This is a Multiverser setting, an alternate reality, for role-playing gaming. It depicts a possible horrible future that even as we enjoy playing in, we can all hope never comes to past.
The Red and Blue
By Eric R. Ashley
The key issue of the war, like the preceding Civil War, would be much debated by scholars in later centuries. Some said it was economics with the Northeast and the Left Coast trying to hold onto their positions of economic dominance, and other said it was abortion. Just like in the First American Civil War where economic domination by a Northern industrial society impatient with and yet at the same time wanting to parasitize a Southern agrarian society blended with the outrage of slavery.
Was it slavery, the Saving of the Union, or simple economic exploitation? The most obvious answer, avoided by partisans, is “yes.” Both the South and the North had things to be ashamed of, and proud of at the same time, and no mass of tens of millions of peoples ever does one thing for one reason alone. On balance, the North was right, and even if they weren’t there is a tide to history that can be hard to resist…as the Native Americans of the West later found out to their sorrow. A more advanced culture, more adept at exploiting its environment usually crushes any competitors into the dirt.
But enough of history, let us examine the Second American Civil War. The first issue is to realize the economic and social mastery (or if you are a Red Partisan, the cruel stranglehold) the Northeast, and later Kalifornia had on the Nation as a whole. If you wanted to play in the big leagues, this was where you went for generations upon generations. Even those who opposed the Establishment had to go to the Establishment’s home courts in order to play.
Needless to say, this bred arrogance perhaps best exemplified by two comments. “Flyover Country” (that darkened in electricity and mind which the Bicoastal Elite flew over on their way from one side of the country to the other), and “All the oxygen in the Nation is concentrated near Nova Yawk. One can hardly breathe past the Hudson River.”
Some of that arrogance was justified. Most of it was self-serving, or the smugness of life’s economic winners telling themselves they deserved every award and plaudit thrown their way. But the best and the brightest were often there in the Bicoastal Elite, or at least a large, if unrepresentative sampling of the best, and their factories and ideas produced vastly more per person than any average citizen of Flyover Country.
The great cosmopolitan cities truly were great, magnus.
But all things change. The Red Partisan would have you think that the cities drifted from their moorings, and got into increasingly illogical binds. But its also true that the Blue Cities were being faced increasingly with a number of separate choices with no palatable alternatives. But they still imagined the times to be their glory days, and that their dominance would never be challenged. And so they never found the courage to do the hard things that might have saved them.
One word spelled the doom of cities. Not crime, not taxes (although both surely did not help), but telecommuting. It is an open fact, not much remarked upon, or considered that most people simply do not prefer to live in vast cities. Oh, they are wonderful paeans to the grandeur of cities, and the marvels of living close-up with so many fascinating people, and the beauty of university and museums, but in the end, most people would prefer to live in a small town.
Back in the day of the Bicoastal Elites power, such was not possible unless you accepted a limited world, and a poor pay. Now, with telecommuting, one can work together on a project all over the nation, or indeed the world. One can do top-quality work with world-class experts, each living in the type of terrain that he finds most congenial.
The writer sees cactus, the illustrator mountain lilies, and the publisher lithe young females sunning on a beach. All are happy.
Except for the ones at the top of the old power pyramid. Their rental properties decline in value as the flood of new, ambitious workers trails off, but still the price the powerful pay is still too high for the lack of value they receive. In the old days, one had to be close to talent in order to arrange things. Physically close.
And as the economy of the cities tails off, their workforces need new services such as unemployment (which was contracted at very generous levels in the old sunshine days of boom), but now the taxes to pay for these new services is at an all-time low. Instead of a steadily rising economy greasing over differences, we have a shrinking pie. Every man jack is shouting “Let the other bum lose out, I deserve my share.”
Crime is rising as well, and here the cities face only the most obvious face of a challenge. Will they weather the changes by austerity and true cutbacks, and accept their declining role? Will they crack down as needed? But men of power, accustomed to insuring their power by the handing out of gifts are not the cold sort eager to cut back. Instead, they turn avaricious eyes to the new centers of power.
Why should not the new wealthy lands pay the cities? Did not the cities train the human capital these new lands are using? Did not the cities…there are various excused promulgated, and they are not totally without merit. But the new rising powers are in no mood to bow to the old master who sneered at them. Perhaps if he begged they might have, but he demands as his right.
And there is one thing you should know about the Red Lands, which even the fiercest partisan will admit too. They are not the sort of people to whom backing up, and compromise come easily too. It is thought that the Cities are havens of violence, but actually the suburbs and small towns of the Red Lands are more violent on a per person basis. Because the Red Man or Woman tend to be more direct, and prone to reach for a gun to handle personal insult or threat of danger.
This has positive effects. The Mafia and the Organitskaya tried to move out to the Red as well, but they ran right into a fusillade of bullets driven by ordinary citizens in no mind to let some two-bit thugs dictate to them how they should live. The Yakuza did better because they had a tradition of deference to law-abiding citizens. And sadly enough, every town needs its dark side. Often, the Yaks filled this need with discretion.
Perhaps if things had rested there it might have been okay. It is often true when someone says “Its not the money, it’s the principle of the thing.” that it is indeed the money. But while people get vicious and bitter about money, they more rarely get into a fine fury about it, and then declare war. Things would have been tense and nasty, and more examples of the Internet Hub Bill would have been passed.
Ah, the infamous Internet Hub Bill. It was passed in Congress, and almost immediately ignored by the Hub companies. That is until Federal Marshals, backed up by tanks enforced it (which was necessary as several governors threatened to call out the National Guard). It was based on a widely criticized study that suggested that the best place for all the Internet’s major junction points was in the major cities run by the Blue political forces. This study was akin to all those studies where people suggest the most efficient location for the new plant headquarters, and then after spending a million bucks pick the location closest to the CEO’s house that won’t spoil his property values. I think honest Blue Partisans will admit that this study was seriously biased.
And once those Hubs were moved in, the next day, or at most the next week, had brand-new tax bills on everything that went through the Hubs. The City Angelus, Nova Yawk, Bostoney, and Me-am-I, and their lesser kin had just succeeded in taxing the Internet, not only for the Nation, but for much of the world as well. They thought this was just fine, and with happy faces announced plans to rebuild their cities.
The rest of the nation was not amused. The amount of spam and viruses that sprouted all over the Bicoastal Cities was enough to cause (along with the incompetence of the new managers, since much of the old managers of the Hubs quit in protest) a near complete shutdown of the Internet for a week, worldwide. Many ordinary Red citizens who had never sent a virus, or even seriously contemplated doing so, did for the first time this week.
But there was a second tine of the pitchfork the nation was suspended upon. Moral issues. At this point in the conversation that was national life, neither side understood the other. Oh, the Reds understand the Blues a bit better since the Blues had most of the broadcasting power in the Nation, and had been using it for generations to spread their message. But even still, the Reds could hardly wrap their minds around the Blue’s ideas.
In Red terms, most Blue ideas made no sense.
The Blue’s didn’t even have that advantage. They shadowboxed figures of their own imagination, and worried that book-burning hordes were about to descend on their precious libraries. But there is little doubt that understanding would have made much difference. It merely would have replicated the Red’s stance in reverse.
Both sides accused the other of being evil, stupid, and lying. Some of this was true. It always is. On both sides.
Like in the preceding Civil War, there arose over the preceding decades to all this foo-fa-ra a defining issue that allowed one to summarize another person’s views pretty quickly. At first, it was complicated as many Reds had subtle views, or even Blue views on this topic. But, as science advanced, the age of viability lowered dramatically. Improvements in the picture-making capability of ultrasound, and computer models allowed one to see what one’s child would look like in a year, or ten years. Sympathy for the right of women to terminate a fetus declined, especially among women. Add to that Blue rigidity which basically read one out of the party if one deviated in the slightest from the position that if the doctor hasn’t slapped him yet, he’s still just tissue, and the Reds started slowly to turn more rigid as well, but after they had captured a lot of people.
It was the Civil War all over again. One party wanted to allow the treatment of what some considered to be human beings as property. They were supported by a Supreme Court decision. The other side, the Whigs balked at the opposite choice, preferring to dodge the issue. Thus arose the Party of Lincoln that faced the issue, and eventually gave out a heartfelt denial. The Party of Lincoln stood for the argument that a person is a person, not property.
This happened here as well. The original Red political party tried to be open to all, and tried to bridge the gap between both sides. But in the end, a breakaway candidate overturned the party establishment, and while it was a near-run thing, the establishment backed down at pretty much the last second in what was then dubbed “As the first exciting Nominating Convention in over a Century” (the preceding others having became a mere rah-rah party instead of an actual contest). The bitter establishment sulked, and the breakaway candidate went on to win the Presidency.
The new, energized party of the Red was enthused. Finally, they had what they had been trying to have for forty years. An honest-to-goodness unapologetic supporter of their side. But, as things later show, perhaps the so-called “Loser Establishment” of the Red, named for their tendency to lose gracefully to the Blues might have been right.
Another factor to keep in mind was that the leading lights of the day were Boomers. That is, on both sides of the Red/Blue divide were intensely idealistic and uncompromising firebrands who absolutely believed that Justice was on their side. The same children who had earlier cried “What if they gave a War, and no one came?” for the Blues now were most willing to lead their side to war with the EVIL of the other side. In this respect, it was again a replay of the Old Civil War.
In that war, there had been firebrands on both sides. Anti-slavery advocates of great fervor, the Abolitionists, and Southern diehard loyalists, Firebrands, who would not compromise. In that time, it came to a beating on the Senate floor with a cane. In the prelude to the Second American Civil War, a group of “thugs” with military skills executed, House Majority Whip Stephen Parker as he left his home. It later developed that Islamofascist terrorists were recruited to do this shooting by fanatics on the Blue side.
Once captured, they justified this action by pointing out that Parker was “a Hitler type, and if one is faced with Hitler, one does what one has to do.” This defense produced wide outrage among the Reds who sputtered that Parker was no Hitler, and indeed for a few days it looked as if the general mourning across the land from both Red and the more responsible Blues, and shock at the murder might derail the oncoming confrontation.
Until the verdict came in. The deed was done in a Blue city. So a Blue jury heard the trial. And a Blue jury nullified, after a brilliant defense by a world-class lawyer (Timothy Givens…who later said, before committing suicide five years later… ”I wish I had lost that case. If only, then all this might not have come.”), and a somewhat fumbling prosecution the jury nullified the verdict. It was clear jury nullification for their was indeed taped confessions.
Still the jury rendered the verdict “Not guilty”, and went home proud of itself, not realizing they had just lit the fuse. A month earlier the Internet Hubs Taxes had kicked in, and most Americans were struggling under the weight of new taxes, and new ways of doing things that seemed less efficient than the old ways. And then, this blatant assassination squad got off scot-free…
People in the Red areas, the Heartlands, went a little insane with fury. The Blue, or Bicoastal areas, were nervous, but claimed the ‘rule of law’, and gulped hard, and put on a smug face. Perhaps if they had not done that last, that last tiny bit of ‘we’re right, and not only we’re right, but you’re stupid.’ then maybe things might not have fallen apart. The worst thing was it wasn’t real. Most of the Blue knew that the verdict was wrong even if they could not admit it to themselves. They were scared and furious and at the same time contemptuous. People say there isn’t destiny. There is destiny. Its character, its past choices, its habit, its how you turn in a crisis when you don’t even think about it.
Neither side was in the mood to back up, and in fact, many had no inkling of how to do that. And when some few did make a gesture, it was either derided as a trap, or taken as just desserts, and the takers then demanded more. In ways, there was a similarity between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia in that both sides learned from each other. In the past decades, if the Red invented a new form of direct mailing, it would not be two weeks before the Blue were doing the exact same thing while calling out imprecations on the Red for doing that.
In the wake of de-constructionism, logic was wrecked, especially for the Blue leaders. But while logic always had an existence, the deconstructionist were right to a degree in that political power often over-informed one’s views on a topic. Ironically, their theory stripped logic of much of the rest of its power. Add to that the naked distrust exhibited by both sides with the comment heard frequently “If a Blue (or Red) said the Sun was to rise in the East tomorrow, I’d double-check it.”)
Both sides considered the other to be inveterate liars, while many considered their own side to be pure of any taint of dishonesty. And if there was any, it was made necessary by the other side’s actions.
The Blue’s were the worst at this as they held the greatest fear of the Reds. They told the world so many times that the Reds wanted to institute a “Dark Ages crossed with Nazism” that they started to believe this nonsense. This led them to two unfortunate conclusions 1)Anything one did to oppose the Red was justified because of how evil the Red was. 2)Anyone who supported the Red must be a purblind idiot, or actively in connivance with EVIL for their own personal gain or out of deep emotional issues they sought to cause pain.
In other words, the Blue thought the Red was demonic.
The Red had, of course, no kind thoughts about the Blue. They varied between considering them completely clueless, and incipient totalitarians who were eagerly awaiting the day they could open up the gates to the gulags, and machine gun Red Partisans in the forest. But this fear, never did quite gain the same hold on the Red imagination, perhaps because the Red never believed in their heart of hearts that the Blue had a chance of winning. Or perhaps the Red was more stoic, less imaginative, and more bolstered by faith in God so that the fears did not get the same hold on them as did the Blue’s fears on them. So, it did not have quite the same toxic effect as the Blue’s fears.
A flurry of Denial of Service attacks started things up. No one knows who launched the first attack…Indeed it may have been an anarchist intent on blowing the whole rotten system up (and with no plan for replacement either.) But soon other attacks came back the other way.
In order to stabilize things at all, the Net had to be cut in two. Which only slowed down the fight as now Americans used off-shore links to circle the globe and slap each other through the global links that had not been cut.
A Protest Warrior group (a Red group in a Blue state) did their typical shtick of counter-protesting a group of Blue demonstrators. But their wit was not appreciated, and before the Protest Warriors could regroup, over five hundred demonstrators launched into the fifty Warriors. Despite the superior military training, the Warriors were overwhelmed.
And here a hard core showed its hand. It seemed a counter-counter protestor group had been waiting a chance to jump the Warriors, and “teach the fascists the only way they know how to learn”. I.E. by setting over a dozen of them on fire after dousing them with lighter fluid.
This was an example of what happened nation-wide. In the run-up to this, the voting areas had become more pure. Also, the side with the less numbers in an area tended to hide, or leave often for good reason.
It seemed clear that this was premeditated murder. And the Red just knew in their heart of hearts that this time would be like last time…the perpetrators would walk, and get big book contracts while the dead bodies of their victims rotted in silent graves. Over the next twenty-four hours, a number of riots broke out in what had been peaceable Red communities, and trashed symbols of Blue power. Also a number of Blue citizens of special annoyance factor, or of high national status were shot.
Movie houses were a special target because many Americans were in general ill at them because of the steadily increasing ticket price which had reached twelve dollars per ticket. What had been a Middle American pastime was becoming the province of the rich in front of everyone’s eyes, and since the Movies knew where their bread was buttered, they started to make movies more appealing to “limousine liberals” than ordinary Americans which the Red regarded as an added insult.
“Not only can’t you afford to go here, but nothing here is any interesting. So Go Away, ya philistine!” was the message of the movie theatres.
The shooting of ordinary Blue citizens, and the assassination of five major Blue figures (including two movie stars, a governor, a metropolitan mayor, and a senator) was a one-two punch that absolutely terrified both rank-and-file Blue, and their leaders. At this point, they had a hold of the tiger’s tail, and it is hard to see how anyone could have avoided a disaster at this point.
But calling on the Federal Government to send out the National Guard was definitely not the way to handle things. The Blue had a more imaginative, and theoretical turn of mind which also meant they sometimes lost track of ground realities like the fact that most Guard were Red. The National Guard suffered a plethora of ‘communication difficulties’ while a frantic behind the scenes shuffle got the governors of a dozen states to declare States of Emergency in their own states which would require all the National Guard on ‘flood control efforts’.
This was the time of the famous ‘Weekend of Baseball’ photograph. A Blue photographer took a picture of hundreds of National Guardsmen playing baseball in their uniforms on bright sunny fields in a state park just a dozen miles away from a riot-torn city where Red rioters were punishing Blue citizens. At this point, the Blue fully crossed the line, and joined in the blinding fury that the Red had already drank of. Blue police forces began to exile Red citizens from cities. Red politicians and pundits that were in Blue cities were captured. Gangs were given free sway to savage Red businesses and homes. And then when a small group of Hispanic business owners used shotguns to try to hold back a rampaging mob of gangbangers, a police helicopter came in and tear-gassed the business owners.
Blue congressmen demanded the Federal Government intervene since they hadn’t learned from last time. Red congressmen refused. Both sides passed resolutions trying the other side for treason, and demanding immediate executions by ‘any loyal Americans’.
It was not known who, although most serious analysts think the Iranians were responsible, but someone smuggled a nuke into Atlanta. It went off, and the Blue had thought the Red were insane. They now realized that the Red had been being polite and kind.
The overseas military stayed out of it. But the local military was tossed knee deep into the mess. Two loose confederations of factions started to go after each other with enthusiasm. From the beginning as tanks rolled and fighter jets roared, the fighting was brutal. Nova Yawk got napalmed, and burned for two days. Many a small American town was simply wiped out as tank shells blew up a dam above it and buried the town under the water.
Both sides thought they had the edge. The Red were convinced the Blue were cowards, and did not know how to fight. The Blue were convinced the Red were stupid. Neither was remotely true. Both sides were Americans…that is, some of the most dangerous warriors in the history of the world.
The Blue had several aircraft carriers they had overrun which had been in harbor. They also had the products of some of the finest universities and research labs. And not inconsiderably, they had aid from a number of foreign countries.
But the vast mass of military might both civilian and professional military was in the Red states. And the Blue generals knew this. So when the first tank spear came streaming down the White Mountains toward Nova Yawk it was met by a deliberate release of tactical nuclear weapons that broke the spear in an hour of fire and doom that set the White Mountains burning for weeks.
After that, there was a pause where sanity might be regained. Thoughtful people on both sides wondered if the country should be simply split, and each side go its own way. But, the Blue problem was essentially the same as before the War. They needed Red money to rebuild their cities. Many of them also couldn’t accept not being top dog because everyone with clear vision knew what would happen if the Red went their own way. Within a decade, America would mean Red Heartlands, and the Blue would be ‘that other place’.
The North in the first Civil War had pressed things because it needed the money from tariffs, and because it abominated the practice of slavery, and because of pride. In the Second American Civil War, the Bicoastal Blues needed the Internet Tax, and believed in creating a world without boundaries where a person could be whatever they wanted to be and history, or gender, or anything would not stand in their way of ultimate freedom, and they were proud because they had been the boss and who gives that up willingly.
And so the Bicoastals pressed, and let us be fair, the Heartlanders were not far behind them in pressing back. Hatred, revenge, and outrage burned brightly in every Red heart at the Tragedy of the White Mountains. The Red wanted to keep their own prosperity, they believed in freedom as well but a freedom limited by other human’s rights, and they were angry at how they had been abused and treacherously treated in the past and when finally their just due was come to them the old thieves wanted another round of beer at their expense. It was too much, and especially when it seemed that the drunken thieves wanted to drive the car home rather than let a sober fellow drive home.
At this point, tactical nuclear warfare became an accepted part of the Second American Civil War.
If the verser, who may be dropped in here, or earlier, does not radically change things for the better the ‘good’ end result yields ten to fifteen million dead from war, criminality, and starvation with a possibility of Blue submission followed by a painful Reconstruction (although it would not be called that), or a Partition. The bad result yields seventy to two hundred ten million dead, and a total collapse of society. Certain ports such as San Francisco, New Orleans, and New York are colonized by foreign powers but the destabilized and weakened exterior world is in no mind to enter the vast hinterlands populated by the utterly savage survivors who have a reputation as the most ferocious barbarians the world has ever seen. The hinterlands would become a place that would make Mad Max’s world seem enlightened and pacific.
Thanks to Cskendrick for the additional analysis reflected in some of the updates.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:11 am
It bears mentioning that Iraq War/WOT experience is proportional across population.
If it came down to a civil war, the Reds would have a first-mover advantage but inside of 18-24 months the tide would turn inexorably.
And as before, the best outcome for the conservatives would be to force a stalemate.
The worst would be to see the entire country irradiated, toxified and contaminated with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons fallout.
I’d float a guess of casualities at least in the tens of millions in the “nicest” scenario — a short war and a treaty of partition after mutual recognition that this was not just the certain end of the Republic but very likely the end of Americans as a people as well.
In the worst case, the tac nukes and other WMDs are used, and given the abundance of infrastructure, expertise and the utmost stakes, more are made.
And it goes on and on.
Likely death toll from war, disease, famine/drought in this scenario – 70-210 million.
And the near-certainty that central North America would be populated, in time, by other societies, or carved into spheres of Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Russian, European and Latin American influence as well.
Suffice to say, Second Civil War scenarios are compelling.
Let me know how much of the country remains once it’s over in your ruminations.
Because in mine, the United States and everything good about it dies when it stops being united.
September 12th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Cskendrick,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I agree with both your ‘nice’ and ‘worst case’ end results except I’m not sure NorthAm gets colonized in the end. I think the rest of the world would fall apart on its own, and the reputation of Americans as insanely ferocious fighters would forbid the creation of anything more than something like the Chinese controlled Port of New San Francisco. There would be a few civilized foreign control ports and the vast hinterlands of utmost savagery.
In this scenario, the Red are largely hoping for partition.
I think the Red would win as the vast mass of power is on their side, but it would definitely be a Pyhrric victory.
There would be a pushback after some time as you say, and perhaps that moment might be a good time for the Partition to be re-floated.
—————-
I am a tabletop game designer for an alternate reality system called Multiverser. Which is to say that I create a scenario that allows a gamemaster to drop the player character, a ‘verser’, into the scenario, and let him try to deal with and perhaps influence things hopefully for the better. But a note on likely end states would be helpful because not every GM can look at this, and extrapolate where its going.
This and other unpalatable alternate realities I’m collecting in a group called ‘Grim Futures’. These range from a ‘clash of Fascisms in France 2030′ to a smallpox martyr attack on America, and onward to a Total Surveillance Society run by a American-Chinese CoDominium.
I’ve read Orson Scott Card’s ‘Empire’ and Tom Kratman’s ‘A State of Emergency’ and Joe Haldeman’s ‘Downbelow Twenty’ with each having a different take on the Red/Blue civil war. I wanted one in which armies clashed, cities burned, and nukes were popped.
And I’m always open to ideas for other variants so if you have a favorite speculation you’d like to see elaborated….
October 8th, 2007 at 11:53 am
your ideas are based on the idea that democrats and republican are emenies and actually allies. but I have a quote to say as well as my idea of the Second Civil War. “Why? because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain thier power. Words offer the means to the meanings and, For those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there? Cruelty and injuctice, intolerance and oppression. And where you once had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance, ceorcing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? who’s to blame? There are those who are more responsible than others. And they will be held accountable. but again, truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only to look into a mirror.” this is truth behind a mask. If there is a second civil war, it will not be about blue and red or democratic and republican; it will be about freedom and oppression, civilians vs. miltary, people vs. government. and who to blame for the government attemps to control the people? people themselves are to blame.
October 8th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Vismyname,
You may have a point, but I write a LOT of worlds with a LOT of different conceptions.
My ‘Grim Futures’ collection is meant to be a group of alternate realities which starts from Here and Now, and discusses various ways things could go completely to pieces.
Now, I’d be glad to discus
October 8th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
My ‘comment’ function hung, so lets have another go…
I’d be glad to discuss your idea more, but more details would be nice to clarify the nature of the idea. Also, your basic political stance would be useful information as from your writing, you could be Paleoconservative, Libertarian, or Leftist, and a couple other possibilities occur to me.
I actually don’t see that much censorship, and while there are speech codes at some universities, I think they are minor issues that will get dealt with.
However, its certainly possible to create a world along some of the general lines you’ve described. Again more details of your idea would be nice.
May 2nd, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Have you considered that the military might side with average citizens to restore the constitution and dethrone our corporate backed and two headed oligarchy? Everyone’s getting fed up with the govt.spending our money for bailouts, treading on the constitution, interfering with our privacy, and basically continuing the the same policies no matter which party is elected more than the other. I do accept elements of the military supporting our govt blindly and betraying their oath, however. Ultimately, the decidedly fascist police state we have would lose. (Note: I primarily mean economically fascist, but the broader definition is beginning to become quite accurate. Look up The End of America by Naomi Wolf. )
y
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:56 am
Sure. Look at Kratman’s ‘State of Disobedience’ for further on this. You’re talking about a Populist Revolution which is one way things could play out.
And I’m not happy with the spread of actual fascism in America a la the GM/UAW bailout where the politically connected get to mess over the unconnected.
What is Ms. Wolf’s arguement? About all I know of her is that she is a feminist.
If you like, and if you give me some useful ideas, I can probably sketch up something in a couple days and post it. It won’t be as detailed or lengthy as Red and Blue, but I’m a game designer making game settings for alternate realities, and one of the possibilities is definitely some sort of Populist Revolution.
With R and B, I wanted to deal with a couple ideas. One, I wanted nuclear weapons. Two, I wanted to point out the worldviews of the opposing sides, and how they saw each other which was not how each other actually was. One key point was how the Red thought the Blue was cowardly because the Blue keeps on protesting against war, but the Blue only protests against wars they don’t like. They are not pacifists (even if they claim they are), nor are they cowards. Stuff like that.
However, I don’t really see too much police state fascism in existence now.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Basically, Wolf outlines the 10 steps that all dictators take to consolidate power in a free society. But if you don’t trust her as a source, look up Gerald Celente. He is a self decribed “atheist” of politics and looks only at the data. He basically is able to figure out, within a reasonable margin of error, what will happen based on current trends in economics, international politics, etc. He says we’re in a fascist state or very close to becoming one, and has no political reason to say so. On the flip side, he says that there will be a tax revolution against the govt. after they try to increase taxes to pay for the stimulus BS. Also, look up the Oathkeepers.They’re a group of Iraq and Afghanistan vets and concerned civilians who promise to keep the oath to defend the Constitution. But just to inform you, I’ve been taking an AP class in Govt., and one of the things we’ve studied is how, since the 70′s, voters have become more moderate, and the only people who vote solely on party basis are party activists.
yf
May 8th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
So, what do you think about this SECOND STIMULUS bailout they’re proposing? I think that this just shows how isolated most of the people in govt currently are. If they keep going in this direction, Celente’s predictions may come true sooner rather than later. Anyways, I thought I’d add to your comments on the Blue. What is strange is that they supported slavery, racism, and started Korea and Vietnam, yet have called themselves antiwar and all about “tolerance” for about 20 years. I know part of it has to do with the southerners and hawk dems becoming Reps/neocons, but I still find it puzzling. But it really doesn’t matter because the Reps do the same things as the Dems.
May 8th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
The problem with American politics is that the system requires compromise at the grassroots level.
In a parliamentary nation like Britain or Israel, the chief executive–Prime Minister in those cases–is chosen by the legislators. The legislators are in turn chosen by local districts. Thus you can have a legislature that is 30% Conservative, 24% Liberal, 16% Green, 12% Libertarian, 10% Consumerist, and 8% Socialist. These factions will then try to form coalitions within the parliament in order to get control. So for example the Conservatives will offer concessions to the Libertarians and Consumerists in order to get their votes, which would give them 52% and let them control the government and chose the Prime Minister; but if the Consumerists become dissatisfied, they pull out of the coalition and get the Liberals to make concessions to them, combining with the Greens and Socialists for 58%, and putting a Liberal Prime Minister in power. But because of this constant jockeying for control, the little parties have a lot of power–some say an inordinate amount, as the bigger parties must particularly appeal to them to get anything done at all.
In the U.S., though, the chief executive is selected independently of the legislature. Thus these coalitions which in parliamentary nations are formed in the legislature in our country are formed in the political parties. The Democrats try to pull in labor by being against management, blacks and Hispanics by being in favor of positive discrimination, homosexuals by supporting gay marriage, and women by targeting liberal women’s issues. The Republicans attempt to hold Managament through pro-business policies, religious conservatives through strong moral positions, the middle class through protectionist policies. The trick on both sides is to appeal to as broad a range of voters as you can hope to hold around a few core positions. Whoever builds the better coalition puts the executive in the White House–and also has the party machine to put legislators and governors and other officials in office. The minor parties have no hope of winning the presidential election because they don’t have the coalition support, and little hope of winning any other offices because they don’t have the party machinery.
That’s also why they look so similar. Each group is fairly confident of its core–the environmentalists are not going to vote Republican and know that voting Green is a wasted vote, the pro-lifers are not going to vote Democrat and know that voting Christian Conservative is a wasted vote–so the bulk of their effort is coalition building, trying to appeal to as may people “in the middle” as possible, so that they can erode the support for the other party.
I hope this helps.
–M. J. Young
May 10th, 2009 at 10:36 am
I appreciate your insight, but my main point was that both parties are liberal now and give lip service to culture war issues to distract people. The neocons are dragging the Reps with the hawkish instincts they have from being ex-Dems who didnt fight in Vietnam, while the Dems have become significantly more Left-leaning than in the past. They both just fight over which rights get violated and which corporate monopolies get preference. Because of this, I’m not surprised that Celente is predicting a third party presidency in 2012. What I wonder about is if he thinks this will occur before or during a possible Second Revolution. I’ll have to check that out.
May 10th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
I don’t know; it’s difficult to assess that claim.
I recall stumbling on a speech being given by Noam Chompski, brilliant linguist who somehow figured that qualified him to analyze politics. He was railing against then-President Clinton for being too conservative. I could remember that it had not been that long before that most of those I knew in the religious right had complained that most of the Republicans were too liberal. Those outside the middle complain that the candidates are all the same, and all too far to the opposite side from them, because in the United States major political parties usually win by fielding centrist candidates.
That’s not to say you’re wrong. I think I was still in high school when I realized that the very concepts of “liberal” and “conservative” suggested a gradual slide toward the liberal. Conservative, after all, was defined by holding the line, trying to keep things as they are (or were a few years ago), while liberal was defined by pushing toward something new and different. The conservatives of today are defending the principles of Jefferson, who in his own time was a liberal fighting against conservatives in his own time. Whatever ground the liberals gain in one generation, the conservatives defend in the next. The great liberal wins of my youth are the baseline now, and while there are some I would like to see rescinded, it is more likely that the line will hold a brief time and then move to whatever is next.
A third party presidency is not impossible, but it has been incorrectly predicted quite a few times before. The problem is that such a candidate has to differentiate himself from the mainstream, and the mainstream candidates are walking so close to the middle ground that that means going for the extremes. In practice, a strong third party liberal candidate means a Republican victory (Anderson in the Carter/Reagan election), and a strong third party conservative candidate means a Democratic victory. A scenario like the first Lincoln election would mean that there are strong third party candidates on both extremes, siphoning off the party faithful who are sick of the middle ground, so that no candidate takes 50% of the Electoral College votes and the Electoral College has to debate and bargain to come to a majority opinion. This is so implausible in the modern world that the entire Electoral College process is largely ignored by the press. In fact, there is a movement at present to eviscerate it of any remaining significance, by having all the states pass laws assigning their Electoral College delegates to whatever candidate wins the national popular vote. The leaders of the two major parties so clearly understand the importance of building coalitions and appealing to the middle ground voter that we are unlikely to see a third party make a more significant impact than Anderson (who took about five percent of the popular vote and no electorals, if memory serves).
So I’m surprised anyone would predict a third party President. The odds are so very much against it, it would require a complete splintering of both major parties to achieve.
–M. J. Young
May 12th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I think he’s predicting that they will become politically viable and a deciding factor in ’12. I may have been incorrect about them winning the presidency though. Of course, he might be suggesting, in a roundabout way, that Ron Paul will break with the Reps. I can see both things happening if Obama doesn’t change his policy direction and if the Reps. still cling to Bush era positions. Ron Paul doesn’t really have any major skeletons that either party could use if he went 3rd party, so I will be interested to see how Celente’s predictions turn out. He’s usually right on the money.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Ron Paul’s problem would be that if he splits to become a third party candidate, depsite his general viability, he will split the Republican party and hand the election to the Democrats–unless someone equally viable splits the Democratic party. That is particularly unlikely. Obama would have to be deemed by many to be not re-electable, or he would run again. H. Clinton is unlikely to run against him because she stands a better chance of winning in ’16 if she is seen as a party supporter in ’12. Most of the others are either non-viable (the current third party candidates) or of insufficient clout to split the party. However, the term is still young, and Obama could antagonize his own party sufficiently to split it. In that case, there would be a strong incentive for the Republican party to unify behind whatever candidate was viable, and Paul might wind up top of the ticket if it looks like he could win without them anyway.
I suppose that’s a somewhat jaded view of American Presidential politics, but it seems more and more that a party gets into office based on the problems in the opposing party rather than the strengths in its own. Obama is in the great tradition of democrats elected based on charisma/likeability. (I think we can include Clinton in that, and Carter and Kennedy, which I do without disdain toward their abilities–Carter was a remarkably capable man who was to significant degree was hampered by his own campaign strategy, defeating Ford by projecting the image of an ordinary guy instead of the well-educated millionaire businessman and former commander of a nuclear submarine that he actually was. People did not take him seriously when he tried to get serious. In the end, though, he wasn’t defeated so much by Reagan as by Khomeni and Anderson.) In fairness, Republicans also tend to win on charisma, but a different kind–a perception of capability. That seems to be what won elections for Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and GHW Bush. The GW Bush/Gore election seems to be an anomaly, in which a less-than-competent-seeming Republican defeated a less-than-likeable Democrat, although in that case a significant part of it was the Clinton legacy, I think.
I should say I’m an amateur at this stuff and probably out of my depth. Hopefully Eric will come back and tell us both where he sees flaws in our reasoning.
Thanks again for posting.
–M. J. Young
May 19th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
I think that Kucinich would be the one to split the Dems, but it’s more likely that Obama will succeed in uniting most of his base against him w/ most moderates, libertarians and conservatives. Apparently, Obama has been accused of being the B-word by Rachel Maddow (Bush). And if you look at what he’s been doing, he’s Bush w/ better speech/rhetoric. On foreign policy, for the most part, it looks like he’s outBushing Bush. And he has continued to deepen the black hole we call the deficit. The fact that Ann Coulter endorsed Ron Paul shows that the Reps are beginng to come back to earth. Also, Ron Paul has gathered a coalition of 170-something Congressmen (almost 2/5) to support the Anti Fed Reserve bill he has proposed. The question is whether Paul will run as Rep and change their direction or if he’ll run 3rd Party.
May 19th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
The Republicans will want to unify their party and draw from the middle ground; the conservative ranks want a return to conservative principles, but that’s not likely to happen. (McGovern shows what happens when a party runs a candidate who stands atrongly for the party’s distinctive principles against an opponent who is closer to the middle ground.) I hear good things about Paul, but actually do not know enough about him to know where he stands on any of the key issues.
So you might be right. For the best outcome, Paul needs to persuade the Republicans that he is the best candidate for their objectives, and the independents that he is closer to their hopes than Obama. It wouldn’t hurt if left wing Democrats gave Obama a hard time in the primaries, but I don’t see them losing him as a candidate unless he does terribly poorly with the moderates and independents over the next couple years.
But I might be out of my depth here.
–M. J. Young
May 19th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Well, that’s the thing, the Reps haven’t been true conservatives since the 80′s. Ron Paul is a true conservative mixed with libertarian; he wants to get rid of a lot of fed agencies, legalize marijuana, close down most or all of our overseas bases, try to get rid of the huge deficit, and generally is for leaving a lot of domestic issues for the states to decide and reducing govt power. In short, he can bring the Reps into this century and help restore the Constitutions power. But also, out of the candidates who ran against McCain in the primaries, he was the only politically successful one in November. Thus, he is in a position of influence and the media are recognizing this, primarily by not caring about Rush L. and interviewing Paul. Basically, what it boils down to is Paul wants a non intrusive small govt., while the Rush and Obama crowds want an even larger govt. w/ more power.
May 20th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
I was reading Megan McCardle at the Atlantic.com today about California going bankrupt, and whether Obama would bail it out. I think he will, and I think its a horrible idea. One commenter suggested that he would, but he would insist on a price of the CA gov’t doing some seriously bad liberal ideas which seems to be his modus operandi. Borrow money from grandchildren (to an extent even Bush could not imagine), bailout target, but insist target go do something real liberal thus getting a twofer.
Does that answer how I feel about any thing labelled a Second Stimulus? (: The first time was bad enough. Let’s just finish the job of amputation. One arm is not enough!
President Carter was probably the worst president of the 2Oth Century. He did not believe in using force. He did not have a plan; instead he thought he was smarter than everyone else (sounds like Sen. Kerry there) which qualified him. Or so I’ve heard.
Republicans win when they 1)Go Conservative. 2)Project a Happy Image. 3)Be Serious about #1.
This is a center-right nation, but given a choice between REAL Democrats and Dem-Lite, people will pick the ones with conviction. This is part of the reason RINOs lose. GW Bush, Sr., Dole, and McCain had a lot of things in common. Charming. Old, white guys. War Heroes. Ran terrible campaigns. Lost in presidential elections. RINOs.
Now it could be that America hates War Heroes, but I’m going to go for RINOism.
Right now there is a civil war in the Republican Party. The latest skirmish is over the NRSC, a Senate group for R’s, that has endorsed Gov. Crist in Florida, and tried to outlaw by Rule 11, a handsome, young, Hispanic who’s conservative. In other words, the Moddies are trying to use rule tricks to get the conservative early. The NRSC has received some rather pointed threats in response, and I think they may be getting a bit nervous.
Its especially annoying because the party leadership says ‘we need more Hispanics’. Evidently what they really mean is ‘we need more Hispanic moderates so we can keep on losing like in 2006 and 2008.’
Paul has a lot of good things, but he does have some connections to people, or so it seems that are not savory. Also, his rejection of neoconism is troubling.
We could see a third party arise because the RINOs don’t want to learn their lesson. I sympathize with them, a bit. They can either give up power in the Party, and win elections. Or keep power, and lose elections. Many of them seem to think that Milton’s Devil had a point.
And really Abortion=Slavery in so many ways, its not even funny. In Reagan’s day, everyone thought the Soviets would be around forever. We think Abortion is here to stay.
May 20th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
And I’ve scribbled up a Grim Futures for an Army coup d’ etat based on some of Wo9′s ideas, and some of mine. Its called GF-Populist Revolution but thats a misnomer. Its really a coup d’ etat.
Its in the discussion area of this website.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:55 pm
The discussion area is here (that’s a link), for anyone unaware of it.
Eric, I’d like to think you’re right, but when you say, “This is a center-right nation,” I can’t help wondering whether the fact that you’re in the middle of the conservative belt is warping your view. The defection of Senator Specter from the Republicans to the Democrats is telling: the urban areas are strongholds for Democratic/Liberal viewpoints, and population is shifting toward the urban areas. Most of the Eastern Seaboard from Boston to Atlanta leans Democrat, as does the industrial belt through Pennsylvania out to Chicago, and the urban strongholds of California. Rural America leans Republican, but it is dwindling. Specter was challenged by a conservative Republican, who I would say has no chance of carrying the district that includes Philadelphia if he winds up positioned against Specter in the general. I know a bit about Specter, being somewhat local. He’s managed to keep a Republican seat for the Philadelphia area by being perhaps the most liberal Republican in the Senate and listening to his constituents. I don’t like a lot of his positions, but I think they’re what kept him in office, and that they will continue to do so, because even with the conservatives in the suburbs Philadelphia really decides that seat, and Philadelphia will vote liberal if forced to the choice.
You see a part of the country where everyone is conservative. I see a part of the country where a conservative doesn’t stand a chance–one reason I have never ventured into politics. It is difficult in the extreme to get a clear perspective on the position of the nation; I doubt even Barna and Gallup and Pew have that. I’m probably New Jersey’s version of a right wing extremist; I’m probably too far to the left for you to consider me a viable candidate in your neck of the woods.
–M. J. Young
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:48 am
Obama got elected by, in part, pretending to be conservative. Politicians rarely pretend to be liberal, and then govern conservative. Its always the other way. Now why would that be?
Ask people if they’re liberal or conservative. You’ll get a lot more conservative answers. Its like 22% for Libs, and mid thirties for Cons.
Urban areas are strongholds, true. But most Blue states are blue because of the big city in them. Most of PA is red.
Specter is probably toast.
I actually get most of my information nationally from blogs. The local paper is somewhat left, and we locally have The Farm which is a fairly famous hippie establishment, and the Elephant Sanctuary which is so animal rights that they won’t allow you to look directly at the elephants. But they will allow you to look at a video stream of them….how nice. Still, when the rest of the nation voted for Obama, Tennessee went more red.
Specter’s defection is telling. We’ve got a collection of country club Republcans who don’t see why they have to be responsive to their constituents. I think Specter said something to that effect as he didn’t want to submit himself to a vote.
I think getting rid of Specter is a net plus for the R’s. Was the Council of the Wise better after Gandalf discovered Saruman’s treachery and broke his power or before it?
And you might be surprised. John Ringo lived in Massachusetts for a while, and sometimes he makes me look like a whining liberal.
Liberals are loud and in your face, supported by the media, and the government, and the churches. Conservatives are much more quiet because of the pressure, and because of good manners. You likely know more conservatives than you realize.
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:11 pm
I think that what people call themselves and what they are do not always agree. It is in some ways more respectable to be considered conservative than liberal (although for most, the respectable position is called moderate, and most people think that that’s what they are, and everyone else is on one extreme or the other). It is like calling yourself Christian: your definition and mine are fairly close to each others, I expect, but there are millions out there who would self-identify with the label who do not share the beliefs.
I probably have already mentioned him in this thread, but I cannot forget the ravings of Noam Chompsky, about how Clinton was really a far right conservative masquerading as a liberal to get the support of the Democratic party. Clinton’s support for business was probably the big reason (although it’s been years since I stumbled on this speech). There are already those saying that Obama pretended to be liberal but is now falling into the conservative policies of the previous administration, in connection with financial bailouts for major banking and industrial interests as well as supporting the military and the CIA in their actions in connection with detainees. The problem with being on either wing is that you see all the moderates as being on the other wing. The extremes only win in this country–FDR, Reagan–when people are really sick of the status quo and desperate to attempt anything that is truly different. Even then, sometimes a lot of people are sick of the status quo and the extremes still don’t win–McGovern.
As far as whether I know more conservatives or more liberals, most of the people I know are conservatives. I live in the sticks, and associate mostly with Evangelical and Charismatic Christian groups. My personal contacts are warped; most of New Jersey is liberal–not so much as Massachusetts, certainly, but very strongly so nonetheless. I don’t talk politics with most people, though, because I really am a conservative moderate, which makes me look like a left-wing liberal to a lot of these people (some of whom really do believe that the Trilateralists are a secret conspiracy to hand the control of government to the leading liberal industrialists, whoever they might be). Besides, most of the big poltical issues around here are about crop subsidies and farmland preservation, and I’m afraid I’m not interested enough in those topics to have a meaningful opinion.
I did vote in the recent election, but I felt the futility of my action even in the midst of doing so. It was quite evident that New Jersey was going to go liberal.
–M. J. Young
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Eric, how is rejecting neocons. bad? The idea itself was created by the hawkish elements of the Dems, who switched to Reps. in the 70′s/80′s. It has stressed our military and got us involved in unneccessary or ill-planned wars. Paul doesn’t reject use of force, he rejects using it as the first option (preemptively). Until the 80′s, it was always the Dems that were dragging us into other peoples fights. At any rate, both parties are liberal now and just posture to help the same incumbents cling to power. Really, I think most people are shifting to Libertarianism (true conservatism). It boils down to the fact that we want guns and the ability to smoke weed.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:02 am
I suspect that Moderate is a dozen different strains who all think they’re in the same club, but they’re not.
About Chomsky, one future I thought up had the Dem Party destroyed, the Republicans victorious, but with petulance and nastiness breaking out between the Republicans and the Libertarians (a return to the historical Era of Good Feelings was my model) until the Tarians break loose to form their own New Libertarian Party in 2025 which is weaker than the R’s, but the second party in American politics (which demands for structural reasons two parties). About 2060, the R’s get corrupt enough that we have a serious run of NLP power. And Chomsky? His followers became left-wing terrorists tracked down by the FBI.
I talked to that Finnish game designer for a bit, and he held the opinion that the NYT’s was right wing. If you’re a pure communist, I suppose the Post is a running dog lackey of the imperialists.
I remember a Communist trying to argue that 1984 was against capitalism when its clearly a slam on Communists. I place people who claim that Obama doing the socialist thing of bailing out the banks is doing the capitalist thing in the same boat. And then I set the boat on fire.
======
The Moderates are NOT in the other wing. OK, some are. Most moderates are people with little information who can be convinced with enthusiasm and a good sounding plan.
You bring the mountain to Mohammed.
A bold unashamed conservative with a smile and some decent plans will win. A RINO tends to lose. Happy Warrior Conservatives win.
Bush Sr., Dole, McCain all had a number of things in common. Old, white guys. Charming to be sure. War Heroes. Ran terrible campaigns. RINOs. Lost presidential elections.
Now it could be that America hates war heroes, but I think it was because they were RINOs. America, if given a choice between a Democrat and a Dem-lite is going to go for the gusto.
There are a couple additional reasons for this.
1. Mod asks Con ‘what you think of the Dem-lite.’ Con says ‘eh, better than the Dem by a bit’. Mod asks Dem. ‘what you think of the Dem’. Dem says ‘Greatest thing since sliced bread!!’ Remember Mods are persuadable.
2. Pournelle (Ringworld and Dream Park and Inferno and The Mote in God’s Eye) pointed out that country clubbers can’t get enthused volunteers for th eparty so they hire pros. But pros are simply not as good as enthused and trained volunteers at winning elections.
Conservatives who are actually conservative tend to win elections.
As to liberal industrialists…Big Business is not conservative. Big Business is for Big Business. Often they are influenced by the ‘air’ and so they tend toward liberal. Also being for the breaking down of moral boundaries helps the powerful who get to abuse the weaker that way.
Just imagine…you’re rich and powerful, and one party says its okay to hire strippers as long as you support the environment with a check, and the other side tends to demand a higher level of personal morality.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:16 am
WO9,
Have you read Populist Revolution? What did you think?
Neocons. We face a nexus of WMD and rogue states. WMD are getting easier and easier to make. The future holds nuts in their basements making fusion bombs. We’re not there yet.
We also have a resurgence of barbarism worldwide. I suspect that China is ultimately behind much of it which I deal with in my upcoming book–Anoniblogger.
As nukes and other WMD proliferate it becomes easier to ‘lose’ a nuke to a terrorist group which would provide deniability and then send the nuke in aboard a tramp freighter or in a cannister. Boom. Buh-bye one American city.
How many cities are we going to lose before we decide to just vape the whole Mid-east? Three?
Thats one endstate. Canned Sunshine. Nuclear genocide. I don’t like that one.
Another endstate is we surrender to the terrorists. Dhimmitude. I get beaten and my granddaughters get kidnapped because I’m a Christian. I don’t like that one either. (And I don’t have grandchildren yet, my tykes are quite young.)
One endstate is putting up borders with robotic machine guns….Fortress America. Problem is, the Maginot Line didn’t work that well. I think this would turn into Option One over a decade or two.
The last option is that we try to reform them. Its not a great option mind you. But its better than genocide or slavery.
June 15th, 2009 at 8:00 am
Did Gm deserve the bailout? You Ask me I would say NO.. why? When Honda and Toyota were out inventing new cars, GM was busy boasting about its pride and Showing off its hungry hungry Daughter the Hummer
June 16th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Alisha posted a comment which for some reason is not showing up, but I received an email on it.
….Did GM deserve the bailout? You ask me, I would say NO…..why? When Honda and Toyota were out inventing new cars, GM was busy boasting about its pride, and showing off its hungry hungry daughter the Hummer…..
Point by point. No GM did not deserve the bailout. However, at the costs of billions of Taxpayer money, Obama now owns a car company, and he’s paid off his political allies the Unions. My rejection of the bailout is more broad than Alisha. I’m opposed to bailouts in all but national security desperation. GM doesn’t qualify even if they were not proud and arrogant.
Of course, pride and arrogance of the unworthy is extremely galling. It also has the problem that it creates false guides. We look to the successful for advice on how to succeed. GM was apparent succeeding, and it may do so in a few years again (but its not True Success. Its success bought with Taxpayer money.) And worse, this rewarding of bad behavior encourages more bad behavior. Will GM reform now that they have been given billions for being bad?
The Hummer is where I disagree with Alisha. I can’t afford one. They probably wouldn’t even let me breath on one. I don’t object much to superyachts, or to Lear Jets. If Al Gore wants to fly in his private 727 or whatever, I cannot object except where it contradicts his stated belief that the world is about to die because of overdoses of carbon dioxide.
Perhaps I should scribble up a world where the Anointed Rich fly about in Lear Jets, and the Poor struggle with rickshaws while a few heroic inventors try to build Solar Power Satellites in orbit and Nuke Power Plants on the earth so thate everyone can have cheap electricity rather than just the Beautiful People. It’d be a religious tyranny, with extreme factions of the religion of Gaia engaging in human sacrifice.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Mea culpa. I get lists of new posts with the first few words, the poster’s name, and the name of the article to which they were attached, and somehow I thought Alisha’s was Spam (mistook her for a bot looking to post pseudo-relevant stuff so that the link on her user name would increase traffic to some site). It did not occur to me that it really was a relevant post. (I’m not entirely convinced even now that she’s a real poster, but since you’ve responded I’ll take it that the subject is relevant and give her the benefit of the doubt.)
My apologies to both of you.
–M. J. Young, Moderator
August 18th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Update:I realize I haven’t commented on this scenario for a year, but after considering other factors, I think a Balkanization and guerilla war/asymmetrical war of secession in the U.S. is more likely than revolution or the open convention or symmetrical warfare you describe. With the entitlements going into the red by 2015 at the latest, combined with more money-printing, wasted resources in the Middle East, and the government’s poor and even corrupt response to the BP oil spill among many other factors, I think people may decide to form coalitions of states in the different regions in the U.S. and form smaller and more fiscally sound new countries separating themselves from corrupt and debt-ridden D.C.(This would reaffirm the trend of decentralization in spheres other than business that several people have talked about in recent years)
Washington’s response would be violent, and as a result everything would go to hell within a 6-month or less period.Radical criminal,and racist groups would take the opportunity to try and achieve their goals,underneath a wider conflict of citizen-secessionists vs. citizen-loyalists. Also worth noting is, due to a traitorous security agreement with NATO and U.S. client states, such a situation would guarantee the current government trying to survive by declaring Martial Law and having NATO, the U.N., and PMC’s fight to prop it up, in addition to the 1200 or so intelligence agencies, the anti-drug soldiers, DHS, and others.
You probably realized I left a critical factor out: the U.S. military. I feel that the U.S. military will become like the Afghan army for foreign troops:it will pretend to do its job, mainly acting as a mediocre referee, during the day. During the night, those same soldiers will attack disguised as insurgents. There would also be some unfortunate friendly fire incidents with air strikes, artillery, etc. Of course, there is also the possibility of open warfare between the foreigners and our military, but I’m not sure it would happen that openly when guerrilla tactics are much more cost effective. Elements of the military that are members of gangs or racial/radical groups will undoubtedly “disappear” or go “M.I.A.” to join up with their organization. After the sucessful secession, the various military units from the different branches would probably become part of the different coalitions of states.
I purposefully left out China and Russia from the equation. Why? Because I think they would probably sell weapons to the different factions to make a killing in profits, as they have previously done in Africa, South America, the Middle East, and the Balkans. Depending on Alaska’s governor, Alaska might willingly join Russia, become and independent oil-based country, or be forcibly invaded by Russia. China is a bit of a wild card, because they hold our debt. On the one hand, supporting the rebels and their new governments would increase China’s trade influence and result in a very slow repayment of debt through commerce, but the debts would be paid. On the other hand, the current government is only going to screw the Chinese over more and more in the coming years.
The third choice for China (also a choice for Russia) would be to simply send agents over, find rebels and govt. officials with access to certain key pieces of military hardware (F-22 avionics, anyone?) and bribe them to sell them to China, the reasoning for the govt. being that such exchanges are payment for the debt. In the case of rebels, it would probably be a trade off for weapons systems from China, perhaps such things as a hand-held Sunburn missile for anti-air use, or some of China’s newer rifles and machine guns. I think it would be naive to doubt that the Chinese (and Russians) wouldn’t want to test their weapons systems through proxy, but there is just as much for them to gain by trade offs, bribes, weapons sales, and diplomacy as there is by them using brute force, so these nations’ role in our second civil war is unpredictable to say the least.
I will briefly diverge and state that as a result of this Balkans in the New World, Europe and other parts of the world in general will erupt into warfare without an ovebearing U.S. govt. watching what they’re doing. Current U.S. wars in the Middle East would probably be aborted to deal with the conflagaration and home, so Iraq and Afghanistan would be left to whoever wanted to gain access to minerals and oil and has the forces to do it. China and Iran come to mind. States like Saudi Arabia would either go to war with neighbors or be overthrown and replaced. Wars between Russia and its neighbors would probably occur, as well as old west European rivalries. Africa would remain the same, South America would probably have some conflicts(mostly ones already occuring, like Colombia), but not many.
Mexico would turn officially into a feudal narco-state, expanding to California and possibly parts of the other border states. Canada would either sit it out or send peacekeepers in and then quickly withdraw them once they realized that the U.S. has/had become another Iraq or Bosnia.They would also have issues with refugees and guerrilla sanctuaries in some of the bigger wide open spaces on their border.
While the results of any war are unknowable ahead of time, it is likely that the foreign troops would be forced to leave after being driven themselves to debt levels approaching the U.S. government’s, along with unacceptable casualty levels. The mercenary organizations would remain as long as it didn’t look like they would be wiped out. If the government remained, but was too weak to prevent secession from occuring, they would probably become the new army of the “U.S.”, which I quote because in all likelihood by then the U.S. will consist of D.C., parts of Northern Virginia, parts of Maryland, and maybe New York state and the tri-state area. If D.C. was overrun by violence itself, they would probably relocate to Canada or some other country and take that last check from D.C. while telling them to screw themselves, and any nominal thing calling itself the “U.S.” would probably cease to exist.
California, being the third world basket case that it already is, would have the southern half become part of Mexico and the northern half would probably join Washington and some nearby states, possibly becoming a tech-based or “Apple/iPod” country or coalition. Florida’s southern half would become Cuban/South American influenced (if not directly annexed), while the northern half would join some southern coalition. The northeast states closest to Canada would probably form a separate country or coalition, as would most of the south. Racial groups and gangs would fight each other, but eventually die out a few years after the wars of secession end. States with nukes would become regional powers, and would also probably become models of the use of nuclear energy for civilian purposes. I will say I don’t think nukes would be used for political reasons, loss of government control, and the factor of too many participants being in close proximity to each other (urban warfare). Hard to say how the different states other than the border ones would arrange themselves afterward though.
Look up and read some of the things people like Thomas Chittum and Matthew Bracken have written, as well as various other sites such as the Burning Platform and the EU Times, and you will understand why I have decided a peaceful resolution is unlikely at best. It is regrettable, but my personal opinion as an American citizen is that the U.S. will have a Yugoslavia style breakup due to issues related to multi-ethnicity, economics, high gun ownership, and creeping government power grabs.
If you want advice on how to prepare, checkout youtube or the net.Some people to lookup are MrLockandload and Nutnfancy, among others. If you don’t think the scenario I outlined is likely, please explain why, but I suggest you read some of what Thomas Chittum and Matthew Bracken have said before criticizing. I will end this post by noting that a anonymous person from the oil industry said recently at the london times or some other website that in an investment forecasting program for the next 50 years or so, no matter what they did, civil war erupted in the U.S. within a 25 year period from now (2010) to 2035. This could be avoided if the government would listen to us, but I think we’re past the point of no return.
August 18th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Here is a relevant article from the Burning Platform related to what I just posted:
Hat tip to Casey Research for directing me to this article. I can’t find a flaw in his case. Maybe the Rah Rah America crowd can.
Monday, August 16, 2010
10 Signs The U.S. is Becoming a Third World Country
Activist Post
The United States by every measure is hanging on by a thread to its First World status. Saddled by debt, engaged in wars on multiple fronts with a rising police state at home, declining economic productivity, and wild currency fluctuations all threaten America’s future.
The general designations of the ranking system for world status date back to the 1950s, and have included countries at various stages of economic development. Since the Cold War, the definition has come to be synonymous with repressive countries where a wealthy class of ruling elites segment society into the haves and have-nots, many times capitalizing on the conditions that follow an economic crisis or war.
While much of the world is still mired in poverty, the reduced cost of innovative tools such as computing and connectivity ironically puts traditional Third World countries at the forefront of a new lean-and-mean economy that is based on ideas of empowerment for the disenfranchised. For better or worse, the world is leveling due to Globalism. However, America and other over-leveraged countries face this re-balancing of the globe at a time when they have dwindling resources. We can speculate about who and what is to blame for America’s fantastic fall, but for the purposes of this article we shall focus on the obvious signs that the United States is beginning to resemble a Third World country.
30,000 Section 8 wait for 455 vouchers
1. Rising unemployment and poverty: Unemployment numbers, food stamps, and home foreclosures continue to reach new record highs. The ugly reality of those numbers was recently on display when 30,000 people showed up to apply for public housing in East Point, GA for 455 available vouchers. Fights broke out, people were fainting from the heat while in line, and riot police showed up to handle the angry poor.
2. Economic dependence: The United States finished 2009 with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 85%, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The current trend projects the United States to finish 2010 at 94% and 2011 at 98%. The 90% level has become the IMF’s make-or-break point for countries hoping to grow their way out of debt. If the government debt load climbs above 90% of GDP, economic growth slows so much that growth is no longer a viable solution for reducing that debt, and the IMF insists on austerity measures. Surpassing this debt threshold has also caused China’s lead credit rating agency to cut America’s credit rating.
3. Declining civil rights: Everyday freedoms are often a casualty of a society in collapse. As the anger of the populace mounts in response to declining economic conditions and political corruption, the government counters by increasing draconian measures that restrict the political rights and civil liberties of its citizens.
America is becoming a country like China, which has one of the lowest scores according to Freedom House. In America, private discussions and movements are monitored, free speech is corralled, the freedom to assemble for protest is by government decree, and independent thought that questions the political system is increasingly looked upon with suspicion. A final indicator is when the government insists upon secrecy for its own actions, while new laws and systems are created to put the individual under nearly constant surveillance.
4. Increasing political corruption: When political corruption becomes the accepted norm, as opposed to the exception, then there’s a good bet your country resembles the Third World. Congress and all major institutions face a growing crisis in confidence, where a record-low 11% of the population believe Congress is doing a good job. It now seems obvious to all observers that big corporations directly control the agenda in Washington — much like typically corrupt Third World countries.
5. Military patrolling the streets: The rise of a militarized police state is a hallmark of most Third World countries, particularly in times of rapid economic collapse. America’s declaration of the War on Terror has created a constant threat to National Security that has allowed for the military to be deployed on American soil. Building upon the War on Drugs, this has created a fusion between the military and local police, where military-grade weapons and tactics are being used against American citizens in a cascade of violent confrontations over non-violent offenses. Military checkpoints are moving farther inland, away from meaningful border control functions, and a full-blown military presence in American cities has been planned by the U.S. Army War College.
6. Failing infrastructure: As 46 of 50 states are on the verge of bankruptcy, cities are going dark, asphalt roads are returning to the stone age, and nationwide budget cuts are leaving students without teachers, supplies, or a full-time education. These are common features one will see as they travel through the poorest of Third World countries.
7. Disappearing middle class: During the last presidential debate season, they argued that a family income of $250K was solidly middle-class. Well, Census data shows less than 15% of families make over $100K, and only 1.5% of families make over $250K. The income gap between the rich and poor has increased at a staggering pace, while many more middle-class folks join the ranks of the poor every day. Cavernous income gaps may be what Third-World nations are best known for.
U.S. Dollar Monetary Base
8. Devalued currency: The value of the Federal Reserve Note (U.S. dollar) has declined 96% since the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913. The value of the dollar is based on its supply in circulation and, to a lesser extent, the demand for those dollars. For the last three years, the money supply has spiked literally off the charts. It can be argued that the dollar has become America’s top export as the world’s reserve currency, and if the volatile dollar is scrapped, which the U.N. and IMF now suggest, then demand will plummet, killing the currency.
9. Controlling the media: A government-influenced media that censors information is a key component of Third World countries. In some countries it is openly owned by the State. In America, privately-owned major media is not as balanced or as diverse as it seems; the concentration of ownership has led to censorship when national and corporate interests have sometimes overlapped. The persecution of high-profile investigative journalists such as WikiLeaks is set amid a backdrop of the proposed Internet censorship of bloggers who wish to remain anonymous. The end of net neutrality creates a pay-to-play system that can lead to further corporate and government control of information and opinion. Cybersecurity initiatives are the final nail in the coffin, as the entire free flow of information can be vetted in a China-style system of “identity management.” On the street, the police state and media control have converged in the recent rise of arrests for those who videotape the police. This is a huge blow to First Amendment rights and the role of photojournalists who wish to document public police behavior.
10. Capital Controls: Many nations have enforced capital controls as their economies collapse. It most recently happened in Argentina and Venezuela as they sought to keep the remaining wealth within their borders. The SEC already has adopted policies to allow money market funds to suspend withdrawals during a financial crisis, while the recent HIRE bill (HR 2487) puts restrictions on Americans moving capital to foreign countries. Some economists suggest that the national debt has gotten so high that the government must now force investment of private capital into U.S. Treasury debt.
Key economic indicators point to a situation potentially worse than the Great Depression. The land of opportunity for so many is devolving into a system of government corruption, corporate looting, and military rule that threatens to sink the American Dream. The capital flight from America has left a dwindling middle class holding an empty bag. This style of underinvestment in the foundation of society is similar to what already has led to the exodus from the rural Midwest. Now, there are ominous signs of a silent exodus of young, intelligent professionals seeking opportunities to realize their dreams outside of America; they are becoming known as Generation Xpat. Lastly, many skilled immigrants have returned to their home countries to seek a better quality of life, which might be the scariest indicator of all.
link:http://theburningplatform.com/blog/2010/08/18/10-signs-the-us-is-becoming-a-3rd-world-country/