In a lament at The Hill Harlan Ullman remarks on one of the things that the January 6 committee hearings have revealed:
The first hearing also ironically answered the question of whether the nation’s political divisions are overstated. Is the nation as divided as it was in 1861 or even 1776, when most American colonists favored remaining part of Great Britain? Or is this phenomenon a consequence of social media and the ubiquitous coverage and sensationalism of the news cycle?
The answer is chilling. Not only is the nation divided on virtually every issue. Every issue has become a single massive attack of disruption. Jan. 6 is just one example.
Consider the past eight decades. In December 1941, the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor rallied a highly divided nation over the ongoing war in Europe. More Americans have died of COVID-19 than were killed in battle in every war America fought since 1775. Yet COVID didn’t unite the nation but disrupted and divided it over lock downs, masks, vaccines and super spreader events.
The same divisive effects apply to inflation, immigration, the price of gasoline, mass shootings and guns, gestation periods and transgender rights. The sheer number of divisive issues is unique. Historically, divisions have been dominated by single issues such as states’ rights in 1860 or Vietnam and race a century later. The critical question is whether the Constitution and a system of government based on checks and balances can survive this onslaught of massive attacks of disruption.
Please note that his observation is self-refuting: Vietnam and race are two issues not one. Dr. Ullman is old enough to remember that more than two issues were dividing us in the 1960s: there were also environmental issues. And I seem to recall a rash of airline hijackings, about one a week by the end of the 1960s, many of them by Cubans but also by Palestinians.
Here are his remarks on the actual committee proceedings:
Assume Trump truly believed the election was stolen and he was the legitimate president. Does that then give him the authority and reason to use all means, fair or foul, to prove his case and reverse the results? What are the legal and constitutional restraints on a president under these circumstances, if any, despite the unanimous body of evidence and court cases proving well beyond a reasonable doubt that Joe Biden was the duly elected president? If Trump’s actions are allowed to stand, will it mean that there is no rule of law and that the Constitution has been permanently revoked?
The implications are frightening to consider. Yet this is the dangerous state of America today. The Jan. 6 commission opened a Pandora’s box. That will not rid the nation of an ex-president. But it will release all the harpies from a political hell.
I want to make two observations about that. First, my contention is that believing that he is a winner, unable to lose, is part of Donald Trump’s essential self-image. If that is the case any shred of evidence will be taken as proof of cheating or fraud.
Second, statistical analysis is not proof. Unlikely events happen every day.
I’m skeptical that most American colonist favored remaining British. I thinks its more plausible that most Americans were not actively involved on either side of the conflict which enveloped a politically active class of stakeholders. Most Americans are likewise probably not that interested in the political class waiving the bloody flag of insurrection.
According to Wikipedia; loyalists (to the British crown) was about 15-20% of white males, patriots were 40-45%, and the remaining were neutral / indifferent.
In Canada (founded and descended from loyalists); I recall schools were taught it was 1/3, 1/3, 1/3.
Country is too large and too diverse for centralized lawmakings.
Should LGBTQ teaching or Sharia Law be required in Swedehome, Ne.?
The statistical claims are mostly ignorant, at least the ones I have read. Something didnt happen in 5 or 6 elections then it happened in this one. When you take groups of 5 or 6 you dont have enough events to establish much of anything. The bane of medical literature for me are the small studies that people like to do because they are easy and cheap, and then using to base clinical decisions upon. You can prove almost anything if you do enough small studies.
Steve