Here’s a comment I posted over at Citizen Free Press. It was in response to a couple comments on a (unremarkable) story about a poll, comments which said that “we are in a war.” The exchange happened to occur today, September 7, but could have taken place at any point these last few years.
Metaphorical uses of "war" are legion. Many are good ones, like Charles Kesler's speaking of a "cold civil war."
But by the real definition of war, including of civil war, we are not in one. Refusal to abide by strict definitions on this topic is an excuse for the deployment of on-offense violence in politics, which outside the declaration of legitimate revolution, is always wrong and anti-democracy. Men like Adams, Hamilton, and Lincoln would disapprove in the strongest terms. Even Jefferson too, on one of his good days. That's why J6, even though no "insurrection" and likely 2/3 driven by false-flag agents, was a moral and tactical error of the first order. One committed by a small minority of populist-conservatives, but a serious error nonetheless.
If a revolution is declared legitimately, I know what side I will fight for. And even within a decade the progressivist/plutocrat lunatics could back us into a corner where we would have little other option. At present, I do not see legitimate grounds for revolution, even though I do believe Biden should be impeached and convicted, that Nuremberg trials should be held for the top leaders of the CDC/NIH etc., and that 80% of the leaders/managers of ALL American institutions should be fired. I absolutely want a societal shake-up that in the metaphorical sense will be a "revolution." But actual revolution/civil-war is a roll of the die, involves fratricidal killing, and would have to be chosen as a near-last resort, as it would be as likely to fail (and one kind of failure would be its leaving us with a strongman of the right in charge) as it would be to win a victory that restores American democracy.
Keep your powder dry, and your definitions sharp.
For more of my reasoning on these kinds of topics, in which I seek to speak as carefully as possible about the unfortunately real possibility of revolution and civil war in our future, see my essay from a year ago titled “Rules for Democracy-Rescuers.”
If you want to see what careful thinking about “violence in politics” looks like, and what pains it has to take, as opposed to President Biden’s recent elementary-level and patently unconvincing declamations against such, do consider it.
Let me know in the comments if you think I do not speak carefully enough, or put too much faith in the careful use of words.
P.S. I do not intend now to write the book referred to in that essay.
Take a look at Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language” to further substantiate your argument.
Very true! And the most relevant (if such is possible) piece of Orwell’s analysis fits in with your broader point about Biden. The word “democracy” becomes an empty mask for totalitarians to wear. And Biden’s now-famous Philly speech was exactly that: an encomium to democracy while persisting in a political movement which rapidly is veering toward totalitarianism.