Groups :: Politics Government : North American Union

Not Worth Another Civil War

There is tremendous anger in the United States. Outside the U.S. it is difficult to appreciate how much anger there is inside.

Last week, Larry Elder expressed sentiments to both represent and fan greater populist appeal. He concluded thus:

.. the Constitution must be changed. It must be amended to make what was once clear absolutely, positively, unavoidably clear. Two-thirds of the states can call for a constitutional convention, where an amendment can be proposed to prohibit the forced purchase of health insurance. Three-fourths of the states could then ratify it.

Implausible? So was ObamaCare.

Sobering words. But the anger and the fury have gone far beyond sobering. Viscerality from the right against Obama is beginning to exceed even the worst rage of the left against Bush. And there has got to be alarm if any country can withstand such escalating ideological oscillating intact. For when fundamental values heave too much, there could be no remaining common ground to stand.

Ideally, following legitimately democratic elections, Americans should pull together. Unite behind whichever Presidents Americans chose to elect. Ideologically, though? Americans keep pulling yet farther apart. And while raging against Bush from the left was utterly divisive, the guttural response to Obama from the right now crosses the lines of mere division. It may go too far into dangerous territories. Too far beyond every way back to common ground.

It's hard to even describe how much anger there is. And how isolated this anger is not.

For example. The following comment erupted in the midst of what had seemed mostly reasonable discussion with American friends concerning ObamaCare:

.. from the first day he entered public office as a member of the Democratic Socialist Party of America under the umbrella of the democratic party, [Obama's agenda] has been to bring this nation to its knees to create the crisis that will let communism take over...

Well. How classically McCarthyist. My reply was admittedly dismissive.

If guilt by association were enough to indict or impeach anyone then Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore would be running legal systems -- not just their mouths.

And that was that, I thought. Wrongly. Because that was only the beginning. Suddenly, as if by some virtual consensus only I could not perceive, everyone was explaining how well founded that comment had been. Apparently? Obama was mentored by Frank Marshall Davis, "a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) at a time when the CPUSA took its marching orders from Moscow." And Obama's father was "a self-avowed Marxist who proposed taxes in Kenya on the rich at a rate of up to 100%!" And Obama was trained in "tactics advocated by the late radical socialist Saul Alinsky". And Obama was injected into American politics by communist Alice Palmer, from the home of radical Bill Ayers, endorsed with the blessings of the Chicago Socialists. And for twenty years, Obama was a fixture at the knees of Marxist-influenced, Black Liberation Theologian Pastor Jeremiah Wright. And Obama has expressed unhappiness with the U.S. Constitution for not being sufficiently Marxist in terms of redistributive justice. And, even though his followers initially failed to understand, there simply can't be any more doubting that Obama's promise to fundamentally transform America must be taken as seriously threatening to do precisely as the original commenter had said. Bring America to it's knees. Bring about that old-time communist takeover.

But how can anyone know what motivates President Obama? What is in his mind -- if, whether and when his mind may change? And when evaluating his actions as President -- how does he seem so radically socialist? What has he done that Hillary Clinton would not also have done?

Apparently? President Obama is not to be trusted. There's only one reason people still don't realize what a radical he is. Because he's hoodwinking everyone to believing he's a centrist. But it's all just an act he puts on. And also? Hillary Clinton can't be trusted either. She's just as radical. There was this thesis she once wrote. "The Alinsky Way".

So now I was pretty much stumped, wasn't I? Since the Alinsky name had popped up twice -- in connection to both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton. Which could not be mere coincidence. No way. Writing a thesis -- that's a very serious undertaking. Clearly, something very nefarious had to be going on.

Nevertheless. Regardless how radically Marxist Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may or may not be. There's bigger trouble to worry:

Because the kind of hatred the left had for Bush and even more-so the kind of hatred I'm seeing from the right for Obama? That can lead to worse consequences than anything the Bush or Obama administrations could have accomplished on their own. It can lead to democracy itself breaking down. And the world can't afford American democracy breaking down.

Obama got elected democratically. And I hope the right harnesses its disgust to ensure better leadership next elections. It's just not worth secession or another civil war.

And, just like that, there was agreement. Consensus, even. That while there's lots of anger -- people ought to direct their anger constructively. Thus, only one thing remains to be said.

Too much ideology can never be constructive. To the contrary. Whether ideology be Marxist or reactionary McCarthyist -- ideological clashing can sunder even the greatest nation.