Learn from history, or be doomed to repeat it

That appears to be making the rounds with this Ukrainian situation.  Comparisons are made with World War II and so forth.  Are the comparisons apt?

I won't try to answer that now, as time is limited.

But I will try to make another comparison.  That is this:  today's politics and the politics of the Civil War.

What is similar?  The thing that is similar is that there were hotheads in control in the South, and hotheads threatening to control the so-called right.  During the Civil War Era, rather than try to work things out peacefully, the Southern hotheads decided that force was the answer.  But, in using force, they lost everything they were fighting for.

The same can happen today.  Rather than hotheadedly march off to war, hot or cold, we should recognize that a war runs the risk of losing it all.  Unless the situation is such that requires such a grave risk be taken, it is better to avoid such risks.

But some risks are necessary.  Such as being opposed to those who are too timid and won't take any risks at all---like John Cornyn.  Do not misunderstand.  I do not suggest playing a completely safe hand.  Risks are necessary at times in order to have a chance at something better.  Nothing much can be achieved by playing it safe all the time.  But the South lost it all, and yet, it wasn't even necessary to take such risks.  Lincoln only wanted to keep the Union together.  He wasn't out to abolish slavery.  Today, Cornyn claims he is against Obama, but his actions speak otherwise.  His actions suggest too much timidity.  A balance is necessary.  We need boldness alright, but not rashness.  We need a Sam Houston, not a John Cornyn.

In our own case, going off to war could lose the country---literally in a nuclear exchange.  What could possibly be worth a risk like that?  We shouldn't endorse Obama's overly timid approach.  But we should respond in a meaningful way.

It is better to remove politicians who serve us poorly.  If everybody got onboard and worked toward that end, success may be possible.  But those who won't may lead us down a path that we should avoid.

I'm referring to Barnhardt here.  Lots of people read her.  Me too.  But I do not like the idea of undermining the current order just because I don't like it.  We have a system and need to let it work.  Thus, I cannot endorse what she claims.  She claims the republic is dead.  But she is wrong, because if it were dead, then why does she need to kill it?