I couldn’t have said it any better than that. I have lived in countries that could split, some in a heartbeat. We are not like that! We are proud to be Americans despite political divisions.
I gotta say, there were times when I thought that a California secession movement would be a pretty good idea. There were also times over the last 4 years (I was a dumb, naive kid for the first 4) when I would have happily joined a violent coup against the federal government if I thought it had a decent chance of working.
Now? Not so much.
ETA: But that’s part of the beauty of the American system–things can go so wrong for a while, and then someone with a positive vision for our country can step up and unite us.
As the proud son of a Navy Captain and a recent volunteer for the first Congressional campaign of a retired Navy SEAL Commander, I’d say you nailed it.
They can plan whatever they want - but who would follow their orders?
To expand upon Alessan’s point, American military officers hold no political aspirations as military officers. It’s just not done; anyone who had such aspirations would never make it to any meaningful position, and if he did try something, his underlings and superiors would have him locked in the slammer so fast the door would nearly fly off the hinges. American military culture is simply not tolerant of that kind of thing, even in the slightest bit, and members of our military–of all branches and ranks–are expected to have total allegiance to the Constitution and little or none to any particular politician (no more than the average voter, anyway).
Burt Lancaster tried that in May. It only lasted seven days before Kirk Douglas stopped him.
Here are the reasons I can discern from my perspective as a native-born American:
[ul]
[li]There’s always an easier way to change things. Our elections and referenda (voting, in other words) have hiccups and are occasionally corrupted to the point the results are not legitimate, but the system works often enough for enough of the country that violent revolutions aren’t worthwhile. We have no large disenfranchised underclass, no ethnic or religious minority systematically kept out of the system entirely. There’s no place for violent rebellion to grow all that large.[/li][li]We all have a certain investment in the system. Americans are not only generally rich compared to the rest of the world, we’re well-educated and well-entertained. (I know it can get bad here. It gets a lot worse outside the country.) Therefore, we have a connection to what we have now and we all have something to lose in a revolution or civil war.[/li][li]We’re all related to each other. When you see a black American it’s a very solid bet he or she has white relatives within a couple generations. When you see a white American it’s fairly likely he or she has a black relative within a few degrees of consanguinity (cousins, nieces, nephews, and so on). When an American says they’re ‘German’ or ‘Italian’ or some other European ancestry, take it as a label of their most easily identifiable heritage, not where all their ancestors come from. It’s damned hard to fight your own relatives.[/li][li]The military is controlled by the civilian government, but owes allegiance to the Constitution. The President is the Commander in Chief and controls the entire American military. All military officers have commissions bearing the signature of a President. But the military does not take an oath to the President: Every solider, sailor, airman, and so on takes an oath to the Constitution and pledges to uphold the system of government it defines. What’s more, the whole culture of the military is apolitical. It would be deeply, deeply unprofessional for any officer to declare that his command was in favor of any individual or party. It would be unthinkable.[/li][li]The American military is the strongest on Earth. This is the last reason because it’s the least important one. Every American knows that if push came to shove the rebels would lose, but the idea of there being rebels isn’t something they’d seriously consider.[/li][/ul]
Precisely. If they want to be politicians, they leave the military and use their former military career to try and get votes as civilians. This works fairly well and there are plenty of veterans in political office but the fact someone is a veteran isn’t a guarantee he or she will get elected or be able to hold on to the office. In fact, a veteran just lost his bid to become President: John McCain, who was a POW, lost to Barack Obama, who has no military experience whatsoever.
It’s not like the Reds are totally disenfranchised this morning. They still have plenty of representation on every governmental level and they will get another chance at the presidency in 4 short years. They lost because they have a few things they need to fix and maybe they will. No violence required.
The political balance here has shifted a few degrees to the left, not fallen off a cliff.
I believe that there a few things that could lead to another civil war; however, they’re all pretty far outside the realm of possibility.
One possibility would be a repeal of the 2nd amendment ("…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…").
Another possibility would be an across-the-board ban on firearms, 2nd amendment be damned.
A third possibility would be a complete and comprehensive, no-exceptions, no-questions-asked ban on all abortions.
A fourth possibility, which I think would be the most likely to someday happen (though not necessarily lead to a civil war), would work like this: There’s a hotly-contested race for president, with ambiguous results and no clear winner (think Bush v. Gore in 2000). The Republican candidate declares himself the winner, and secures the allegiance of the top military commanders (not too hard to do- I’ve heard that the military is something like 80% Republican). He then informs the Democratic candidate that he (the Republican candidate) is now the president, and if his opponent doesn’t like it, he can take it up with General So-and-So here. The defeated candidate and his supporters then take up arms against the winner.
I think it’s because we’ve evolved a tradition of accepting that there is a law of the land, and a process for changing it, that is effectively fair (and usually involves compromise.) So people who want change have ways of working for it within the system.
I think the nearest we came to serious anger against the system was the 2000 election and the next few years, when there was perception that the system had failed (the person who won the popular vote did not win the election, and there was serious perception of vote fraud, misguidance, etc.) That’s actually when the red/blue state came into being (prior to that, the networks alternated every election pretty much)
Another thing to keep in mind about “red states” and “blue states” is that just because a state is colored on the map doesn’t mean that everyone in that state is a Republican or Democrat.
If you go to the election maps on CNN or other news sites and mouse over the states, you’ll see that many of the states have majorities of 51% or less.
HeyHomie writes:
> I’ve heard that the military is something like 80% Republican
No, that’s not true. We discussed this in a thread once. Enlisted men in the American military are approximately equally split between Republicans and Democrats. The officers are heavily Republican but not (if I recall correctly) by that much.
Another reason is that we’re all pretty sure there will be another Congressional election in two years and another Presidential election in four years. The U.S. didn’t call off elections during the Civil War or any of the other wars the country was involved in.
If you’re reasonably certain there will be another election, civil war is not seen as a good alternative, especially since never in U.S. history have the old elected officials refused to turn over the power to the new elected officials.
This is a huge issue. Even in the most solidly Democratic states, McCain still managed to pull nearly 40% of the vote. The winner-takes-all system for the Electoral College in 48 out of 50 states skews perceptions a lot.
For reference, take a look at some of the county-by-county breakdowns.
Solidly blue states: California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey
Solidly red states: South Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, South Dakota
Well said, Derleth, in all that you said. In fact, I just realized that “war heroes” have in recent years lost presidential races every time: GHWB in 1992, Dole in 1996, Gore in 2000 (well, certainly arguable, but I’d say the guy who actually went to Vietnam had a better military record than GWB, who served in the Texas Natl. Guard), Kerry in 2004 (even more clear-cut), and now McCain. Prior military service just doesn’t seem that important an issue for most voters nowadays.
Why don’t we split into two countries? Oh, jeez, a thousand different reasons: E pluribus unum. The cautionary tale, and instructive example, of 1861-65. Civilian control of the military. Widespread and very deeply-rooted patriotism. Regular elections. The rule of law. The peaceful redress of grievances. And so on and on.
Exactly. I am originally from Texas, but now live in Connecticut. I have a nostalgic connection to Texas, and refer to myself as a native-born Texan, but my loyalty to the U.S. far exceeds my loyalty to Texas (or Connecticut, for that matter).
With respect to politics, I am bemused that most of my relatives back in Texas voted for McCain (and Bush before him), but it’s nothing worth fighting over.
Exactly. I moved to Connecticut because that’s where the U.S. Navy sent me, but then remained here because that’s where I found work.
Not exactly. While military personnel are not allowed to actively support a political candidate (especially when in uniform), they have always been encouraged to vote. Military personnel may contribute to a campaign, but they may not solicit votes or contributions. Military personnel cannot display political signs or attend political rallies when in uniform.
Exactly. As a former military officer, I can attest that this is indeed the case. I swore an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and I took that oath seriously.
I cannot seriously envision this scenario ever happening. The flaw in this scenario is the part about “securing the allegiance of the top military commanders.” No way. Military commanders do not give their allegiance to any particular person. They give their allegiance to the Constitution, meaning the political process. They would let the political process play out, as it did in 2000 when the Supreme Court settled the election.
Any military officer who even attempted to intervene in the political process would be court-martialed faster than you could imagine.
I strongly supported Bush in 2000 (to my later regret). Nevertheless, I would have been unthinkable for me to interfere in the polical process. Had Gore come out ahead, I would have been disappointed, but would have readily accepted the result.
One other factor is that there is a large segment of the population that is not consistently Republican or consistently Democrat. These people would likely have no enthusiasm for splitting the country.
Some opt not to. My father was a career Air Force officer, and he never voted while on active duty. That was a personal choice, not a matter of insititutional policy, but he believed that his military office obliged him to avoid even that level of participation in civilian government.
I think even if these scenarios were to occur, there’s no way in hell they’d lead to a civil war. Assuming the 2nd ammendment was repealed (requiring 2/3rds of congress and 3/4 of the states to do so), I doubt very much that the remaining 1/4 of states are going to take up arms against the government and kill people, merely over their “right” to own a mechanism that can kill people. Sure, there’d be some hard-core NRA compounds that’d hold out, but I can’t imagine entire states would. There might be a generally-peaceful secessionist movement, but it’s not something people are going to war over.
Same thing for a ban on abortions. Do you really think entire states are going to take up arms against the government and kill people, over the right to terminate the unborn? How many violent pro-choicers are there?
In the event of a close election, that scenario is pure fantasy. The military isn’t going to choose sides. They exist to serve the civilian government. No way in hell you’re going to get enlisted men to shoot their fellow citizens over a 50/50Republican/Democrat split. They’d tell the two candidates to keep them out of it, settle it in the courts, and tell them when it’s over. Any candidate who would even propose a coup like that would instantly lose the support of most of his own electorate, and the military too.
The founding fathers of the U.S. tried to create a nation where the majority rules, but with respect for the minority. Overall, they succeeded. Those on the losing side of an election, and their supporters, are not killed or hauled off to jail. They can still live satisfactory lives even if everything is not to their liking.They can have confidence that there will be future chances for them to prevail. In some ways, political opponents end up taking turns being in control. Americans are raised to appreciate, or at least accept, the back and forth nature of the process. In the long run, most of us get our way enough of the time to be reasonably happy about it.
To have so little respect for those who do not agree with you that one would want to suppress them with violence is not the American way. The few extremists who act that way are stopped by the justice system. Many people from various countries where politics and violence go hand in hand desire to live in the U.S. to get away from that; precious few Americans have any desire to see that here.
Our politicians and military are largely honorable. I don’t think McCain or Obama are bad men.
Our political system works fairly well, and has a set of checks and balances. Three branches of government, the legislative (Congress), executive (the president), and judicial (courts.) These three branches have to work together. Congress includes representatives from every state, so the “government” will generally not be able to pass any tyrannical laws without overall cooperation from the states. The legislative and executive branches answer to the people and will not get re-elected without the support of the people. If we don’t like what Congress does in the next two years, there’s another election for Congress seats in 2010.
It’s also about attitude. We act with a certain public level of politeness, which I suppose is helped by continued prosperity. Even in bad finiancial times, the standard of living in the USA is still very high.
‘Solidly red’? McCain won all of those states by less than 10% each! (And from what I’ve heard, Georgia has a shitload of ballots from mostly deep, deep blue areas. Don’t count it out yet.)