America's New Revolutionaries

The most popular movie in America this week is Alex Garland's Civil War, a movie described thus:

In a dystopian future America, a team of military-embedded journalists races against time to reach Washington, D.C., before rebel factions descend upon the White House.

I haven't seen it yet, and will likely wait for it to reach the streaming services, but between its IMDb rating of 7.6/10, its positive Rotten Tomatoes score, and its box office success, the movie is resonating with viewers.

Critics of the film have faulted it for failing to present the causes of the civil war - and indeed deliberately blurring any potential message - while also failing to provide depth to the characters, but it does appear to be some pretty good eye candy, at the minimum. The "blurring" assertion appears widely-agreed-on, with California and Texas finding common cause in the film. That alliance alone should elicit a "huh?" from anyone familiar with today's political landscape.

Whether the lack of allegory to today's political climate is a boon or a missed opportunity is for each of us to judge individually, but the movie's existence does at least prompt thoughts about whether America is headed for a crackup.

I'm generally disinclined to think so. Those of us who spend a lot of time pondering these things may be prone to overthink the divisions among us, and the combination of dilettantism in present day activism (one suspended Columbia student is struggling to find alternate housing because he needs his emotional support rabbit accommodated) and general inertia also suggest that fears of a violent divorce are overwrought.

Still, it'd be foolish to ignore those who think otherwise.

Behold, the far-Left's plans to make noise and worse at the Democratic National Covention in Chicago this August.

As Olivia Reingold and Eli Lake report at the Free Press, dozens of socialist, leftist, pro-Hamas, subversive, and similar organizations are conferring and educating their members on such things as how best to avoid arrest while maximally disrupting and how to say "Death to America" in Farsi.

The Democrats and the legacy media (but I repeat myself) have long thumped warning drums about far-Right domestic terrorism being the biggest threat to the nation today, and have worked overtime to downplay concerns about threats from the other side of the divide. No matter the damage and chaos from the widespread protests, riots, and looting in the wake of George Floyd's death a couple years ago, or the more recent pro-Palestinian protests and threats to Jewish Americans.

Biden and his party have been cornered by the 10/7 Hamas attack on Israel and Israel's response. With the shift in his party's base from the working classes to the intellectual and college crowds, and the embrace of the latter's rampant woke-ism, the Dems found themselves in a no-win situation. Support Israel, as most of the country wants and as American Jews, who have been stalwart Democrats since forever, and they alienate the loudest and angriest part of their constituency. Denounce Israel and withhold support for a long-time ally, and alienate everyone else.

Thus, the "split-the-baby" approach that makes both sides unhappy.

Take note, however, of how those sides respond.

On the Right, a handful of Republicans stand opposed to continued foreign largess, either on its own merits or in conjunction with a failure to secure the Southern Border. With the GOP hanging onto its House majority by a whisker, that handful has an out-size voice, albeit one that's more effective at disruption than at policy impact. Take note, however, that even those radicals aren't screaming "Death To America." The single point of concern is the January 6th riot, which some continue to characterize as an insurrection. No matter that, despite robust prosecutions, not a single rioter has actually been charged with insurrection.

On the Left, thanks to years of coddling, enabling, and blind-eye by the same government that's throwing the book at every right-leaning malcontent it can find, extremism in both thought and action has amplified. The toxic seeds of Critical Race Theory and other neo-Marxist ideologies have taken root, and a political philosophy that has produced nothing but death and misery has been rehabilitated.

Thus, the useful idiots who want to chant "Death To America" in the language of a nation that would oppress or kill many of them for the sin of being a woman or gay.

Idiocy, useful or not, coupled with a sense of entitlement to kid-glove treatment by the very government they are denouncing, might incline us to discount the severity of the threat. But, such movements are a numbers game. A few hundred or even a couple thousand idiots widely mocked by the rest of the nation aren't a threat. Broad chunks of society echoing the sentiments of swathes of intellectuals, academics, "journalists," and indoctrinated college kids are, however, very concerning.

I wholeheartedly support "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" (see: The Bill of Rights) and to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances," (see: The Bill of Rights, again), to the point of skepticism as to requiring permits to do so. If they want to march, they should be free to march. If they want to say things that piss people off, that’s their right. If they want to chant “From the river to the sea…” sure, go for it. Marketplace of ideas, good and bad.

That said, I know that socialism has traditionally been born of political violence, given its "take from others by force" nature. I also know that socialists have always dehumanized those who didn't embrace the philosophy, making it easier to turn violent against both the persons and their property.

See, the Kulaks, the Holodomor, “a million deaths is a statistic,” and Che Guevara.

See: the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle.

See: “peaceably.”

Denial of others’ access to spaces they are entitled to enter, disruption of others’ right peaceably to assemble, intimidation of anyone who supports Israel, physically threatening Jews, inciting or perpetrating violence… none of these count as “peaceably.”

Since the most fundamental role of government in a nation committed to liberty is the protection of individual (and, by extension, property) rights, the radicals who are planning to disrupt the DNC inform us that they reject America's founding principles. Though the useful idiots may think otherwise (when they think at all), the inevitable outcome of their desire is a transformation of the nation into an totalitarian state that relies on violence to suppress disagreement, to coerce citizens into conforming behavior, to turn the productive into slaves of the State, and to purge undesirables. It’s a desire being revealed by a blind allegiance to the side of true oppression in the Israel-Hamas conflict. It’s not the Israelis who treat women like chattel, who imprison and execute gays, and who purge their space of all nonbelievers.

This is a Democrat-created environment, a Democrat-stoked problem, a Democrat-controlled city, and a convention of Democrats. It's up to the Democrat and Democrat-leaning citizens of the nation to make it clear to their politicians that they are not OK with bending the knee to the radicals.

Barry Goldwater noted that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Extremism in the name of totalitarianism is, no matter how gussied up and re-branded that socialistic extremism is. Supporting regimes that oppress their citizens, as Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and many others do, is indefensible. One can choose to criticize Israel in various ways without hagiographing or whitewashing the murderous and inhuman ways of Israel's opponents.

We will see how the Democrats handle the planned protests, and whether they will continue to let the left side of their faction dictate policy. The party rank and file should do their part by being vocal about what we can call traditional American values of individual liberty and support for Democratic nations such as Israel, instead of allowing the hateful radicals to shout them down. Parties are nothing more than amalgams of people, and it is up to the people within the parties to decide which voices should win out.

As to civil war? I still believe it highly unlikely, but turning a blind eye to the festering hatred of liberty by the radical Left makes that dreaded possibility less unlikely.