Since this post discusses the possibility of violent, internecine warfare, a Second American Civil War, I suppose this post will most likely get the most hits in this series, but the last post in this series is probably the more important. That is because the last post addresses the root of the problem, suggesting that the solution the framers of the Constitution proposed is still the most viable, if not an entirely satisfactory solution. What this post discusses is the difficulty of compromise and the outcome if we are unable to arrive at a solution.
This is the fifth part in a series designed to inspire debate on the nature of our Rights.
- Part 1: Here we considered the definition of rights promoted by the Declaration of Independence.
- Part 2: This part examined whether the Bible affirms whether or not our rights are God-given.
- Part 3: This part looked more carefully at the argument for government-given rights.
- Part 4: This last section considered the philosophical decision we have to make when we decide how to institute a government. It explains the true nature of the decision Liberal Democrats and Progressives demand we support.
Here we will consider the following question.
Why Is Compromise Not An Option?
Doug, an anti-Trumpist, has an interesting post, As You Mull Over The Next Possible Apocalypse, Civil War, Anyone? , while his feelings for Trump are hardly rational, does seem to be largely level-headed. So he stills supports winning his cause through the electoral process. Nevertheless, he begins his post by blaming……
There are a number of real bozo’s on the right wing that would actually entertain some level of civil unrest, or even a civil war, to kinda “cleanse” the Washington elites, remove public enemy #1.. the press, and eliminate from the gene pool all those God-forsaken Obama and Clinton lovers from the face of the planet. (continued here)
What most people don’t seem to understand is that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between what we call the extreme right and the extreme left. Nazis use race as excuse to hate, and Communists/Socialists use economic class differences. Both support dictatorial socialist regimes. Sadly, it appears that Liberal Democrats just invented identity politics so they would have more excuses to arouse hatred in people. It is such demagoguery that leads to war.
Since seems willing to engage in dialogue, I comment from time-to-time on his blog. Here is part of a comment I left at ‘s post.
Have you truly considered what civil war means? It is not us versus them. It is brother against brother. Civil war happens because compromise is no longer possible. Brothers, people who should be close enough to care deeply about each other, find themselves trying to kill each other.
After decades of traversing from one shaky compromise to the next, the North and the South found compromise impossible. The South saw Lincoln as an abolitionist, unacceptable. Similarly, too many see Trump’s presidency as intolerable.
If you cannot get the folks on your side accept the outcome of a fair election, why point at the other side? Why blame the Tea Party or Conservatives? You want peace? Then hold your own accountable. They won’t listen to the Tea Party or Conservatives. The mass media has demonized us too well, but they may listen to you. (from here)
In his post, mostly concerns himself with what a civil war would look like in today’s America, but it is obvious that he, like the rest of us, does not know what to expect.
What would a civil war look like? That depends mostly upon how much hatred we allow demagogues to instill into us. Look at the Nazis. Consider the Holocaust. Weep over the Communist’s purges which still occur from time-to-time. Consider the untold millions various tyrants have murdered, committing genocide against their own people. Remember how they destroyed their enemies in mass killings, in gulags, and in concentrations camps. That was civil war.
When we try to use the government to run the lives of others, we can call it an act of love, condemning our enemies as selfish monsters. We can use the power of government to demand all kinds of programs to help other people, but giving that kind of power to our leaders corrupts them, and it corrupts the people who receive the benefits of such programs. Why? True charity is personal and voluntary. True charity comes from the heart, not a government program. True charity requires someone to give and someone to receive (gratefully, if they can swallow their pride and be thankful instead of envious).
So why is it that when Liberal Democrats and Progressives insist upon legislating socialist programs there is no basis for compromise? Consider again the ideas presented in Part 4.
- The founders of this nation deliberately limited government power by legislating against only against sins of commission. They prohibited the sins that arise when we decide to harm our neighbor. These sins arise from hatred, envy, greed, pride,…..
- The founders did not give the Federal Government broad powers to force the People to do the “right thing”. That is, the founders did not put the Federal Government in the business of correcting sins of omission, sins that arise when we fail to love our neighbors as we should. Undoubtedly, some considered the possibility, but they understood the problem. Which of us is fit to properly exercise such power? Which citizens, you and me, would not be tempted to use the power of the ballot to vote to receive that which belongs to someone else?
Whether we want to admit it or not, government is not a wonderful tool for solving societal problems. It is primarily an instrument of force, designed to stop some people from doing harm to other people. When used properly, government allows each of us the opportunity to do whatever it is that we each think is the “right thing”. However, even when they are in majority when some busybodies try to use government to use government to force their fellow citizens to do the “right thing”, their supposedly good intentions are leading them on the path to Hell. In addition to depriving their fellow citizens of the right to decide for themselves what is the “right thing”, these busybodies turn the government into an instrument of tyranny.
Want some specifics from recent history? All we have to do is turn to the reign of President Barack Obama to see what happens when our nations leaders think the have the right to run our lives for us. Consider.
- Top 10 Ways Obama Violated The Constitution During His Presidency (thefederalist.com)
- 5 Ways Obama Has Destroyed The Rule Of Law In America (townhall.com)
- Barack Hussein Obama’s unlawful acts (conservapedia.com)
- An Executive Unbound: The Obama Administration’s Unilateral Actions (heritage.org)
- Krauthammer: Obama Has Broken The Law 15 Times (truthandaction.org)
Don’t think these examples are enough? Don’t think the logic for limited government makes sense? Don’t think God gives us our rights? Okay. Then put up or shut up. What rights do we have? Why? When they don’t find it convenient to do so, why should anyone respect your rights?
When the new world was settled by peoples from Europe, only thirteen colonies on east coast of North America thrived to become a great nation. What made the United States different? What did its founders do differently? If we want to know, we have to set aside what the busybodies want us to believe. Instead of letting others educate us, telling what to think and how to live, trying to legislate our existence; we must educate ourselves. We must strive to stand upon the shoulders of those who have gone before us and try to see just a little farther than they did.
Bernard of Chartres used to say that we [the Moderns] are like dwarves perched on the shoulders of giants [the Ancients], and thus we are able to see more and farther than the latter. And this is not at all because of the acuteness of our sight or the stature of our body, but because we are carried aloft and elevated by the magnitude of the giants. — Isaac Newton (from here)
Our ultimate hero — our best example — is Jesus, but to understand how to imitate Jesus we must copy the example of those we see imitating the example Jesus, even if we can only learn about them by reading the history of their lives and thoughts.