Socrates warned us that democracy needs an educated populace to function. We defunded our schools, valued media over books, became complacent as a nation and now this is the end result. We will collapse because our elected officials chose money over duty and we as a society chose entertainment over paying attention. Everyone pause. THIS IS OUR FAULT.
Unless I give those people in January 6th some credit I mean look they might be wrong about how to go about it but they're not wrong to be upset and I'll be honest more people should be like those people we all might disagree on what's wrong with the country but I think majority of people like those people on that day will agree fundamentally this country is very f***** up place to live and it's not serving the people it's not serving the people on the left it's not serving the people on the right it's not serving anyone but of course the wealthy elite
@@donniles3531 Vivil war is a bec3ssary setback for this nation. I personally suggest a peaceful balkanization where man6 differ east smaller countries are realized from ours. Like say a pacific states nation or old republic of Texas or the Deep South. Just Balkanize the US so policies and Politicians are more regional and you’ve got a working system!
I am all for a civil war against rightards. NOBODY is entitled to the status quo, which includes a nation. EVERYBODY IS FORCED into the world WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. Therefore NOBODY "owes" anybody a particular political opinion. There is NOTHING sacred about a nation, the status quo. Putting people into prison is a WEAPON of war of conflict, just like ANY OTHER weapon: a gun, rape. e.g. If you MOCK the suffering putting people or nonhuman animals into prisons (human prisons, factory farms, etc) then you got NOTHING to whine about if people choose to mock people's deaths or use people's deaths for THEIR OWN political purposes.
"Why has there never been a coup in America? Because there's no US embassy there!" -famous joke around the world that speaks to just how much more the rest of the world knows about America than average Americans do. We are STUPID, ARROGANT, IMMATURE and we can't control our own oligarchs. This will end badly.
It doesn't matter who people vote for. The policies enacted by the winner are not what the people want, or need. The political class only seems to care about the needs of the wealthy, and the corporations. People are getting really frustrated.
I grew up being told the US was the freest democracy in the world. All the movies and cheers. We're all growing up now, seeing and listening to what we ignored before. Our democracy is flawed, we can do better.
I grew up in West Germany, the reunification happened in my teenage years. I always wondered how Americans could even live in a country where so many people own firearms, where so many people get killed all the time, where there is so much violence and so little social security, so little social welfare so much poverty. I also couldn't understand how a country where only two parties matter, where none of the other parties get a piece of the political power cake, could even think of itself as a great democracy. Of course, I only know the US from the media, I've never been there. I doon't think I even want to visit the US, it seems like a complete nightmare. Capitalism gone wild.
@@wj3186 If I as a non-American may add my $0.01: I think the entire system is doomed, and that's probably a good thing, since the system was built by greedy Europeans killing and robbing natives, taking their land, kidnapping millions of Africans and enslaving them. The US got all the religious extremists who fled from Europe after their attempts at building fundamentalist Christian dictatorships had failed, like the Puritans from England and the Baptists from Germany, and they camee to dominate the culture to such a degree that even today US children learn in school that those evangelical radicals were good people fleeing religious persecution. The entire system of states built by European colonisers has to go. Not only the US, but all the postcolonial states in the Americas need to be dismantled, the natives are the only ones who have any right to say how human societies on the American twin continents should work.
its almost like all reviews point exclusively to right wing currents being the threat to democracy in the USA these decades...literally all. Shocking right? :o Its shocking that all fascists are antidemocratic totalitarians right? woah
Dude, most of us want to be left the f777 alone. They blindly call 100 million Americans "racists" and all this other dehumanizing stuff. They own the MSM, the social media, etc. Propagandize little kids, inject them with chemicals because of their preconceived notions of "nonbinary blah blah blah", burn entire city blocks down, assassinate and jail people for political purposes, ignoring pretty much every due process step along the way... And you want to know why some of us have entire walls turned olive-f777ing drab with filled ammo cans? We're waiting for you to block the roads and demand vaxx pass. That's when they will get what's coming to them. All we wanted was to live our lives, and these anarcho-communists are intervening. We're not a people you want to "intervene" in the lives of. 1 of us is worth 10,000 leftists. Leave people alone, or they will make you.
@@lil_weasel219 We are anti-democratic. We believe the constitution overrules people, because people are dumb and always ruin any system they're given. Give them capitalism, and they turn it into plutocracy. Give them plutocracy, and they'll turn it into feudalism. Give them so-called "communism", and they just turn it into feudalism, all the same. Call it anarchy, and it still turns into feudalism. Democracy is garbage. The constitution reins supreme. Now, do you want the .458 SOCOMs in my house, or in you? Leave people alone.
This was a seriously stellar interview. The interviewee was very credible and knowledgeable, and Galen asked all the right questions. Galen has turned into a really good interviewer. Great work.
Define "military"... if you're referring to a military unit, that can literally be a few guys with guns... or it can be an entire army. Gather a few friends together with rifles, and you've got yourself a military unit called a "fire team". Is this the “private military” you were looking for? Maybe you wanted more? Gather a dozen friends with rifles, and now you've got yourself a military "squad". Still not enough? Well then, if you gather a couple squads, you've now got a "platoon". Is that good enough, or were you needing more for this “private military”? Well, if you can get a few platoons together, then you've created a military "company". And if you can muster at least a couple companies, then you've got a whole "battalion" of troops. If you’re commanding your own private battalion, that’s HUNDREDS of troops ready to do your bidding. At this point, one would hope you’re a millionaire and can afford all this. If that’s simply not enough, then we can start talking in grander scales. Gather from three to six battalions together, and you have an entire "brigade". That’s THOUSANDS of guys… who will all be expecting to eat… and get paid. At this point, you better have a Bill Gates kind of portfolio. We can go on… if you gather several brigades together, you've got a military "division". And of you gather several of those, you've got a "corps". Multiple corps of men and we’re finally talking about an “army”. But an army alone still isn’t quite a “military”. Now we’re going to need to do all the same kind of growth, through ever larger unit structures… except now with with air and naval forces... and those guys are gonna want the REALLY expensive toys. Hope you can afford ships and aircraft to keep them happy. And now you have yourself a "private MILITARY". But again… a few friends with rifles forming a 3 man fire team is MUCH cheaper. They might only require beer and pizza to gather them together.
When you have a education system, that doesn't prepare the average student to survive in society. Not everybody wants to go to college. We need to teach trade schools. You need to show people that their lives would be better than their parents. You can't take jobs out of this country. And expect it to stay strong. We need a government that works for the American people. Not just the wealthy.
Instead of relying on college to train me in skills needed for jobs, I pray to God I can learn the right skills and network with the right people. The end objective is to not only get a job, but to be a contributing member to my country and the world.
@@limingde91 Spoken like a good, obedient subject of the CCP, who prefers social harmony over freedom and rugged individualism. Sorry, I cannot relate, and will not submit. 说话像一个善良、听话的中共党员，他更喜欢社会和谐而不是自由和粗犷的个人主义。 对不起，我无法联系，也不会提交。
There is much more to an effective, valuable education than a job. The mere fact that 53% of Republican still support Trump is a solid indication that they have no idea what’s wrong or how to fix it. That’s the real value of an advanced education. Anyone can learn in a few weeks how to frame a house. logic, ethics, and philosophy cannot be effectively sampled in the same period. And when you have a large segment of society denigrating such study as worthless, well… here we are.
Around 14:00 she says "before Obama, white US citizens were roughly 50/50 split on voting Republican and Democrats", then follows it up with "today, the Republican party is 90% white" and talks about it as if those two statements are incompatible and the second statement supports her argument that an ethnic party is forming in the US. But Rep being 90% white doesn't mean 90% of whites vote Rep - which would be the truly worrying sign.
@@gorgthesalty I don’t know if we can conclude that. Her narrative isn’t the input into the model. My understanding is that the model takes some combination of the ratings of these third-party groups. My guess is that factionalism is always complicated and that experts over-simplify it when communicating to the general public. You loose people when you say: “it’s complicated.” So it is hard to say where the Republican Party is on the factionalism spectrum and how that would factor into the risk of war. I prefer to think that we’re not that close, but Donald Trump is clearly radicalizing some people. And I believe that is deliberate and self-serving. And many Republican politicians have joined in. That is crazy shit and it makes it hard for me, as someone who has voted more by candidate than party, to trust Republican candidates. That is truly sad for American democracy.
@@christopherbrand5360 I don't know how helpful it is, but Pew recently published their typology report near the end of 2021 and found some 9 distinct factional groups in the American electorate. Some are certainly on the more extreme end and fit the bill for radicalization. I do think a multi-party system that would allow the less radicalized right leaning factions to run candidates that actually respect democracy and have a policy vision. That would be a helpful change -- I still am to the left of them, but I'm all for a democratic, nonviolent exchange of ideas and peaceful transition of power. I don't think we'll ever adopt like an RCV multi-party system, and I don't think it's necessarily a silver bullet either, but I feel like something has to change.
We're sliding toward Weimar. The extremes are the only options. The middle is forced to choose sides. A dictator comes along and tells the people amenable to his position go along in hopes "peace" can be imposed. It will be helpful to find an "enemy" that people can focus their hatreds on. Liberal/Communist/Socialist will be the likely object of scorn. "When facism comes to America it will come draped in the flag carrying a cross" - Sinclair Lewis. My family, long ago, being peaceful farmers for the most part, found themselves strapping on guns and marching through the South. What it will look like today, I have no idea. However, it happened once before.
@@chunkerbunkers96 --- A VERY LOST CAUSE. | In a civil war, the Federal government would readily, swiftly, and decisvely defeat the AMATEUR WARRIORS deployed by the white supremacists. Given the rightwing's demographic composition (stolen-valour poseurs, amateurs, wannabes), the practical and military incompetence of the right-wing militias is a real thing, c.f. Trump's Treason of 6 January 2021. The physical cowardice and moral cowardice of right-wing "leaders" are real defects of character that ensure failure (tactical and strategic); notice that The Leader (a manager, actually) walked away from his civil war. On the level, guy, would you suit up in militia-man gear and wage CIVIL WAR in behalf of white supremacists, such as Sen. Josh Hawley, Rep. Madison Cawthorn, or ex-prez. Donald Trump and expect gratitude and treasure?
Everybody who’s looked into the way a modern civil war would be fought thinks it will look like the IRA and the Troubles. Basically stochastic terrorism, bombs, shootings, assassinations.
In what way has America ever been a democracy? Democracy means rule by the common people, while the United States was founded by and for businessmen and landowners, and that concentration of power has not changed to this day.
I agree. The first permanent English settlement was founded by the Virginia *Company.* Even after independence, the only people who could vote were the landed gentry. By the time women got the vote, the two party political cartel was already entrenched
At 31:30 min she says "Full liberal democracies don't experience civil war". I agree that that drastically decreases the chance of civil war. But, for example, The IRA launched a civil war as best they could. They didn't have the votes to win via elections so they chose violence. I'm not saying the US is headed in that direction. I'm just saying I can imagine a regionally separated ethnic group resorting to civil war to try and gain independence from a country in which they are the minority.
Disband this union of states back to states sovereign in themselves. Or federal government is nonfunctional and must be disillusioned power returned to the states , yes Lincoln was wrong to start a war to keep union together, it will also be wrong to start a war to end the union but it's going to happen . There is a sickness in the federal government and must be put down like a dog with rabies. Choose your side , there will be no sitting this one out. FREE MY STATE
It is unlikely something like this would happen, but, it would always be wise to talk to people around the world who at one point said to themselves: "No, this would never happen here." "Nah, there would never be a dictatorship here.", "Nope, a civil war would never occur here." There is always a possibility, it takes very little to light a fuse. The biggest mistake is to sit idly.
I disagree. I think civil war is very likely. The majority of the country may not want it, but civil war in modern times are waged by extremists, not armies. Militia groups will likely attack soft targets, assassinate political figures, attack police and government facilities. Civil war in America will look like Northern Ireland during the Troubles.
Think about it. What is this civil war about? White people mad they are not getting there way. Really? The first time a black family is shown being killed by white supremacist on national TV. Do you actually think there are that many white people in America? That could contain the hatred and revengful acts of so many people effected by racism. Do you truly believe the white racist in America could stop all that hate unleashed?
@@gilbertgaines672 it won't be a shooting war. Most likely it would be secession just like Brexit. Democracy is an untested system. No Democratic country with over 350 million diverse population has survived more than 300 years.
@@4KSnSLifestyle LMMFAO! What TF do the other side has to offer? This is not your nation, nor any white person nation PERIOD. So what makes you think America is going to slice of herself for you or the white race? This is the kind of intellect that is supposed to take America? LMMFAO as President Obama once said " Please Proceed"!
The Dems need to rig the outcomes with gimmicks like same day registration, mail ballots with no checks or verification, no IDs, ballot harvesting, allowing non citizens to get on the voter rolls through motor-voter, allowing non citizens to vote in local elections, voting a month before election day, not allowing post election audits, etc. So why should Republicans trust the outcomes?
This hits on a point made by Hannah Arendt regarding the atomization of individuals leading to revolution. Some have, I believe, misinterpreted her remarks as atomization being a tool used by totalitarian governments to pull people under their umbrella, but I think that isn't what she meant. I believe that what she was referring to by atomization was the reduction of the citizen's individual power on the public stage. In a democratic system, the citizen receives a political voice through their vote. When you vote for someone and they get in, they represent your voice on the public stage. When you vote for someone and they lose, you can be disgruntled but you know that you will have a chance to change things in the next election. But when you vote for someone and they win, then they go on to implement policies which are the opposite of what you voted for, you feel betrayed. Your vote means nothing, as even when you win they still don't bother to represent you. You have effectively become an atom in the sea of countless other atoms. Your individual opinion doesn't matter, so you find political movements which give you some semblence of a public voice. All they ask is that you give up your automony and adhere to the rest of the group's beliefs in order to garner solidarity. This is how poverty becomes disconnected from the political instability. Usually, by failing to represent the citizens, the politicians will exacerbate poverty in favor of propping up big businesses, so it appears like poverty is linked to the instability. Instead, the instability is related to the lack of representation, not the poverty. Therefore you can have a political system that does a good job representing the will of the people but still experiences high levels of poverty without becoming unstable. At least that is how I interpret this situation.
I've been studying and writing about this topic for decades as well. I agree with your guest. All the criteria is there. Studies have shown that we're now a defacto oligarchy; that we've become a corporatocracy. The approval rating of not just the government, but all of the nation's key institutions, has been poor for decades. In other countries, the ruling class would already be looking for a place bug out to. We are balkanizing as a nation, especially along economic and racial lines. There's little doubt that "something" is going to happen, whether it's a civil war or a revolution, remains to be seen.
I think what Galen seems to miss somewhat is that although the US may still be considered a democracy, it is increasingly a flawed democracy. That is what puts it more at risk - and why reforms are needed. Galen, you should invite Daniel Ziblatt and/or Steven Levitsky to come on the show - the authors of How Democracies Die.
@@j.markenglish5747 this is just semantics. The US is (or at least claims to be) both a representative democracy and a constitutional republic - essentially a democratic republic. But it is a flawed democratic republic.
@@generalmartok3990 POTUS for example I’d chose by a set of electors. We do not live in a one person one vote democracy. The founders, on the whole, were terrified of direct democracy.
These threats seem more like the insurgency and revolts we had in Brazil. Not quite a Civil War, but an armed insurgency attempting to overthrow a local power as opposed to the entire nation. It does depict division and weakness of the American Democracy and it may result into marshall law policies and repression.
Some historians today claim that this period after dom Pedro I was indeed a civil war, but the people who made the narrative in the empire and earlier republic didnt want to call it a civil war to make the State look more stable
@@5rings16 "America is a Republic" , you poor sap . Enjoy your civil war 2 . Trumptard ? It is a form of democracy. Call it what you want. It is not working. It needs reform . Getting rid of all them ghuuns would be a start .
This guy is the best-informed interviewer whom I have seen in a long time to the point that he has statistics at his fingertips to challenge the topic expert. However, he would be be served with front lighting than distracting back lighting.
I think I understand your question, I believe the interviewer is focusing on the House popular vote this November because there are no gerrymandering and Electoral College effects (as opposed to Senate representation). If the GOP gets over 50% of this vote, it demonstrates legitimate democracy at work because there is an actual majority of voters behind them. And Gaylon properly presumes this a 'good thing'.
Not every bill which lowers participation of democrat-leaning demographics is bad or evil. Both perception of and actual election integrity are important in a democracy
@@jasonk125 This is not about my feelings(I do not believe presidential election was stolen), but it is about feelings and the power they hold. Let me ask you a question. What would you do if you believed that your candidate should have won the election but was cheated with false votes? Please pretend. Wouldn’t you be terrified? If your history books all glorified the American Revolution, with all the culture which has been invested in resisting unjust government, wouldn’t you consider violence potentially necessary to save your country, your family, your personal wellbeing? This is what many people believe! The ONLY way to live in a peaceful and open society is through persuasion, otherwise we get a government which increasingly rules by force. That is sometimes necessary, but we should never want it! We need to be taking every effort to engage with conspiracy theorist talking points so that they believe the election was secure. The demographics are changing in the United States. Over time, conservative views will fade and are fading due to the natural democratic process. This system can only be gamed so much- as the popular vote increasingly turns against the Republican party as such, they will have to reinvent themselves. Civil war, and violent resistance more generally, is the single most substantial threat to this progress. Why can’t we work with this intelligently? Why not have a Voter Identification & Voting Day bill? Require something like personal I.D. when voting but also give people a national holiday so relative(to party) voter turnout isn’t effected? We gain some stability with no change to the political power of marginally minority groups. In short, please, if you care about human wellbeing, understand that your political and ideological neighbors/enemies are not impotent. I read your comment and I see some of my own emotion and instinct, but we can’t be so absolutist. We have to-have to respect power, even as we attempt to distribute it.
Has any research been conducted comparing modern US politics to the the Italian Years of Led? Seems like we're in the middle of a Hot Autumn-lite period in the US. There's gotta be a healthy middle between Civil War and Stability to account for. (Note: Havent finished the interview yet)
When have we ever been “one person one vote”? Notice how she didn’t even address the electoral college or senate. I appreciate the pushback on her narrative which seems extremely cherry picked.
From the beginning. Of course, your fake name makes me think you're a troll, foreign or domestic. Maybe you're just home-schooled. The House of Representatives was always "one man, one vote." The Senate used to be elected via state legislatures. The republican form of government, which incorporates democratic modalities (one man, one vote) and filters the people's wishes through their elected officials. Did you ever take American history in school?
@@jakebarnes28 The electoral college is designed to protect the minority You'd think the left would love that. Pure democracy is dangerous. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner type stuff that they're trying to avoid.
Political violence is inevitable, simply because that's the only way to derail the current system. At one point the people will have enough and will take matters into their own hands. Jan. 6 was just a warm-up.
Jan 6? No, the political violence was 100% monopolized by the left in the summer of 2020. Jan 6 was an accidental riot at best with the over whelming majority trying to avoid any violence.
@@PaxAmericana76 Accidental riot? Quite likely, it didn't appear very coordinated, nor professional. But the next time it won't be accidental and it won't be just a riot. It will be a day of reckoning. And a very bloody one at that.
if you've lost the popular vote several times and realize you can't win on policy then you rig the process to insure your interests and continuation of power .. and that effort is being led by yale & harvard graduates that know full well the impacts to our country ..
And don't forget, who also enjoy the perks of being around the Robber Barons. The elite Universities who turn out these Servants of Corporate America and it's government. It is certainly a government for the people nor by the people.
@@mouthpiece200 so how do the illegals cast votes .. ? most illegals are people that have overstayed visas from European countries .. and who says they are allowed to come when apprehensions are occurring at high levels .. time for a more realistic talking point like promoting false electors ...
@@direwolf6234 Most illegals are hispanic from below the Southern border. They eventually get amnesty for staying here, and they raise anchor babies who grow up to vote liberal. Over several decades it adds up to millions and millions of people and changes the results of national elections. Liberals are cheaters and the military needs to nullify any of their elections with tanks. No democrat is serious about apprehending illegals. They pay lip service to it just to appear as if they follow the law, but ultimately libs want to keep the border wide open to pad their voter base. They are committing treason and the penalty must be severe. You've heard of sanctuary cities? Pure treason. Anyone who opposed Trump's wall should be suspect.
Thank you for bringing her onto the podcast. Saw her on the evening news one or two times, but it's nice to be able to spend more than a few minutes listening to her points
Part of the problem is that we can’t make any structural changes to our democracy because right now the current system really works for one party. There’s zero incentive to compromise
I thought Galen did a very solid job in this interview, he challenged some points made by the interviewee. I do wish he pushed her to go into some of the reforms she believed would help alleviate the situation. The way Barbara characterized the situation, I get the feeling that it would be mostly “Democrat good, Republican bad” in terms of reformation. However, I’d prefer to hear her explanation as she didn’t mention leaders of both left and right, I just had a feeling she maintains a significant bias.
I think most of that is because there's an antidemocratic faction currently taking over the Republican party. They know they don't have the numbers, and haven't won a popular vote in like...what, 15 years? This can generate hate and fear in their base. Conservative types are also the only ones running around with guns excitedly talking about the "next civil war". Also, the more the republicans expand the demographics in their base, the harder it will be to hold them together without actually getting serious about policies that fix problems. How can ypu hold them together then? Focus only on the culture war. Juat because one side is more problematic than the other doesnt mean someone is truly biased when they point it out.
For me, the missing piece is “what would rebels really be fighting for?” What tangible gain would there be? Unless “making the election rait” is a good enough call to arms (as incredibly stupid as that is).
I once read a quote that said Jan 6 was a bit like a dog chasing a car. What to do once it catches it? If you look at the footage, rioters entered the capital, broke a few things, out their feet up on desks ….and then what? If they stopped for a moment and thought about it, they might start to see they were manipulated by a childish and self-centered ex-president who just had a huge temper tantrum by proxy,
@@benbauer7866 It wasn't a plan . They had no organization or training to breech the building . They were not all heavily armed and assignúed targets .. To me It looks like a bunch of mislead people and a few full blown wackos. Most were there to protest and followed other idiots in like they were touring the place . If this would have actually been an insurgency . The entire city would have been taken and many politicians assassinated..
This is rarely a one-step game. Say.. jan6, they manage to kill some important people and keep Trump in power for a while. The following would be the demand from democrats to prosecute those ppl, while Trump would’ve gained legitimacy to stay in power. The debate would be: should Trump stay regardless of elections, or not. And if anyone opposes this idea, is an enemy of the state and would be purged. Boom, you got civil war (in case.. just in case anyone cares to fight)
I read about her research around the time this was recorded but I'm somehow just seeing this interview for the first time. This is great work. As a career military officer, I want to believe our institutions can resist the urge to fracture and turn on each other, but the degree of anger - much of it completely unwarranted and based on lies - makes for scary times in our nation. Hoping for the best.
What does the Bible say about black and white?  All people are created in the image of God, and therefore all races and ethnic groups have the same equal status and equal unique value. Inter-ethnic marriages are sanctioned by Scripture when they are within the faith. The gospel demands that we carry compassion and the message of Christ across ethnic lines.Jun 23, 2020
While the chance of political violence in the next 5 years in extremely high her arguments are 100% wrong. She’s pushing debunked disinformation and overt propaganda.
Because America is not and had never been a democracy. We are a republic. Remember for which it stands. If it were a democracy every citizen would be required to vote on every rule change. Where as in a republic you send representatives and those representatives vote.
I'm incredulous that this political scientist completely fails to acknowledge the systemic problems within the Democrat party, as well as the far Left. Her comments about the far Right and Xian Conservatives are indeed relevant, but she is seemingly incapable of painting a complete picture of what ails our politics, culture, and society. Astoundingly myopic she is, even when at the same time her assessment about the Right is at least partially correct. She just missed far too many issues that are causing our current crisis. Her analysis as to the how and why we have devolved to anocracy status is reductionist. Perhaps she should simply stick to compiling and studying metrics, but leave some of the real work of the WHY to others who are more qualified to do so. Either that, or she needs to be talking to others who have overlapping but simultaneously disparate skill sets that can add to this basket of complexity--because this topic demands it! Does she live/work in a bubble? The other elephant in the room that is equally relevant but less obvious (the elephant must have a cloaking device) are the enormous forces and problems that are eroding our system that are not directly traceable to facile explanations like racism or identity politics. That, THAT is where most analysts and talking heads fail. Too often, it's the Left that is the problem, or the Right that is the problem. What about the effects of climate change (and the many side effects of it such as increased immigration), 24 hour for-profit mass media. social media, gross levels of consumerism, globalism, multiculturalism, the rise of oligarchs such as Jeff Bezos, etc, etc, etc that are undermining democracy and American society, and destabilizing the world--politically and environmentally? Again, Ms. Walter's analysis is grossly simplistic and insufficient. She needs to stay in her wheelhouse is what I meant to write. There. I'm done.
@Eternity row X I seem to gravitate towards fascism because I challenged this woman's assessment? Christ f*cking sakes! If you think I am a Trump supporter because I did so, you're part of the problem. Everybody on the Left believes they got it correct, while everyone on the Right believes they have it correct. Trumpism was a massive threat to our system in the four years he was president and, indeed since Jan 6 of '21, remains a threat. But our deeply systemic issues, and partly the mass movement called Wokeness, yielded Trump. Trump, Xian Conservatives, the Proud Boys, BLM, Woke, the wealth gap, the shrinking middle class, etc, etc, are the products of the destabilization of our system and our society--as I pointed out. And these bad ideas and movements further destabilize it. One begets the other. And Leftist extremism begets Right wing extremism, and vice versa. My point is that she simply has a reductionist assessment. THIS DOESN"T MAKE ME A FASCIST. IT MAKES ME SOMEONE WHO HAS STEPPED BACK FROM THE IMPULSE AND PREDILECTION THAT MOST PEOPLE HAVE TO "JOIN A TEAM". I REFUSE TO DO THAT. What I have right now is am impulse to describe you in vulgar terms, but I won't. But you can guess that I'm pissed off. I have leaned Left my whole life, and I don't need someone calling me a f*cking Fascist.
@Eternity row X Whoa there. You think I'm a conservative? Go back an read what I wrote. No, on second thought don't bother. If you didn't get it the first time, you won't get it the second time.
@Eternity row X I mentioned right in my first comment the issue of climate change! I have known for twenty years that it's the most pressing problem we humans face. But there is little point in mentioning this to you, since you're one of the many millions in this country who has joined a team and subsequently, automatically, decided that someone who is critical of someone who makes claims publicly (as Ms. Walter has) that in this instance sound "liberal", and when someone (in this case me) challenges her, then I must be on the conservative team. Being on one of these teams allows one to give in to the team ideology and experience the warm fuzzies that come with team solidarity. Unfortunately, it also allows one to shut down the act of thinking--which is already hard enough absent such influences.
If your neighbor isnt in the same realm of reality and thinks that you are a communist satanic democrat that should hang when "The Storm" comes, i have a right to be afraid
Allowing the separate states more legal authority, particularly with respect to corporate law, would end the incitement to civil war. But it would also tend to segregate the country politically.
@@wj3186 ...My theory is that the intrinsic unaccountability of corporate "limited liability" is the root cause for civil war in the U.S.A. today. Facilitating corporate interests in State & Federal government defines this era, sadly. Some states (probably most "red" states) would like to make corporations rare and tightly controlled. Counterposed to that sentiment is the belief that making incorporation difficult might hurt the economy. This belief leads directly to the almost universal corporate whoring practiced by politicians throughout the nation.
@@soulextract640 no. I'm not suggesting secession. That's been tried and ended badly. I'm saying states should have greater legal rights with respect to corporations. There exist sound Constitutional arguments against "limited liability" which are currently glaringly ignored by our compromised judiciary. I'm just saying some states should be allowed to distinguish themselves as being (legally) bad places for corporate hegemony.
It would be helpful to actually define what you mean by a "civil war". Do you mean an actual hot war - with actually violence - with troops engaged in battle along some geographic line? The very idea seems very remote to me. It seems to me, however, that exaggerating the prospects of an alleged civil war can be the means to put in draconian policies that would otherwise not be possible.
I think any civil war in rich countries would take the form of unconventional war. No front lines, heavy artillery, and uniforms but instead insurgencies, political violence, domestic terrorism, general strikes, riots, coup attempts, cyber warfare, high profile assassinations ect. Just imagine a type of war the military/government is least equipped to fight
A civil war here will be more like the guerilla warfare Partisans in Eastern Europe during WW-2, or the Vietcong in Vietnam employed. It will be fought by what some would regard as terrorists and freedom fighters by others. There will be no front lines or rear areas, NO area will be safe as the combatants will be part of and hidden among the populace. Federal soldiers and or foreign fighters entering the fighting though will escalate the fighting from an insurgency to a international war.
I can’t imagine how trad war like that could happen. The Civil War had two actual polities. The South was organized in such a way for traditional battle. They had a general and an actual military. It’s hard to imagine a faction of the American population to be able to do that to fight against the government. No, it would be as she said. Assassinations, terrorism, etc
I gotta say, the more that is learned about the insurrection and the more those people talk about it, the more confident I am that RICO (the crime designed to go after mob bosses) is applicable
So when there exists a rogue federal government, whom will we look toward to contain such a beast? I wonder if the 2nd amendment was written specifically for such an event. Who then is the party at fault? The rogue government or the people? If the government is for the people AND of the people, I urge you to reconsider where the ire should point. Tread lightly filthy lustful politicians. Our founding fathers were once considered insurrectionist. England would have had them publicly hanged had the outcome been different. Never forget who serves whom. Who should fear whom. When the people fear their government, they will rise up against them. Look at the unrest around the globe. Is it ever anything but a tyrannical government at the root? Crack a book and find what the founding fathers had to say. This is still that country, the same one they so clearly formed from the womb of a tyrannical government!
Oh my, this is an excellent example of an expert leading us off into the weeds. Galen helps with his critical questions but geez. Yes, I accept the data that shows that it is dangerous when the relevant political parties are based upon ethnic identity. And I agree about the relevance of this idea that demographics work increasingly against Republicans. However, a key part of Ms Walter's case is not data-driven at all, and is dubious. To her, it is simply common sense that it is (almost solely) the Republican Party pushing us towards political identity based upon ethnic identity. But it was mostly the liberal-leaning media and pundits and online discussions that began in the mid 20-teens to express this idea that Republicans are increasingly doomed to lose, due to demography. How can my fellow liberals be so blind to how that fits into our current problems? Go around telling one of the parties they are certain to lose due to their race... and then place sole blame on them for responding racially? C'mon! Furthermore, listen to recent political rhetoric. Which party talks about national calamities like COVID in terms of race? Which party talks promises to run candidates, nominate judges, etc. on the basis of race? The public rhetoric of the Democratic Party and it supporters is extremely prone to racializing things. Republicans do this far, far less these days, unless you count supposed victimization of Christians (which, I notice, Ms. Walters often falls back upon), but that is not blatantly racial. There are some pretty good reasons that we Democrats do these things, if but we are trying to scientifically analyze the risk of ethnic identity becoming political identity, the talk on this segment is utterly misleading. One could honestly say that Nixon and the Republicans "started" it. (We can also note the surreptitious machinations of Republican leaders.) But if the goal is now to avoid civil war, we better not mislead ourselves about the present. (I lost further faith in Ms. Walters due to her claim that the 2020 elections were such a message of hopelessness to GOP leaders. The country did turn against Trump. But it was highly noteworthy that Dems did not do nearly as well as expected in other elections. To have such a laser focus on the presidential election strikes me as not just misleading, but cause for doubt towards the analyst.)
Hi, that was a highly intelligent and insightful responce that has made me consider for the first time how much democrats actually do use race as the basis of their political ideology. I have always thought it was justified, especially as the republican party leadership is so overwhelmingly white and male. But that doesn't change the fact the democrats are playing this game just as much if not more than republicans. Thank you.
@@brettgoldsmith8584 Well, my point is quite apart from whether it is justified. I am only saying that it overtly promotes ethnic/racial identity as political identity. One thing working against Democrats: Let's say that Republicans gerrymander, such that poor people are underrepresented. There is little or no legal basis for challenging this. The constitution, as amended, provides that certain groups (Blacks, women, young voters) are to have equal voting rights, so you can challenge certain voting procedures on that basis. But voters in general, or poor people? Not much basis for challenge. Thus, they are pushed to challenge on the basis of race (since gerrymandering rarely affects gender or age groups). Of course, that does not explain why, say, COVID impact would be analyzed from a racial perspective rather than a social class perspective.
@@donbemont7901 Excellent analysis above. I had a sinking feeling listening to the interview. I'd read reviews of the book and theories but was shocked to see her so biased and misinformed (especially about 2020). I've also been concerned that the "demographics is destiny" drumbeat has been clouding liberal thinking. I think one of the issues democrats and the liberal press have is that analysis (of any kind) reveals specific problems, and specific problems warrant attention. But that attention results in fighting overly specific battles (like racial gerrymandering) that skews the perception that non-liberals have of the party and the press. Partially this is the result of our legal system, but when only one side of the ideological divide is interested in solving problems the message is bound to become distorted. For example, as a liberal I love nothing more than a revealing analysis that uncovers some hidden connection, like the correlation between historical redlining and wealth inequality, high COVID rates in black areas, or police violence. It seems like there's actionable evidence, and we (as a country) should at least acknowledge it. But the way it plays out in the media makes it seems like liberals ONLY care about those things. There are plenty of studies about drug use, isolation, and shortened lifespans in rural, mostly white America that deserve attention. But as those can't serve as ammunition for the right, so they're not promoted as part the fictional "liberal agenda."
@@jeremyjackson7429 Exactly. So if liberal-leaning America referred to the impact of COVID on the less affluent, on the people working poorly paid front line jobs who were vastly less able to shield themselves from risk... then millions of poor whites would not end up muttering, "They only care about Blacks." Which has unfortunate effects, including those Ms. Walters is highlighting.
@@jeremyjackson7429 I agree. Democrats really do favor centralization and power of federal government, and that unites small town big wheels (who lose power) and small farmers (who would be in terrible trouble anyway, but federal ag policy favoring efficiency seals the deal against them). And at least around here, those factors, along with abortion and border control are vastly more important to conservative voters than race. But I agree that the Republican margin could be whittled down significantly. For all the data points about in-elasticity, leading to the "concentrate on turnout" philosophy, I have seen with my own eyes the level of GOP support rise and fall around here, depending on the specifics of the moment.
Switzerland has multiple groups who are identified by three dimensions : Ethnicity, Religion and Urbanism. The Swiss unite the groups forming rings of links that unite the country. The main ring is : ProtestantGerman GermanCatholic CatholicFrench . So a FrenchCatholic is linked by a CatholicGerman to a GermanProtestant. Additionally, there are pet links, a pet of the ProtestantsGermans are the Romansh which are Catholic and then provide additional links to the other Catholic zones. The pet of both French groups is the Italian Swiss region.
Fighting over the table scraps “trickled down” on the 99% from the 1%’s obscene wealth makes ripe conditions for frustration, division, and - if left unchecked - violence. (Peepee economics, my partner n I joke.) “...begun to organize itself politically around identity lines”... absolutely! scapegoating/“othering” is a tempting option when people feel threatened by scarcity.
Basically a breeding ground for proto-fascists who can peddle easy solutions, to a populous that's been brainwashed against structural change. After all, what could you possibly change to, if your country is definitionally #1 - so it must be some sort of an insidious plot that's diverted it from the "golden path." The ruling class institutionalised American exceptionalism to protect themselves from change, the price for that will have to paid at some stage. Question is, how big will the butcher's bill be and what will it purchase in the end.
@@thomthom6268 haha yes... we actually call it Dingle Dong Economics, but thought that might be too crass for the internet. (to which they replied... "Too crass for the internet? What era are you living in, woman?!")
OMG the more I watch the clearer it becomes how biased she is in her actual watching of current events. Another expert in her own opinions. She could be worse. But she's of little or no help. I'm sorry, because I was really hoping for some peacemaking from SOMEONE.
I find it interesting talking to individuals with a different "political identity" we disagree just about as much as we agree. I think most of us are more centered than the people we vote for. We vote for them and they go on to just tote the party line. Compromise is gone in our political party's!
Baruch 2:14-15 [14]Hear our prayers, O Lord, and our petitions, and deliver us for thine own sake, and give us favour in the sight of them which have led us away: [15]That all the earth may know that thou art the Lord our God, because Israel and his posterity is called by thy name.
"...the white working class, ideologically, was more attuned to the policies of the Democratic Party." And then in 2008 the white working class, actually the working class in general, started to realize that policies of the Democratic Party was no longer attuned to the working class. For me, at least, it was the Obama experience that taught me that fact.
The US was never a democracy, although it has one chamber of the legislature that is democratically elected. If not being a democracy didn't lead to civil war in the last 150+ years, there is no reason it should now. Civil wars happen when existing elite refuse to yield power to a new elite, whatever the mechanism used to get into power and regardless of which group represents the majority. Essentially civil wars happen when two groups competing for power deem being out of power an _existential_ threat. Sure there are several groups in the US that feel an existential threat by not being represented in power, but the Republican Party doesn't represent them. Most of them felt represented by Trump, but not because he was a Republican, but because he was from outside both the parties. Breakdown of civil society is definitely on the cards and it is in progress right now. But no civil war.
@@johnrhodes3350 May be so. But there is no elite competing for power with them. In the absence of such competition, there will be no civil war. Breakdown of civil society doesn't make a civil war.
We have no history of bloodshed between people of the same country. What is the frame of reference for ‘civil war’? Where are they getting the idea that’ll be violent?
Perhaps someone should explain to this woman that we are not a democracy we are a Representative republic. If she wishes to discuss the rule of law, perhaps you should've taken two recent examples by Joe Biden and a complete ignoring of that law. The eviction moratorium And the Biden mandates on vaccines are both perfect examples. Mr. Biden implemented them, knowing that they were both likely unconstitutional, but did it anyway
Very cogent, important analysis; bravo. I probably won't buy this book, but I do hope it sells massively and gets read widely - hopefully in time to make a difference. I live in rural America, and there are fumctional adults who know how to gracefully lose an election. There are also LEGIONS of lesser-educated, manipulable, well-armed, white "Christians" who are itching for some flashpoint or excuse or "go" signal for inception violence - against whomever Fox has convinced them to fear and hate. I now believe that it could well take some large, bloody messes for them to snap out of the spell which the Murdochs have cast. In end, I do believe they will snap out. Adulthood will prevail. Whether a functioning, non-authoritarian democracy can survive, however, that's a more murky vision.
I live in a similar area as you and mostly agree with your assessment. At the same time, a lot of these people whose brains have leaked out over the past couple of years have kids. They talk a big game but I doubt they have the stomach for it. I could be wrong but I really hope I'm not. As someone who is fairly well-traveled - been to some of the freest countries in the world as well as totalitarian regimes - I can say these people are extremely sheltered. They've never experienced any real adversity. They can't conceive what it's like to live in a place like rural Pakistan as a woman or in China as a Uyghur, but seem to believe they are just as persecuted. Most of them seem to think America is under a real threat of becoming a communist regime. I'm just not sure what we do with that. Someone who truly believes that is lost.
The violence is on the Left. The right will only get violent if need be to restrain Leftist violence. Remember those riots less than 2 years ago? All leftists.
What about Corporate greed and accountability for exploiting and fuelling civil was in developing countries. Your study was funded by the US government so what protective safeguards have you used in your study to prevent bias or conflict of interest.
A great conversation on an important topic! What is different about our situation is a confluence of highly effective direct media propaganda on the right at the same time of insecurities, and an awareness of the failings, whether planned or not, of our government. Money corrodes democracy like salt water corrodes iron, so a root solution might start with major efforts to get small dollar district funded candidates into office, and demand districts be drawn by citizen councils, rather than politicians, lawyers, and big money interests. Then vote to change the Constitution to make fair elections an essential right, not money.🗽
Summery: Loss of imagined previledges and power over Others, coupled with seeing Others economic situation and social standing improving, causes the previledged group to instigate violence and intimdation to keep Others in their place.
BTW, This is exactly what happened in Sri Lanka - where I'm from. The idea of people resorting to violence when peaceful means has no effect, which in turn empowers the most extremist groups, holds true.
It's not even an imagined loss. When you ask progressives if they want everyone to have the privileges of affluent white men they tend to say no: equality for them means removing those privileges, not expanding them
It's interesting that you automatically jump to the 'political party that becomes ethnically affiliated' as meaning Republicans, or at least that's what I assume you're implying. I would argue it's _far_ more the case that Democrats have positioned themselves in an identarian way, albeit with the 'identity' in question being 'People of Color' (i.e. everyone who isn't white) and to a lesser extent Black people specifically. I would bet a _lot_ of money that if you were to analyse all political rhetoric spoken by politicians in 2021, Democrats would make _far_ more explicit and implicit references to ethnicity. Of course, there are those that argue that whenever a Republican mentions crime, immigration or traditionalism, it's a racist dog whistle. Which is sometimes true but those things are facets of conservative political parties everywhere, for a long-time. If the argument is that conservatism is de facto racist, then I would argue that whoever is saying that is stoking ethnic factionalism themselves, or at least framing the debate in such a way that identity-politics is unavoidable. I should add that I'm not right-leaning. It's just somewhat frustrating when automatically contextualise arguments to make their political enemies the only ones at fault (which is to some extent what she herself was doing).
See that's what I've told people for ever, you need to target Fed instead of public stuff if you actually want to induce change. I love that stuff, you can't beat an idea
When it comes to the United States this video missed it. Here's why. The US is in essence 50 nations cohabitating as one with the Supreme Court as its mediator. 2020 was detrimental to the system of democracy. There was a major dispute by 19 states against 5 regarding voting laws and irregularities, many of which have since been proven valid. The Supreme Court failed to do its job and serve as mediator and allow both sides to present their disputes, because they knew the outcome would be Trump winning. The results are now people don't believe they have a way to have their voices heard. Combine that with since this video was done, the Biden DOJ indicting Trump twice while proven crimes against Biden has gone unchecked. We have people reading this right now who will not demand accountablity for Biden. Not a single democrat saying he should be impeached. We are in serious trouble come 2024.
There are already some preconditions - which include a divided America, a very dysfunctional government, and then the 6th January Capitol Hill event. Not only is America divided between Democrats and Republicans, but it is also divided between Rich and Poor and literally any faction one can imagine. The current administration has failed its constituency as well as Americans at large in matters that matter most, like pandemic control, rising prices, supply-chain issues, and gun violence. The 6th January incident is a watershed event in American politics, in which the pro-Trump camp strongly believed that they could take back the election by storming the Capital and demanding what was rightfully theirs. This is a very alarming phenomenon for democracy. First, the so-called ‘national divorce’ belief is deep-rooted in Americans (and not just Republicans), meaning the Democrats might do the same should the other side win the election in 2020. Second, people think that there is nothing wrong with ‘winning back’ the election through violence. What is then the flashpoint to trigger off the chain reaction? Perhaps, a financial crisis of an unparalleled scale, the Republicans winning the mid-term this year. In my opinion, the triggering point is indeed Trump returns in 2024 and wins the presidential election. When all these unfold before our eyes, may God bless America!
I believe both Argentina and Chile had liberal democracies before they were over thrown. Argentina had the Junta and Chile had Pinochet. And Turkey, was it not a liberal democracy until Erdogan accumulated power? I find it strange you pointed to Ukraine which had a shorter term democracy than any of the 3 I listed (if I am correct in my remembering). Though I guess these places didn't devolve into civil war and Ukraine did...sorta. I looked up Argentina, from what I can tell with a quick look, they had liberal democracy from 1862-1930
Eh, not really sure Chile counts as a democracy pre-Pinochet. The far-left only won by 36.61% of the vote and by a margin of only ~39,000, but wanted to govern as if he had a mandate.
@@LordWolven Prior to Allende there were a number of democratically elected leaders (again, with just a cursory reading of the history)...And while Allende didn't win with an absolute majority, he still won. Remember Bush only won ~48% of the vote (admittedly closer to the majority) and lost the popular vote, Trump also lost the popular vote with ~46% of the vote (again admittedly closer to 51%). Plus it is well known that Allende was overthrown at the behest and intervention of the CIA. But, yes that is not the best example of democracy in that final election before Pinochet. Though to reiterate, there were democratically elected leaders before him (again, with just a cursory reading of the history).
My god civil wars in poorer countries come from oppression of the poor people to the point theirs no hope and things won’t change to give them hope in the future so they get arms from the political enemies of who’s oppressing them and strike. They follow liners and evil men in the hope their lives will change.
Socrates warned us that democracy needs an educated populace to function. We defunded our schools, valued media over books, became complacent as a nation and now this is the end result. We will collapse because our elected officials chose money over duty and we as a society chose entertainment over paying attention. Everyone pause. THIS IS OUR FAULT.
No. It is your people.
You are so right and Socrates was ahead of his times. He also said that democracy can lead to the practice of demagoguery by a popular figure.
@@yuchichan4815
Obnoxious Chinese Nationalist
if you think education is expensive try ignorance ..
Unless I give those people in January 6th some credit I mean look they might be wrong about how to go about it but they're not wrong to be upset and I'll be honest more people should be like those people we all might disagree on what's wrong with the country but I think majority of people like those people on that day will agree fundamentally this country is very f***** up place to live and it's not serving the people it's not serving the people on the left it's not serving the people on the right it's not serving anyone but of course the wealthy elite
Those who are cheerleaders for civil war: 1. have never been in one. 2. Think their side will win. 3. Assume they will live through it.
The price of Freedom is steep
@@soulextract640 The price of a installing a fascist police state will be higher than you think.
@@donniles3531 Vivil war is a bec3ssary setback for this nation. I personally suggest a peaceful balkanization where man6 differ east smaller countries are realized from ours. Like say a pacific states nation or old republic of Texas or the Deep South. Just Balkanize the US so policies and Politicians are more regional and you’ve got a working system!
@@finlandball1939 Excellent solution. Isolate the Marxist state. They will quickly go under due to a lack of resources.
I am all for a civil war against rightards. NOBODY is entitled to the status quo, which includes a nation. EVERYBODY IS FORCED into the world WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. Therefore NOBODY "owes" anybody a particular political opinion. There is NOTHING sacred about a nation, the status quo. Putting people into prison is a WEAPON of war of conflict, just like ANY OTHER weapon: a gun, rape. e.g. If you MOCK the suffering putting people or nonhuman animals into prisons (human prisons, factory farms, etc) then you got NOTHING to whine about if people choose to mock people's deaths or use people's deaths for THEIR OWN political purposes.
Most people are oblivious & won't see it coming. Many foreign countries have a clearer perspective of America than Americans.
"Why has there never been a coup in America? Because there's no US embassy there!" -famous joke around the world that speaks to just how much more the rest of the world knows about America than average Americans do. We are STUPID, ARROGANT, IMMATURE and we can't control our own oligarchs. This will end badly.
Which is why everyone should listen to foreign media, too - and even better, private media, not state media.
Clearer than white Americans maybe
Our inability to self reflect is sometimes pathetic. Hubris is what’s going to get us imo
Oh yeah I completely agree, we’re fucking idiots over here- for sure
It doesn't matter who people vote for. The policies enacted by the winner are not what the people want, or need. The political class only seems to care about the needs of the wealthy, and the corporations. People are getting really frustrated.
It matters who people vote for and I hope you figure that out while it's still true.
@@pattygould8240 lol it really doesnt
@@pattygould8240 no it doesn’t Bernie Sanders got screwed and the 2020 election was “fortified” so it doesn’t matter at all.
The worry from these folks isn’t a civil war it’s a Revolution
@@Tombstone_Active I'm not sure which act you are referring to. Who sponsored it?
I grew up being told the US was the freest democracy in the world. All the movies and cheers. We're all growing up now, seeing and listening to what we ignored before. Our democracy is flawed, we can do better.
People are too comfortable. It will have to burn a little more before we can "do better," I think.
I grew up in West Germany, the reunification happened in my teenage years. I always wondered how Americans could even live in a country where so many people own firearms, where so many people get killed all the time, where there is so much violence and so little social security, so little social welfare so much poverty. I also couldn't understand how a country where only two parties matter, where none of the other parties get a piece of the political power cake, could even think of itself as a great democracy.
Of course, I only know the US from the media, I've never been there. I doon't think I even want to visit the US, it seems like a complete nightmare. Capitalism gone wild.
@@wj3186 If I as a non-American may add my $0.01: I think the entire system is doomed, and that's probably a good thing, since the system was built by greedy Europeans killing and robbing natives, taking their land, kidnapping millions of Africans and enslaving them. The US got all the religious extremists who fled from Europe after their attempts at building fundamentalist Christian dictatorships had failed, like the Puritans from England and the Baptists from Germany, and they camee to dominate the culture to such a degree that even today US children learn in school that those evangelical radicals were good people fleeing religious persecution.
The entire system of states built by European colonisers has to go. Not only the US, but all the postcolonial states in the Americas need to be dismantled, the natives are the only ones who have any right to say how human societies on the American twin continents should work.
Milton; Very well said; very diplomatic words.
I think same goes for most other democracies in the world. You are not alone with that feeling.
It’s a little strange that the guest thinks it’s only the Right that is organizing around identity. Actually, it’s very strange.
its almost like all reviews point exclusively to right wing currents being the threat to democracy in the USA these decades...literally all.
Shocking right? :o
Its shocking that all fascists are antidemocratic totalitarians right? woah
Dude, most of us want to be left the f777 alone. They blindly call 100 million Americans "racists" and all this other dehumanizing stuff. They own the MSM, the social media, etc. Propagandize little kids, inject them with chemicals because of their preconceived notions of "nonbinary blah blah blah", burn entire city blocks down, assassinate and jail people for political purposes, ignoring pretty much every due process step along the way...
And you want to know why some of us have entire walls turned olive-f777ing drab with filled ammo cans? We're waiting for you to block the roads and demand vaxx pass. That's when they will get what's coming to them.
All we wanted was to live our lives, and these anarcho-communists are intervening. We're not a people you want to "intervene" in the lives of. 1 of us is worth 10,000 leftists. Leave people alone, or they will make you.
@@lil_weasel219
We are anti-democratic. We believe the constitution overrules people, because people are dumb and always ruin any system they're given. Give them capitalism, and they turn it into plutocracy. Give them plutocracy, and they'll turn it into feudalism. Give them so-called "communism", and they just turn it into feudalism, all the same. Call it anarchy, and it still turns into feudalism.
Democracy is garbage. The constitution reins supreme. Now, do you want the .458 SOCOMs in my house, or in you? Leave people alone.
What exactly is this identity. A common knowledge of how dangerous Trump is?
@@dougmacqueen1679the left literally has a thing called identity politics....
This was a seriously stellar interview. The interviewee was very credible and knowledgeable, and Galen asked all the right questions. Galen has turned into a really good interviewer. Great work.
Our government hasn't responded to the will of the people since the '60's.
Interesting how that’s also when election campaign costs started spiraling into the stratosphere.
Agreed. It's when the security state took over governing the country, Nov 1963.
Define "military"... if you're referring to a military unit, that can literally be a few guys with guns... or it can be an entire army.
Gather a few friends together with rifles, and you've got yourself a military unit called a "fire team". Is this the “private military” you were looking for? Maybe you wanted more?
Gather a dozen friends with rifles, and now you've got yourself a military "squad". Still not enough? Well then, if you gather a couple squads, you've now got a "platoon". Is that good enough, or were you needing more for this “private military”?
Well, if you can get a few platoons together, then you've created a military "company". And if you can muster at least a couple companies, then you've got a whole "battalion" of troops. If you’re commanding your own private battalion, that’s HUNDREDS of troops ready to do your bidding. At this point, one would hope you’re a millionaire and can afford all this. If that’s simply not enough, then we can start talking in grander scales.
Gather from three to six battalions together, and you have an entire "brigade". That’s THOUSANDS of guys… who will all be expecting to eat… and get paid. At this point, you better have a Bill Gates kind of portfolio.
We can go on… if you gather several brigades together, you've got a military "division". And of you gather several of those, you've got a "corps". Multiple corps of men and we’re finally talking about an “army”.
But an army alone still isn’t quite a “military”. Now we’re going to need to do all the same kind of growth, through ever larger unit structures… except now with with air and naval forces... and those guys are gonna want the REALLY expensive toys. Hope you can afford ships and aircraft to keep them happy.
And now you have yourself a "private MILITARY".
But again… a few friends with rifles forming a 3 man fire team is MUCH cheaper. They might only require beer and pizza to gather them together.
@@misty671 funny kinda like after JFK got killed and Vietnam was just starting, hmm
Nonsense
When you have a education system, that doesn't prepare the average student to survive in society. Not everybody wants to go to college. We need to teach trade schools. You need to show people that their lives would be better than their parents. You can't take jobs out of this country. And expect it to stay strong. We need a government that works for the American people. Not just the wealthy.
Apparently the education system doesn’t teach sentence structure either.
Instead of relying on college to train me in skills needed for jobs, I pray to God I can learn the right skills and network with the right people. The end objective is to not only get a job, but to be a contributing member to my country and the world.
@@limingde91
Spoken like a good, obedient subject of the CCP, who prefers social harmony over freedom and rugged individualism.
Sorry, I cannot relate, and will not submit.
说话像一个善良、听话的中共党员，他更喜欢社会和谐而不是自由和粗犷的个人主义。
对不起，我无法联系，也不会提交。
Yes everyone becoming Hvac technicians will save us
There is much more to an effective, valuable education than a job. The mere fact that 53% of Republican still support Trump is a solid indication that they have no idea what’s wrong or how to fix it. That’s the real value of an advanced education. Anyone can learn in a few weeks how to frame a house. logic, ethics, and philosophy cannot be effectively sampled in the same period. And when you have a large segment of society denigrating such study as worthless, well… here we are.
i like the way she conveys info. really clear and no bloated terminology 👍🏻
Yeah January 6th oh my god oh it's terrible it's such a travesty it's worse than a Godzilla going through Tokyo and other imaginary things
Around 14:00 she says "before Obama, white US citizens were roughly 50/50 split on voting Republican and Democrats", then follows it up with "today, the Republican party is 90% white" and talks about it as if those two statements are incompatible and the second statement supports her argument that an ethnic party is forming in the US. But Rep being 90% white doesn't mean 90% of whites vote Rep - which would be the truly worrying sign.
I’m really impressed with how Galen challenged the simplified narrative of a purely factionalized white evangelical Republican Party.
@@gorgthesalty yes.
@@gorgthesalty I don’t know if we can conclude that. Her narrative isn’t the input into the model. My understanding is that the model takes some combination of the ratings of these third-party groups. My guess is that factionalism is always complicated and that experts over-simplify it when communicating to the general public. You loose people when you say: “it’s complicated.”
So it is hard to say where the Republican Party is on the factionalism spectrum and how that would factor into the risk of war. I prefer to think that we’re not that close, but Donald Trump is clearly radicalizing some people. And I believe that is deliberate and self-serving. And many Republican politicians have joined in. That is crazy shit and it makes it hard for me, as someone who has voted more by candidate than party, to trust Republican candidates. That is truly sad for American democracy.
@@christopherbrand5360 I don't know how helpful it is, but Pew recently published their typology report near the end of 2021 and found some 9 distinct factional groups in the American electorate. Some are certainly on the more extreme end and fit the bill for radicalization. I do think a multi-party system that would allow the less radicalized right leaning factions to run candidates that actually respect democracy and have a policy vision. That would be a helpful change -- I still am to the left of them, but I'm all for a democratic, nonviolent exchange of ideas and peaceful transition of power. I don't think we'll ever adopt like an RCV multi-party system, and I don't think it's necessarily a silver bullet either, but I feel like something has to change.
@@doorsfan173 I think ranked choice voting would be a big improvement. I would favor eliminating the Electoral College too.
@@gorgthesalty That's for you to decide
We're sliding toward Weimar. The extremes are the only options. The middle is forced to choose sides. A dictator comes along and tells the people amenable to his position go along in hopes "peace" can be imposed.
It will be helpful to find an "enemy" that people can focus their hatreds on. Liberal/Communist/Socialist will be the likely object of scorn.
"When facism comes to America it will come draped in the flag carrying a cross" - Sinclair Lewis.
My family, long ago, being peaceful farmers for the most part, found themselves strapping on guns and marching through the South. What it will look like today, I have no idea. However, it happened once before.
Mitchell Brown --- The same thing; adults sweep up, collect, and dump the trash from the body politik of the U.S.
@@chunkerbunkers96 --- A VERY LOST CAUSE. | In a civil war, the Federal government would readily, swiftly, and decisvely defeat the AMATEUR WARRIORS deployed by the white supremacists. Given the rightwing's demographic composition (stolen-valour poseurs, amateurs, wannabes), the practical and military incompetence of the right-wing militias is a real thing, c.f. Trump's Treason of 6 January 2021. The physical cowardice and moral cowardice of right-wing "leaders" are real defects of character that ensure failure (tactical and strategic); notice that The Leader (a manager, actually) walked away from his civil war.
On the level, guy, would you suit up in militia-man gear and wage CIVIL WAR in behalf of white supremacists, such as Sen. Josh Hawley, Rep. Madison Cawthorn, or ex-prez. Donald Trump and expect gratitude and treasure?
Everybody who’s looked into the way a modern civil war would be fought thinks it will look like the IRA and the Troubles. Basically stochastic terrorism, bombs, shootings, assassinations.
Kudos to Galen for asking the right questions with command of the electoral facts.
In what way has America ever been a democracy? Democracy means rule by the common people, while the United States was founded by and for businessmen and landowners, and that concentration of power has not changed to this day.
I agree. The first permanent English settlement was founded by the Virginia *Company.* Even after independence, the only people who could vote were the landed gentry. By the time women got the vote, the two party political cartel was already entrenched
Democracy is a lie. It's a constitutional republic
At 31:30 min she says "Full liberal democracies don't experience civil war". I agree that that drastically decreases the chance of civil war. But, for example, The IRA launched a civil war as best they could. They didn't have the votes to win via elections so they chose violence.
I'm not saying the US is headed in that direction. I'm just saying I can imagine a regionally separated ethnic group resorting to civil war to try and gain independence from a country in which they are the minority.
Name one full liberial democracy that's as you describe.
Disband this union of states back to states sovereign in themselves. Or federal government is nonfunctional and must be disillusioned power returned to the states , yes Lincoln was wrong to start a war to keep union together, it will also be wrong to start a war to end the union but it's going to happen . There is a sickness in the federal government and must be put down like a dog with rabies. Choose your side , there will be no sitting this one out. FREE MY STATE
It is unlikely something like this would happen, but, it would always be wise to talk to people around the world who at one point said to themselves: "No, this would never happen here." "Nah, there would never be a dictatorship here.", "Nope, a civil war would never occur here." There is always a possibility, it takes very little to light a fuse. The biggest mistake is to sit idly.
I disagree. I think civil war is very likely. The majority of the country may not want it, but civil war in modern times are waged by extremists, not armies. Militia groups will likely attack soft targets, assassinate political figures, attack police and government facilities. Civil war in America will look like Northern Ireland during the Troubles.
Think about it. What is this civil war about? White people mad they are not getting there way. Really? The first time a black family is shown being killed by white supremacist on national TV.
Do you actually think there are that many white people in America? That could contain the hatred and revengful acts of so many people effected by racism. Do you truly believe the white racist in America could stop all that hate unleashed?
@@gilbertgaines672 it won't be a shooting war. Most likely it would be secession just like Brexit. Democracy is an untested system. No Democratic country with over 350 million diverse population has survived more than 300 years.
@@4KSnSLifestyle LMMFAO! What TF do the other side has to offer? This is not your nation, nor any white person nation PERIOD. So what makes you think America is going to slice of herself for you or the white race? This is the kind of intellect that is supposed to take America? LMMFAO as President Obama once said " Please Proceed"!
@@gilbertgaines672 only time will tell.
“The Republican Party no longer benefits from democracy.” That’s a key takeaway here.
The Dems need to rig the outcomes with gimmicks like same day registration, mail ballots with no checks or verification, no IDs, ballot harvesting, allowing non citizens to get on the voter rolls through motor-voter, allowing non citizens to vote in local elections, voting a month before election day, not allowing post election audits, etc. So why should Republicans trust the outcomes?
The Republicans want power.
blm/antifa are the real hero's here...
You mean the woke far left doesnot benefit from democracy. Especially when they try jail opponent candidate's.
We are not a democracy. We are a republic.
This hits on a point made by Hannah Arendt regarding the atomization of individuals leading to revolution. Some have, I believe, misinterpreted her remarks as atomization being a tool used by totalitarian governments to pull people under their umbrella, but I think that isn't what she meant.
I believe that what she was referring to by atomization was the reduction of the citizen's individual power on the public stage. In a democratic system, the citizen receives a political voice through their vote. When you vote for someone and they get in, they represent your voice on the public stage. When you vote for someone and they lose, you can be disgruntled but you know that you will have a chance to change things in the next election. But when you vote for someone and they win, then they go on to implement policies which are the opposite of what you voted for, you feel betrayed. Your vote means nothing, as even when you win they still don't bother to represent you. You have effectively become an atom in the sea of countless other atoms. Your individual opinion doesn't matter, so you find political movements which give you some semblence of a public voice. All they ask is that you give up your automony and adhere to the rest of the group's beliefs in order to garner solidarity.
This is how poverty becomes disconnected from the political instability. Usually, by failing to represent the citizens, the politicians will exacerbate poverty in favor of propping up big businesses, so it appears like poverty is linked to the instability. Instead, the instability is related to the lack of representation, not the poverty. Therefore you can have a political system that does a good job representing the will of the people but still experiences high levels of poverty without becoming unstable.
At least that is how I interpret this situation.
Yugoslavia was never dependent on the USSR. Tito went his own way.
I've been studying and writing about this topic for decades as well. I agree with your guest. All the criteria is there. Studies have shown that we're now a defacto oligarchy; that we've become a corporatocracy. The approval rating of not just the government, but all of the nation's key institutions, has been poor for decades. In other countries, the ruling class would already be looking for a place bug out to. We are balkanizing as a nation, especially along economic and racial lines. There's little doubt that "something" is going to happen, whether it's a civil war or a revolution, remains to be seen.
their solution is "censoring social media" to eliminate hate speech which will *instead* be used to shut down critics of government
Yes, as have other western nations. It makes no difference how we vote anymore. Billionaires are in control.
What about the role of media? The problem boils down to a lack of education and ethics.
Diversity was supposed to be our greatest strength.
This interview is making that slogan sound inaccurate is it not?
It's certainly our detriment. It's impossible to trust a neighbor who doesn't look like you.
I think what Galen seems to miss somewhat is that although the US may still be considered a democracy, it is increasingly a flawed democracy. That is what puts it more at risk - and why reforms are needed.
Galen, you should invite Daniel Ziblatt and/or Steven Levitsky to come on the show - the authors of How Democracies Die.
The US is a republic not a democracy
@@j.markenglish5747 this is just semantics. The US is (or at least claims to be) both a representative democracy and a constitutional republic - essentially a democratic republic. But it is a flawed democratic republic.
@@j.markenglish5747 How do we choose our leaders?
@@generalmartok3990 POTUS for example I’d chose by a set of electors. We do not live in a one person one vote democracy. The founders, on the whole, were terrified of direct democracy.
@@j.markenglish5747 What do you do on Election Day?
These threats seem more like the insurgency and revolts we had in Brazil. Not quite a Civil War, but an armed insurgency attempting to overthrow a local power as opposed to the entire nation. It does depict division and weakness of the American Democracy and it may result into marshall law policies and repression.
Some historians today claim that this period after dom Pedro I was indeed a civil war, but the people who made the narrative in the empire and earlier republic didnt want to call it a civil war to make the State look more stable
Martial law being imposed, and the abuse of the population that always results can be the detonator to ignite a civil war.
America is a republic!!! Important to understand!!
@@5rings16 "America is a Republic" , you poor sap . Enjoy your civil war 2 . Trumptard ?
It is a form of democracy. Call it what you want. It is not working.
It needs reform . Getting rid of all them ghuuns would be a start .
Martial law not Marshall law. Marshall is a name. Martial refers to the military.
Yugoslavia was never beholden to the USSR after 1948.
This guy is the best-informed interviewer whom I have seen in a long time to the point that he has statistics at his fingertips to challenge the topic expert.
However, he would be be served with front lighting than distracting back lighting.
there's enough front light to illuminate and the back light is diffuse ... it works
Amazing interview Galen you asked questions that really got to the heart of her points.
I think I understand your question, I believe the interviewer is focusing on the House popular vote this November because there are no gerrymandering and Electoral College effects (as opposed to Senate representation). If the GOP gets over 50% of this vote, it demonstrates legitimate democracy at work because there is an actual majority of voters behind them. And Gaylon properly presumes this a 'good thing'.
Not every bill which lowers participation of democrat-leaning demographics is bad or evil. Both perception of and actual election integrity are important in a democracy
@@jasonk125 This is not about my feelings(I do not believe presidential election was stolen), but it is about feelings and the power they hold.
Let me ask you a question. What would you do if you believed that your candidate should have won the election but was cheated with false votes? Please pretend. Wouldn’t you be terrified? If your history books all glorified the American Revolution, with all the culture which has been invested in resisting unjust government, wouldn’t you consider violence potentially necessary to save your country, your family, your personal wellbeing? This is what many people believe!
The ONLY way to live in a peaceful and open society is through persuasion, otherwise we get a government which increasingly rules by force. That is sometimes necessary, but we should never want it! We need to be taking every effort to engage with conspiracy theorist talking points so that they believe the election was secure.
The demographics are changing in the United States. Over time, conservative views will fade and are fading due to the natural democratic process. This system can only be gamed so much- as the popular vote increasingly turns against the Republican party as such, they will have to reinvent themselves. Civil war, and violent resistance more generally, is the single most substantial threat to this progress.
Why can’t we work with this intelligently? Why not have a Voter Identification & Voting Day bill? Require something like personal I.D. when voting but also give people a national holiday so relative(to party) voter turnout isn’t effected? We gain some stability with no change to the political power of marginally minority groups.
In short, please, if you care about human wellbeing, understand that your political and ideological neighbors/enemies are not impotent. I read your comment and I see some of my own emotion and instinct, but we can’t be so absolutist. We have to-have to respect power, even as we attempt to distribute it.
@@jasonk125 troll better comrade.
Not sure what's going on with your editing but you cut her off in the middle of an interesting historic example at 4:45
Sthu!!!! America is not a democracy!!! We are a constitutional Republic!!!
Intelligent, informative. Top-notch interview.
All makes sense if you don’t do any research...why limit yourself?
Has any research been conducted comparing modern US politics to the the Italian Years of Led? Seems like we're in the middle of a Hot Autumn-lite period in the US. There's gotta be a healthy middle between Civil War and Stability to account for. (Note: Havent finished the interview yet)
After Summer 2020 you get all the backlash y'all deserve.
When have we ever been “one person one vote”? Notice how she didn’t even address the electoral college or senate. I appreciate the pushback on her narrative which seems extremely cherry picked.
Its almost as if the system set up by plantation owners was made to hold up an inherently unequal aristocracy? 🤔
From the beginning. Of course, your fake name makes me think you're a troll, foreign or domestic. Maybe you're just home-schooled. The House of Representatives was always "one man, one vote." The Senate used to be elected via state legislatures. The republican form of government, which incorporates democratic modalities (one man, one vote) and filters the people's wishes through their elected officials.
Did you ever take American history in school?
@@jakebarnes28 The electoral college is designed to protect the minority You'd think the left would love that. Pure democracy is dangerous. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner type stuff that they're trying to avoid.
When have we ever been “one person one vote”?
Ever since november 1796 is a pretty good estimate.
@@drmartin5062 is that how they convince you to vote against your own best interests?
Important info to be aware of; in fact , programs like this need more media presence.
Political violence is inevitable, simply because that's the only way to derail the current system.
At one point the people will have enough and will take matters into their own hands.
Jan. 6 was just a warm-up.
Jan 6? No, the political violence was 100% monopolized by the left in the summer of 2020. Jan 6 was an accidental riot at best with the over whelming majority trying to avoid any violence.
@@PaxAmericana76 Accidental riot? Quite likely, it didn't appear very coordinated, nor professional.
But the next time it won't be accidental and it won't be just a riot. It will be a day of reckoning. And a very bloody one at that.
@@PropagandasaurusRex there won’t be a day reckoning and there won’t be another riot like what happened Jan 6.
@@PropagandasaurusRex Jan 6 was likely coordinated by the government itself to make the right look bad.
@@mouthpiece200 False flag operations on your own popiulation will almost always backfire, so I don't think so.
Thank you for the update.
Great job calling her out on her racist claims. As a conservative Hispanic I appreciate your balanced view.
if you've lost the popular vote several times and realize you can't win on policy then you rig the process to insure your interests and continuation of power .. and that effort is being led by yale & harvard graduates that know full well the impacts to our country ..
And don't forget, who also enjoy the perks of being around the Robber Barons. The elite Universities who turn out these Servants of Corporate America and it's government. It is certainly a government for the people nor by the people.
Rig the process? You mean like allowing millions of illegals to come make new voters for your side?
@@mouthpiece200 so how do the illegals cast votes .. ? most illegals are people that have overstayed visas from European countries .. and who says they are allowed to come when apprehensions are occurring at high levels .. time for a more realistic talking point like promoting false electors ...
@@direwolf6234 Most illegals are hispanic from below the Southern border. They eventually get amnesty for staying here, and they raise anchor babies who grow up to vote liberal. Over several decades it adds up to millions and millions of people and changes the results of national elections. Liberals are cheaters and the military needs to nullify any of their elections with tanks. No democrat is serious about apprehending illegals. They pay lip service to it just to appear as if they follow the law, but ultimately libs want to keep the border wide open to pad their voter base. They are committing treason and the penalty must be severe. You've heard of sanctuary cities? Pure treason. Anyone who opposed Trump's wall should be suspect.
By education you mean indoctrination.
And by "strengthen our democrocy" she means going full authoritarian... its funny how blind the left is to themselves.
This woman is 100% part of the problem. The interviewer did a good job of exposing this. 👏
What's the problem?
Thank you for bringing her onto the podcast. Saw her on the evening news one or two times, but it's nice to be able to spend more than a few minutes listening to her points
Part of the problem is that we can’t make any structural changes to our democracy because right now the current system really works for one party. There’s zero incentive to compromise
Didn't we just see two presidents from opposing parties in less than a 5 year period?
I thought Galen did a very solid job in this interview, he challenged some points made by the interviewee. I do wish he pushed her to go into some of the reforms she believed would help alleviate the situation. The way Barbara characterized the situation, I get the feeling that it would be mostly “Democrat good, Republican bad” in terms of reformation. However, I’d prefer to hear her explanation as she didn’t mention leaders of both left and right, I just had a feeling she maintains a significant bias.
@Eternity row X you're a subpar troll.
I think most of that is because there's an antidemocratic faction currently taking over the Republican party. They know they don't have the numbers, and haven't won a popular vote in like...what, 15 years? This can generate hate and fear in their base. Conservative types are also the only ones running around with guns excitedly talking about the "next civil war".
Also, the more the republicans expand the demographics in their base, the harder it will be to hold them together without actually getting serious about policies that fix problems. How can ypu hold them together then? Focus only on the culture war.
Juat because one side is more problematic than the other doesnt mean someone is truly biased when they point it out.
One thing ALL Americans agree on, whether on the left or right: America is a HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE place to live now.
See you in Nigeria
We just got labeled as an Oligarchy by many united nations organization groups.
Nonsense!!
Thanks for the conversation. Important.
I like how you pushed back against her liberal talking points despite being liberal yourself. Kudos!
maybe the huge class divide should be mentioned, especially with how private interests on both sides constantly subvert democracy
For me, the missing piece is “what would rebels really be fighting for?” What tangible gain would there be? Unless “making the election rait” is a good enough call to arms (as incredibly stupid as that is).
I once read a quote that said Jan 6 was a bit like a dog chasing a car. What to do once it catches it? If you look at the footage, rioters entered the capital, broke a few things, out their feet up on desks ….and then what? If they stopped for a moment and thought about it, they might start to see they were manipulated by a childish and self-centered ex-president who just had a huge temper tantrum by proxy,
@@winchestertonfieldville8973 That's where I'm like "is it really a coup? Do these people even know what that is?" No real plan.
@@benbauer7866 It wasn't a plan . They had no organization or training to breech the building . They were not all heavily armed and assignúed targets .. To me It looks like a bunch of mislead people and a few full blown wackos. Most were there to protest and followed other idiots in like they were touring the place . If this would have actually been an insurgency . The entire city would have been taken and many politicians assassinated..
This is rarely a one-step game. Say.. jan6, they manage to kill some important people and keep Trump in power for a while. The following would be the demand from democrats to prosecute those ppl, while Trump would’ve gained legitimacy to stay in power. The debate would be: should Trump stay regardless of elections, or not. And if anyone opposes this idea, is an enemy of the state and would be purged. Boom, you got civil war (in case.. just in case anyone cares to fight)
@@CommonSenz Prosecute who? No court found evidence of widespread voter fraud.
I read about her research around the time this was recorded but I'm somehow just seeing this interview for the first time. This is great work.
As a career military officer, I want to believe our institutions can resist the urge to fracture and turn on each other, but the degree of anger - much of it completely unwarranted and based on lies - makes for scary times in our nation.
Hoping for the best.
Another Marxist in uniform
The White working class voted for Obama in 2008. This woman is portraying a bias and leaves out facts to bolster her view.
What does the Bible say about black and white?

All people are created in the image of God, and therefore all races and ethnic groups have the same equal status and equal unique value. Inter-ethnic marriages are sanctioned by Scripture when they are within the faith. The gospel demands that we carry compassion and the message of Christ across ethnic lines.Jun 23, 2020
Most thoughtful take I've seen on the possibility of an American civil war.
While the chance of political violence in the next 5 years in extremely high her arguments are 100% wrong. She’s pushing debunked disinformation and overt propaganda.
Because America is not and had never been a democracy. We are a republic. Remember for which it stands. If it were a democracy every citizen would be required to vote on every rule change. Where as in a republic you send representatives and those representatives vote.
😆
I'm incredulous that this political scientist completely fails to acknowledge the systemic problems within the Democrat party, as well as the far Left. Her comments about the far Right and Xian Conservatives are indeed relevant, but she is seemingly incapable of painting a complete picture of what ails our politics, culture, and society. Astoundingly myopic she is, even when at the same time her assessment about the Right is at least partially correct. She just missed far too many issues that are causing our current crisis.
Her analysis as to the how and why we have devolved to anocracy status is reductionist. Perhaps she should simply stick to compiling and studying metrics, but leave some of the real work of the WHY to others who are more qualified to do so. Either that, or she needs to be talking to others who have overlapping but simultaneously disparate skill sets that can add to this basket of complexity--because this topic demands it! Does she live/work in a bubble?
The other elephant in the room that is equally relevant but less obvious (the elephant must have a cloaking device) are the enormous forces and problems that are eroding our system that are not directly traceable to facile explanations like racism or identity politics. That, THAT is where most analysts and talking heads fail. Too often, it's the Left that is the problem, or the Right that is the problem. What about the effects of climate change (and the many side effects of it such as increased immigration), 24 hour for-profit mass media. social media, gross levels of consumerism, globalism, multiculturalism, the rise of oligarchs such as Jeff Bezos, etc, etc, etc that are undermining democracy and American society, and destabilizing the world--politically and environmentally?
Again, Ms. Walter's analysis is grossly simplistic and insufficient. She needs to stay in her wheelhouse is what I meant to write. There. I'm done.
Her American academic elite bias is so obvious. She just thoughtlessly swallows the mainstream liberal narrative
@Eternity row X I seem to gravitate towards fascism because I challenged this woman's assessment? Christ f*cking sakes! If you think I am a Trump supporter because I did so, you're part of the problem. Everybody on the Left believes they got it correct, while everyone on the Right believes they have it correct. Trumpism was a massive threat to our system in the four years he was president and, indeed since Jan 6 of '21, remains a threat. But our deeply systemic issues, and partly the mass movement called Wokeness, yielded Trump. Trump, Xian Conservatives, the Proud Boys, BLM, Woke, the wealth gap, the shrinking middle class, etc, etc, are the products of the destabilization of our system and our society--as I pointed out. And these bad ideas and movements further destabilize it. One begets the other. And Leftist extremism begets Right wing extremism, and vice versa. My point is that she simply has a reductionist assessment. THIS DOESN"T MAKE ME A FASCIST. IT MAKES ME SOMEONE WHO HAS STEPPED BACK FROM THE IMPULSE AND PREDILECTION THAT MOST PEOPLE HAVE TO "JOIN A TEAM". I REFUSE TO DO THAT. What I have right now is am impulse to describe you in vulgar terms, but I won't. But you can guess that I'm pissed off. I have leaned Left my whole life, and I don't need someone calling me a f*cking Fascist.
@Eternity row X Whoa there. You think I'm a conservative? Go back an read what I wrote. No, on second thought don't bother. If you didn't get it the first time, you won't get it the second time.
@Eternity row X I mentioned right in my first comment the issue of climate change! I have known for twenty years that it's the most pressing problem we humans face. But there is little point in mentioning this to you, since you're one of the many millions in this country who has joined a team and subsequently, automatically, decided that someone who is critical of someone who makes claims publicly (as Ms. Walter has) that in this instance sound "liberal", and when someone (in this case me) challenges her, then I must be on the conservative team.
Being on one of these teams allows one to give in to the team ideology and experience the warm fuzzies that come with team solidarity. Unfortunately, it also allows one to shut down the act of thinking--which is already hard enough absent such influences.
@Eternity row X What rights are you so worried about the GOP taking? Leftists are the fascist pigs. Not the right.
Very insightful conversation!
Indoctrination leading to (imagined) "fear of your neighbour" is always a factor.
If your neighbor isnt in the same realm of reality and thinks that you are a communist satanic democrat that should hang when "The Storm" comes, i have a right to be afraid
@@jamesmcpherson8599 You prove my point, thank you 🌹.
I often wonder if even in 1985 people knew the Soviet Union was not long for this world.
Very astute point.
Can we get the sources for podcasts like these?
No, but we can get finger licking good
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
*EGG* 🥚
Thank you, Galen. Thank you, Barbara. For a helluva interview.
Allowing the separate states more legal authority, particularly with respect to corporate law, would end the incitement to civil war. But it would also tend to segregate the country politically.
That...doesn't solve the problem of disunity. When you refer to corporate law, what do you have in mind?
@@wj3186 ...My theory is that the intrinsic unaccountability of corporate "limited liability" is the root cause for civil war in the U.S.A. today. Facilitating corporate interests in State & Federal government defines this era, sadly. Some states (probably most "red" states) would like to make corporations rare and tightly controlled. Counterposed to that sentiment is the belief that making incorporation difficult might hurt the economy. This belief leads directly to the almost universal corporate whoring practiced by politicians throughout the nation.
@@wj3186 Independence separate states I think of what he's talking about
@@soulextract640 no. I'm not suggesting secession. That's been tried and ended badly.
I'm saying states should have greater legal rights with respect to corporations. There exist sound Constitutional arguments against "limited liability" which are currently glaringly ignored by our compromised judiciary. I'm just saying some states should be allowed to distinguish themselves as being (legally) bad places for corporate hegemony.
Excellent guest and interview. Thanks!
A democrat defending democrat views. Only the same no light!
we're gonna run out of food first.
Blues have got academics. Reds have got storm troopers.
Blues don't have academics, they have ideologue infiltrators. All forms of tyrants have their own form of "academics" kissing establishment ass.
Ok. Would like to see the country split up according to faction and have them go their own separate ways.
It would be helpful to actually define what you mean by a "civil war". Do you mean an actual hot war - with actually violence - with troops engaged in battle along some geographic line? The very idea seems very remote to me. It seems to me, however, that exaggerating the prospects of an alleged civil war can be the means to put in draconian policies that would otherwise not be possible.
I think any civil war in rich countries would take the form of unconventional war. No front lines, heavy artillery, and uniforms but instead insurgencies, political violence, domestic terrorism, general strikes, riots, coup attempts, cyber warfare, high profile assassinations ect.
Just imagine a type of war the military/government is least equipped to fight
A civil war here will be more like the guerilla warfare Partisans in Eastern Europe during WW-2, or the Vietcong in Vietnam employed. It will be fought by what some would regard as terrorists and freedom fighters by others. There will be no front lines or rear areas, NO area will be safe as the combatants will be part of and hidden among the populace. Federal soldiers and or foreign fighters entering the fighting though will escalate the fighting from an insurgency to a international war.
I can’t imagine how trad war like that could happen. The Civil War had two actual polities. The South was organized in such a way for traditional battle. They had a general and an actual military. It’s hard to imagine a faction of the American population to be able to do that to fight against the government. No, it would be as she said. Assassinations, terrorism, etc
Good interview, thank you.
I gotta say, the more that is learned about the insurrection and the more those people talk about it, the more confident I am that RICO (the crime designed to go after mob bosses) is applicable
Why those people are not sitting in a cell at Guantanamo Bay, I can not understand.
Guantanamo Bay is for people for whom US criminal charges cannot be pressed. Domestic terrorists go to normal prison.
What did they do?
Stood at the capitol?
C'mon now, do Americans not have the right to see their Represenatitives?
@@andyc3012 troll better. Your trolling is subpar.
I guess they should have bombed it so the Clinton's would pardon them....
So when there exists a rogue federal government, whom will we look toward to contain such a beast? I wonder if the 2nd amendment was written specifically for such an event. Who then is the party at fault? The rogue government or the people? If the government is for the people AND of the people, I urge you to reconsider where the ire should point. Tread lightly filthy lustful politicians. Our founding fathers were once considered insurrectionist. England would have had them publicly hanged had the outcome been different. Never forget who serves whom. Who should fear whom. When the people fear their government, they will rise up against them. Look at the unrest around the globe. Is it ever anything but a tyrannical government at the root? Crack a book and find what the founding fathers had to say. This is still that country, the same one they so clearly formed from the womb of a tyrannical government!
*Time for us to get Together*
Its time for change start gathering imma try on my end we need to get everyone on bored if were gonna overthrow the government
Oh my, this is an excellent example of an expert leading us off into the weeds. Galen helps with his critical questions but geez.
Yes, I accept the data that shows that it is dangerous when the relevant political parties are based upon ethnic identity. And I agree about the relevance of this idea that demographics work increasingly against Republicans.
However, a key part of Ms Walter's case is not data-driven at all, and is dubious.
To her, it is simply common sense that it is (almost solely) the Republican Party pushing us towards political identity based upon ethnic identity. But it was mostly the liberal-leaning media and pundits and online discussions that began in the mid 20-teens to express this idea that Republicans are increasingly doomed to lose, due to demography. How can my fellow liberals be so blind to how that fits into our current problems? Go around telling one of the parties they are certain to lose due to their race... and then place sole blame on them for responding racially? C'mon!
Furthermore, listen to recent political rhetoric. Which party talks about national calamities like COVID in terms of race? Which party talks promises to run candidates, nominate judges, etc. on the basis of race? The public rhetoric of the Democratic Party and it supporters is extremely prone to racializing things. Republicans do this far, far less these days, unless you count supposed victimization of Christians (which, I notice, Ms. Walters often falls back upon), but that is not blatantly racial.
There are some pretty good reasons that we Democrats do these things, if but we are trying to scientifically analyze the risk of ethnic identity becoming political identity, the talk on this segment is utterly misleading. One could honestly say that Nixon and the Republicans "started" it. (We can also note the surreptitious machinations of Republican leaders.) But if the goal is now to avoid civil war, we better not mislead ourselves about the present.
(I lost further faith in Ms. Walters due to her claim that the 2020 elections were such a message of hopelessness to GOP leaders. The country did turn against Trump. But it was highly noteworthy that Dems did not do nearly as well as expected in other elections. To have such a laser focus on the presidential election strikes me as not just misleading, but cause for doubt towards the analyst.)
Hi, that was a highly intelligent and insightful responce that has made me consider for the first time how much democrats actually do use race as the basis of their political ideology. I have always thought it was justified, especially as the republican party leadership is so overwhelmingly white and male. But that doesn't change the fact the democrats are playing this game just as much if not more than republicans.
Thank you.
@@brettgoldsmith8584 Well, my point is quite apart from whether it is justified. I am only saying that it overtly promotes ethnic/racial identity as political identity.
One thing working against Democrats: Let's say that Republicans gerrymander, such that poor people are underrepresented. There is little or no legal basis for challenging this. The constitution, as amended, provides that certain groups (Blacks, women, young voters) are to have equal voting rights, so you can challenge certain voting procedures on that basis. But voters in general, or poor people? Not much basis for challenge. Thus, they are pushed to challenge on the basis of race (since gerrymandering rarely affects gender or age groups).
Of course, that does not explain why, say, COVID impact would be analyzed from a racial perspective rather than a social class perspective.
@@donbemont7901 Excellent analysis above. I had a sinking feeling listening to the interview. I'd read reviews of the book and theories but was shocked to see her so biased and misinformed (especially about 2020). I've also been concerned that the "demographics is destiny" drumbeat has been clouding liberal thinking.
I think one of the issues democrats and the liberal press have is that analysis (of any kind) reveals specific problems, and specific problems warrant attention. But that attention results in fighting overly specific battles (like racial gerrymandering) that skews the perception that non-liberals have of the party and the press. Partially this is the result of our legal system, but when only one side of the ideological divide is interested in solving problems the message is bound to become distorted.
For example, as a liberal I love nothing more than a revealing analysis that uncovers some hidden connection, like the correlation between historical redlining and wealth inequality, high COVID rates in black areas, or police violence. It seems like there's actionable evidence, and we (as a country) should at least acknowledge it. But the way it plays out in the media makes it seems like liberals ONLY care about those things. There are plenty of studies about drug use, isolation, and shortened lifespans in rural, mostly white America that deserve attention. But as those can't serve as ammunition for the right, so they're not promoted as part the fictional "liberal agenda."
@@jeremyjackson7429 Exactly. So if liberal-leaning America referred to the impact of COVID on the less affluent, on the people working poorly paid front line jobs who were vastly less able to shield themselves from risk... then millions of poor whites would not end up muttering, "They only care about Blacks." Which has unfortunate effects, including those Ms. Walters is highlighting.
@@jeremyjackson7429 I agree. Democrats really do favor centralization and power of federal government, and that unites small town big wheels (who lose power) and small farmers (who would be in terrible trouble anyway, but federal ag policy favoring efficiency seals the deal against them). And at least around here, those factors, along with abortion and border control are vastly more important to conservative voters than race. But I agree that the Republican margin could be whittled down significantly. For all the data points about in-elasticity, leading to the "concentrate on turnout" philosophy, I have seen with my own eyes the level of GOP support rise and fall around here, depending on the specifics of the moment.
Switzerland has multiple groups who are identified by three dimensions : Ethnicity, Religion and Urbanism. The Swiss unite the groups forming rings of links that unite the country. The main ring is : ProtestantGerman GermanCatholic CatholicFrench . So a FrenchCatholic is linked by a CatholicGerman to a GermanProtestant. Additionally, there are pet links, a pet of the ProtestantsGermans are the Romansh which are Catholic and then provide additional links to the other Catholic zones. The pet of both French groups is the Italian Swiss region.
Fighting over the table scraps “trickled down” on the 99% from the 1%’s obscene wealth makes ripe conditions for frustration, division, and - if left unchecked - violence. (Peepee economics, my partner n I joke.) “...begun to organize itself politically around identity lines”... absolutely! scapegoating/“othering” is a tempting option when people feel threatened by scarcity.
I call it tinkle down economics myself. Less spelling changes.
Basically a breeding ground for proto-fascists who can peddle easy solutions, to a populous that's been brainwashed against structural change. After all, what could you possibly change to, if your country is definitionally #1 - so it must be some sort of an insidious plot that's diverted it from the "golden path." The ruling class institutionalised American exceptionalism to protect themselves from change, the price for that will have to paid at some stage. Question is, how big will the butcher's bill be and what will it purchase in the end.
@@thomthom6268 haha yes... we actually call it Dingle Dong Economics, but thought that might be too crass for the internet. (to which they replied... "Too crass for the internet? What era are you living in, woman?!")
Yet again, why I moved my family to Japan. It doesn’t need to be that way.
Good stuff! Scary, but good! Thank YOU!!
OMG the more I watch the clearer it becomes how biased she is in her actual watching of current events. Another expert in her own opinions. She could be worse. But she's of little or no help. I'm sorry, because I was really hoping for some peacemaking from SOMEONE.
Ooookay, and what would "peacemaking" look like other than dropping the batshit idea that Trump won the 2020 election?
she's a far leftist contributor for CNN
I find it interesting talking to individuals with a different "political identity" we disagree just about as much as we agree. I think most of us are more centered than the people we vote for. We vote for them and they go on to just tote the party line. Compromise is gone in our political party's!
he's living in a shoebox wondering why the world is so f'ed up. the pmc class is sooooo cute!
Baruch 2:14-15
[14]Hear our prayers, O Lord, and our petitions, and deliver us for thine own sake, and give us favour in the sight of them which have led us away:
[15]That all the earth may know that thou art the Lord our God, because Israel and his posterity is called by thy name.
"...the white working class, ideologically, was more attuned to the policies of the Democratic Party."
And then in 2008 the white working class, actually the working class in general, started to realize that policies of the Democratic Party was no longer attuned to the working class.
For me, at least, it was the Obama experience that taught me that fact.
Very informative
The US was never a democracy, although it has one chamber of the legislature that is democratically elected.
If not being a democracy didn't lead to civil war in the last 150+ years, there is no reason it should now.
Civil wars happen when existing elite refuse to yield power to a new elite, whatever the mechanism used to get into power and regardless of which group represents the majority. Essentially civil wars happen when two groups competing for power deem being out of power an _existential_ threat.
Sure there are several groups in the US that feel an existential threat by not being represented in power, but the Republican Party doesn't represent them. Most of them felt represented by Trump, but not because he was a Republican, but because he was from outside both the parties.
Breakdown of civil society is definitely on the cards and it is in progress right now. But no civil war.
Except they are coming to the end of the long march through the institutions
@@johnrhodes3350 May be so. But there is no elite competing for power with them. In the absence of such competition, there will be no civil war. Breakdown of civil society doesn't make a civil war.
And that is why both parties hate Trump.
@@willmont8258 Trump is _not_ a challenge to the current elite. However, he is challenge to their _narrative_ . _That_ is why they hate him.
We have no history of bloodshed between people of the same country. What is the frame of reference for ‘civil war’? Where are they getting the idea that’ll be violent?
I don't totally buy her argument, but Galen asked excellent questions and voiced a lot of my own doubts/objections. Great interview.
Perhaps someone should explain to this woman that we are not a democracy we are a Representative republic. If she wishes to discuss the rule of law, perhaps you should've taken two recent examples by Joe Biden and a complete ignoring of that law. The eviction moratorium And the Biden mandates on vaccines are both perfect examples. Mr. Biden implemented them, knowing that they were both likely unconstitutional, but did it anyway
I lost hope when my Democratic Senator Sinema didn’t vote for altering the Filibuster to pass Voting Rights.
People have voting rights now. What we don't need is federalization of elections.
More like against changing the rules for a non issue. There's no one who cannot vote.
Im 62 and I have seen this country degenerate for decades, our future isn't very pleasant.
We are a violent angry and a heavily armed society.
Very cogent, important analysis; bravo. I probably won't buy this book, but I do hope it sells massively and gets read widely - hopefully in time to make a difference. I live in rural America, and there are fumctional adults who know how to gracefully lose an election. There are also LEGIONS of lesser-educated, manipulable, well-armed, white "Christians" who are itching for some flashpoint or excuse or "go" signal for inception violence - against whomever Fox has convinced them to fear and hate. I now believe that it could well take some large, bloody messes for them to snap out of the spell which the Murdochs have cast. In end, I do believe they will snap out. Adulthood will prevail. Whether a functioning, non-authoritarian democracy can survive, however, that's a more murky vision.
I live in a similar area as you and mostly agree with your assessment. At the same time, a lot of these people whose brains have leaked out over the past couple of years have kids. They talk a big game but I doubt they have the stomach for it. I could be wrong but I really hope I'm not. As someone who is fairly well-traveled - been to some of the freest countries in the world as well as totalitarian regimes - I can say these people are extremely sheltered. They've never experienced any real adversity. They can't conceive what it's like to live in a place like rural Pakistan as a woman or in China as a Uyghur, but seem to believe they are just as persecuted. Most of them seem to think America is under a real threat of becoming a communist regime. I'm just not sure what we do with that. Someone who truly believes that is lost.
The violence is on the Left. The right will only get violent if need be to restrain Leftist violence. Remember those riots less than 2 years ago? All leftists.
@@mouthpiece200 How did injuring 150 police officers on Jan. 6 restrain leftist violence?
What about Corporate greed and accountability for exploiting and fuelling civil was in developing countries. Your study was funded by the US government so what protective safeguards have you used in your study to prevent bias or conflict of interest.
A great conversation on an important topic! What is different about our situation is a confluence of highly effective direct media propaganda on the right at the same time of insecurities, and an awareness of the failings, whether planned or not, of our government. Money corrodes democracy like salt water corrodes iron, so a root solution might start with major efforts to get small dollar district funded candidates into office, and demand districts be drawn by citizen councils, rather than politicians, lawyers, and big money interests. Then vote to change the Constitution to make fair elections an essential right, not money.🗽
Just propaganda on the righ eh? hahahaha! If you believe that it is only on the right the propaganda is working well indeed.
The Fair Representation Act would go a long way. End this first-past-the-post, two party insanity.
Summery: Loss of imagined previledges and power over Others, coupled with seeing Others economic situation and social standing improving, causes the previledged group to instigate violence and intimdation to keep Others in their place.
Again
BTW, This is exactly what happened in Sri Lanka - where I'm from. The idea of people resorting to violence when peaceful means has no effect, which in turn empowers the most extremist groups, holds true.
thanks!
It's not even an imagined loss. When you ask progressives if they want everyone to have the privileges of affluent white men they tend to say no: equality for them means removing those privileges, not expanding them
It's interesting that you automatically jump to the 'political party that becomes ethnically affiliated' as meaning Republicans, or at least that's what I assume you're implying. I would argue it's _far_ more the case that Democrats have positioned themselves in an identarian way, albeit with the 'identity' in question being 'People of Color' (i.e. everyone who isn't white) and to a lesser extent Black people specifically.
I would bet a _lot_ of money that if you were to analyse all political rhetoric spoken by politicians in 2021, Democrats would make _far_ more explicit and implicit references to ethnicity. Of course, there are those that argue that whenever a Republican mentions crime, immigration or traditionalism, it's a racist dog whistle. Which is sometimes true but those things are facets of conservative political parties everywhere, for a long-time. If the argument is that conservatism is de facto racist, then I would argue that whoever is saying that is stoking ethnic factionalism themselves, or at least framing the debate in such a way that identity-politics is unavoidable.
I should add that I'm not right-leaning. It's just somewhat frustrating when automatically contextualise arguments to make their political enemies the only ones at fault (which is to some extent what she herself was doing).
See that's what I've told people for ever, you need to target Fed instead of public stuff if you actually want to induce change. I love that stuff, you can't beat an idea
Ideally he wouldn't have completely interrupted her Yugoslav example as it is pretty instructive.
When it comes to the United States this video missed it. Here's why. The US is in essence 50 nations cohabitating as one with the Supreme Court as its mediator. 2020 was detrimental to the system of democracy. There was a major dispute by 19 states against 5 regarding voting laws and irregularities, many of which have since been proven valid. The Supreme Court failed to do its job and serve as mediator and allow both sides to present their disputes, because they knew the outcome would be Trump winning. The results are now people don't believe they have a way to have their voices heard. Combine that with since this video was done, the Biden DOJ indicting Trump twice while proven crimes against Biden has gone unchecked. We have people reading this right now who will not demand accountablity for Biden. Not a single democrat saying he should be impeached. We are in serious trouble come 2024.
There are already some preconditions - which include a divided America, a very dysfunctional government, and then the 6th January Capitol Hill event. Not only is America divided between Democrats and Republicans, but it is also divided between Rich and Poor and literally any faction one can imagine. The current administration has failed its constituency as well as Americans at large in matters that matter most, like pandemic control, rising prices, supply-chain issues, and gun violence. The 6th January incident is a watershed event in American politics, in which the pro-Trump camp strongly believed that they could take back the election by storming the Capital and demanding what was rightfully theirs. This is a very alarming phenomenon for democracy. First, the so-called ‘national divorce’ belief is deep-rooted in Americans (and not just Republicans), meaning the Democrats might do the same should the other side win the election in 2020. Second, people think that there is nothing wrong with ‘winning back’ the election through violence. What is then the flashpoint to trigger off the chain reaction? Perhaps, a financial crisis of an unparalleled scale, the Republicans winning the mid-term this year. In my opinion, the triggering point is indeed Trump returns in 2024 and wins the presidential election. When all these unfold before our eyes, may God bless America!
Only an idiot believes the Jan 6 event was some kind of coup attempt. When people get pissed at their government, they get rowdy. Get over it.
For Jesus is the way to defeat war
I believe both Argentina and Chile had liberal democracies before they were over thrown. Argentina had the Junta and Chile had Pinochet. And Turkey, was it not a liberal democracy until Erdogan accumulated power? I find it strange you pointed to Ukraine which had a shorter term democracy than any of the 3 I listed (if I am correct in my remembering). Though I guess these places didn't devolve into civil war and Ukraine did...sorta.
I looked up Argentina, from what I can tell with a quick look, they had liberal democracy from 1862-1930
Your point?
@@jenofire8724 That was my point
Eh, not really sure Chile counts as a democracy pre-Pinochet. The far-left only won by 36.61% of the vote and by a margin of only ~39,000, but wanted to govern as if he had a mandate.
@@LordWolven Prior to Allende there were a number of democratically elected leaders (again, with just a cursory reading of the history)...And while Allende didn't win with an absolute majority, he still won. Remember Bush only won ~48% of the vote (admittedly closer to the majority) and lost the popular vote, Trump also lost the popular vote with ~46% of the vote (again admittedly closer to 51%). Plus it is well known that Allende was overthrown at the behest and intervention of the CIA. But, yes that is not the best example of democracy in that final election before Pinochet. Though to reiterate, there were democratically elected leaders before him (again, with just a cursory reading of the history).
My god civil wars in poorer countries come from oppression of the poor people to the point theirs no hope and things won’t change to give them hope in the future so they get arms from the political enemies of who’s oppressing them and strike. They follow liners and evil men in the hope their lives will change.