But read today’s news, and the stories have been rewritten. The jihadists are airbrushed out. In their place, new villains are supplied: Israel, Republicans, conservatives. Hamas’s October 7 slaughter becomes “anti-colonial resistance.” The Pulse massacre becomes proof of “alt-right bigotry.” The killers vanish; scapegoats stand in their stead.
The New York Times article on August 24, 2025 essentially blaming Republican anti-gay attitudes surrounding the Orlando nightclub killings. Nowhere does it say that the murderer was a radical Islamist who was interviewed several times by the FBI for involvement with Al Qaeda and Hezbollah.
This is the age of villains of preference.
A Hamas gunman disappears, Netanyahu is written in.
An ISIS bomber is scrubbed out, Trump takes his place.
Jihad becomes invisible, conservatives become the menace.
This isn’t sloppy reporting—it’s deliberate redirection. Our society, already awash in the viral toxicity of social media, is being pushed to focus obsessively on politics and demonizing your neighbors. It’s red vs. blue, right vs. left. The situation courses with the ultimate stakes: life and death. The reframing empowers a radical socialist agenda that uses a domestic enemy to mobilize its base. Jihadists don’t fit the script, but Republicans and Zionists do.
The real clash—radical Islam against democracy and freedom—is inconvenient to acknowledge. So it’s erased. In its place we’re told the true battle is internal: conservatives are dismantling democracy; Israel is committing genocide with American support; capitalism is the ultimate evil that threatens the world. The foreign killers who target Jews, Christians, and gays are excused, while the West turns on itself.
Anti-capitalist, anti-Zionist politicians-in-waiting, Jamaal Bowman and Zohran Mamdani
The creed is simple: protect the victims of preference, attack the villains of preference—Jews, conservatives, capitalists. They are being lined up for your bilestorm. Your retweets. Your ire. Your protest. Your vote.
It is a purposeful rerouting of outrage, weaponized by radicals who despise capitalism and democracy, and cheered on by regimes like Qatar and China that profit from the West’s collapse.
The jihadists told us why they killed. Our media tells us to look away. Because in the new faith, truth is expendable while villains of preference are eternal.
There is a subtle subtitle to mainstream news articles today. It is a chorus that is growing louder and closer, lifted from killers’ manifestos: “There is only one solution: Intifada Revolution.”
President Donald Trump once again turned to the Orthodox community to give a benediction on behalf of American Jewry at his inauguration. Yesterday, it was Rabbi Dr. Ari Berman, President of Yeshiva University, a modern Orthodox institution. At his last inauguration in 2017, Trump called upon Rabbi Haskel Lookstein who had overseen the conversion of his daughter Ivanka, leader of Kehilat Jeshurun, a modern Orthodox synagogue in New York City, and Head of the Ramaz School, a modern Orthodox K-12 school. Liberal alumni of Ramaz objected to Rabbi Lookstein participating in the inauguration so the rabbi backed out, and was replaced by Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, also an Orthodox rabbi.
Trump’s selection of Orthodox rabbis stands in sharp contrast to every other president who chose non-Orthodox rabbis. In 2021, during Joe Biden’s inauguration at the height of the pandemic in a virtual ceremony, Sharon Brous of IKAR in Los Angeles and Sharon Kleinbaum of Congregation Beth Simchat Torah in New York City spoke. The two female rabbis are on the far-left of the religious and political spectrum, with the latter being married to Randi Weingarten, the powerful far-left leader of the American Federation of Teachers which only backs Democratic politicians.
The divide between Orthodox and non-Orthodox streams of Judaism is now beyond the confines of keeping kosher and Shabbat observance. There is a clear divide politically and about Israel as well.
According to a May 2021 Pew Research poll, Orthodox Jews preferences for the Republican and Democratic parties were 75% and 20%, respectively. Conservative and Reform Jews tilted towards the Democratic Party by a mirrored amount. An incredible 81% of Orthodox Jews approved of Trump’s job performance, while a similar percentage of non-Orthodox Jews disapproved of Trump’s performance.
These sentiments are echoed in the divide in the Jewish communities’ feelings about a range of issues including Israel and the treatment of American Jews. The majority of Orthodox Jews approved Trump’s handling of immigration, the environment, Israel and his treatment of Jews in the United States, while non-Orthodox Jews were much more split.
These polls were taken well before the October 7, 2023 massacre by Palestinian Arab terrorists of civilians in Israel, and the horrifying cheers of jubilation from the socialist-jihadi alliance on American campuses and in Congress. Since then, even Conservative Jews have begun to migrate towards the Republican Party (now almost one-half from just over one-quarter 3.5 years ago), while Reform and unaffiliated Jews remain entrenched with Democrats, according to an October 2024 poll by the Manhattan Institute.
It should not come as a surprise to see Trump invite an Orthodox rabbi to Washington, D.C., even while they make up a small percentage of Jews in America. It will be interesting to see if the Jewish Conservative movement continues to shift away from the Democratic Party and become a fixture in Washington during the Trump Administration.
Many people consider empathy, the ability to understand and bond with the emotions of another person, to be a uniquely human trait. It is seemingly more coveted by liberals.
A recent study in Israel showed that liberals show more brain activity regarding suffering than conservatives. Conversely, a study by the Cato Institute showed that conservatives value respect for authority much more than liberals. Pew Research has shown much the same, that liberals and conservatives focus on passing preferred values onto their children, with conservatives dedicated to faith and obedience while liberals channel their children towards tolerance and empathy.
Those two sympathies often bind liberals to marginalized groups, as tolerance and empathy for the successful does not comfortably win virtue signaling. People in difficult situations fall directly into liberals’ line of vision as emotional targets.
It does not always work out well.
There is a well-known dynamic of an “Empathy Trap,” whereby people who are deeply drawn to a loved one in a difficult situation, end up doing more harm than good. For example, seeing a family member struggling with an addiction may cause them to enable an even worse addiction because they are pained to see a loved one hurting. The addict knows this, and manipulates family to satisfy their addiction, taking advantage of the weakened emotional state of people who love them.
A similar but more twisted version is happening now in the 2023-4 Gaza War, in something I’ll call an “Empathy Swamp.” Both liberals and conservatives are horrified at the site of children being killed in Gaza. However, seemingly only liberals are falling into the empathy swamp which encompasses everyone in Gaza, excusing and enabling sadistic Hamas murderers and rapists – past, present and future.
Liberal women’s rights groups refused to denounce the mass rapes and mutilation of women committed by hundreds of Palestinian men. Liberal college professors shouted that Hamas’s burning Jewish families alive was “exhilarating.” Politicians including Representatives Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush, Summer Lee and Jamaal Bowman called for a ceasefire leaving Hamas in power to commit the atrocities again, and don’t offer a word about releasing Jewish hostages.
Liberals have so elevated the Palestinian cause in their declarations of empathy, that they have become utterly blind to the sadistic savagery of thousands of Palestinians, and refuse to call for them to be brought to maximum justice. They decry the Israeli response as being “disproportionate”, while simultaneously urge Palestinians to use “any means necessary” to obliterate the Jewish State.
Jihadists are ecstatic, and fan the flames for liberals to “globalize the intifada,” manipulating them to destroy the very western values they hold dear.
The Empathy Swamp is drowning liberals around the world, and Jews are the first to pay the price, with the West to soon follow.
The Democratic Party has been becoming more liberal and anti-Israel in its views over the past several years. It has left many pro-Israel Democrats feeling lost in their party but unwilling to cross party lines, so they are banding together in a last ditch effort to save the soul of the party.
Democrats Becoming More Liberal
The polarization of America’s parties has been happening for decades. According to Pew Research polls, the Democratic Party in 2000 had roughly 6% and 21% of its members being very liberal and liberal, respectively, a total of 27%, with a similar total of 23% being conservative and very conservative (a net difference of 4%). By 2012, the very liberal wing hit 10% with other liberals accounting for 27%, a 37% total, while the conservatives in the party shrunk to 20% (a net difference of 17%). By 2019, liberals accounted for as much of half the party, 47%, while conservatives shrunk to 14% (a 33% spread).
Pew refined its description of Democrats into seven categories in 2021. The Progressive Left, Outside Left and Establishment Liberals accounted for 12%, 16% and 23%, respectively, a total of 51% of the party. The moderates, which were called Democratic Mainstays and Stressed Sideliners accounted for 28% and 13%, a 41% total. People on the right accounted for less than 8% of the party.
The spread between left and right among Democrats grew from 4% in 2000 to 43% in 2021.
The Democratic Party had virtually the same number of liberals and conservatives in 2000. In 2021, liberals accounted for a majority, while conservatives had shrunken to a mere 8 percent.
Educated White people led this polarization of the party. White extremism jumped from 30% to 55% between 2020 and 2019, while Hispanics and Blacks moved from 25% each to 37% and 29% in 2019, respectively. The greater the level of education, the more liberal one became, by an expanding basis more recently.
Liberals Becoming More Anti-Israel
American liberals have become increasingly hostile to the Jewish State.
According to a July 2022 Pew poll, 62% of liberals have an unfavorable opinion of Israel. That is in sharp contrast to 75% of conservatives who have a favorable opinion of Israel. The difference principally comes from young people, where 56% of those aged 18-19 had negative feelings towards Israel while 69% of American Jews over 65 years old had positive views of Israel.
In a related dynamic, Reform Jews are less connected to Israel and more liberal. A May 2021 Pew poll found that 87% of Orthodox Jews believe that God gave the land of Israel to Jews, while only 26% of Reform Jews felt the same. By way of comparison, 70% of White Evangelicals believe God gave the land to Jews. White Evangelicals were also the most likely to view the government of Israel favorably and Palestinian leadership unfavorably. Atheists were most likely to view the Israeli government unfavorably and Palestinians favorably.
Pro-Israel Democrats and Orthodox Liberals In A Bind
The shifting sands have left many people within the party feeling very uncomfortable. Religious Jews and pro-Israel Jews of all denominations feel increasingly marginalized and in strong disagreement with the direction of the Democratic party as it relates to Israel.
Left-wing groups like J Street are actively pushing anti-Israel legislation and promoting anti-Israel candidates for Congress. They are mis-educating progressives that Israel is a horrible country that persecutes Arabs, and that the United States should take aggressive measures against the only Jewish State. They have actively and successfully worked to destroy the bipartisan support that Israel enjoyed for decades.
While the situation has forced some people to leave the Democrats to become Independents or Republicans, many have sought to stay and fight the anti-Zionist tide.
Democratic Majority For Israel (DMFI)
DMFI was started by a political strategist named Mark Mellman. He worked with many Democrats on their campaigns including Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD). He was joined by other people who worked inside the Democratic party for years, and others who worked for AIPAC, the bipartisan pro-Israel group.
DMFI is attempting to be what J Street claims to be – an actual pro-Israel voice within the Democratic Party. It is working with moderate and progressive Democrats to keep and get them elected, while educating them about the thriving liberal Jewish State.
The new organization is fighting a battle on two fronts.
Its principal opponent is the Republican Jewish Coalition which helps elect pro-Israel Republicans. It’s more immediate threat – and the reason it came into existence – is the far-left pro-Palestinian group J Street.
Some of the most ferocious political battles today are being fought in primaries, not November elections. The far-left wing group Justice Democrats, as well as Democratic Socialists of America are putting significant resources to get anti-Zionist socialists into office. J Street has locked arms with these groups on many occasions, and provides a fig leaf cover for the candidates’ and DSA’s anti-Semitism.
Consider the congressional race in Texas where moderate Democrat Henry Cuellar (one of the most conservative members of the Democratic Party according to govtracks), was targeted by Justice Democrats in the 2020 and 2022 primaries. They put up Jessica Cisneros, a socialist, to combat the moderate pro-Israel Cuellar. J Street poured money to back Cisneros, even though Cisneros had made zero comments and had no track record about Israel. J Street simply locked arms with the most extreme elements of the party, regardless of their views on Israel, despite a tagline which claims that they are “pro-Israel.”
In sharp contrast, DMFI came out strongly for Cuellar. The group posted about Cuellar’s victory: “The race was a test of the political influence of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and the power of Justice Democrats, a progressive group supporting candidates who challenged moderate incumbent Democrats. Cisneros was also backed by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), as well as J Street PAC. Cuellar, a moderate Democrat, was backed by his party’s establishment and pro-Israel groups including Democratic Majority for Israel and Pro Israel America.“
It is remarkable – and scary – that in addition to a two-party Democrat-Republican dynamic that most of America witnesses, there is a battle inside the Democratic Party between moderates/ DMFI and the alt-left/ Justice Democrats/ J Street wing. Even scarier, the trend lines are now favoring the extremist and anti-Zionist wing, a horrible situation for both the United States and Israel.
There are very few subject matters that excite people to such a degree that they become passionate even when there is no personal stake in the matter. The curious thing about two of them – abortion and the “settlements” – is that the left and right are similarly inconsistent about the rights of the self and those of the impacted.
Abortion
The left-wing considers abortion a personal matter for the mother. They consider the impacted party – the fetus – to have no rights, even up to the point of birth. Their “pro-choice” position argues that if you don’t like abortions, then don’t have one. Each person can decide on their own what works best for their circumstance. Some pro-choice people have even suggested that men should have zero say in the entire abortion discussion.
The right-wing that is “pro-life” doesn’t dismiss that women are a factor in the topic, however, they feel that the fetus also has rights. Some people in this camp feel that abortions are a form of legalized murder of innocent babies. The moves taken by some states like New York which have removed any penalties or restrictions for an abortion up until the moment of birth are viewed as sickening. The idea that men should have no say in laws regarding infanticide are considered outrageous and repugnant.
“Settlements”
The left-wing has tacked to a different course when it comes to Israeli Jews living over the 1949 Armistice Lines between Israel and TransJordan. They feel that the rights of Jews to live in the area commonly called the “West Bank” is wrong as it impacts Palestinian (formerly Jordanian) Arabs who do not want them living there in their call for a Jew-free country. Rather than follow their own advice on abortion – if you don’t like it, don’t do it – they have attempted to stop others (Jews specifically) from living in “settlements.”
The right-wing has similarly taken the inverted path on Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria. They stand fully behind the rights of Jews to live where they want, especially in the Jewish holy land. The fact that Palestinian Arabs don’t like it is irrelevant. The impacted party must learn to live with the actions of people who use their agency to control their lives.
Changed Laws
The see-saw between right and left has pulled laws in different directions over the decades.
Abortion was illegal throughout the United States until 1973. The law continues to be challenged by different states which expand upon the rights of women (like New York described above) or for the rights of the unborn, as in Texas and Mississippi.
International law not only allowed but encouraged Jews to live throughout historic Palestine. The 1920 San Remo Agreement and the 1922 Mandate of Palestine not only called for Jews to live everywhere in the land, but specifically prohibited anyone from being banned from living in any part of the land (Article 15) – even in what became TransJordan (Article 25) – because of their religion. The United Nations reversed that in 2016 with the passage of UNSC 2334 which made it illegal for Jews to live over the 1949 Armistice Lines.
Abortion rights advocates demand that abortion rights are human rights and fight the laws viewed as discriminatory and will push for access even if laws are passed which they view as inherently misogynistic. Settlement activists similarly view UNSC 2334 and various calls to ban Jews from living somewhere as deeply anti-Semitic. They are fighting against the laws and attempts to boycott Jews who live in the Israeli territory of Area C.
The Distant Passion
The Deciding Party with Agency
There are nearly 4 billion women on the planet, so it stands to reason that there are many people who feel a vested interest in abortion rights. A woman in Ireland may look at the status of abortion in Texas and know that the decisions there have no immediate direct impact on her. However, she may feel both a connection with the women of Texas, and believe that the trend line in one part of the world may ultimately impact the situation for her thousands of miles away.
So it is with Jewish settlements. While there are a paltry few million Jews, there are hundreds of millions of Christian Zionists and others excited to see the rebirth of the Jewish State and want to ensure its success as they believe it confirms their faith. They stand amazed at the thriving democracy and technology marvel that Jews have built in the middle of the illiberal Middle East and are confident that God is blessing the Jewish people and will also bless those who bless the Jewish people.
The reality is that everyone – not just those with a vested interest – would likely be fine with abortions and settlements if there were no impacted party. The tension exists because there are others in the mix, and that dynamic is what ignites the passions.
Israeli buildings in the Judean Desert in Area C
The Impacted Party
In the abortion debate, many religious people believe that life begins at conception. Even those less religious intuitively understand that there is something unique about a fetus, especially in the third trimester, when an abortion cannot be equated with a woman getting a tattoo or body piercings. The pro-life community believes that the rights of the unborn – at some point during pregnancy – are as great as the rights of the mother.
The right and left do not side with the party with agency or the impacted party but whom they prioritize. The right sides with Jews and the unborn while the left tilts towards women and Arabs.
The split can perhaps be best summarized by the religious Judeo-Christian community versus the secular and Muslim community. The religious Judeo-Christian community generally believes that a fetus is more than a mass of cells and has inherent human dignity. They similarly attempt to live lives infused with the values of the Bible, and believe that the land of Israel is not simply holy land as it is to other faiths, but a uniquely Jewish Promised Land. The secular world believes neither, and wants to keep the beliefs of others out of their lives and politics.
The pro-life and pro-Zionist factions have tremendous overlap, not just in conservative politics but in the religious Judeo-Christian communities. The pro-abortion and pro-Palestinian groups similarly overlap in their anti-Judeo-Christian worldview, which they have attempted to characterize as a “White Patriarchy,” as a method of demonizing those alternative views.
Ongoing debates on abortions, settlements and a variety of issues will feature a slew of creative invectives, but at the core is the battle between the devoutly secular and the Judeo-Christian communities of faith around the world.
The State of New York will lose one congressional seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, due to coming up 89 persons shy of Minnesota, which will take the lost seat. Some people have blamed the result on an undercount of actual New Yorkers due to the animus between New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio for not prioritizing the census.
They should consider another reason: New Yorkers who have felt increasingly marginalized by the strong leftward lurch of the Empire State.
Politics: Alt-Left in Congress and New York State Assembly
The 2018 elections saw the rise of “the squad” in Congress, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York City. Their success, and that of Democratic Socialists like Senator Bernie Sanders, have moved fringe ideas into the mainstream and is appalling to many. Thousands of lifetime Democrats left the Democratic Party as a result, especially after the head of the Democratic National Committee said that the far-left was “the future of our party.“
Similarly, over the past two election cycles, the New York State assembly moved from tackling issues in a bi-partisan manner to one which has a veto-proof super-majority of Democrats who intend on pushing a far-left agenda.
Why register for the census if it just pushes a thumb down on a scale for a political regime which does not represent your political views?
Liberals did the math and realized that some sizable minorities like Blacks could help get them elected, while small marginal groups like Jews barely registered as a decently sized constituency.
Why register for the census if it empowers a regime which aggressively disdains you?
The New York Times echoes the voices of the far-left and encourages them with highly biased and false narratives.
The media is pushing stories that White people are inherently racist and men have caused all of the problems in the world. Bankers are crooks who steal money and opportunity from the poor, and Zionists are thieves who steal land from Arabs. If only women were in power, there would be no coronavirus and peace in the world…
The mainstream media is attempting to brainwash society with their new “truths” of secular wokeness, that people are good and bad based on inherent characteristics, not by actions.
Why follow the media calls to register for the census to aggravate the lies?
I am sure that the census did not properly count all New Yorkers. As many of us watched politicians and census takers aggressively search for non-citizens to increase the power of the left, we framed our census forms and mounted them on the wall as mementoes of when we felt we counted.
There are many people who simply cannot understand how anyone could vote for Donald Trump. The accusations of his racism, misogyny and sowing hatred in the country overwhelm so many that they cannot pause to consider that many people consider many of Trump’s actions to be excellent and preferred to what Joe Biden might do as president. People who prioritize a strong economy built on capitalism and a strong foreign policy in rewarding allies over enemies might be willing to ignore Trump’s vile statements.
It is much the same of people who vote for Ilhan Omar for congress despite her repeated use of anti-Semitic tropes. Some constituents love her progressive socialist values and give a pass to her comments.
A popular lawn sign that “Hate has no home here” dots much of suburbia but the reality is that many liberals and conservatives are willing to overlook the hatred. Liberals might rant about Trump but will defend Omar, while conservative people will do the reverse. The placards really need to add the word “SOME” before “HATE”.
More accurate lawn sign
Pew Research did a poll in August 2020 about the top issues for voters. Trump voters placed the economy, violent crime, immigration, gun policy and foreign policy as their top five issues. Biden voters placed healthcare, the coronavirus, race and ethnic inequality, the economy and climate change as their biggest issues. The two different lists point to an America that doesn’t simply have different policy preferences on certain matters (like capitalism over socialism) but completely different priorities.
Yet to read social media leads one to believe that hate itself is on the ballot. That a vote for the likes of Trump or Omar is a tacit approval of inciting division in these envisioned “United” States.
Arguably, the polls and social media should be read together and not as distinct data points. Trump voters consider fellow citizens that ignore the economy, violent crime and their most important issues as undermining America, much like Biden supporters view people who do not prioritize healthcare, the coronavirus and racial inequality as destroying society.
It is worth considering whether the hate that’s on the ballot in 2020 really belongs to the politicians or the convictions of our fellow Americans.
The 2016 U.S. presidential election was a bizarre and emotionally-charged affair. Not only did two highly disliked politicians face each other but the Republican and Democratic parties used very different paths to electing their ultimate candidate. That history set the course for the subsequent elections which we are seeing played out in 2020.
The Republican establishment and media scorned Donald Trump. Not only did he spend most of his life as a Democrat and outside of politics, but his personality and temperament accosted the party’s sensibilities. Sen. Ted Cruz called Trump a “pathological liar,” Sen. Marco Rubio said he was a “con artist” and Sen. Lindsay Graham said Trump hasn’t “displayed the judgment and temperament to serve as Commander in Chief.”
The list went on and on.
The media acted much the same with conservative publications refusing to endorse Trump during the primaries, hoping someone would save the election and the Republican party.
Cover of the Conservative Magazine National Review
Republicans ignored their leaders and nominated someone from the outside of their party and politics who ultimately secured both the nomination and the presidency.
Democrats came close to electing an outsider as well.
The incredible run of Sen. Bernie Sanders to almost win the Democratic nomination mirrored the rise of Donald Trump in the Republican primaries. The Vermont Independent rarely caucused with Democrats during his time in the Senate and had virtually no impact on passing legislation over his entire tenure. However, he attracted the attention of the far-left public who rallied to his cause and nearly secured his position at the top of the ticket. He did so without the help of the Democratic machine and press which heavily favored Hillary Clinton.
The long-time political insider’s loss to a brash novice like Trump was too much for the left-wing to bear and they decided to remake the Democratic Party much the way Trump had done to the GOP.
A new far left-wing group called the Justice Democrats formed and took aim at moderate Democrats in primaries in an effort to shift the party far to the left. It secured victories in 2018 with Democratic-Socialists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib getting into congress. In 2020, they succeeded again with wins including Jamaal Bowman defeating long-time Democratic congressman Eliot Engel as well as other victories.
By all accounts, the insurgents would never have found a home inside the established Democratic Party in the past, and would have run on the Green Party or Working Family Party tickets. But the treatment of Sanders in 2016 and ultimate defeat of Hillary Clinton made them take up arms against the Democratic machine and are now effectively reshaping the party in their extremist image. The establishment is cow-towing to the fringe with its leaders saying that AOC is the “future of the party” and backing Ilhan Omar’s reelection.
Meanwhile the Republicans are not so sure that winning is everything and are contemplating their current situation of letting their party get hijacked by an outsider.
Many Republicans in the media and politics initially chose to look away from Trump’s statements in 2016 and back the new president in the hope of influencing Trump’s policies and securing gains for their constituents. But four years later many cannot look away from Trump’s acerbic personality. Sen. Mitt Romney and former-Secretary of State Collin Powell have said they will not support Trump’s re-election and former Ohio Republican governor and congressman John Kasich has accepted an invitation to speak at the Democratic National Convention against Trump.
In a curious situation, the loser is seeking to emulate the winner while the winner is debating the cost of the win.
A two-party democracy works best when the choice before voters is center-right versus center-left. Should society seek to have a voice for radicals, a parliamentary system would be most efficient in which those sentiments would be heard, but in whispers at the edges. But America is moving in a dangerous direction with its two-party system tacking to the fringes, destroying moderate politicians and the mainstream media which has pivoted in kind.
The Mason-Dixon Line was known as the demarcation between the northern states and the southern states in the US Civil War. The line clearly separated those states in which slavery was prohibited (the Union north of the line) and the slave states (the Confederacy south of the line).
The Civil War waged from 1861 to 1865 and was the bloodiest war in American history with 618,000 killed, more than all other U.S. wars combined (WWII and WWI had 405,000 and 116,000 fatalities, respectively). The death total was roughly 2 per cent of the country, equivalent to over 6 million people today. It is remarkable to think about the millions who fought to preserve (and counter) a preferred form of government, rather than let the country divide seamlessly.
It is difficult to imagine how the Civil War would have played out if the warring parties were not delineated by the neat Mason-Dixon line but a patchwork of alternating states. Would the war have ended faster and with fewer deaths if a few surrounding states ganged up on a common enemy in the middle? Or would the destruction have been far longer and worse for each side with alternating gains and losses on multiple fronts? Imagine if the dynamics were even narrower, with alternating cities and neighborhoods which pit neighbor against fellow neighbor.
A civil war between standing armies would be nearly impossible in such configuration. It would more likely resemble a series of micro-battles in which one square of the plaid pattern attacked another rectangle. A raging riot would break in part of one city and a pogrom in another. Lawlessness would prevail as police forces fragmented between the sides.
It is doubtful such war could conclude with long-term stability and peace. The tensions would likely come to the fore every so often, much like the hundred-year battle between the Arabs and Jews in Israel. Competing visions for a single land is unsustainable as simmering feuds between neighbors and clans never dissipate as people mourn for the loss of family, friends and illusion that the past can be recreated.
The United States is an increasingly polarized society. Radical leftists are taking over the Democratic Party while the Republican Party disembowels itself under President Trump. The alt-left and alt-right visions for America are radically different as the country that once touted itself as the home of the middle class has jettisoned the political moderates. While the deep blue is mostly on the coasts and deep red is predominantly in the middle of the country, the depth of colors offends every non-zealot in every corner.
At this same moment in time, the pandemic has introduced a mindset that one’s neighbors can literally kill them. The notion of “give me liberty (to not wear a mask) or give me death” is being shouted at the man on the street, not a monarch thousands of miles away. The stresses of financial and physical health against a backdrop demanding purity of thought at the risk of losing one’s job have pushed people to the edge.
The Mason-Dixon Plaid has crisscrossed the country amid a pandemic setting the stage for a long and brutal battle pitting neighbor against neighbor. It is being launched with ostracizations and evictions, boycotts and theft, and weapons are being drawn. This civil war will not end when the pandemic eases, but with a turn towards the center where neighbors can speak and listen to jointly compromise on a shared vision for the land.
First One Through 