In October, MSN presented a “thought piece” on line, “Is the US headed for another Civil War?” As is often the case with such stories, the analysis is shallow, filled with the written equivalent of talking heads, and of course starting with a recent Hollywood movie and quickly moving to compare the current and future state of affairs here in the States to the often mis-labeled American Civil War of 1861-65.

As is common, the article made various claims about what is and what not healthy in American politics, and what system(s) of government we have. One talking head spoke of how we are all part of a single political unit. He then pontificated about how “a fundamental piece of a democracy” is settling disputes non-violently.

Oddly, history shows this claim to be wrong. Even limited forms of democracy have time and again been characterized by intense violence and even greater promises and promotion of violently resolving disputes. Does democracy have a “fundamental piece?” Well, a “fundamental principle?” One source claims it is “popular sovereignty.” This is the idea that the authority of the government is derived from the consent of the governed.

How’s that? How is that determined? Ah! By democratic elections of course. Either through democratically electing representatives, or by direct democracy: almost always voting on issues with “yes” or “no.” The elections to be decided by the majority of votes cast. (Or in the case of more than two people running for a seat as a representative, a plurality.) This, we are told, “expresses the will of the people.” But it does not: it may express, in some twisted form, the will of a majority (or plurality) of the people who voted – and whose votes were actually counted.

We don’t need to go into the details. We can simply cite the old Ben Franklin story of two wolves and a sheep. And point out that time and time again, democracies have dully elected leaders or rulers, who go mad (or at least quite loopy) with power. Who lord it over the electorate and everyone who didn’t participate.

So it is no surprise, except to the most brainwashed person, that violence is an inevitable part of a democratic form of government. Much – even most – of the violence is initiated by those elected leaders or rulers, seeking to impose “the will of the people” over those who were outvoted (or not allowed to vote). Over those who disagree with what the majority says and does.

Inevitably, the more power any government gains, the more the potential for violence increases. To a point where (example, the Third Reich), the pressure becomes intolerable, and people resort to violence. Or so the accepted public line goes. The reality is that government violence and the threat of violence (both official and unofficial) is what starts the cycle of violence. Denied their rights, threatened constantly with the guns, non-lethal weapons, boots, chains, and imprisonment (or just unending lawsuits and the related expense), some people respond with like for like. People who are desperate and fearful of business as usual respond in a similar way: threats of violence and violence.

Some scholars have come up with the idea that it is not really a “civil war” until there are at least a thousand dead in the fighting. While we disagree with that entire chain of logic, we note that such a milestone has long been passed when it comes to government agencies killing people over political matters, certainly in only a decade or so. And the number of government supporters and members killed by others for political or partially political reasons seems to grow weekly.