Our nation is more polarized than ever, with just about everyone being radicalized towards one political/ideological direction or another. The question to answer is, which way are you being pulled?
First: The fundamental conflict is between the Individual and the State. There are things we must do together: defend the border, keep civil peace, enforce contracts. But government must not overreach, nor take too much from the economy for that which it does. That way leads to endless expansion of State, cultivation of entitlement among bureaucrats and a weak, un-self-reliant populace.
Second: The imagined “left – right” divide is collectivist propaganda, to mischaracterize America’s historical values as mere “fascism.” Lenin would be proud of that lie.
While the Left-Right division can get muddled and confusing, this is simply how people discuss politics. Individual liberty and small government are aspects of what is identified as the Right.
As for the state vs. individual, this isn’t a helpful paradigm. Most Americans want some kind of authority enforcing law and order. And yes, protecting property rights and keeping taxes low would be nice too.
Much of the friction comes from the mindsets that Evan discusses, which are as cultural as they are political. If Trump’s administration can take measures against disorder and globalization overreach, we may get to a healthier spot as a country.
Parties made sense in 1776, when Democrat slave-owners wouldn’t agree to the Revolutionary War without their slaves and the three-fifths compromise.
Parties made sense in 1860 when abolitionists founded the Republican party and Democrat slave-owners drove America to Civil War.
Parties made sense in 1886, when Democrats imposed Jim Crow segregation in the South.
Parties still made sense when Republican Eisenhower got the first and only constitutional Civil Rights Act in 1957.
Parties have not made sense since the 1960s, when Democrats flipped, so desperate to regain power, and Republicans went RINO to retain power, With the new Uniparty, the underlying fracture was exposed.
It has been the Individual vs the State ever since then.
President Trump is the final manifestation, winning twice because the People have escaped the Uniparty.
Article presciently identifies the most fundamental weaknesses in America. “These jihadis regard more moderate forms of Islam as false. Are they wrong?”
If you listen to imams in the Muslim world—and preaching in Dallas or Houston—jihad is normative Islam. They’ll quote you chapter and verse from the Koran or Hadith to prove it. Gullible Christians believe what they’re told by Islamists in Europe: that jihad means only internal struggle. But faithful Muslims believe the words of the “perfect book”, the Koran, that jihad also means struggle and warfare to conquer infidels, e.g., “unbelievers” like Christians and Jews to force them to submit.
Over the 1400-year history of Islam, there have been several “reform” movements, but they’re not what you think. They’re the fundamentalist return of Islam to its literal meaning in authoritative texts. Thus Al-Qaeda and ISIS are considered prototypical reform movements within Islam. That’s why you see jihadis cutting off the heads of “infidels” or throwing gays off high places to their deaths. That’s how it was done in early 7th century Arabia.
The modern Islamic revival was ushered in by a) the 1979 fall of the Shah and rise of a theocratic state under Khomeini; and by b) defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan by the mujahideen backed by the CIA. Before this, it seemed that Islam would continue to recede in favor of secularism as had happened with Christianity in the West since the mid-19th century. The powerful Islamic religious revival coincided with a huge influx of Muslims into the West, which had already lost the will to survive and sustain its own demographic. Thus for the first time since the Ottoman invasion of Europe, Islam found a foothold in the heart of a vulnerable, unresisting Christian Europe.
Is America next? Not necessarily. You can't beat something with nothing. Yet we have two "somethings": Christianity and American exceptionalism.
Two faults in the article.
First: The fundamental conflict is between the Individual and the State. There are things we must do together: defend the border, keep civil peace, enforce contracts. But government must not overreach, nor take too much from the economy for that which it does. That way leads to endless expansion of State, cultivation of entitlement among bureaucrats and a weak, un-self-reliant populace.
Second: The imagined “left – right” divide is collectivist propaganda, to mischaracterize America’s historical values as mere “fascism.” Lenin would be proud of that lie.
While the Left-Right division can get muddled and confusing, this is simply how people discuss politics. Individual liberty and small government are aspects of what is identified as the Right.
As for the state vs. individual, this isn’t a helpful paradigm. Most Americans want some kind of authority enforcing law and order. And yes, protecting property rights and keeping taxes low would be nice too.
Much of the friction comes from the mindsets that Evan discusses, which are as cultural as they are political. If Trump’s administration can take measures against disorder and globalization overreach, we may get to a healthier spot as a country.
Parties made sense in 1776, when Democrat slave-owners wouldn’t agree to the Revolutionary War without their slaves and the three-fifths compromise.
Parties made sense in 1860 when abolitionists founded the Republican party and Democrat slave-owners drove America to Civil War.
Parties made sense in 1886, when Democrats imposed Jim Crow segregation in the South.
Parties still made sense when Republican Eisenhower got the first and only constitutional Civil Rights Act in 1957.
Parties have not made sense since the 1960s, when Democrats flipped, so desperate to regain power, and Republicans went RINO to retain power, With the new Uniparty, the underlying fracture was exposed.
It has been the Individual vs the State ever since then.
President Trump is the final manifestation, winning twice because the People have escaped the Uniparty.
Article presciently identifies the most fundamental weaknesses in America. “These jihadis regard more moderate forms of Islam as false. Are they wrong?”
If you listen to imams in the Muslim world—and preaching in Dallas or Houston—jihad is normative Islam. They’ll quote you chapter and verse from the Koran or Hadith to prove it. Gullible Christians believe what they’re told by Islamists in Europe: that jihad means only internal struggle. But faithful Muslims believe the words of the “perfect book”, the Koran, that jihad also means struggle and warfare to conquer infidels, e.g., “unbelievers” like Christians and Jews to force them to submit.
Over the 1400-year history of Islam, there have been several “reform” movements, but they’re not what you think. They’re the fundamentalist return of Islam to its literal meaning in authoritative texts. Thus Al-Qaeda and ISIS are considered prototypical reform movements within Islam. That’s why you see jihadis cutting off the heads of “infidels” or throwing gays off high places to their deaths. That’s how it was done in early 7th century Arabia.
The modern Islamic revival was ushered in by a) the 1979 fall of the Shah and rise of a theocratic state under Khomeini; and by b) defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan by the mujahideen backed by the CIA. Before this, it seemed that Islam would continue to recede in favor of secularism as had happened with Christianity in the West since the mid-19th century. The powerful Islamic religious revival coincided with a huge influx of Muslims into the West, which had already lost the will to survive and sustain its own demographic. Thus for the first time since the Ottoman invasion of Europe, Islam found a foothold in the heart of a vulnerable, unresisting Christian Europe.
Is America next? Not necessarily. You can't beat something with nothing. Yet we have two "somethings": Christianity and American exceptionalism.