis happens, but I don't think you can call a struggle between two tiny minorities a civil war.

[MistressOverdone]

106. I agree

we can get all hot and bothered on our message boards, but talk to your man in the street and it is a vastly different story.

[onenote]

81. anyone remember the 60s?

The country was divided over Vietnam, civil rights, and a host of other issues. There was violence -- riots in Watts and other cities; bombings at the Capitol and elsehwere; shootings at Kent State.

Yet, I wouldn't call it a "hot" civil war then, and I don't see it happening in the future.

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. Yes and any historian worth his or her salt

will tell you the 60s were a cultural revolution...

It did not come to civil war though... but at certain points it could have gone that way... thank your leaders

[onenote]

100. Right -- it didn't come to a civil war

then. And I don't see that it will come to it now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

145. In the sixties and we are free to disagree here

one political faction was not willing to polarize the country in order to maintain power

Nor was there a level of distrust in the governemtn that exist today

And again, we had leaders that were able to keep the country together

You think certain factions of the GOP hold this desire any longer?

That is a small but critical difference between the sixties and today

[Oak2004]

111. It wasn't even close to political revolution in the 60s

The dissent was concentrated in a few subcultures, and a significant element of the "dissent" was in fact escapism. The country was never truly unstable, because the government had at all times the support and allegience of the majority (though many disagreed with specific policies).

If you look at historical examples of political revolution you often do not see widespread rioting in the streets prior to the outbreak of revolution. You often find that the organizations which later national myths exalt as if they were vast networks of plotting patriots were little more than a handful or two of dissidents prior to the outbreak of revolution (case in point: the group of hard-core dissidents in Boston which included the Adamses, Hancock, etc.-- you could fill a tavern with them, but that's about it).

Revolutions aren't the result of actions by leaders, or by organizations, but are mass social upheavals which occur of their own accord. Preexisting dissidents (and opportunists) then scramble to claim ownership of them. A requirement for revolution to occur is that the mass of the population no longer sees existing authority as legitimate and responsive to their needs. Widespread protest (as seen in the 1960s) often paradoxically indicates some faith remains in the system, though as I noted above, dissent in the 60s was concentrated in a few subgroups and not widespread.

We are right now in a far far more unstable state than we ever were in the 1960s, because the citizenry, across almost all subgroups, is rapidly losing faith in the legitimacy of its government. A few more blows, and a spark, is all it takes, and then we will watch the upheaval, the scramble for leadership of the various factions, and the possibly bloody, almost always awful, consequences of a collapse of political order.

[onenote]

115. Nice speech. Nothing to back it up, but nice speech.

Show me the evidence that "we are right now in a far far more unstable state than we ever were in the 1960s" or that the government does not have the support and allegiance of a majority.

And the protesters shot at Kent State and the African Americans rioting in Watts and the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers, the SDS, etc. etc. etc. were hardly interested in "escapism".

The fact is that marches for civil rights and against the war in the 60s dwarfed any level of protest being mounted today. People were actively frustrated with and rebelling against the government in the 60s. Today, people are opposed to the war and unhappy with a Congress that seems unrepsonsive to their concerns (health care, gas prices, etc) but hardly motivated to participate in a march, let alone pick up arms.

[Oak2004]

117. A lot to back it up:

1) Historical reality: no revolution occurred. In fact it never reached the stage where an uprising needed to be suppressed. The 60's were, factually, not a revolutionary period, and any valid historical interpretation of those times needs to acknowledge that.

2) I was there as, I assume, you were. What about the division between "counterculture" and "political heavy"? A goodly amount of what happened was "counterculture", much of the counterculture was allergic to the political, and last time I checked, acid and free love did not a political revolution make (either in principle, or in historical fact).

3) Again, I was there. The events of the 60s overwhelmingly involved middle-class youth and minority groups. There was much less participation among older generations and working class persons of any age bracket (I remember deliberate efforts to involve working class young people who were not college students, some of which efforts I was at the periphery of. Some of these efforts were successful, granted, but the fact that such efforts had to be made illustrates that working class youth were not ordinarily a part of the '60's "movement"). Symptomatic of the majority's rejection of the movement was the reelection of Nixon (who ran largely on a program of "elect me and I'll suppress the demonstrators" (Nixon's first term victory is not an indicator of much more than that the Humphrey was associated with the war, and the war was unpopular).

Yes, the war was unpopular. So too have been a great many of America's wars. And yes, one did see some older white Americans involved in antiwar activities. But typically the antiwar activities which involved a broader spectrum of society were reformist in nature and focused on persuading the existing power structure to change its policies. So too was the civil rights movement, which focused not on overthrowing the system but upon incorporating people of color within it.

There were of course groups which were revolutionary in nature. The Black Panthers were such a group. But they did not have the support of a majority of the African American community, let alone the general population. The African American community remained committed to civil rights -- to reform and inclusion within the existing power structures, not to their overthrow -- and as such were as reformist as the church ladies I knew in the antiwar movement. Similarly a large majority of college students had no involvement with the SDS, though most held views in opposition to the war and a large minority were willing to take some action to protest it.

It's been years since I did the research I did on political revolution (years punctuated by a period of homelessness) and so I don't have any of the polls and other hard data I gathered to numerically back up my conclusions about the 1960s, but in fact polls dating to those times show that most Americans believed in the soundness of their government, if not all of the policies of the government. But I can tell you this: before I began my work I was convinced I'd find that the 60s were a revolutionary period, and I said as much to my advisor. My advisor responded that they were not, and I went on my way determined to prove him wrong. But the more I looked at the period, the more convinced I became that it was a period of tumultuous reform, far more like the Chartist movement in England than like anything Oliver Cromwell might have wrought.

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. And this is why we survived watergate

as you have pointed out, there is an increasing uneasiness about institutions in this country that closely paralel 1776 and 1860 but not 1960

[Ganja Ninja]

82. I seriously doubt we will get into a shooting war with the right.

Despite their constant threats when offered a chance to pick up a gun and go fight (as in Iraq) the right turns chicken. I just don't think we'll see a real civil war without some sort of apocalyptic circumstances.

[Chemical Bill]

102. I don't think it will be organized enough to call it "civil war". n/t

[MistressOverdone]

104. I disagree

at least until a point comes when there is more than a difference of opinion. Looking at other civil wars in history (ours and others) I can't draw any parallels yet.

[Oak2004]

114. Differences of opinions don't cause political instability, yes

but widespread loss of faith in the legitimacy of government does.

[nadinbrzezinski]

124. And since 2000 I will make the argument that

we are increasingly moving in that direction

Just look at the many posts qusetioning the legitimacy of the President (and no I am not arguing against the DRE machines or for them... just pointing a fact)

You could make the argument that the right (or at least certain factions) felt that way about Clinton, but only after we have a spark and things go back to normal will the studies be made about how or what led to the conflict

But I will make the case that legitimacy of this government is not as firm as it once was, or faith in her institutions

Both of which are indicators of instability

[MistressOverdone]

132. But that loss has to be perceived by a large (an well-armed) group

Right now, many people don't see it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

141. Wrong, that is the myth of civil wars

Civil wars start with fringe elements at the edges of society. Or at least they have since mostly 1945

We have fringe elements who are willing and mostly able (and armed) in this society already

The country IS polarized, so these fringe elements will have an easier time in either forcing or finding recruits

What is more, shooting has already happened, (all those doctors shot), they just have not spread.

But if you think you need a majority of the population to start a civil war, you don't... that is the REAL lesson of history

Even if you look at the war of independence, it would not have gone anywhere if you took oh half the founding fathers and placed them on an Island for oh ten years.

Hell that war had 1\3 that didn't give a shit, one third that wanted it, but not all joined up, and 1\3 that were loyalists and in the end most who could, aka had means, left the country

Look around, tell me do those numbers sound familiar?

[MistressOverdone]

143. You know what?

I think you are right about civil wars and the fringe elements. The fringe can make a hell of a noise. However, for a full-scale CW to develop, wouldn't a lot of folks have to jump on board?

Which doctors are you referring to? I think I'm out of the loop here.

What about OUR civil war? Would you say that was fringe elements? I was under the impression that the South was uniformly for it, but I am not a CW expert. I also have read that the North was rather apathetic, except for the abolitionists. So was that fringe (North) vs. the majority (South)?

One more thought: in the present polarity, with the left's position on gun control, do you see a strong disparity in the ability to keep a war hot? I'm under the impression that the military is pretty conservative. Wouldn't that fact, by itself, tend to quash a potential CW?

Thanks for thinking things through with me..this isn't my field. Sounds like it might be yours, however.

[nadinbrzezinski]

144. Let me adress them point by point

"I think you are right about civil wars and the fringe elements. The fringe can make a hell of a noise. However, for a full-scale CW to develop, wouldn't a lot of folks have to jump on board?"

Civil wars require far less people than popular history tells us it needs. Look at oh El Salvador, it happened mostly in the coutnry side with a few major battles in the cities. But the Frente Farabundo Marti and the Army were hardly the majority

The Troops for the FFMLN came from the country side, mostly agricultural workers, some of which were forced into the fray by circumstace, aka they would have been forced to join the army if the army had come by instead of the rebels.

The same pattern actually existed with the Contras in Nicaragua (and in that case we helped to keep it going)

If you look at many of the brush wars in africa, yuo see the same pattern. And Yugoslavia, though there was the bombing and destruction of Sarajevo, most of the combat happened in the country side. Though that was also an ethnic war, that just like with Guatemala took on racial overtones... or the Jund Jui in Africa.


"Which doctors are you referring to? I think I'm out of the loop here."

The doctors who over the last few years have been killed at abortion clinics... they were killed by one of our fringe elements... and so far I have been able to identify four or five who would be willing to go there.

"What about OUR civil war? Would you say that was fringe elements? I was under the impression that the South was uniformly for it, but I am not a CW expert. I also have read that the North was rather apathetic, except for the abolitionists. So was that fringe (North) vs. the majority (South)?"

Neither the North or the South were uniform, that is the popular history taught at schools and a great discervice. Many of the poor white who served in the armies of the south did so to protect their homes... from the rapacious north, propaganda, ain't that wonderful? Officers served to keep the system of the plantation going. As to the north, there were pockets of support for it, like oh Chicago and boston, but mostly there was anywhere from apathy to outright oposition. You can even see that in the draft riots that occurred starting in oh 1862, the major ones in New York

"One more thought: in the present polarity, with the left's position on gun control, do you see a strong disparity in the ability to keep a war hot? I'm under the impression that the military is pretty conservative. Wouldn't that fact, by itself, tend to quash a potential CW?"

No, and I will tell you why... many folks with their heads on shoulders who were oposed to having guns at home have gone and picked them up and learned how to use them,. Regardless, once a hot war starts it will not be supplied by your local gun store, but by raiding armories and police stations, and taking them from the field. Examples from real history, the reason why the contras and the FFMLN used M-16, guess what the army used? You guessed it. Yugoslavia, they used AK-47 since that was the weapon of choice for the Army and currently in Iraq you see a mix becuase both M-16 and AK are abundant.

Oh and as to the army... that is a talking point. The army is a reflection of society... and increasingly disgusted with the Cons... so in a shooting war it is truly up in the air what side they will ultimately take. In a truly nightmare scenario you will have units picking sides...

"Thanks for thinking things through with me..this isn't my field. Sounds like it might be yours, however."

I hold a Masters Degree in history, but for ten years I also was a Red Cross Worker, no, not the ARC, and I got to hear some really horrible stories from oh Central American refugees. I wish at times that them war crimes trials that evidence was gathered for... went ahead... but that is a whole different ball of wax. And this is the main reason why a civil war scares me shitless. I've heard enough horrors, and have been shot at. Don't care to go through that again. And if we do, hey the one in Mexico is lukewarm... and you can say the same thing about ours.

:-(

[MistressOverdone]

146. Thank you for your insight and opinions

I will hope and pray that things balance out before anything like this happens. I guess we all need to gain a sense of balance and remember the things we share, then we can work on the differences.

I knew next to nothing about the whole South America situation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

147. Oh you welcome

[John Kerry VonErich]

116. I predict....

The following states will seceed from the union... Vermont, Califonia (when Arnold leaves, I think there will be a secessionist running and may win), and 60% chance Oregon and Washington.` If or when Civil War starts, it could be San Francisco because they want to rid the military bases there after California seceeds.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. those bases are LONG gone

what are you talking about?

As some have pointed out, it will not be with clear lines, at least not in the begining

[John Kerry VonErich]

148. Its just a preidiction

No need to get huffy.

[AnnInLa]

118. will Alabama start it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1063976&mesg_id=1063976

[DemBones DemBones]

122. A fist fight start a civil war? I don't think so. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. Well I can point to a series in the house

during the 109th, these incidents are increasing nation wide, or at least SEEM TO.

Perhaps a DU project would be to go through the news over the last 12 years (yes that includes Clinton) and see if indeed they have gone up

If they have... again one more sign of instabilty

[Initech]

119. A second civil war and the US will implode faster than Yugoslavia

I've said for a while that we're headed toward a second civil war, and especially here, and people have flamed the shit out of me for saying it. But it's the truth - we're as divided as we were back in the 1850's, and it's starting to show. And it's scaring the shit out of me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. Second that, about being scared

And yes, I expect anywhere from three to five successor states

[and-justice-for-all]

131. We can not have another Rethug as president...!nt

[Strawman]

134. Most people don't care enough to fight in a Civil War

I think the number of people who are ideological enough to feel threatened by the power of a rival ideology one way or another is too small.

Whoever tried to start a Civil War would be politically isolated and quickly crushed.

I think it would take an economic catastrophe on the scale of the Depression before that kind of mass revolt would even be a remote possibility.

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. Most people didn't care to fight in the war of independence

either, which was a civil war and a revolution as well

At the most committed moment of the war, one third was for it (not necessarily to fight for it) one third was against it, (and they ended up packing up and leaving0 and one third didn't give a shit

This is normal for any civil war

Most people, what I like to call the mushy middle, not to be confused with the pollster's mushy middle, don't care, and only get caught in the events

What I just described applies across the world, not only US History.

We are NOT, I know shocking, living outside of history and our society does not, I know even more shocking, behave differently than other societies

But because our national myths say we are... when that war starts (or rather officially goes hot) most folks will be utterly surprised

And yes... in the beginning there are forces that will try to contain and isolate.

In that you are right.

By the way, if you are thinking of a civil war with major battles like Gettysburg... I'm not... civil wars since 1945 have NOT been fought by regular forces

[LSK]

135. you can barely get Americans off the couch to go vote

and you expect them to pick up arms against each other????

Thats funny.

[nadinbrzezinski]

137. And if you think that this war will be fought by the couch

potato crowd, at least in the beginning, you are missing this completely

Study civil wars since oh 1945

Tell me how many of them were fought by regular forces or by most of the population

Hell, study the history of the war of independence, revolutionary war, whatever you want to call it

Most historians will tell you that at best 1\3 wanted it (not necessarily picked up arms), one third didn't care and were caught in events against their will, and one third were loyalists to the crown

When most people get caught AND TAKE SIDED is when events are so out of control that they have no choice... that is the history of these events

[Deja Q]

138. Which are the factions?

And as there are clearly many, who will side up with whom, if the situation gets dark enough? ;)

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. I need to explain them

Ok lets start with factions

Some of our crazy fundies are WILLING to take arms to force their vision of the country on the rest of us

They are a minority, but one that feels persecuted... which is one of those critical aspects for willingness to take arms... all that war on christmas, we make fun of it, but for them it is real.

Some of these folks also belong to militias... remember the militias were a clear and present danger in the 1990s, the fact that after McVeigh attacked the Murrah Building that little fact was ahem stamped fast has good reasons from the point of view of not fanning flames. But the militias feel they are also persecuted. They vary in their motivations from Christian fundamentalism to not paying taxes to keeping the feds (a bogeyman of incredible proportions) away from them. Many of them are Birchers and more radical than the 1950s Bircher. Damn I was doing at one time research on these groups... oh and a few of them are believers in the white race... and willing to do something about it.

They have been dreaming this shit for years and the Turner diaries are just an indication of what they want.

Other factions... many of the extreme liberatarians on the right

As to the left, we have them less defined by there are folks out there who are also that nuts... But in some ways the Weathermen have not completely gone, ideologically of course.

Again there are a very small minority, no civil war starts with majority factions, or at least they have not since on 1945 (I know pesky history... hells bells the American Revolution didn't even have 1\3 of the population willing to actually FIGHT)...

[mwb970]

149. When I hear Sean Hannity on the radio, he sounds like the enemy.

When I look at the un-American things that Bush and Cheney say and do, they also seem like the enemy. These "American" enemies of America are much closer and much more dangerous than any terrorist could ever be. They seem determined to tear the country apart by encouraging its worst, least civilized rabble to attack anyone with a brain. This can't be good for the country.