Whatever your politics, you have to be oblivious to reality to deny that America today is torn by ideological divisions as deep as those of the Civil War era. We are, in fact, in the midst of the Second American Civil War. Of course, one obvious difference between the two is that this Second Civil War is (thus far) non-violent. On the other hand, there is probably more hatred between the opposing sides today than there was during the First Civil War. And I am not talking about extremists. A senior editor of the respected center-left New Republic just wrote an article titled, "The Case for Bush Hatred," an article that could have been written by writers at most major American newspapers, by most Hollywood celebrities, and almost anyone else left of center. And the conservative hatred of former President Bill Clinton was equally deep. Source I think this article is stating the obvious, but nice to see it put in words.

I am well aware that not everyone on the Left agrees with every leftist position and not everyone on the Right agrees with every rightist one. Nat Hentoff is a leftist who doesn't support abortion rights; Pat Buchanan is a rightist who doesn't support Israel. But the existence of individual exceptions does not negate the fact that all the positions listed here as Left or Right are correctly labeled. The fact is that this country is profoundly divided on virtually every major social, personal and political issue. We are in the midst of the Second American Civil War. Who wins it will determine the nature of this country as much as the winner of the first did.

"On one side are those on the Left -- liberals, leftists and Greens -- who tend to agree with one another on almost all major issues. On the other side are those on the Right -- conservatives, rightists and libertarians -- who agree on stopping the Left, but differ with one another more often than those on the Left do." i think he's got it backwards. hmm. . . i wonder which side the author identifies with. essentially, he's right about the divisions but he's written in such a way that the left's stance will strike fear into the hearts of the right. it would be easy to flip it around and scare the hell out of the lefties. fuck it, let's have a war! put up yer dukes!

A lot of his generalizations about the left are straw men set up to oppose the authors' right wing views. Some of the things that are patently false: "The Left regards America as morally inferior to many European societies with their abolition of the death penalty, cradle-to-grave welfare and religion-free life; and it does not believe that there are distinctive American values worth preserving. " The last part in particular is unmitigated horseshit. The writer has to make the assumption that there aren't any Leftist values that are also American values, and last time I checked, there were a lot, such as freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to conduct your private life without government intrusion, conservation, social justice, and so on and so forth. "The Left believes that the Boy Scouts as currently constituted pose a moral threat to society." Boy scouts? who gives a shit about the Boy Scouts anymore? if they want to exclude non-christians, that's their perogative, but then they shouldn't expect taxpayer dollars for anything, including the free use of municipal buildings. (When I was a Cub Scout, we met in a church.) And it's laughable to think that the Left thinks the Boy Scouts are a threat. what a joke. "The Left believes in equality more than in liberty. The Right believes more in liberty." This is also a load of crap as the Right has fought tooth and nail to retain institutions and practices and positions that limit liberty (Suffrage, Civil Rights Movement, Homosexual equality). And how can you even set equality and liberty as opposites? That's incomprehensible. You can't have true liberty without true equality. Jeez.

the right side (mainly congress) does have a problem agreeing about most things. Hell, they can't even stand behind thier judicial nominees.

wait, is he talking about government or civilians? and sem's right. it's funny to read how the right believes the left thinks. and vice versa, no doubt. articles like this serve only to clarify the blurry divisions that exist in the more feeble minded readers. get off the fence and grab your weapons. practice your battle cry. it's gonna be a long night.

Anyway, it's a fallacy to think that there haven't been divisions as deep or deeper in the past. Look at the Revolution. look at WWI and the depression. Look at the 60s for christsakes! We're nowhere NEAR the 60s. it's pretty alarmist.

I dont know, I thought he was talking about the gov, but now that you mention it, it might be more aimed at the citizens..... While we may not be yet to the point of rioting and firing guns at one another, I think we are indeed in a "bloodless civil war".

Well, if we are, it's been going on since 1776.

You need to check your history books on the Civil Rights movement again. Nixon did a LOT for civil rights.

It's just business as usual. People forget quickly, so they keep thinking that this division is new.

What does Nixon and the Civil Rights prove? He also did a lot for the environment. All that shows is that the Left/Right dichotomy is pretty instable and that history has produced a vast amount of divisiveness which can't easily be summed up that way.

Exactly. Spunky, you just argued for the weakness of the thesis of that article.

exactly. That was to refute: ""The Left believes in equality more than in liberty. The Right believes more in liberty." This is also a load of crap as the Right has fought tooth and nail to retain institutions and practices and positions that limit liberty (Suffrage, Civil Rights Movement, Homosexual equality)."

So are you denying that the opposition of the above has not been correctly associated with right wing groups?

So, are you saying that right wing groups are for slavery? Are you serious? And that conservitive, capitalist groups are against equal access by all races? Come on, you cant be serious. That is such an old stero type that has never had any truth to it.

What are YOU getting at? jeebus. That's not what he's saying at all. There are fair generalizations to make. I think it's fair to say that many conservatives (who tend to lean to the right), historically, have opposed homosexual unions, sufferage, civil rights and so forth. Or, that people who oppose those tend to be conservative. If not, then they are taking a conservative view, i.e. leaning to the right on particular issues. Yes, in as much as though these views are held publically, they tend to be held by conservative/right wing groups. Give me a break.

bs bs bs bs bs bs bs bs give ME a break. That might be what YOU have been led to beleive, but that is a load of crap. Most conservatives push for individual liberty. Racial Discrimination and SLAVERY (is that what you refer to when you refer to sufferage?) fly right in the face of individual liberty.

Hey Kazu, can you email me? I have a question for you NOT related to this in any way :)

I am saying that some rightwing groups are ALL FOR SLAVERY. And I am also including in my generalization historical groups, as well. I'm not going for a stereotype here. I'm going for a generalization using fair evidence. Take off the filters for a bit, really think about what I am saying here and not what the conservative media pundits have told you to think and follow along. Would you say that, in general, slavery was opposed by groups that can be characterized as left wing and or liberal, and supported by groups that can be characterized as rightwing and or conservative? Would you say that, in general, the right to vote for women, blacks and native americans was supported by groups that can be characterized as left wing and or liberal, and opposed by groups that can be characterized as rightwing and or conservative? Would you say that, in general, the right of the individual woman to choose to have an abortion was supported by groups that can be characterized as left wing and or liberal, and opposed by groups that can be characterized as rightwing and or conservative? Would you say that, in general, the removal of native americans from their rightful tribal lands was opposed by groups that can be characterized as left wing and or liberal, and supported by groups that can be characterized as rightwing and or conservative? Note that nowhere did I say "ALL groups that can be characterized as right wing and or conservative" or "ALL groups that can be characterized as left wing and or liberal"

I am still dumbfounded. I am at a loss for words. I cannot get past the "right wing groups ARE all for slavery" part.

"Racial Discrimination and SLAVERY (is that what you refer to when you refer to sufferage?) fly right in the face of individual liberty." you did not just say this. tell me that I hallucinated this. if conservatives have been opposed to certain "liberal" causes and positions in the name of individual liberty...find you can say that. But there have been times, historically, when some people's liberties were being trampled on and were in need of a legislative push, as in the case with civil rights.

goddammit spunky, that doesn't mean that ALL of them are for it, look at the "some" in the sentence. it's like saying, I'm all for it in response to whether or not I want to go out for ice-cream and I am very excited about it.

You can't get past that because I never said that - your conservatron 5000 dark glasses only tell you i said that. See, if you go back, you will see you totally misquoted me. I said "I am saying that some rightwing groups are ALL FOR SLAVERY. " SOME. I never said ALL. You just wanted me to say that, so that's what you thought I said. Try and keep up here.

"Most conservatives push for individual liberty." shiiiit "individual liberty" euphamism if there ever was one. jesse helm's idea of "individual liberty" is do nothing to educate the public about STDs and AIDS, let em die. strom thurmond's idea of "individual liberty" was to avoid making segregation illegal, live and let be right? mccarthy's idea of "individual liberty" was to weed out and persecute those who's ideas differed with his in terms of government and society. extreme cases? yeah. but i dont have time to do research on the lap dog republicans who followed suit.

What groups are actaully for slavery? What conservative/right wing groups are actually pro-slavery? I must admit I have to brush up on the civil rights movements to really fight that one, butI will not concede that there are ANY US based groups that are pro-slavery.

I just can't believe he doesn't know what sufferage is. Of course, not everyone does. Did anyone see the man show when they went out and tried to get people to sign petitions ending women's sufferage, trying to make it look like sufferage=suffering. Absolutely hilarious. I wish I'd thought of it.

"Racial Discrimination and SLAVERY (is that what you refer to when you refer to sufferage?)" spunk, um, when one refers to suffrage in the context of which it has been tossed around here, one is referring to the right to vote. Women's suffrage was movement to allow women the ability to vote.

You need to brush up on your US history, spunky. Try the Confederacy.

And what about the rest? perhaps give slavery a rest and look at womens rights? Don't make me repeat myself here.

spunk there are all kinds of extreme neo-nazi-aryan organizations that would assume see blacks and minorities dead or at the very least under the thumb of whitey in every aspect imaginable. im not keen to go searching for them as i dont want that shit on my history, but they exist. they do exist.

I've heard of some small white supremacist groups who think that we should reinstitute slavery. I think sem was talking historically though. There is a philosophical essay somewhere (in the tradition of locke, mill, and so forth) who argued that slavery was not a violation of, but rather, a manifestation of civil liberties. Of course, it wasn't Locke or Mill, but someone using the same kind of liberalism (and that refers to the philosophy of rights and so forth, not just one side of the conservative/liberal divide) that they were using. I'll have to find the reference.

The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Bradley's Democratic opponent). Surely young Bradley must have flunked his internship because ostensibly he did not learn that the Act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster. In addition, he did not know that 21 is over three times as much as six, otherwise he would have become - according to the logic of his statement - a Republican. In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it. During the Eisenhower Administration, the Republican Party made more progress in civil rights than in the preceding 80 years. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Although the Democratic-controlled Congress watered them down, the Administration's recommendations resulted in significant and effective civil rights legislation in both 1957 and 1960 - the first civil rights statutes to be passed in more than 80 years" ("The Republican Party 1960 Civil Rights Platform," May 1964). It reported on April 5, 1963 that, " A group of eight Republican senators in March joined in introducing a series of 12 civil rights bills that would implement many of the recommendations made in the Civil Rights Commission report of 1961." The principal measures introduced by these Republicans broadened the Civil Rights Act of 1964, making it "designed to pass unlike Democratic 'public relations' attempts" (CQ, February 15, 1963, p. 191). Republican senators overwhelmingly "chided" President John Kennedy about his "failure to act in this field (civil rights)." Republican senators criticized the Kennedy Administration's February 28, 1963 civil rights message as "falling far short" of the Civil Rights Commission's recommendations and both party platforms. "If the President will not assume the leadership in getting through Congress urgently needed civil rights measures," the Republican senators said, " then Congress must take the initiative" (CQ, April 5, 1963, p. 527). At the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson praised the Republicans for their "overwhelming" support. Roy Wilkins, then-NAACP chairman, awarded Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award for his "remarkable civil rights leadership." Moreover, civil rights activist Andrew Young wrote in his book An Easy Burden that "The southern segregationists were all Democrats, and it was black Republicans... who could effectively influence the appointment of federal judges in the South" (p. 96). Young added that the best civil rights judges were Republicans appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower and that "these judges are among the many unsung heroes of the civil rights movement." The historical facts and numbers show the Republican Party was more for civil rights than the Democrats from "the party of justice," as Bill Bradley called it. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, in reality, could not have been passed without Republican votes.

And while I was focusing on a broad swath of history for my supposition that there are and have been rightwing groups taht support slavery, I actually did go and find a group that takes a pro-slavery view, one that John Ashcroft has a high opinion of: Southern Partisan. so, next? womens rights?

Sem ,that is a particularly NASTY thing to accuse anyone of, being pro-slavery.

Spunky, get rid of the republican/democrat labels. They do not help your argument. many democrats were dixiecrats after all. And I will say it. Just as there are small right wing groups that are pro-slavery, even today. I have heard left-wong arguements that say as we should hand over everything to a small, but powerful, socialist dictator, until we are "ready" for democracy again, to which I say: FUCK NO

i <3 nixon

Spunky: If the shoe fits... And yes, you do need to stop equating democrat-left and republican-right. obviously it's a fallacy. (Actually, if you think about it, the democrats just jump on the left's bandwagon when they see it gains popular support. Suffrage, civil rights and other leftist causes were started outside of the democratic party)

Most extreme views start outside of mainstream political parties. It just seems as though recently, SOME elements of the extreme right have penetrated mainstream politics, more so than the views of the extreme left. Christ, Nixon looks downright moderate, if not liberal, in some ways. There just seem to be less balance. I'm a closet revolutionary who doesn't believe in anything less than democracy when it comes to government power. In the meantime, I want my republicans to be fiscally conservative and socially fair, if not moderate. To acknowledge the variety of opinions within their own party and make sure that democrat social spending is done responsibly and efficiently. For the democrats, I just pray for backbone.

I was just thinking about this today... I do think you're in the middle of another civil war, but its completely whitewashed over. The South is winning and has taken over the United States, invading most of the midwest and the Dakotas, most of the country, and its making its way through traditions and through politics. The new "yankees", like the ones of the original Civil War, are too busy bickering within each other to acknowledge that they're losing ground. I'm not going to say the right wing, particular Republicans, are pro-slavery. Don't believe it. But I will say that when the Republicans put all their black party members on stage, its not to try and get out the black vote. No, its just to try and ease the minds of their white voters, so they dont think they're voting for a racist party. furthermore, you know the Republican party doesnt REALLY care about black issues when their organization is THIS: http://www.aarlc.org/about/advisory.shtml look who is on the advisory panel. i cant give you exact numbers now because i dont know all those names, but a few months back only two of those people where black. Alex St. James was just made chairman recently their honorary chairman is black, Senator Brooke III. During the Trent Lott mess, Gene Weingarten of the Washington Post called him called Brooke about the AARLC to get a statement, and Brooke DIDNT EVEN KNOW HE WAS THEIR CHAIRMAN. and his name is STILL on their site. doesnt it bother anyone that, in the Republican party, SEAN HANNITY is a black leader? Hannity, who plugged radio racist Hal Turner's 2000 campaign? the campaign of the man who said "if it werent for the white man blacks would still be hanging from the trees in africa"? This Sean Hannity? The Sean Hannity that is close friends with Mark Fuhrman? this Hannity? the Hannity whose archives and interviews are linked from whitefuture.com and other white supremacy sites? and Grover Norquist? don't get me started... anyways the point being, while I certainly don't think all Republicans are racists, they're not concerned with black issues and I don't think they are really trying to change that. And there are some, like Hannity, whose motives are truly suspect, and could actually be racist themselves.

Now you're just trying to confuse things, here, rowlf. Here we were just about to pull the right wing away from being equated with republican and you go messing it up again. I will note that my suppositions haven't been refuted though. Interesting. I will say that if the current republicans in power would behave like the republicans and conservatives of spunky's definition, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Also, my whole powderkeg of a point was that there are some groups who, either now or historically, have been or are of the view that black people should be slaves, and that the rest of their political viewpoints can accurately be assigned to the right wing of the political spectrum.

spectrum. say it with me. SPEC-TRUM speeehhcktruuuhm

Now honey, you know that there's no such thing in a black and white world.

it sort of rhymes with rectum and looks like speculum. uvula yooooo-vyoooo-laaaaaah

I got-ted the dis-twack-ted "Now you're just trying to confuse things, here, rowlf. Here we were just about to pull the right wing away from being equated with republican and you go messing it up again" well, in my world I guess right wing and republican go hand in hand... this is making my head hurt. i think i saw too many commas. thats it. the commas. dont be getting near me with any semicolons. I'll be lost in the woods forever.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

don't forget that the pro-slavery south that seceded from the union was under the political control of the democrats. it was the democrats who were pro-slavery, the republicans who fought them.

*rolls eyes* ayeeeeeeee

and of course don't forget that the democrats and republicans have never ever changed positions or ideologies ever.

"I will note that my suppositions haven't been refuted though. Interesting. " Back up your suppositions, buck-o

Nate is right. And SarcastSem is right

Well if half of the American people dont like Bush,just shave it off :)

good suggestion, Vv. That the best you can do, spunk? how's that corner feel?

No, Sem. You are the one who made the charge that right wing (conservative) groups are racist, homophobic, pro-slavery, male chauvenistic, etc. Proving they are NOT these things is not possible. No such evidence would ever exist. I am asking YOU to back up YOUR claims.

This is like the cornfield at Sharpsburg.

spunk, if you're finding exhaustion and an overall apathetic response to your "charge" for sem to back up his claims id suspect its probably due to the fact that you're being a complete dodo bird dimwit about the matter. if any of us need to demonstrate extremism displayed by the conservative right in American history to you, then you're far worse off than Im suspecting any of us thought.

Suffrage, slavery, civil rights, homosexual unions. These are issues that have plagued our historical and contemporary cultural and political landscape. That is a FACT. There were/are groups and individuals, who for a variety of reasons and in various ways, have either supported or opposed the issues raised within these issues. Now, looking back at who opposed these issues, would it be FAIR to say that those who opposed were, more likely than not, conservative? denying women the right to vote was a conservative viewpoint. being pro-slavery, arguing that individuals have rights to own chattel, was a conservative viewpoint. Being opposed to civil rights was a conservative viewpoint, being opposed to homosexual marriage IS a conservative viewpoint, it blantantly denies INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES to people. at various historical moments, being for suffrage, abolition, civil rights, and homosexual unions were viewed as radical, if not just a deviation from the status quo. people argued AGAINST these often (but not always) using claims that they infringed upon the indvidual rights and liberties of those who opposed them. I do not have time to go into the specifics. is it possible to clarify the issue any more?

None is so blind as those who have no eyes.

There is a problem with uncritically applying contemporary concepts of liberal/conservativism, right/left to historical issues, but I think it's possible for the sake of convservation. It is also possible to determine, based on standards of the time, which positions were deemed anti-american or a threat to the basic principles on which the country was founded.

i am tempted to start acting out some of these conversations in a one-woman show.

please don't. one-woman shows, not matter how poignant on paper are always trainwrecks in practice.

I wouldn't really. I don't have any inclinations toward performance of any kind. I did as a kid though.