Foreign and domestic policies, the media, Hollywood, entertainment, alternative lifestyles, religion and morals. Are we coming into an age of a Cold Civil War? Is there ever going to be a line drawn in the sand between ideologies in our nation? And what could cause this?

It seems to me that there has been a heated, not-so-civil war going on between these these two political philosophies for some time now. Both sides have been guilty of mudslinging and insulting behavior. I don't think it will get much worse, but it's bad enough already. I can't stand those television and radio shows where pundits on both sides shout at each other. I'm sick of demonizing the other side. I'm tired of bestselling books where it's more important to attack the other side than to defend your own side.

Too bad the American political scene can't be more like America's Debate.

EDIT: "What could cause this?" Maybe it's because it has become more important to win than to do the right thing. This goes back at least as far as the "dirty tricks" played by the Committee to Re-Elect the President during the Nixon years. (I'm sure you can find examples that are earlier from the Democratic Party. My point is not to accuse anyone in particular, but to track down when this really became a problem.) I can remember the 1960's, when we came as close to a real "cultural war" as ever in this nation. Some members of the Nixon administration, to this day, defend the things that were done to defeat the Democrats as necessary because it would have been such a disaster for the "wrong" side to win. Ever since then, the stakes seem to have been raised to the point where fighting dirty is normal.

Not too long ago there were headlines in my local paper about an election in which the two candidates treated each other with courtesy and debated in a civil manner. Isn't it sad that this was news?

From my interactions and observations, I've seen peoples philosophies on both sides be demonized and ridiculed even on this forum. I think AD is a very good representation of our culture across the board.

I think BJ makes a great point. I think that it's becomeing alot of "name-calling" without substance. I think though, with the way our country is setup 3rd parties will start to "move" the other 2 parties into working with each other. I mean, lets face it, in the business world whether you like someone or believe what they believe you still have to do business and get things done.

cusbilla

I'm not talking about the day to day activities of running the government, but rather on principles and ethics. There are some deeply divided issues and philosophies in this nation that is potentially harmful.

I don't think that we are really coming into any new age of a 'Cold Civil War'. I think sensitivites towards idealogical affiliation are greatly increased during times of war or conflict. Add a presidential election in the coming year to the mix and I think that is why the tensions seem so much greater as of late. As for the second question, I am not so sure I would want that. Sure compromise is good, but a permanent compromise between two idealogically opposites would not be so good for our country. Idealogies should always stand firm, politcal parties can compromise.

I think what is bad for the country is to be of one mind with no critical thinking. I know a lot of people thought the unity after 9/11 was great, but look at the results of one-minded thinking. I won't list all the abuses of this mindset because they've been more than fully covered elsewhere.

Part of the country came out of the mourning process after about a year. Another part came out after two years, and some will never pull out of it.

But it looks like most people have returned to a state of thought rather than mourning. That there's more anger than usual should be expected. After all, the country has been manipulated in a rather cold manner. This has hit people directly in many different ways, from unemployment to deployment; from loss of retirement funds to loss of local political control. And all points in between.

Just recently a local school board was taken over by a political blitzkrieg, originating from out of town, that has even raised the eyebrows of fairly staunch conservatives. Now, with secret ballots going on, the legal eagles are eyeing up what looks like, walks like, and stonewalls like -- a dictatorial piece of government.

When one side of the ideology split carries on this way, yep, it's time to carry out a cold civil war, revolution, change of guard--however you want to put it.

Abuse of power and our systems are not acceptable behaviors.

I like the term- "cold civil war" With all the talk of "red" and "blue" states, I think that we are increasingly becoming a nation divided. I believe that politics has become a lot more personal in nature, and that people are becoming more uncivil to one another as a result. Causes? Both parties have individuals who write inflammatory books about the opposition. No longer do you have reasons why people are wrong, now you have people on the right like David Horowitz and Ann coulter; on the left, Molly Ivins, Al Franken, and Michael Moore who it can be argued, cheapen the civil discourse in this nation by making insulting remarks about the other side. Another cause in my opinion is the notion of perceived slights. I think this was increased during the election of 2000. Republicans feel that they lost some votes because the media declared that Gore won Florida. Democrats obviously that they were cheated. I see these as two leading factors. I'm sure there are more.

Much of the polarization in this country is hype from “activists” on both sides vilifying their opponents and the media hyping the differences to win viewer points.

Yes there are significant differences from left to right but IMO not more than in past decades.

I have to agree with you on that point. There are some bills that receive bipartisan support, but when you have a party majority lock out members of the opposite party when it comes to drawing up a bill, then one has to wonder about how and why civility has declined. I saw an article yesterday about the increasing lack of civility in the senate. Granted, you don't have senators caning one another such as the Preston Brooks-Charles Sumner case, but there are more snide remarks made. The House has always been somewhat hot-headed and partisan in nature, it would be sad to see the Senate go the way of the house.

Undoubtedly. The differences upon which one may draw to identify a "side" with which to join are multifarious. Mature (as in developed, as opposed to sensible) cultures will naturally display a great deal of diversity in ethnicity, culture (both art and pop), religion, age, sexual habits, etc. ad infinitum.

The question as to what could cause is this is improperly framed, in my opinion. The tense is wrong--the Cold (un)Civil War has already begun. Or is at least at the Harper's Ferry point-of-no-return. The cause, the driving force, behind this phenomenon is what it has always been throughout human history.

You got it
I don't
I want it

Ultimately, the Cold Civil War has as its engine the economic divide in this nation of ours. All the rest is window-dressing and manipulation.

How does this work?

The middle and lower income folks in this country should know better than to trust those for whom they toil. This would make them the natural constituency of the Left. But there is an aspect these folks not appreciated by the modern Left. The blue-collar joes in this country, who barely make enough to scrape by, are, far more often than not, raised in a culture that highly prizes what is often derisively termed "macho" values of strength and toughness (more correctly these are the masculine traits of independence and resolve). These blue collar guys are seriously *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** that they make not much more than burger flippers. They're looking for someone to blame, someone to take up their cause.

Enter the Right.

The Right has stolen the Left's traditional power base, the male blue collar worker, by relying on the tactic of portraying the Left as at best, a bunch of effeminate hand-wringers, and at worst, Anti-American. It's that simple. Sure, there are those that have jumped on the bandwagon for other reasons, such as religious conviction, but by and large Joe Six-Pack doesn't want anyone calling him a sissy.

Take a look at gay singles ads some time, and note how many specify "straight acting/looking seeking same". Then check the scientific literature as to how many gay men self-identify as "feminine" versus "masculine".

My point? There is nothing any man wants less than to appear weak and effeminate. Rather walk over hot coals, we would. Or ask for directions.

The Right, aided by right-wing radio, has hammered this point home since the day Ronald Reagan stepped into the race, and they haven't let up since. The Left has done nothing to counter this, has simply turned the other cheek, the one with the blind eye, and loftily proclaimed "We will not stoop to the methods of our opponents".

Great. So what the modern Liberal would have us do is bring books, charts, and statistics, all bound up in an environmentally-friendly hemp fiber portfolio, to a gun fight.

I guarantee you that isn't how Jack Kennedy got into office, or Harry Truman retained it. Or How Clinton won in '92, and again in '96. If you think James Carville advocates holding folksy rallies and singing "Koombayah, my Lord..", you'd be well advised to read his books.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a War. And I damn sure hope my side wins, and does so soon enough for us to "Bind up this Nation's wounds..." and go about the business of being the damndest nation, good and bad, that this planet has ever produced.

Sign me,

The Gadfly

It's a bit of a leap to conclude that because the average male advertisement for a homosexual partner indicates a preference for masculine-looking men, there must be a right wing conspiracy. I don't find it surprising that a person would prefer the most representative type of whichever gender they're interested.
I haven't seen any bearded or otherwise masculine looking ladies in Swimsuit Illustrated....is that a conspiracy too? Right wing radio?

No, I don't believe there is a cold civil war. We tend to come together as a country when it matters most.

It would be, had I made such a leap. This would be an example of said leap.

1) Gay male singles ads indicate a preference for masculine partners.

2) Therefore, there must be a right wing conspiracy [to manipulate men].

Wow. It's right up there in your quote, forever preserved as a sterling example of digesting an argument to a soundbite, thus rendering it insensible, if not laughable.

What you just did to my argument was precisely as in the example below.

1) If one eats, one creates feces.

2) Therefore, it is the function of food to create feces.

Since argument presented in narrative form is lamentably easy to parse into to the distorted form in which you made your non-refutation, I'll break down it down into clearly delineated steps.

1) Men hate appearing weak, or effeminate, as a general rule.

2) The statement that "even gay men do not want to appear weak or effeminate" was offered as illustrative support, not probative evidence.

3) The culture that low, and to a lesser extent, middle income, men belong to prizes the masculine virtues of strength and independence above nearly all else.

4) Right wing party planners are as aware of this as anyone. You needn't research social science, psychological, or anthropological studies to understand this.

5) Right wing party planners (not the talking-head candidates) have effectively used this fact to shift the choice of low and middle income male voters towards their party.

I see steps not leaps. You claim I "leaped" from (2) to (5), thus giving the impression to someone who did not read my over-long post in its entirety that I am a complete nutjob, or at least a partisan hatchet man.

Using the fact that we come together during a crisis to refute my argument is completely specious--at no point was anything to the contrary said. This is called a "straw man". Of course we do--during a crisis of the sort represented by 9/11, the "Us" and "Them" took on completely different identities.

This was my first post on America Debates. It won't be my last, at least not any time soon. But the promise of it providing a haven for thoughtful, reasoned debate is not making a good initial showing. Next time, please, address the entire argument, not just an out-of-context point.

If you really do not believe there is a Cultural Civil War in this country, then you've been listening to nothing but NPR, watching nothing on TV (and no doubt proud of it), and spending no time sampling the sewage that courses through the arteries of the Internet.

Yours respectfully,

Gadfly

I retract the following comment:

"If you really do not believe there is a Cultural Civil War in this country, then you've been listening to nothing but NPR, watching nothing on TV (and no doubt proud of it), and spending no time sampling the sewage that courses through the arteries of the Internet."

Furthermore, I acknowledge that it may have been perceived as an attempt to impugn the poster's competence to post on the topic at hand.

I will restrain myself to posting in the most rigorously logical and dispassionate style possible in the future.

Gadfly

Fair enough. It’s insulting in the extreme to be classified as a person in the category designed especially for intellectually vacuous, testosterone driven, insecure cowboy want-to-bes.
Here is an attempt at an analogous style of argument:
1) Women are insecure about their appearance as a general rule.
2) Illustrative support for this can be found in the abundance of hair products, plastic surgery, and makeup which overflow the market.
3) The culture of women in all income levels prize beauty above all else.
4) Left wing party planners are very aware of this.
5) Left wing party planners have used this fact to shift the choice of women voters towards their party.

Clearly, since the majority of women vote for Democratic candidates, it must be because they have made special efforts towards indoctrinating unappealing looking and especially superficial, insecure women. This is obviously a civil war, I hope I win, rah rah. I disagree with those types of disparaging generalizations. But you’re right, I might very well be wrong and we are in the middle of a big cold civil war right now, and I’m missing it.

BTW...Welcome to the forum.

At no point did I state that the political Right was a "...category designed especially for intellectually vacuous, testosterone driven, insecure cowboy want-to-bes." I said that Right wing Conservatives have used the fact that men, particularly blue-collar and middle income men, respond well to a message loaded with macho imagery and buzzwords, to extend their dominance of the American political arena. I didn't say they were of and for "cowboy want-to-bes", I said they used this imagery to recruit average joes.

By the way, I am a man, and not the slighest bit ashamed of the fact that I am at times driven by testosterone. Frustrated, yes. But I think we're straying perilously close to a gender warfare theme, and that is clearly off-topic.

"Here is an attempt at an analogous style of argument:
1) Women are insecure about their appearance as a general rule.
2) Illustrative support for this can be found in the abundance of hair products, plastic surgery, and makeup which overflow the market.
3) The culture of women in all income levels prize beauty above all else.
4) Left wing party planners are very aware of this.
5) Left wing party planners have used this fact to shift the choice of women voters towards their party."

You are absolutely correct that this an analagous argument. It is not, however, an equivalent argument for the following reason:

I know of no credible evidence, or even any incredible evidence for (5). That Right wing Republican political campaigns, both officially through political ads, and unofficially through volunteers in right-wing radio, do target men in the manner I assert is easily demonstrable by a simple examination of said materials. That it is the result of careful planning can only be surmised, although I do believe a recent Right-wing defector wrote a mea culpa supporting just such charges.

"Clearly, since the majority of women vote for Democratic candidates, it must be because they have made special efforts towards indoctrinating unappealing looking and especially superficial, insecure women."

Men who prize strength and resolve are not necesarily insecure, nor are unappealing-looking women necessarily concerned with their appearance. I believe the majority of women vote for Democrats because they calculatedly target women's compassion and nurturing qualities.

"This is obviously a civil war, I hope I win, rah rah."

I didn't say I hope I win, I said I hope my side wins. I didn't express any particular glee, or Bushian "Bring 'em on" rhetoric either. It was a sincerely felt belief that if the Right has its way with this country we will be very much the less for it. I'm a lot less scared of the Left.

"I disagree with those types of disparaging generalizations."

I disagree with having my hand slapped in public but what is, is.

Disagree with them you may, but they exist. They go a lot deeper than language or history. We're talking sociobiology here. The human race wouldn't be here if men didn't have the drives we do. Nor would we be here if women did not have the drives they do. You don't change millions of years of biology with a few centuries of civilization and maybe two generations of gender role changes. The drives are there, and they can be and are being exploited, by both the Conservative Right as well as the Liberal Left.

Ignoring or denying a problem doesn't make it go away. It is precisely with the thought to defuse this nefarious tactic that I seek to expose it. Precisely so that the issues can be discussed, and not simply submitted to hard-wired, hormone-driven knee-jerk reactions.

Sorry if I've gotten off to bad start here. I'm passionate about my issues, and I come from a pretty rough-and-tumble political background. My brother is somewhat to the right of Trent Lott, my Mom is Civil Rights-Era Liberal (meaning she hates PC-ness and Right-wingers about equally), my sister is an apolitical Social Welfare/Justice Liberal, and me, I'm just a guy trying to figure out a way to make this cranky machine run so that most of us get we're going, without having to mortgage our souls to do it. But one thing I am NOT is a Right wing conservative on social issues, nor am I a "Tax-and-Spend" Liberal (as if Republicans don't do the same damn thing--just different names on the checks).

So, we'll spar, er, "chat" for awhile, and maybe you can tell me what I am. I mean that sincerely.

But make no mistake--its ugly in the tenches, and getting uglier by the day.

Thanks for hearing me out

Respectfully,

Gadflygive up

Both positions (along with Libertarianism) are basically just variations on "Classic Liberal" (the ideology of Loche) ideology. Conservatives are basically Classic Liberals with fundementalist beliefs which leads to some almost communitarian reasoning which is not very compatable with their core classic liberal ideology, but somehow they manage to resolve it for themselves. Liberals pair a lite version of social democracy with classic liberalism. Libertarians are simply classic liberals with no modifications. This is why the western system is often refered to as "liberalism" (in a political science context) or more commonly "liberal democracy."

They will never come into genuine conflict because they have the same economic ideological position, supporting a free market of private capital investment. When everyone works for the same company, they might fight over little things, but they wont let their differences get in the way of them making money since they are all working for the same people towards the same goal. Conservatives, liberals and libertarians are all working for same class of people when it comes to the economy.

A cold war is only a cold war if it is "cold" in place of being a real war. Could you ever imagine blood being shed over liberal and conservative differences? I could never imagine the democratic party threatening to overthrow a republican goverment by force or vice versa.

First, thank you all for providing this forum, I have been searching for a level-headed place where all sides converge and this seems to be the one....
Second, I apologize now for my inevitable typos. it seems that, no matter how hard I try, my "space-bar" thumb gets ahead of my right "pecking" finger...it may be a medical thing, who knows...

Anyway, I have to agree with Gadfly that there has, without a doubt, been a clear attempt on the part of the Right to defame those on the left as hand-wringing, effete whiners. The effeminization of liberalism has long annoyed me. On the other side the Left regularly portrays conservatives as ape-like, knuckle-dragging brutes with nothing but war and excess on their agenda. These characterizations work! Millions of dollars are spent by both parties (and by advertisers of all types) doing studies on the sensibilities of modern Americans. Everything from colors that reflect "manliness" to body language perceived as feminine has been studied and used to create illusions in the media. If I had millions of dollars, loads of sociological and psychological research, and a product to sell I would use it to! It works because we respond to our gut more than we make decisions using reason.

However, I think that these divisions between parties have always existed and have always been exaggerated for the sake of showmanship.
Recall the election of 2000. Does everyone remember the national debates between Gore and Bush? Remember how they always answered the questions the same? Whoever went first would answer and the next one would follow with. "I agree." and then go off and try to show how they would just do it better.
It was a time when Americans were beginning to wonder if there was a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Well trust me on this one, neither party wants us thinking that! Last time that happened Ross Perot nearly snuck up on them and received federally matching funds as a third party candidate. Of course, a few months later both parties got together and doubled the required % for receiving those funds... They don't want us to lose sight of their great debate because we might start looking at some of the other people on the political stage.
So yes, we will get a dog and pony show and they will, at the cost of Americans believing in each other and working together, create this fissure in our society.

Control of this country is one heck of a great prize to battle for. You can rest assured that the two major parties are content to keep it between themselves...

So, no, I guess there is no "Cold Civil War" because there is no real enemy. In the Cold War and the Civil War there were clearly opposing sides who did battle, in a large part, with economics. The present situation is different. The two would-be aggressors have there hands in the same pot of gold...

That is the most lamentable part of this two-party system! I have said for quite some time that many of the nations real problems come down to economic class - but those at the top (from both parties) benefit from us at the bottom not realizing it. Look at many racial issues - a poor black man from the inner city and a poor white man from the hills have a lot more in common than a poor white man has with a rich white man or a poor black man has with a rich black man. But I digress...

What has precipitated the apparent increase in tensions b/n the two parties? I think it started with Jimmy Carter - the dems elect a guy who is probably a truly nice guy and we start setting this precedent that the democrat is the nice guy in politics and we forget our *glorious* mudslinging past - and eventually forget we're even allowed to get angry and fight back. So we start showing up at gun fights with our hemp bound notebooks
But the Republicans never elected a nice guy - the closest they got in recent memory was Ford, who wasn't elected to pres anyway, and lost when it came time to try. So, they beat Carter and think its a great idea to keep beating the dems.
But kick a dog long enough, and it will bite back. We did that a little with Clinton - though I think the party at large tried to keep their hands clean from the dirtier politics Clinton was willing to use. So, we get another "nice guy" going against Bush, and suddenly the country thinks that the two parties are really the same and it doesn't matter which one we vote for either way... and at that time, it prob really didn't, so voting for a third party was really a good idea. If for nothing else, its goods the dems lost and Nader got so many votes, so the stupid party could realize they have to get their head out of the sand and start showing to the country they really have a stance of their own and deserve to remain one of the two parties in charge in this two-party system.

Then 9/11 happens and we go to war. And really, it seems the main place dems and publicans vary is with regard to military might (though both parties have shown they are not afraid to use it when needed). Its just the current rep in power don't might using it in a preemptive way - something that would (normally) make any mainline dem cringe and try to remember why they objected to Vietnam (I realize not all dems dodged the draft, this is just for sake of argument)

So, we have dems remembering they are able to get angry, so they are starting to bite back. And now they start to realize the republicans have done some things they actually don't agree with - and they want everyone to know it. Of course, they still don't really vary from the republicans much at all (b/c most republican *conservatives* in office don't really act that conservative as many have pointed out in other places on AD). And the democratic party is such a strange grouping of people and ideologies - its really becoming lately anyone who wants "anything but the Republicans". This is why Dean is so popular with his Bush-bashing.

There is a Saturday night live skit where a bunch of people show up to protest the war in Iraq, and no one can figure out why they're there - with save the whales groups, don't eat meat groups and Eat the whales groups all at once I think it really illustratedd what the democratic party was more than anything - a random collection of people who disagree with republicans for various random reasons - whether it be privatization, environment, military might, etc.

I predict, whenever the dems win (2004 - doubtful, but maybe 2008) and are back in power, there is going to have to be some serious shifts in the party in order to actually form a coherent group of people. Lets face it, if the republicans allowed a few laws to pass w/o much protest (like allowing homosexual civil unions)- many people would probably find they share as many ideas with the republicans as with the democrats.

Who knows, maybe the dems will seriously shift and become the real conservative party!

Personally, I think the two main political parties have become like NFL teams. Most of their supporters support them blindly as long as they have a shot at winning. Lately they have gotten to be more and more like "shock jocks". Particularly what has been disparaging has been the baseless innuendo perpetuated by the media, causing people to go to blows and high blood pressure over nothing. When the media retracts these (if they do), it is usually in a small back page of a newspaper or magazine or as a footnote on a news show. Quite frankly I think it's all a show and have little faith in our elections. The last election was not the only elections to have votes thrown out, they all have. Where are the stats on the votes thrown out over the past 5 presidential elections? Sounds like a good press story to me. Where are all the safe guards to prevent it from happening again as we were promised? A PBS show I recently saw said that after Grant's term the southern Democrats promised the selection of a republican president in return for control over reconstruction. Just how long has this been going on? When Clinton signed off on NAFTA and GATT, it was not with the consent of congressional democrats and it set up the loss of manufacturing jobs in our country and the demise of many unions. This all to benefit a more global economy and more profits to the megacorporations at the expense of the blue collar worker. Bush, of course, was more than happy to let this run it's course. Were they both on the same team? Neither regulated the amount of jobs that left this country and they could have easily. By not doing so they did damage the economy. The cheap labor out of the country has long been the wet dream for large corporations. Government restrictions and instability were the only thing stopping them. Of course, to keep our manufacturing (our country's interests) safe, we will have to be the world's police force.

Third parties? Considering the billions pumped into the political juggernaut, I do not foresee any strides toward a third party president. I really do not think our vote is more than a motion in futility.

Sorry TSheCat but i couldn't disagree more on the whole third paty candidate.
I see it like this. Each side of our political spectrum has a very rabid minority that is somewhat kamakazee in how they go at politics. Win at all costs is the motto and absolute disregard for any other veiws is the only way I can say it without earning strikes here at AD.
However most americans are moderate with shadings into each political zone (Conservative vs. Liberal)

The ultra wing elements of both parties are in control and have become so shrill hateful and obscene in their self righteous froths that they are ready to shotgun the koolaid down.

Most americans are rational. I think there is a very real state of exhaustion over this my way or nothing mentality now being demanded by the parties. I also beleive that Perot, Ahnold, and ventura have shown you can win by grabbing the middle. Yes perot lost, ahnold is claimed by the republicans, and venturas time in office wasn't the greatest But I think it clearly shows that someone could win by taking the moderate middle.
Sooner later someone with the charisma will aim for the middle completely and win overwhelmingly. I think it will be short lived as both parties compete to be the most reasonable party and win back from the third party but I think it will happen.

Aside from the fact I believe elections to be highly funded, well organized hoaxes, for a third party candidate to stand a chance they would first have to be very well funded, and there would have to be a legitimate amount of independent or same party congressional seats held. I can not see a democrat or republican congress accomplishing much of anything an independent party president had promised. Just look as far back as Bush the senior days of gridlock and you will see what I mean. It is the poorest hour of politics when making your opposition less electible is more important than the good of the country. Almost everything would have to be passed by referendum. Most independent congressmen today are loose guns that bend when their state is pandered. This is not a good thing. I don't believe any independent presidential candidate was allowed in most if any of the last elections debates. To make it fair there should be four major party candidates who would be determined by the size of their constituencies of the total of all parties. All campaign funds would be spilt evenly amongst these four parties and let the fun begin. I don't believe the present day system of taking tons of corporate money in return for future favors to lobbyists should be tolerated nor is it good for our country.

I doubt we ever had a time in which we had true harmony. Even the founders didn't get along and don't forget-it was one of their own who invented the process of shaping a political district along registered voters of your own party to rig elections. Quite the opposite-heated and passionate disagreement is a good thing, it's showing that some people are thinking about the issues that affect them. It would be nice if more people would participate in that process.