Oct. 22, 2025

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 nat...

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!

00:00 - Framing The House Dividing Series

02:13 - Illegal Immigration As Flashpoint

04:32 - Introducing The Fire Eaters Analogy

06:20 - Tactics: Purity Tests And Party Hijacks

08:30 - Do Modern Leaders Reject Violence?

11:10 - Rhetoric, Incitement, And Boundaries

14:38 - Claims Of Organized Anti-ICE Violence

17:05 - State Sanction Versus Fringe Actors

20:10 - Governors, Mayors, And Federal Resistance

24:00 - The Jay Jones Text Scandal

27:00 - Nullification And Federal Authority Today

30:20 - Moral Stakes: Slavery Versus Policy Disputes

33:15 - Protest Escalation And “No Kings” Clips

36:30 - January 6 Condemnations And Consistency

WEBVTT

00:00:07.280 --> 00:00:21.199
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.

00:00:21.440 --> 00:00:25.199
Now, here's your host, David Kaiser.

00:00:25.600 --> 00:00:29.039
Hello, I am David, and welcome back to another Mojo Minute.

00:00:29.199 --> 00:00:33.759
And to our part three of the House Dividing series.

00:00:33.920 --> 00:00:39.039
Our title for today's episode is How Far Have the Radicals Gone?

00:00:39.600 --> 00:00:42.479
Now we just released the preamble to this debate.

00:00:42.640 --> 00:00:55.039
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.

00:00:55.280 --> 00:01:04.400
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.

00:01:04.799 --> 00:01:10.799
So you want to familiarize, you will want to familiarize yourself with our backstory for this debate.

00:01:11.040 --> 00:01:13.040
And we did that in the prehamble.

00:01:13.200 --> 00:01:40.319
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.

00:02:09.280 --> 00:02:14.400
But when peaceful protests turn violent, that's when things go off the rails.

00:02:15.439 --> 00:02:17.199
So we talked about that in part one.

00:02:17.360 --> 00:02:36.960
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.

00:02:37.039 --> 00:02:38.240
Civil War.

00:02:38.560 --> 00:02:42.639
Now, were they the only reason that the lower south states seceded?

00:02:42.879 --> 00:02:43.199
No.

00:02:43.919 --> 00:02:52.159
But they were a big part of providing that emotional firepower to push for votes of secession.

00:02:53.199 --> 00:03:11.759
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?

00:03:12.000 --> 00:03:15.919
Are we facing the same type of rhetoric and violence that led up to the U.S.

00:03:16.000 --> 00:03:16.800
Civil War?

00:03:16.960 --> 00:03:22.800
Now in 2025, do we have those same types of skirmishes?

00:03:23.840 --> 00:03:26.400
So that is what our debate is over.

00:03:27.759 --> 00:03:32.560
One side is debating that the rhetoric and the violence is very, very similar.

00:03:33.120 --> 00:03:35.919
The other side is debating not so much.

00:03:36.159 --> 00:03:39.120
This is just status quo, no big thing.

00:03:39.439 --> 00:03:48.639
One side is debating that illegal immigrant illegal immigration is the touchstone issue that is dividing our country into their separate corners.

00:03:49.120 --> 00:03:52.479
The other side is debating we have to find a better way.

00:03:52.719 --> 00:03:58.080
They don't provide that better way, but they say we have to provide a better way.

00:03:58.479 --> 00:04:04.319
One side is debating that the radicals and the Democratic Party are the neo-confederates of our time.

00:04:05.280 --> 00:04:08.159
The other side is saying that is not true.

00:04:08.960 --> 00:04:14.319
The other side is saying that the other side is fascist and are Nazis.

00:04:15.599 --> 00:04:21.839
Not sure how that adds up, but trying to be civil and respectful here.

00:04:22.399 --> 00:04:27.680
So with that, let's have a civil debate with both sides who are passionate about U.S.

00:04:27.920 --> 00:04:36.800
history, but believe the more we talk, the better we can sort through this very difficult time in our country's history.

00:04:37.040 --> 00:04:40.000
So with that, let's start our debate.

00:04:41.920 --> 00:04:43.519
Welcome to the debate.

00:04:43.839 --> 00:04:50.480
We are uh certainly living through a period of intense political polarization in modern America.

00:04:50.639 --> 00:04:58.160
It feels so volatile that you hear critics more and more drawing these parallels to, well, the most destructive event in U.S.

00:04:58.240 --> 00:04:59.519
history, the Civil War?

00:04:59.600 --> 00:05:06.079
Aaron Powell Yeah, that historical comparison is it's definitely out there right now, and it's inherently pretty alarming, isn't it?

00:05:06.240 --> 00:05:17.279
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?

00:05:17.360 --> 00:05:18.319
Aaron Powell Exactly.

00:05:18.560 --> 00:05:23.360
And today we're zooming in on one specific comparison that comes up in the source material.

00:05:23.600 --> 00:05:36.160
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?

00:05:36.800 --> 00:05:40.000
That's a question that requires real precision, I think.

00:05:40.160 --> 00:05:49.920
We need to debate whether any similarities in tactics and agitation really outweigh the frankly profound moral and operational differences between these two groups.

00:05:50.399 --> 00:05:50.720
Right.

00:05:51.120 --> 00:06:11.279
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.

00:06:11.839 --> 00:06:34.160
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.

00:06:34.560 --> 00:06:40.720
Okay, so let's maybe start with a tactical blueprint, because I think this is where the uh the real danger might lie.

00:06:40.959 --> 00:06:44.560
The fire eaters, they were this radical faction, right?

00:06:44.639 --> 00:06:50.399
And they successfully hijacked their majority party through just pure ideological zeal.

00:06:50.639 --> 00:07:05.120
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.

00:07:05.199 --> 00:07:06.720
Aaron Powell That's an interesting framing.

00:07:06.879 --> 00:07:13.519
I um I acknowledge that both groups tend to treat their political causes as these sort of non-negotiable moral imperatives.

00:07:13.680 --> 00:07:19.360
You know, whether it was slavery as a positive good back then or the mandate for systemic equity today.

00:07:19.519 --> 00:07:23.600
And yes, both groups prioritize doctrine over, let's say, pragmatism.

00:07:23.759 --> 00:07:26.800
And that definitely leads to significant internal party friction.

00:07:27.199 --> 00:07:30.720
And the results, they look like similar kinds of destabilization.

00:07:30.879 --> 00:07:38.160
I mean, fire eaters engineered the catastrophic split of the Democratic Party in 1860, which basically ensured Lincoln's election.

00:07:38.319 --> 00:07:50.639
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.

00:07:50.800 --> 00:07:55.759
Both cases show this willingness to sacrifice electoral success for ideological control.

00:07:56.079 --> 00:07:59.120
It's a kind of self-sabotage almost that defines radicalism.

00:08:00.000 --> 00:08:06.560
I see the parallel you're drawing there, but I think we have to immediately address the difference in the rhetoric's ultimate intent.

00:08:06.800 --> 00:08:12.720
Fire eaters used inflammatory language framing opponents as, you know, plotting abolition or invasion.

00:08:12.879 --> 00:08:14.959
That was a literal call to arms.

00:08:15.199 --> 00:08:21.199
Modern radicals, yes, they certainly use polarizing language calling opponents fascists or threats to democracy.

00:08:21.360 --> 00:08:28.240
But, and this is key, while critics argue this risks radicalizing the fringes, the fire eaters glorified physical violence.

00:08:28.399 --> 00:08:35.840
Modern elected progressives, people like AOC, Ilhan Omar, Jasmine Crockett, they consistently and explicitly reject it.

00:08:36.080 --> 00:08:42.320
That moral and operational difference seems critical when we're assessing, you know, the potential for actual rupture.

00:08:43.840 --> 00:08:50.080
Now let me stop the debate here because I think we're off to a good start, keeping the debate balanced.

00:08:50.240 --> 00:08:52.399
But one important point is missing.

00:08:52.720 --> 00:09:05.360
And our speaker says that modern elected progressives, people like AOC, Ilon, Omar, Jasmine Crockett, they consistently and explicitly reject violence.

00:09:06.320 --> 00:09:07.279
Do they?

00:09:08.240 --> 00:09:11.840
Do they consistently and explicitly reject the violence?

00:09:13.039 --> 00:09:17.679
You know, we heard Maxine Waters say get up in their face, protest them in their face.

00:09:18.320 --> 00:09:21.120
Protest them out in public in restaurants and parks.

00:09:21.200 --> 00:09:25.600
Anytime you see them, get up in people's faces.

00:09:26.080 --> 00:09:27.919
That's our exact quote.

00:09:28.799 --> 00:09:31.600
That is not exactly de-escalation.

00:09:32.559 --> 00:09:36.080
And that it certainly is not de-escalating the situation.

00:09:36.879 --> 00:09:58.080
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.

00:09:58.799 --> 00:10:00.159
Quote unquote.

00:10:00.399 --> 00:10:02.000
Those are quotes.

00:10:03.600 --> 00:10:09.759
Now that sure sounds like the fighter-eater fire eater rhetoric of the eighteen sixties to me.

00:10:11.440 --> 00:10:22.960
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.

00:10:24.159 --> 00:10:35.679
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.

00:10:36.000 --> 00:10:38.879
Read the appendices from that book.

00:10:40.320 --> 00:10:49.039
It was a major inspiration for me on creating this series to help highlight when speech becomes militant and ultra radical.

00:10:50.960 --> 00:10:52.960
That's when you have to get concerned.

00:10:54.080 --> 00:10:57.120
You have to look to the past on how events played out.

00:10:58.399 --> 00:11:00.639
Because when you look to the past, especially the U.S.

00:11:00.720 --> 00:11:08.639
Civil War, and how that rhetoric got overheated, got militant and got ultra radical, that's when things went over the top.

00:11:08.879 --> 00:11:11.519
Let's go back to the second part of our debate.

00:11:12.720 --> 00:11:16.480
Okay, but that brings us directly to a core point of disagreement, doesn't it?

00:11:16.639 --> 00:11:18.480
The nature of political violence.

00:11:18.720 --> 00:11:28.639
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?

00:11:28.879 --> 00:11:33.120
I'm sorry, but I just don't think that comparison holds water, substantively.

00:11:33.279 --> 00:11:39.600
The violence in the 1850s in Kansas, it was political, yes, but it was also territorial.

00:11:39.679 --> 00:11:47.600
And it was often endorsed, at least tacitly, by state-level actors or powerful political figures aiming to expand slavery.

00:11:48.000 --> 00:11:56.240
But I'm not entirely convinced because this source material does show that the consequences of extreme rhetoric are undeniable.

00:11:56.480 --> 00:12:11.600
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.

00:12:12.240 --> 00:12:18.320
Well, the conservative counter-narrative presented in the material argues this indirectly incites fringe actors.

00:12:18.480 --> 00:12:21.840
Isn't that similar to how fire eaters use demonization?

00:12:22.159 --> 00:12:26.159
But the difference is the official action, the response.

00:12:26.399 --> 00:12:31.519
Fire eaters glorified the caning of Charles Sumner right there on the Senate floor.

00:12:31.679 --> 00:12:34.240
They celebrated the attack on Fort Sumter.

00:12:34.480 --> 00:12:43.279
When recent political violence has occurred, high-profile attacks, attempts on figures like Trump-elected progressives have issued immediate condemnations.

00:12:43.440 --> 00:12:45.919
I mean, AOC called Kirk's shooting unacceptable.

00:12:46.080 --> 00:12:48.399
Taleb condemned the Trump attempts right away.

00:12:48.559 --> 00:12:55.840
When officials immediately denounce violence, they draw a crucial line that the fire eaters actively blurred or erased.

00:12:56.000 --> 00:13:00.399
You just don't see modern political figures celebrating political violence as a legitimate tool.

00:13:00.799 --> 00:13:11.200
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.

00:13:11.440 --> 00:13:15.120
We are apparently seeing highly organized, almost militarized resistance.

00:13:15.279 --> 00:13:28.720
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.

00:13:28.960 --> 00:13:39.600
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?

00:13:39.919 --> 00:13:53.600
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.

00:13:53.840 --> 00:13:58.320
The violence in Kansas was tied directly to the expansion of slavery.

00:13:58.480 --> 00:14:01.759
It was pushed and endorsed by leading fire eaters.

00:14:02.000 --> 00:14:13.039
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.

00:14:13.279 --> 00:14:24.080
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.

00:14:25.519 --> 00:14:28.000
Okay, so again, let me stop this debate.

00:14:28.080 --> 00:14:38.080
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.

00:14:38.320 --> 00:14:41.440
And their rhetoric is getting worse and worse.

00:14:42.159 --> 00:14:59.279
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.

00:14:59.440 --> 00:15:08.559
Pritzker making several public statements condemning federal immigration and customs enforcement operations in Chicago.

00:15:08.879 --> 00:15:12.320
He calls them dangerous and ste destabilizing.

00:15:12.559 --> 00:15:29.279
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.

00:15:30.240 --> 00:15:36.639
Governor Pritzker says they were acting like, quote, secret police under the direction of President Trump.

00:15:36.799 --> 00:15:38.080
That's outlandish.

00:15:39.200 --> 00:15:50.960
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.

00:15:51.440 --> 00:15:56.480
Governor Pritzker sounds like a Southern governor in the 1860s with a call to arms.

00:15:56.720 --> 00:16:02.720
And let's not forget there's a Virginia Attorney General race.

00:16:03.360 --> 00:16:06.960
And let me explain this one, because it's just bizarre.

00:16:08.000 --> 00:16:23.840
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.

00:16:24.480 --> 00:16:43.039
And the messages were sent to Republican Kerry Conyer, and these uh included violent fantasies targeting then House Speaker Todd Gilbert and his family.

00:16:43.840 --> 00:17:00.879
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.

00:17:02.960 --> 00:17:10.000
Now Jay Jones also said he'd quote piss on the graves of certain Republican delegates when they died.

00:17:10.480 --> 00:17:14.400
And again, the scandal erupted earlier this month.

00:17:15.279 --> 00:17:20.400
It's drawn condemnation from Republicans like Governor Glenn Yuncan, U.S.

00:17:20.480 --> 00:17:23.119
House Speaker Mike Johnson, Vice President J.D.

00:17:23.359 --> 00:17:27.680
Vance, who have all called the remarks deranged, disqualifying.

00:17:27.920 --> 00:17:29.920
They're urging Jones to withdraw.

00:17:30.000 --> 00:17:41.039
And Democrats, including the gubernatorial nominee, Abigail Spamberger, and both senators, Tim Caine and Mark Warner.

00:17:41.440 --> 00:17:51.279
They labeled the text messages abhorrent and inexcusable, but then they largely stopped short of demanding he quit.

00:17:53.680 --> 00:18:04.160
Senator Tim Cain cited Jones's long history of in elected politics despite this lapse.

00:18:05.200 --> 00:18:06.880
Now did Jones apologize?

00:18:07.039 --> 00:18:07.599
He did.

00:18:07.839 --> 00:18:09.279
He called it a grave mistake.

00:18:09.359 --> 00:18:11.039
He vowed accountability.

00:18:11.440 --> 00:18:17.039
But while doing so, he also accused Republicans of a smear campaign.

00:18:19.279 --> 00:18:26.960
I mean, recently in the Virginia Attorney General debate, he continues to stand by his apology.

00:18:28.720 --> 00:18:34.960
But I watched that apology and it was not it was not it was not an authentic apology.

00:18:35.200 --> 00:18:35.920
I'm sorry.

00:18:36.160 --> 00:18:37.200
It was smug.

00:18:37.359 --> 00:18:40.720
It was an I'm sorry, not sorry type of apology.

00:18:41.359 --> 00:18:48.400
I'm willing to give Christian grace to anybody, but his apology wasn't close to sincere.

00:18:48.640 --> 00:18:52.160
The dude even threatened the speaker's children for the love of God.

00:18:53.599 --> 00:18:55.039
Does he have no shame?

00:18:56.559 --> 00:18:58.319
He needs to drop out.

00:18:58.799 --> 00:19:00.640
Drop out, sir.

00:19:00.880 --> 00:19:02.400
Drop out, Jay Jones.

00:19:03.359 --> 00:19:16.160
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.

00:19:16.640 --> 00:19:20.400
Clearly you can't control your mouth, so you need to drop out.

00:19:20.559 --> 00:19:21.440
Enough said.

00:19:21.680 --> 00:19:22.720
Drop out.

00:19:23.119 --> 00:19:25.279
Now going back to this debate.

00:19:27.759 --> 00:19:33.359
Okay, let's shift then to the second major point, resistance to federal authority.

00:19:33.680 --> 00:19:42.240
Is illegal emigration as an issue becoming as emotionally divisive in 2025 as slavery was in 1860?

00:19:42.400 --> 00:19:51.440
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.

00:19:51.599 --> 00:19:54.319
It's effectively a modern form of nullification.

00:19:54.720 --> 00:19:58.000
That's a uh a very provocative claim.

00:19:58.240 --> 00:20:05.599
I mean, I can see the basis for the Neo-Confederate comparison given the resistance to federal immigration enforcement that the source material details.

00:20:06.079 --> 00:20:06.400
Right.

00:20:06.559 --> 00:20:22.559
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.

00:20:22.799 --> 00:20:31.759
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.

00:20:32.000 --> 00:20:40.000
How is that different tactically from historical nullification used by South Carolina or George Wallace's resistance to federal integration mandates?

00:20:40.240 --> 00:20:43.200
Well, it's a compelling point about the functional strain, yes.

00:20:43.440 --> 00:20:47.039
But have you considered the fundamental difference in the goal of the resistance?

00:20:47.279 --> 00:20:53.200
Nullification back in the 1850s was explicitly designed to preserve the institution of chattel slavery.

00:20:53.359 --> 00:20:56.160
It threatened the literal dissolution of the union.

00:20:56.319 --> 00:21:03.920
Modern resistance to federal policy, even when it leads to political standoffs or, you know, these fringe-violent acts like blockading ICE vehicles.

00:21:04.319 --> 00:21:06.720
It's not backed by a goal of national disunion.

00:21:06.880 --> 00:21:09.920
They're not trying to establish a separate oppressive nation.

00:21:10.160 --> 00:21:18.240
This is arguably a constitutional policy dispute being played out through local resistance, not an existential threat to the union itself.

00:21:18.559 --> 00:21:21.599
But isn't the effect functionally similar?

00:21:21.839 --> 00:21:30.319
The federal government finds itself unable to fulfill its mandate across large parts of the country because of localized ideological resistance.

00:21:30.640 --> 00:21:42.480
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.

00:21:42.720 --> 00:21:46.480
The resistance creates a functional crisis of compliance, doesn't it?

00:21:46.799 --> 00:21:52.160
The difference in historical scale and just the sheer moral weight, I think, cannot be ignored.

00:21:52.400 --> 00:21:54.960
The fire eaters' resistance was existential.

00:21:55.119 --> 00:21:58.640
It was rooted in preserving the most brutal, oppressive system in U.S.

00:21:58.799 --> 00:21:59.279
history.

00:21:59.440 --> 00:22:10.960
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.

00:22:11.119 --> 00:22:14.559
The fire eaters aim for literal physical separation for war.

00:22:14.799 --> 00:22:21.279
Modern radicals generally aim for reform, however aggressively, within the existing democratic structure.

00:22:21.440 --> 00:22:23.599
The aims are just worlds apart.

00:22:26.000 --> 00:22:34.240
Now I'm going to have to say recently, just this past weekend, we saw the no the so-called no kings protest.

00:22:34.880 --> 00:22:39.839
And some of these folks, you should have heard the words that were coming from some of these lunatics.

00:22:40.079 --> 00:22:44.720
They sounded straight out of South Carolina, the 1860s, and the fire eaters.

00:22:44.960 --> 00:22:47.200
Here's a quote caught on the video.

00:22:54.559 --> 00:22:57.680
These ICE agents gotta get shot and wiped out.

00:22:57.920 --> 00:23:02.079
The same machinery that's on full display right there has to get wiped out.

00:23:04.640 --> 00:23:14.319
Even GOP Senator Mikeley retweeted this crazy lunatic, and then asking, is this peaceful?

00:23:15.119 --> 00:23:20.400
Folks, the radical and militant wing of the Democratic Party is delusional.

00:23:20.640 --> 00:23:24.000
And it clearly lacks any sense of democratic norms.

00:23:24.720 --> 00:23:32.480
It's a complete congruence of BLM and Antifa and pro-Hamas supporters.

00:23:33.599 --> 00:23:40.400
Now, to be fair, let's let's go back and take January 6th.

00:23:40.559 --> 00:23:47.519
The radicals of the Democratic Party will point to J6 as the far extreme right wing who took over the U.S.

00:23:47.680 --> 00:23:48.400
Capitol.

00:23:49.839 --> 00:23:55.119
Now we know most likely it was probably an inside job.

00:23:55.359 --> 00:23:57.359
It was probably a Fed surrection.

00:23:57.519 --> 00:24:15.359
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?

00:24:16.000 --> 00:24:27.920
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?

00:24:28.799 --> 00:24:30.720
Let's do the research.

00:24:32.000 --> 00:24:48.400
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.

00:24:48.480 --> 00:24:50.400
That was the whole reason they were there.

00:24:50.880 --> 00:24:59.440
We have over seven, six, at least by just a cursory search.

00:24:59.599 --> 00:25:02.559
We're not, we didn't spend more than five minutes on this.

00:25:02.880 --> 00:25:04.079
Ted Cruz.

00:25:05.119 --> 00:25:09.759
He objected to the vote in Arizona and Pennsylvania of the 2020 election.

00:25:10.079 --> 00:25:13.759
He said president's language and rhetoric often goes too far.

00:25:13.920 --> 00:25:18.720
I think yesterday in particular, president's language and rhetoric cross the line and it was reckless.

00:25:18.960 --> 00:25:21.599
I condemn the violence at the Capitol.

00:25:21.839 --> 00:25:26.559
Anyone should be prosecuted who hurt law enforcement.

00:25:26.880 --> 00:25:27.200
Okay.

00:25:27.839 --> 00:25:31.680
Josh Hawley, Senator from Missouri.

00:25:32.000 --> 00:25:36.319
He also sends I he also said, I condemn the violence at the Capitol.

00:25:36.559 --> 00:25:38.960
This is not who we are as Americans.

00:25:39.440 --> 00:25:43.920
John Kennedy, I condemn the rioters, Senator from Louisiana.

00:25:44.160 --> 00:25:48.319
I came to the Capitol yesterday to give a constituents a voice.

00:25:48.559 --> 00:25:55.119
Marsha Blackburn, Senator from Tennessee, the violence and destruction is unacceptable.

00:25:55.440 --> 00:26:04.079
Mike Braun, Senator from Indiana, I condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence and lawlessness that occurred at our Capitol today.

00:26:04.400 --> 00:26:07.920
Cynthia Loomis, call it what it is.

00:26:08.079 --> 00:26:10.799
An attack on the Capitol is an attack on democracy.

00:26:10.960 --> 00:26:16.720
Violent protests were unacceptable this summer and are unacceptable now.

00:26:17.839 --> 00:26:22.640
She is a senator from Wyoming and Tommy Tubberville, Senator from Alabama.

00:26:22.720 --> 00:26:25.759
The violence and destruction at the Capitol today is appalling.

00:26:26.079 --> 00:26:33.200
All six of these senators, I'm sorry, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven.

00:26:33.359 --> 00:26:39.200
All seven of these senators also objected to the counting.

00:26:46.480 --> 00:26:52.160
Large processes that were not followed in counting of the votes.

00:26:52.720 --> 00:26:55.440
That was the reason for the objections.

00:26:56.559 --> 00:27:02.799
Now they universally condemned the riot, but they also objected.

00:27:02.960 --> 00:27:04.240
That is fair.

00:27:04.960 --> 00:27:30.000
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.

00:27:31.359 --> 00:27:34.799
Let's just do a quick search on the on the House side.

00:27:36.559 --> 00:27:39.279
Yes, we have five, six, seven people.

00:27:39.440 --> 00:27:44.480
And folks, these people on the Republican side are not equivocating.

00:27:44.640 --> 00:27:49.759
They're not saying one thing one day and coming back the next day and equivocating.

00:27:49.920 --> 00:27:58.640
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.

00:27:58.880 --> 00:28:06.319
If you are violently destroying property, if you are violently attacking law enforcement, you're going to be prosecuted.

00:28:06.640 --> 00:28:07.359
Sorry.

00:28:07.759 --> 00:28:14.480
You can object, you can support the objection, but you cannot violently riot.

00:28:17.279 --> 00:28:18.960
So who are these House members?

00:28:19.599 --> 00:28:26.160
Gary Palmer, member of Alabama, or a House member of Alabama, GOP House member, he objected.

00:28:26.400 --> 00:28:31.759
Strongly condemned the Capitol this last week during the darkest days in my experience during Congress.

00:28:32.000 --> 00:28:35.440
Kevin Hearn, member from Oklahoma, 1st District.

00:28:35.599 --> 00:28:38.400
Jim Jordan, member from Ohio's 4th District.

00:28:38.720 --> 00:28:42.319
Elise Stefanik, member from New York's 21st district.

00:28:42.559 --> 00:28:46.880
Scott Perry, Paul Gosar, Mo Brooks, even Matt Gates.

00:28:47.279 --> 00:28:50.400
The left side would say Matt Gates is radical.

00:28:51.519 --> 00:28:54.480
He's from a House member from Florida's 1st District.

00:28:54.640 --> 00:29:01.119
He actually left Congress to try and run for the Florida State gubernatorial race.

00:29:01.440 --> 00:29:04.640
But Matt Gates said the violence is unacceptable.

00:29:04.720 --> 00:29:06.880
We must condemn it unequivocally.

00:29:07.279 --> 00:29:15.839
He also, by condemning the right, he also had objections as a duty to constituents about Arizona and Pennsylvania.

00:29:16.079 --> 00:29:23.920
And we still have yet for the 2020 presidential election to be adjudicated faithfully.

00:29:24.799 --> 00:29:35.359
But regardless, we cannot have violent protest and have the rhetoric be militant and radical and be over the top.

00:29:36.559 --> 00:29:46.559
Again, almost none of the GOP has ever equivocated over the days and weeks and months since January 6th, even five years later.

00:29:46.799 --> 00:29:51.759
They all have said physical violence has to be condemned each and every time.

00:29:52.160 --> 00:29:53.759
And you can't run from that.

00:29:53.920 --> 00:29:57.279
You can't say one thing one day and the next day say something else.

00:29:57.519 --> 00:29:59.599
Much like we see happening repeatedly.

00:30:00.240 --> 00:30:02.880
By the radical and militant wing of the Democratic Party.

00:30:03.039 --> 00:30:06.799
They want no accountability over there and of their actions.

00:30:07.920 --> 00:30:10.640
That's a major difference between both parties.

00:30:12.720 --> 00:30:27.839
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.

00:30:28.240 --> 00:30:31.119
And many, many of them were not peaceful.

00:30:32.160 --> 00:30:37.839
The radical Democrats barely spoke out as a collective against any of the violence.

00:30:38.160 --> 00:30:51.759
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.

00:30:51.920 --> 00:30:59.759
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.

00:31:00.160 --> 00:31:05.119
Now, folks, based on common sense, is that real accountability?

00:31:05.279 --> 00:31:10.240
Or is that not duplicitous beyond any recognition?

00:31:10.480 --> 00:31:12.960
That is where this debate really breaks down.

00:31:13.279 --> 00:31:15.680
Let's go back to the final part of the debate.

00:31:16.160 --> 00:31:26.720
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.

00:31:27.119 --> 00:31:27.440
Yes.

00:31:27.519 --> 00:31:32.160
And here I think on tactics, I would agree there is a striking parallel.

00:31:32.319 --> 00:31:43.519
You see how both groups, often starting as vocal minorities, wield this outsized influence by really prioritizing their ideological purity over, say, electoral pragmatism.

00:31:43.920 --> 00:31:44.559
Precisely.

00:31:44.799 --> 00:31:48.480
Look at the fire eaters forcing the Democratic Party split in 1860.

00:31:48.640 --> 00:31:53.039
They sacrificed the presidency for the sake of their doctrinal control over the slavery issue.

00:31:53.200 --> 00:32:05.759
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.

00:32:05.920 --> 00:32:14.319
Both groups seem willing to suffer short-term losses, even major ones, to shift the entire party's trajectory toward their more extreme goals.

00:32:14.559 --> 00:32:21.279
That reckless behavior, that willingness to risk it all for purity, that seems like a dangerously similar tactical blueprint.

00:32:21.599 --> 00:32:30.480
I have to concede the tactical similarity there regarding minority influence through agitation, and yeah, the willingness to risk electoral disaster.

00:32:30.640 --> 00:32:35.279
However, and this is the crucial, however, we have to constantly return to the outcome.

00:32:35.519 --> 00:32:40.319
The fire eaters' brand of radicalism led directly, undeniably, to the Civil War.

00:32:40.480 --> 00:32:42.240
Over 600,000 deaths.

00:32:42.480 --> 00:32:53.279
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.

00:32:53.519 --> 00:32:59.279
The consequences, the stakes, are what ultimately define the historical weight and the validity of the comparison.

00:32:59.599 --> 00:33:12.960
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?

00:33:13.200 --> 00:33:20.000
Regardless of the current body count, the tactical risk feels present even if the ultimate outcome remains uncertain.

00:33:20.240 --> 00:33:48.319
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.

00:33:48.559 --> 00:33:57.200
The tactical similarities in prioritizing purity over pragmatism and in generating these functional crises, I just don't think they can be easily dismissed.

00:33:57.519 --> 00:34:00.400
And I see the value in recognizing those behavioral patterns.

00:34:00.559 --> 00:34:01.200
I do.

00:34:01.519 --> 00:34:09.599
But the comparison remains, for me, fundamentally misleading when we're trying to judge the actual likelihood of national rupture.

00:34:09.840 --> 00:34:16.719
Modern radicals explicitly reject political violence and generally seek systemic reform within the democratic framework.

00:34:16.960 --> 00:34:26.480
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.

00:34:26.639 --> 00:34:29.039
history and ultimately destroy the Union.

00:34:29.280 --> 00:34:43.039
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.

00:34:43.360 --> 00:34:47.039
And so I suppose the question remains for our listeners.

00:34:47.199 --> 00:34:58.880
How consequential are these shared tactics, the manufactured crises, the ideological purity when you weigh them against the truly divergent moral and existential stakes?

00:34:59.039 --> 00:35:15.360
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.

00:35:16.880 --> 00:35:18.400
So there you have it.

00:35:19.199 --> 00:35:33.920
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.

00:35:42.159 --> 00:35:50.000
Maybe if they do, let's pray that they come to their sense before fueling another civil war.

00:35:50.239 --> 00:35:51.440
Nobody wants that.

00:35:52.079 --> 00:36:06.480
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.

00:36:07.119 --> 00:36:15.440
Come back for our next episode, which we believe will be unique and yet something we've never done before on this podcast.

00:36:15.840 --> 00:36:18.960
And they call that a tease in the podcast business.

00:36:19.119 --> 00:36:22.079
And I gotta get better about these teases.

00:36:23.199 --> 00:36:24.079
But there you go.

00:36:24.239 --> 00:36:25.199
That's a tease.

00:36:25.519 --> 00:36:27.119
Come back for our next episode.

00:36:27.199 --> 00:36:29.519
It's gonna be something unique we've never done before.

00:36:29.679 --> 00:36:30.880
We think you're gonna like it.

00:36:31.039 --> 00:36:32.559
We're sure you're gonna like it.

00:36:32.880 --> 00:36:38.079
So until then, as always, let's keep fighting the good fight.

00:36:41.920 --> 00:36:43.599
Thank you for joining us.

00:36:43.760 --> 00:36:46.800
We hope you enjoyed this theory to action podcast.

00:36:47.039 --> 00:36:56.159
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.

00:36:56.400 --> 00:36:59.599
Until next time, keep getting your mojo on.