Is It Time to Fight?

Our differences are best solved through the ballot and the protest, not through the bullet or the bomb.

By
195

In June 2017, James Hodgkinson, a Bernie Sanders supporter, opened fire on Republican congressmen at a softball field in Virginia. The next year, Caesar Sayoc, a Trump supporter, mailed 16 pipe bombs to prominent Democrats and media figures, including former President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. In 2020, rioters and gangs loosely affiliated with the Antifa movement battled police in Portland, Oregon, and elsewhere. In January 2021, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers led thousands of pro-Trump protesters in an attempted terrorist attack on the U.S. Congress.

Few people were killed in these incidents—but not for lack of trying. There is, as David French recently wrote, a “whiff of civil war in the air.” According to research from the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, 80 percent of Biden voters, and 84 percent of Trump voters, agree that their political opposition “present[s] a clear and present danger to American democracy.” More than 70 percent on each side want to censor the other side’s media and believe that the other side “no longer believe[s] in the ideas that make America great.” 

Most worryingly, an increasing number of Americans openly admit to pollsters their willingness to resort to violence. According to PRRI, 30 percent of Republicans, including almost 40 percent of those who believe the 2020 election was stolen, believe that “things have gotten so far off track [that] true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.” Twenty-six percent of white evangelicals agreed with that statement, the highest of any religious group.

Are they right? Is it time to fight? 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
195
By
Comments (195)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    You already win full points for this article for quoting the Princess Bride.

    “ The Oath Keepers and Proud Boys and Antifa and January 6 rioters are best understood as Braveheart LARPers, charging the imaginary fields of Bannockburn in their minds, with lower stakes and dumber tactics. ”

    This is exactly what I’ve been saying. I used the term LARPer in response to that piece by David French. People need to grow up. Anyone who actually knows what war is like doesn’t want a Second Civil War.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    TIm Jennings

    I'm rather late to this party, but in the off chance that some may still be following the comment string, I have a question.

    I read through all of the comments. I'll not attempt to categorize the responses in detail, but I think it safe to claim that a general theme among us subscribers to the Dispatch is that no one is in favor of a civil war, whether one thinks it likely or unlikely. No one made an argument that something good, something better than what we have now, would result, and that the general consensus is that very bad things would occur. And while one or two mentioned that they would favor partition rather than war, no one wants that to be a choice. I trust that all of you are wholly committed to seeing that our constitutional republic endure for as long as it possibly can.

    My question: what is each of us doing, day by day, to ensure that outcome? What particular actions are you taking toward that end? I think we'll learn from one another by sharing our experiences.

    Here's my input. Three of us subscribers are attempting to document as many articles, essays, books, videos, etc., that describe what would likely happen if the country degenerated into civil war. We could us some help. We aren't sure what we'll do with this, but one early but minor task is to use the information to edit the current Wikipedia entry on a second American Civil War (the "Likely Aftermath" section is missing. We have also mentioned getting the information we have collected into the hands of a capable documentary film maker.

    My second effort is exposing and publicizing an effort by a half dozen New Hampshire state representatives to introduce a bill in our legislature suggesting that secession could be a option for our state. I'm poking their backsides a bit via private correspondence for now, just trying to get them to engage with me. We'll see where that goes.

    Tim

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      Tim,

      I appreciate your comment and your call to action. I’m thinking over what I can do myself. I try to advocate against civil war and secession movements wherever I can. But ultimately it will be about rebuilding institutions (or building new ones) to rebuild the larger fabric of civil society.

      It will take a cultural reawakening in which people understand again the meaning of citizenship. I’d say that starts with setting a good example. Next there’s education - educating the next generation and the current ones.

      It will take recommitment to Tocquevillean civic religion. Which will require each of us to try to do our own small part in our local communities to fix whatever problems we can.

      But it’s easy for me to talk big. I haven’t as yet done anything serious or substantive. I haven’t even gotten married yet, nor am I a part of any major institutions. So I’ll try to continue to reflect on what I can do to help rebuild civil society in this country, but I wouldn’t say I’m setting a great example yet.

      Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Frank Lee

    Fighting... violence... works to achieve power advantage only because a majority shrinks from a fight and a minority knows to exploit the fear of the shrinking majority.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    DougAz

    I wish all the Cons who bemoan "cancel culture" - Read this phenomonal discussion between Yascha Mounk, and the great Noam Chomsky.

    The Right's Cancel Culture has been a very very long standing effort.

    https://www.persuasion.community/p/chomsky?

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Bill Nelson

    Your case for the justification of the American colonial revolution is overstated. There was no massacre of civilians, and the removal of elected governors and suspension of colonial legislative bodies brought the American colonies more in line with the rest of the British Empire. It was truly about bad and unpopular law. The British crown had spent huge sums protecting the colonies from the French and was trying to find revenge to pay off the debt.
    There were a host of other bad decisions, such as suspending local courts in Massachusetts (which brought business to a standstill), but even as late as 1775, the issues could have been fixed.
    The Declaration of Independence clearly states when revolution is justified, and this is when a government ceases to protect the three essential rights. Are we there, or even in sight of this? No. I strongly disagree that there is a whiff of civil war in the air, the vast majority of us simply want to live our lives with minimal disturbances. And a majority does not pay a lot of attention to these political skirmishes.
    Note-there have been a number of articles at TD on the unreliability of issue polls.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Earl King

    Words matter. Both sides should be aware of their rhetoric, each engage in agitprop ( a new word for me).

    Propaganda is used frequently. Since I am a conservative I am of course biased that the Lefts propaganda is more damaging. The Georgia voting Law is not Jim Crow 2.0. Biden says he want to transform the American Economy. For those who are happy and that the American Economy is working well for them that would be fighting words. When Biden suggested that Romney would put black people back in theirs chains that is hyperbole but of the sort that someone might take seriously. There is no need to quote Trump as his hyperbole was over the top and his "own the libs" rhetoric certainly whipped up his "stop the steal" crowd to storm the Capitol.

    Many already believe that there are white supremacists ready to storm the Capitol again. Nancy believes it unless it is just a political stunt to surround the Capitol with fencing. We may well see more political violence unless both sides tone down their "rile up the base" rhetoric.

    Get out the vote hyperbole by our political class gets worse each cycle, more extremists seem to get elected and social media amplifies it. Calling everyone who voted for Youngkin a racist is but one example. For my Democrat friends and fellow citizens Republicans are not racist white supremacists. To my fellow Republicans the Left desire to spend us in bankruptcy is motivated by a political imperative to solve poverty and racial discrimination. It is laudable.

    It is however, misinformed and lacks honesty. You cannot solve discrimination with more discrimination. You won't lift others up by dragging others down. There is no world you can build that will guarantee success. Conservatives like what works, the tried and true. We have a meritocracy in America. It has proven its worth....my example? We have the largest and most innovative economy in the world...Otherwise where would they get the money you want to throw out of helicopters? But, they are not evil. There have been racial injustices. There are unjustified shootings. Pulled over for "driving while black" is according to all evidence a "real" thing. There are reasons for this. Young black men commit a lot of crime. Bias is real. If a policeman works every day in the "hood", sees crime by young black men everyday of course he will be impacted.
    He will become biased. His bias does not mitigate the fact that young black men in the "hood" do indeed commit a lot of crime. The police need be taught how to work with and adjust to their bias. Calling them Nazis, Racists Pigs is A) Not True and B) Not a solution. There is a reason blacks overwhelmingly support police, even more police in their neighborhoods. Nuff said.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    John D. Wright

    I don’t think your assertion that are governmental system is fragile is accurate.

    I have long debated in my mind at what point Civil War is justified. For me it’s always a question of submit or Civil War. The have measure of murderous terrorism is not for me. It’s good to raise the question. I think a lot of people haven’t thought it through.

    More important though is David’s solution. Federalism. The fact early on the commerce clause was gutted doesn’t help. The fact the federal govt can “bribe” states with their own money doesn’t help either. This is why federalism isn’t working.

    For example, I believe the EPA should have required a constitutional Amendment to come into existence. I’d have voted for that. But there is no way the constitution grants those powers to the federal govt without it. The commerce clause has become so broad as to include whatever the feds want it to include. Thus states lose power.

    A better state of affairs would be if half our total tax debt went to the state or local government. Then blue states can be blue and red states red and many can be in between. People can vote with their feet.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Paul Britton

    Mr. Miller, I'm not understanding your distinction. You note that the apostle Paul was instructing Christians in New Testament times not to engage in violent opposition to the government, even though that regime had murdered John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, Stephen, and many other Christians. Yet you opine that the American Revolution was justified because of arbitrary despotism by the British.

    I simply don't see why the abuses of the British were, in your view, so egregious as to warrant violent opposition and war, while the murderous tyranny of the Romans in St. Paul's time were not.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Matmos

    Revolutions, even just ones, kill a lot of people unjustly. Just oook at what’s happening in Ethiopia and ask yourself whether we want that here. It seems like the folks who are itching for a revolution are asking for a purpose that would demand the highest sacrifice. They want meaning. Are there other ways we can supply that meaning?

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Scarlette Tarte

    There is a lot wrong with this column. While I applaud Mr Miller in trying to head off civil war before it starts, he gets a lot wrong.

    First of all, mask mandates are nowhere and in no way similar to the loss of the right of women to choose what to do with their own bodies and with what is in those bodies if Roe is overturned and Republican states anti abortion legislation comes to pass. This would be a gross violation of women's personal rights and liberties. Strike one.

    Secondly, telling people that are the MAJORITY ( and I am paraphrasing) "just don't get too mad if the Republicans pass laws that enshrine minority rule and make it so the majority cannot wield power by making it extremely difficult for them to vote, or access the ballot, or to make perverted rules to keep themselves in power even though they lose the election - just work like the blacks did for 300 years peacefully to get your BIRTHRIGHT restored to you and don't do any more than non-violent resistance to this gross injustice", is not just laughable, it is insulting to all who were in the civil rights movement. Because it would mean we did not learn the lesson. The basic thing that the movement should have taught us is this...IT IS WRONG TO KEEP U.S. CITIZENS FROM THEIR BIRTHRIGHT. Hell to the no.

    A case like that, the political apartheid that Republicans have planned for the majority, is SPECIFICALLY what Jefferson was referring to when he said "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

    Now I don't have to go thru this with the Dispatch readers, but you, Mr. Miller, seem to have missed an important part of that quote. If Republicans restrict access to voting, to maintain political power, or resort to coups when the lose legitimate elections, then the government they control has become "destructive of these ends". In that case it is our duty to get rid of the government, make a new one and to PROVIDE SAFEGUARDS to ensure it does not happen again. OUR DUTY. Strike two.

    As far as the "cancel culture" (code words for...we on the right can try to get NFL players fired for taking a knee, and we can boycott what we don't like and burn Dixie Chicks albums, but how dare you try to make us pay any consequences for our privileged speech) and nationalist "agitprop", I can go along with those are not things we should resort to violence over. Nor over street violence, or CRT or any of the other silly "culture war" issues that the Republicans like to pound on. But I will tell you that the Republicans will very much be willing to use violence over those very "mean little in the scheme of things" issues.

    But as to the way our government functions in the very basic thing it is supposed to do, which is secure our rights as citizens? If it fails to do that, then yeah, THAT is the one that we may have to resort to violence over. And that includes us women if this government fails to secure our rights to abortion.

    Now you go mull that over in your "just war" theory. Because to me, that would be a very "just" war to fight.

    Which is the point. You are telling the people who very well may have rights taken away, that they must only act a certain way. You are kinda okay with the rights being stripped, but not the violence that may follow.

    Sorry, doesn't work that way. One begats the other.

    So the column you probably should be writing is warn the right not to engage in things like restricting the right to vote, access to the ballot, gerrymandering to keep a minority in power, maneuvering to try to use the courts and arcane rules to keep the majority from achieving power, or to disallow the majority from seeking proper redress with the expectation their government representatives will listen to them, and to cease and desist in writing legislation to limit abortion rights.







    Collapse
    1. Pohl

      Good grief. Pro-lifers have patiently endured a holocaust of the unborn for decades, but you’re willing to create more violence to support this state of affairs? Let’s come up with something better.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Scarlette Tarte

        Their rights were not stripped away, though, were they? They have a profound disagreement with the idea that abortion should be legal, but no one said, "your disagreement means you lose your right to vote and you must endure that."

        Ending abortion is ending a RIGHT that women have. You may disagree that they should have that right, but they do. You don't strip rights away from people, without expecting a fight.

        The republican party has become a party, that when it is in power, does not secure the rights of ALL its citizens. It has become "destructive of those ends'.

        And no, I am not going to just sit by and let them do it. They damn well better PROTECT my rights, not restrict them.

        Collapse
Load More