Theory 2 Action Podcast
Theory 2 Action Podcast
MM#442--The House Dividing, pt 3--The Debate
FAN MAIL--We would love YOUR feedback--Send us a Text Message
The temperature of American politics keeps rising, and the comparisons to the 1850s are getting louder. We step into the heat with a focused debate: do today’s progressive radicals echo the antebellum fire eaters in their tactics, or is that a misleading frame that obscures fundamental moral differences? Our goal isn’t to chase outrage; it’s to test the claims with history, examples, and clear standards for what actually drives national rupture.
We start by mapping the tactical overlap: ideological purity, demonization of opponents, and manufactured crises that rally the base while fracturing coalitions. From shutdown brinkmanship to party purges, minority factions can steer agendas and risk electoral blowback. Then we pivot to the critical distinctions. Fire eaters glorified political violence and sought secession to preserve slavery. Modern progressive leaders publicly condemn violence and pursue reform within democratic processes. Does that operational line hold when rhetoric escalates and fringe actors act? We weigh cases like assaults on ICE facilities, bail funds, and gubernatorial rhetoric that delegitimizes federal enforcement, asking where criticism ends and soft nullification begins.
Immigration becomes the flashpoint that surfaces deeper questions about federal authority and compliance. When cities and states resist cooperation, the system can’t function uniformly. Is that the modern equivalent of nullification or a hard-edged policy dispute inside constitutional boundaries? We examine the Jay Jones text scandal, the pressure for consequences, and how parties police their own when norms are breached. Along the way, we revisit January 6 condemnations to probe consistency: can leaders oppose violence without abandoning procedural objections?
What emerges is a nuanced picture: similar playbooks can produce very different outcomes depending on moral aims, state sanction, and whether leaders draw clear red lines. The warning is real—patterns of zeal, demonization, and brinkmanship strain institutions—even if we aren’t replaying 1860. If you care about democratic norms, federal coherence, and the future of political persuasion, you’ll find this debate a bracing guide to the risks and responsibilities ahead.
Key Points from the Episode:
• framing the House Dividing series and historical lens
• illegal immigration as the current flashpoint
• fire eaters’ tactics compared to modern progressive strategy
• rhetoric, demonization, and fringe incitement risks
• condemnations of violence versus state sanction and celebration
• resistance to federal authority in cities and states
• the Jay Jones text scandal as a case study in norms
• January 6 condemnations and consistency claims
• purity over pragmatism and party self-sabotage
• open questions about warning signs versus false equivalence
Other resources:
Want to leave a review? Click here, and if we earned a five-star review from you **high five and knuckle bumps**, we appreciate it greatly!
Welcome to the Theory to Action Podcast, where we examine the timeless treasures of wisdom from the great books in less time to help you take action immediately and ultimately to create and lead a flourishing life.
SPEAKER_00:Now, here's your host, David Kaiser. Hello, I am David, and welcome back to another Mojo Minute. And to our part three of the House Dividing series. Our title for today's episode is How Far Have the Radicals Gone? Now we just released the preamble to this debate. So for context, if you're just clicking on this episode, I would encourage you to go back and listen to the preamble to this debate because it's going to give you some good context and a sense of our U.S. history and why we believe we are entering and have entered a cold Civil War period for the fifth time in our nation's history. So you want to familiarize, you will want to familiarize yourself with our backstory for this debate. And we did that in the prehamble. Now in part one of our house dividing series, we talked all about illegal immigration, how that's quickly becoming a hot emotional issue for both sides and the violence against federal agents trying to enforce illegal immigration or the trying to enforce legal immigration laws against illegal immigrants is becoming a problem, and it's becoming a problem very, very quickly. But when peaceful protests turn violent, that's when things go off the rails. So we talked about that in part one. In part two of our house dividing series, we spoke of the fire eaters of the antebellum South and how through their propaganda and over-the-top rhetoric, they pushed, they galvanized, they shoved, they backed the lower south states in the 1850s and early 1860s into the U.S. Civil War. Now, were they the only reason that the lower south states seceded? No. But they were a big part of providing that emotional firepower to push for votes of secession. And so one may ask, in fact, one must ask, in 2025, do we have folks from one major political party, the Democratic Party, that are similar to the fire eaters of the 1850s and 60s? Are we facing the same type of rhetoric and violence that led up to the U.S. Civil War? Now in 2025, do we have those same types of skirmishes? So that is what our debate is over. One side is debating that the rhetoric and the violence is very, very similar. The other side is debating not so much. This is just status quo, no big thing. One side is debating that illegal immigrant illegal immigration is the touchstone issue that is dividing our country into their separate corners. The other side is debating we have to find a better way. They don't provide that better way, but they say we have to provide a better way. One side is debating that the radicals and the Democratic Party are the neo-confederates of our time. The other side is saying that is not true. The other side is saying that the other side is fascist and are Nazis. Not sure how that adds up, but trying to be civil and respectful here. So with that, let's have a civil debate with both sides who are passionate about U.S. history, but believe the more we talk, the better we can sort through this very difficult time in our country's history. So with that, let's start our debate.
SPEAKER_01:Welcome to the debate. We are uh certainly living through a period of intense political polarization in modern America. It feels so volatile that you hear critics more and more drawing these parallels to, well, the most destructive event in U.S. history, the Civil War?
SPEAKER_02:Aaron Powell Yeah, that historical comparison is it's definitely out there right now, and it's inherently pretty alarming, isn't it? It really forces us to ask: you know, is today's political dysfunction just like extreme partisanship, or is it something deeper, maybe more dangerous, like a foundational crisis?
SPEAKER_01:Aaron Powell Exactly. And today we're zooming in on one specific comparison that comes up in the source material. Does the sort of behavioral radicalism we see in today's progressive wing of the Democratic Party, does it actually align with the historical pattern set by those notorious fire eaters back in the 1850s?
SPEAKER_02:That's a question that requires real precision, I think. We need to debate whether any similarities in tactics and agitation really outweigh the frankly profound moral and operational differences between these two groups.
SPEAKER_01:Right. And I'm be arguing that the parallels in tactics, in the rhetoric, and the destabilizing influence are actually quite striking, that they create a kind of echo of that antebellum sectional crisis, that the modern radical movement is in some ways following the fire eater's blueprint for, well, national fracture.
SPEAKER_02:And I'll be arguing, well, from a different perspective, that while yes, you can maybe see some behavioral parallels in terms of agitation, the differences in goals, you know, equity versus preserving chattel slavery, and the explicit rejection of political violence by modern radicals, well, that makes the historical comparison fundamentally flawed and honestly pretty misleading.
SPEAKER_01:Okay, so let's maybe start with a tactical blueprint, because I think this is where the uh the real danger might lie. The fire eaters, they were this radical faction, right? And they successfully hijacked their majority party through just pure ideological zeal. And I'd argue that modern radical Democrats and the Fire Eaters share some core methods: this uncompromising ideological purity, the effective demonization of opponents, and yeah, the intentional provocation of crises to mobilize that base.
SPEAKER_02:Aaron Powell That's an interesting framing. I um I acknowledge that both groups tend to treat their political causes as these sort of non-negotiable moral imperatives. You know, whether it was slavery as a positive good back then or the mandate for systemic equity today. And yes, both groups prioritize doctrine over, let's say, pragmatism. And that definitely leads to significant internal party friction.
SPEAKER_01:And the results, they look like similar kinds of destabilization. I mean, fire eaters engineered the catastrophic split of the Democratic Party in 1860, which basically ensured Lincoln's election. And today, well, we see modern radicals pushing for internal party purges, and their legislative intransidence led to huge standoffs, like the 2025 government shutdown over, what was it, 1.5 trillion in progressive demands. Both cases show this willingness to sacrifice electoral success for ideological control. It's a kind of self-sabotage almost that defines radicalism.
SPEAKER_02:I see the parallel you're drawing there, but I think we have to immediately address the difference in the rhetoric's ultimate intent. Fire eaters used inflammatory language framing opponents as, you know, plotting abolition or invasion. That was a literal call to arms. Modern radicals, yes, they certainly use polarizing language calling opponents fascists or threats to democracy. But, and this is key, while critics argue this risks radicalizing the fringes, the fire eaters glorified physical violence. Modern elected progressives, people like AOC, Ilhan Omar, Jasmine Crockett, they consistently and explicitly reject it. That moral and operational difference seems critical when we're assessing, you know, the potential for actual rupture.
SPEAKER_00:Now let me stop the debate here because I think we're off to a good start, keeping the debate balanced. But one important point is missing. And our speaker says that modern elected progressives, people like AOC, Ilon, Omar, Jasmine Crockett, they consistently and explicitly reject violence. Do they? Do they consistently and explicitly reject the violence? You know, we heard Maxine Waters say get up in their face, protest them in their face. Protest them out in public in restaurants and parks. Anytime you see them, get up in people's faces. That's our exact quote. That is not exactly de-escalation. And that it certainly is not de-escalating the situation. And I explicitly remember after Charlie Kirk's assassination, Omar reposted a video describing Kirk as a reprehensible human being, and claimed conservatives were exploiting his death for political gain, referencing what the video called a Christo fascist agenda. Quote unquote. Those are quotes. Now that sure sounds like the fighter-eater fire eater rhetoric of the eighteen sixties to me. Now, if you want to know how bad the fire eater rhetoric was back in the eighteen fifties and sixties, check out a book titled The Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew. He does an amazing job gathering up all the primary source material, the speeches, the editorials, the Southern Legislature Committee meetings, where the fire eaters actually spoke. Read the appendices from that book. It was a major inspiration for me on creating this series to help highlight when speech becomes militant and ultra radical. That's when you have to get concerned. You have to look to the past on how events played out. Because when you look to the past, especially the U.S. Civil War, and how that rhetoric got overheated, got militant and got ultra radical, that's when things went over the top. Let's go back to the second part of our debate.
SPEAKER_01:Okay, but that brings us directly to a core point of disagreement, doesn't it? The nature of political violence. Is the left-wing violence we're seeing today, is it really comparable to the decentralized sort of pre-war conflict of bleeding Kansas in the 1850s?
SPEAKER_02:I'm sorry, but I just don't think that comparison holds water, substantively. The violence in the 1850s in Kansas, it was political, yes, but it was also territorial. And it was often endorsed, at least tacitly, by state-level actors or powerful political figures aiming to expand slavery.
SPEAKER_01:But I'm not entirely convinced because this source material does show that the consequences of extreme rhetoric are undeniable. Okay, so maybe elected progressives like AOC or Taleb issue condemnations after specific violent acts, like the assassination of Charlie Kirk or the attempts on Donald Trump, but their consistent demonization of opponents as fascist. Well, the conservative counter-narrative presented in the material argues this indirectly incites fringe actors. Isn't that similar to how fire eaters use demonization?
SPEAKER_02:But the difference is the official action, the response. Fire eaters glorified the caning of Charles Sumner right there on the Senate floor. They celebrated the attack on Fort Sumter. When recent political violence has occurred, high-profile attacks, attempts on figures like Trump-elected progressives have issued immediate condemnations. I mean, AOC called Kirk's shooting unacceptable. Taleb condemned the Trump attempts right away. When officials immediately denounce violence, they draw a crucial line that the fire eaters actively blurred or erased. You just don't see modern political figures celebrating political violence as a legitimate tool.
SPEAKER_01:Okay, I acknowledge the explicit condemnations, but let's look at the actual violence being carried out by, you know, elements aligning themselves with the radical left as the source describes it. We are apparently seeing highly organized, almost militarized resistance. There's a documented rise in organized assaults targeting federal agents, ICE officers specifically, up 830% compared to 2024, involving military-style rifles, firebombings of federal facilities, GOP offices. Doesn't this kind of organized violent opposition start to look structurally similar to that decentralized yet politically motivated conflict in Bleeding Kansas, where settlers were literally fighting each other?
SPEAKER_02:Look, decentralized fringe acts, however horrific and serious they are, they just don't equal the territorial warfare and the state-level political endorsement that really defined bleeding Kansas. The violence in Kansas was tied directly to the expansion of slavery. It was pushed and endorsed by leading fire eaters. Today, yes, activists or criminals engage in horrific acts, but those acts are treated as criminal and they are consistently denounced by the political figures you mentioned. The state level sanctioning or lack thereof, that's the key factor, I think, in determining if a moment is just, you know, high partisanship or truly a pre-Civil War kind of rupture.
SPEAKER_00:Okay, so again, let me stop this debate. Just to highlight again, over the last five to ten years, we have seen the radical and militant wing of the Democratic Party gain more and more power. And their rhetoric is getting worse and worse. Where in the case of the governors and mayors of Portland, Oregon, and Chicago, Illinois, either saying there's nothing to see here, when in fact, for the last 100 straight days, there's been rioting around a federal ICE facility in Portland, Oregon, or Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker making several public statements condemning federal immigration and customs enforcement operations in Chicago. He calls them dangerous and ste destabilizing. He even accused ICE and Border Patrol strike teams of quote terrorizing communities, when they do so with tear gas, rubber bullets, and arbitrary detentions, to actually clear the road so they can conduct their business. Governor Pritzker says they were acting like, quote, secret police under the direction of President Trump. That's outlandish. He even goes on saying that he's they're creating mayhem and chaos and confusion, and they're deploying militarized teams into neighborhoods to further stoke up protest. Governor Pritzker sounds like a Southern governor in the 1860s with a call to arms. And let's not forget there's a Virginia Attorney General race. And let me explain this one, because it's just bizarre. So Jay Jones, the Democratic candidate for Virginia Attorney General in this 2020-25 race, he's faced widespread backlash after private text messages from three years ago were leaked just last month. And the messages were sent to Republican Kerry Conyer, and these uh included violent fantasies targeting then House Speaker Todd Gilbert and his family. In one exchange, Jones is described a hypothetical scenario where he had a gun with two bullets and he chose to shoot Gilbert instead of historical figures like Pol Pot and Adolf Hit Hitler, stating that Gilbert should get two bullets to the head. Now Jay Jones also said he'd quote piss on the graves of certain Republican delegates when they died. And again, the scandal erupted earlier this month. It's drawn condemnation from Republicans like Governor Glenn Yuncan, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, Vice President J.D. Vance, who have all called the remarks deranged, disqualifying. They're urging Jones to withdraw. And Democrats, including the gubernatorial nominee, Abigail Spamberger, and both senators, Tim Caine and Mark Warner. They labeled the text messages abhorrent and inexcusable, but then they largely stopped short of demanding he quit. Senator Tim Cain cited Jones's long history of in elected politics despite this lapse. Now did Jones apologize? He did. He called it a grave mistake. He vowed accountability. But while doing so, he also accused Republicans of a smear campaign. I mean, recently in the Virginia Attorney General debate, he continues to stand by his apology. But I watched that apology and it was not it was not it was not an authentic apology. I'm sorry. It was smug. It was an I'm sorry, not sorry type of apology. I'm willing to give Christian grace to anybody, but his apology wasn't close to sincere. The dude even threatened the speaker's children for the love of God. Does he have no shame? He needs to drop out. Drop out, sir. Drop out, Jay Jones. I mean, if you threaten someone's life while running for the state attorney general position, the highest position as the state's law enforcement position, you can't seriously hold that position. Clearly you can't control your mouth, so you need to drop out. Enough said. Drop out. Now going back to this debate.
SPEAKER_01:Okay, let's shift then to the second major point, resistance to federal authority. Is illegal emigration as an issue becoming as emotionally divisive in 2025 as slavery was in 1860? I'd argue that what we're seeing in some blue cities and states is creating a crisis of federal authority that is analogous to the sectional crisis over slavery. It's effectively a modern form of nullification.
SPEAKER_02:That's a uh a very provocative claim. I mean, I can see the basis for the Neo-Confederate comparison given the resistance to federal immigration enforcement that the source material details.
SPEAKER_01:Right. We have reports of Blue City officials, Mayor Bass, Johnson, governors like Pritzker, Newsom, who are actively resisting or at least failing to assist federal ICE operations, sometimes even reports of blockading federal agents. This behavior is described in the source as them believing they are a law unto themselves, which effectively nullifies federal immigration law within their areas. How is that different tactically from historical nullification used by South Carolina or George Wallace's resistance to federal integration mandates?
SPEAKER_02:Well, it's a compelling point about the functional strain, yes. But have you considered the fundamental difference in the goal of the resistance? Nullification back in the 1850s was explicitly designed to preserve the institution of chattel slavery. It threatened the literal dissolution of the union. Modern resistance to federal policy, even when it leads to political standoffs or, you know, these fringe-violent acts like blockading ICE vehicles. It's not backed by a goal of national disunion. They're not trying to establish a separate oppressive nation. This is arguably a constitutional policy dispute being played out through local resistance, not an existential threat to the union itself.
SPEAKER_01:But isn't the effect functionally similar? The federal government finds itself unable to fulfill its mandate across large parts of the country because of localized ideological resistance. When federal law enforcement is actively prevented from operating, surely the integrity of the union is challenged, regardless of whether the underlying issue is slavery or immigration policy. The resistance creates a functional crisis of compliance, doesn't it?
SPEAKER_02:The difference in historical scale and just the sheer moral weight, I think, cannot be ignored. The fire eaters' resistance was existential. It was rooted in preserving the most brutal, oppressive system in U.S. history. To equate political resistance over immigration mandates, however disruptive, with the goal of preserving slavery, it really diminishes the unique, catastrophic nature of the antebellum conflict. The fire eaters aim for literal physical separation for war. Modern radicals generally aim for reform, however aggressively, within the existing democratic structure. The aims are just worlds apart.
SPEAKER_00:Now I'm going to have to say recently, just this past weekend, we saw the no the so-called no kings protest. And some of these folks, you should have heard the words that were coming from some of these lunatics. They sounded straight out of South Carolina, the 1860s, and the fire eaters. Here's a quote caught on the video. These ICE agents gotta get shot and wiped out. The same machinery that's on full display right there has to get wiped out. Even GOP Senator Mikeley retweeted this crazy lunatic, and then asking, is this peaceful? Folks, the radical and militant wing of the Democratic Party is delusional. And it clearly lacks any sense of democratic norms. It's a complete congruence of BLM and Antifa and pro-Hamas supporters. Now, to be fair, let's let's go back and take January 6th. The radicals of the Democratic Party will point to J6 as the far extreme right wing who took over the U.S. Capitol. Now we know most likely it was probably an inside job. It was probably a Fed surrection. But, but for the sake of argument, let's put the shoe on the other foot and say were there senators and House members at the Capitol that day who said anybody committing violence should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law? Were there a number of GOP members, House and Senate, that said anyone committing violence should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law? Let's do the research. So in researching, which US senators on the GOP side condemned the January 6th riot and violence, even though they wanted a recount or a special committee during January 6th. That was the whole reason they were there. We have over seven, six, at least by just a cursory search. We're not, we didn't spend more than five minutes on this. Ted Cruz. He objected to the vote in Arizona and Pennsylvania of the 2020 election. He said president's language and rhetoric often goes too far. I think yesterday in particular, president's language and rhetoric cross the line and it was reckless. I condemn the violence at the Capitol. Anyone should be prosecuted who hurt law enforcement. Okay. Josh Hawley, Senator from Missouri. He also sends I he also said, I condemn the violence at the Capitol. This is not who we are as Americans. John Kennedy, I condemn the rioters, Senator from Louisiana. I came to the Capitol yesterday to give a constituents a voice. Marsha Blackburn, Senator from Tennessee, the violence and destruction is unacceptable. Mike Braun, Senator from Indiana, I condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence and lawlessness that occurred at our Capitol today. Cynthia Loomis, call it what it is. An attack on the Capitol is an attack on democracy. Violent protests were unacceptable this summer and are unacceptable now. She is a senator from Wyoming and Tommy Tubberville, Senator from Alabama. The violence and destruction at the Capitol today is appalling. All six of these senators, I'm sorry, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. All seven of these senators also objected to the counting. Large processes that were not followed in counting of the votes. That was the reason for the objections. Now they universally condemned the riot, but they also objected. That is fair. But for the radical democratic militant wing of their party, they cannot use violence and have people come out, elected Democrats come out and condemn it one day and the next day give to the Minnesota Freedom Fund to bail out these radical militants that are causing all the mayhem and the chaos. Let's just do a quick search on the on the House side. Yes, we have five, six, seven people. And folks, these people on the Republican side are not equivocating. They're not saying one thing one day and coming back the next day and equivocating. I've listened to Ted Cruz for the last five years say anybody who's ever committed violence at the Capitol on January 6th should be prosecuted. If you are violently destroying property, if you are violently attacking law enforcement, you're going to be prosecuted. Sorry. You can object, you can support the objection, but you cannot violently riot. So who are these House members? Gary Palmer, member of Alabama, or a House member of Alabama, GOP House member, he objected. Strongly condemned the Capitol this last week during the darkest days in my experience during Congress. Kevin Hearn, member from Oklahoma, 1st District. Jim Jordan, member from Ohio's 4th District. Elise Stefanik, member from New York's 21st district. Scott Perry, Paul Gosar, Mo Brooks, even Matt Gates. The left side would say Matt Gates is radical. He's from a House member from Florida's 1st District. He actually left Congress to try and run for the Florida State gubernatorial race. But Matt Gates said the violence is unacceptable. We must condemn it unequivocally. He also, by condemning the right, he also had objections as a duty to constituents about Arizona and Pennsylvania. And we still have yet for the 2020 presidential election to be adjudicated faithfully. But regardless, we cannot have violent protest and have the rhetoric be militant and radical and be over the top. Again, almost none of the GOP has ever equivocated over the days and weeks and months since January 6th, even five years later. They all have said physical violence has to be condemned each and every time. And you can't run from that. You can't say one thing one day and the next day say something else. Much like we see happening repeatedly. By the radical and militant wing of the Democratic Party. They want no accountability over there and of their actions. That's a major difference between both parties. I mean, for most of the year of 2020, beginning in May with George Floyd riot, we saw some twelve thousand or so demonstrations, and six hundred and thirty-three related riots. And many, many of them were not peaceful. The radical Democrats barely spoke out as a collective against any of the violence. Where if they did speak out, they said the right words, just like we talked about, and then they, by their actions, like Kamala Harris did throughout all of 2020, she continued to raise money for the Minnesota Freedom Fund. That's a bad news charity that raises bail money for writers to get them back out on the street within hours of being arrested. Now, folks, based on common sense, is that real accountability? Or is that not duplicitous beyond any recognition? That is where this debate really breaks down. Let's go back to the final part of the debate.
SPEAKER_01:All right, let's move to the last point then, which sort of ties back to our initial comparison, this prioritization of ideological purity over maybe pragmatic politics.
SPEAKER_02:Yes. And here I think on tactics, I would agree there is a striking parallel. You see how both groups, often starting as vocal minorities, wield this outsized influence by really prioritizing their ideological purity over, say, electoral pragmatism.
SPEAKER_01:Precisely. Look at the fire eaters forcing the Democratic Party split in 1860. They sacrificed the presidency for the sake of their doctrinal control over the slavery issue. And then you look at modern radicals, as described in the source, engaging in legislative standoffs, blocking key funding bills to try and extract these very expensive progressive concessions, potentially risking, you know, wipeouts in the midterms. Both groups seem willing to suffer short-term losses, even major ones, to shift the entire party's trajectory toward their more extreme goals. That reckless behavior, that willingness to risk it all for purity, that seems like a dangerously similar tactical blueprint.
SPEAKER_02:I have to concede the tactical similarity there regarding minority influence through agitation, and yeah, the willingness to risk electoral disaster. However, and this is the crucial, however, we have to constantly return to the outcome. The fire eaters' brand of radicalism led directly, undeniably, to the Civil War. Over 600,000 deaths. The scope of disruption caused by modern radicals, gridlock, shutdowns, electoral risk, it just pales in comparison to the fire eaters' role in sparking actual national collapse. The consequences, the stakes, are what ultimately define the historical weight and the validity of the comparison.
SPEAKER_01:But if the blueprint for escalating national fracture involves this same sequence, you know, the ideological zeal, the polarizing rhetoric, these factionalizing tactics, then doesn't the comparison serve as a vital warning? Regardless of the current body count, the tactical risk feels present even if the ultimate outcome remains uncertain. So to conclude, I'd maintain that the comparison between the fire eaters and today's progressive radicals, it serves as a really crucial structural warning, whether the core issue is preserving slavery or dismantling systemic oppression, the tactics of using uncompromising rhetoric, demonization, and these factionalizing strategies, well, they create dangerous instability and they risk sanctioning the violent fringes, even if unintentionally. The tactical similarities in prioritizing purity over pragmatism and in generating these functional crises, I just don't think they can be easily dismissed.
SPEAKER_02:And I see the value in recognizing those behavioral patterns. I do. But the comparison remains, for me, fundamentally misleading when we're trying to judge the actual likelihood of national rupture. Modern radicals explicitly reject political violence and generally seek systemic reform within the democratic framework. Fire eaters explicitly celebrated political violence, from assaults on the Senate floor to firing on Fort Sumner, all to entrench the most oppressive system in U.S. history and ultimately destroy the Union. That profound difference in ideological goals, coupled with the explicit rejection of violence by modern political leaders, it has to override these behavioral echoes when we assess true historical precedent and the risk of collapse.
SPEAKER_01:And so I suppose the question remains for our listeners. How consequential are these shared tactics, the manufactured crises, the ideological purity when you weigh them against the truly divergent moral and existential stakes? The source material, I think, illuminates both the recurring dangers inherent in radical political blueprints and also the unique critical importance of things like state-sanctioned violence and an ideological commitment to actually dissolving the nation.
SPEAKER_00:So there you have it. What I think is a really good debate with both sides being able to express their side's view with deep, well-thought-out arguments on the state and nature of our political political rhetoric in 2025. Maybe if they do, let's pray that they come to their sense before fueling another civil war. Nobody wants that. So in today's moju minute, I hope you found this debate helpful in comparing the 2025 radical left, militant left wing of the Democratic Party to the fire eaters of the 1850s and 60s. Come back for our next episode, which we believe will be unique and yet something we've never done before on this podcast. And they call that a tease in the podcast business. And I gotta get better about these teases. But there you go. That's a tease. Come back for our next episode. It's gonna be something unique we've never done before. We think you're gonna like it. We're sure you're gonna like it. So until then, as always, let's keep fighting the good fight.
SPEAKER_03:Thank you for joining us. We hope you enjoyed this theory to action podcast. Be sure to check out our show page at teammojoacademy.com, where we have everything we discussed in this podcast as well as other great resources. Until next time, keep getting your mojo on.