Is the US history of 230 years of peaceful transition of power credibly at risk?

 

Tad Hargrave

I don't know that "everyone I meet" is thinking like this, but I am seeing a lot of fear of or craving for weapons. For me the punch line is "We won't survive by killing each other," which I think is absolutely true even without a societal collapse.

I guess in a somewhat different way I am echoing the cliché that is popular in some circles: "We don't have a gun problem; we have a heart problem." My concern is that in our hearts revenge and retaliation masquerade as protection and defense, and we humans lack the moral wisdom to make and act on that distinction.

What does this say about our expectations of our fellow citizens? It seems to me to beg a deeply troubling question. Have the hostilities and chasms between us reached a place where we believe those who side loses next week's election will consider that in and of itself to be societal collapse that justifies violent insurrection to overturn the result? Will those whose side wins consider the threat from the "losers" justification for lethal force in a futile effort to preserve stability and security? Except for the Civil War Between the States a century and a half ago, the US has a long and honorable (even enviable by world standards) history of peaceful transitions of power since the adoption of the Constitution in 1787, even in times of considerable political division and controversy. Have we come to a place where believing that noble history is at credible risk?