Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: Preferring Disgrace to Danger
“The nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one.” – Alexander Hamilton
A recent poll revealed if the United States were invaded, 55% of those polled stated they would flee the United States rather than fight to defend it. Naturally, the percentage of those who would flee was greatest among Democrats and lowest among Republicans. (That three-quarters of the Democrats would flee is unsurprising as that party is split 3:1 between grifters and dupes, and grifters always run when their grift ends.) Some people found that discouraging. I did not; rather the opposite. While only 55% staying and fighting might be lower than it was 70 to 50 years ago, it is certainly consistent with historical percentages – and maybe a little higher.
Only 30% of the population was willing to fight for America during the Wars of American Independence. The percentage might have been higher by the War of 1812, but not as high as 50%. Many fled to the interior to avoid the war, and the war was so unpopular in New England that it was preparing to secede from the Union and sign a separate peace with Great Britain. During the American Civil War, the percentage of those willing to fight and die to preserve the Union (or abolish slavery) probably never approached 55%. The number in the South willing to fight and die to preserve the Confederacy was even lower. Draft evasion was sky-high in parts of the South to the point where draft evaders were taking to the high timber and forming armed bands to resist conscription.
Polls often do not reflect what people actually do when push comes to shove. The decision to flee is a rational one. But when the fight starts decisions are not made rationally. (As Jerry Pournelle said in one of his essays a rational army would run — but they rarely do.) You stand and fight for reasons that are not rational; for pride, or because “the women are watching” (ignore what is said about toxic masculinity – women find men who fight hot), or just out of sheer cussedness (nobody is going to run me off my land / tell me what to do).
Certainly two months ago if you had asked most people in this country whether those in Ukraine would stand and fight if Russia invaded they would have said the Ukrainians would run. I suspect if you had asked most Ukrainians that they would have said, “Are you crazy? We’d get out of town before the Russians arrived.” And yet, when the bear came over the mountain, a significant fraction of the population chose to take up arms. Despite the lack of training, they manned the barricades. That’s stupid, but it’s very human.
Was it 55%? I don’t know. But all you have to do is look at the situation map to realize the percentage was large enough to get Br’er Putin well and truly stuck to the Tar Baba Yar.
My question is this? Do you really believe residents of the United States, if rallied by a charismatic leader (or even by a steady, non-charismatic leader) would not rise in similar numbers if we were invaded? That the good ol’ boys of the country or even the urban gang bangers would not take of the sport of plinking CCP soldiers or Ruskies or whatever chose to come over the border to occupy America? That the American working class would sit by passively?
I do not. Yes, I could see many opportunists and grifters making common cause with the enemy. It has always been so, even in America. But it would not take 55% actively resisting to make the United States a bigger trap than trying to occupy Ukraine. Even percentages as low as 25% would make it impossible. But should the United States be invaded, I suspect many of those who said they would run would choose to stay and fight instead. I do not think the United States is as ready to prefer disgrace to danger as many in this country believe.
Published in General
Just where the heck do they think they could go? If the US were to fall to an invader, everywhere else is probably already gone or soon to be.
Thinking probably isn’t high on their list of abilities.
With our two oceans and relatively peaceful neighbors it is unlikely the US will face an armed invasion. One could make a plausible argument we are in the middle of an invasion right now across our southern border, but for the most part it is peaceable. The more likely scenario in this country is a descent into some kind of authoritarian or semi-authoritarian state. I wonder how many would be willing to resist that.
I don’t know. I believe my neighbors would. I know I did, with vaccine and testing mandates. I refused to participate, and challenged my employer to fire me. They did not.
Since the establishment seems to be made up entirely of opportunists and grifters I’m not sure we’d be in a position to find out. Given the choice between sacrificing for a nation they don’t believe in – or actively dislike – and maintaining their privileges as a commissar for the suppression of white-nationalist terrorism (say) under the new regime, who can doubt a treaty of surrender would be signed quicker than they could agree on the new hashtag celebrating the new, fairer and more inclusive Democratic People’s Republic of …
Bonaparte told Talleyrand, “You can do anything with a bayonet. Talleyrand’s response was “Yes, sire, except sit on them.” By which he meant a throne made of bayonets was an uncomfortable place to perch. The United States is governed by the consent of the people. Always has been. If the grifters surrender the United States to the CCP, they and the CCP will find it impossible to rule. Too many guns and too much of the infrastructure dependent on willing cooperation for anything other than rule by consent of the people.
Like I said earlier, invader-plinking and Quisling-plinking would become the new national sport. Pipeline networks and petroleum plants would mysteriously fail and enemy garrisons would find it impossible to get adequate food and water. Or find their food and water laced with poisons and hallucinogens. Wouldn’t take much active resistance – only 5% of the population – to turn the US into a bigger tar baby than the Ukraine.
Admiral Yamamoto, “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
Love it.
I’m pretty sure even thinking that makes you a racist.
If you’re referring to the poll that I recall, I think that you have mischaracterized it. The question that I recall had to do with being in the position of the Ukrainians.
I don’t think I am the one mischaracterizing it, although I could be wrong.
Everything I say makes me a racist to those looking for racism, no matter how innocuous it may be. So I am not going to care.
Like where people protesting a corrupt election are held as political prisoners? Where people are not allowed to travel or be employed without submitting to experimental medical procedures? That sounds horrifying.
Indeed. And fellow Founder of the country and Constitution had his own similar admonition:
They have to read and remember the Uncle Remus stories to know about Br’er Rabbit and the Tar Baby. Reading such things invariably make you a racist. It will therefore require a racist to identify a racist.
“Song of the South” is right out.
But what if it’s Quislings all the way down? I’m imagining a scenario of a quick capitulation, and the existing establishment staying in place. A simple treaty making the US an adherent to the new Greater Pacific Co-Prosperity Sphere and it’s done. A ‘human rights’ court with jurisdiction over the States here, a combined military command there, and you can keep your constitution, your elections and your judiciary. Only everyone knows the decisions are made in Beijing. Who do you plink when everyone’s a local? Just ask HK how that goes.
Those who pull their forelocks.
Can I still say zippity-do-dah if I qualify it contextually first?
Or do I have to refer to it only as “the z-word”.
I think it more likely that our leadership would give in to a nuclear threat and submit to a suzerainty.
That is exactly what the Japanese did in the Philippines. Look how well that worked for them. Your scenario is not credible. Assuming it is the ruling elite (government employees, and the college-educated upper middle class) that is between 5-10% of the population cooperating. I can about guarantee that cooperation with that scheme on the county level where I live would be no more than 20% of those employed by the county government and probably less than that in rural counties. I don’t see it working with more than 30% of the state government employees.
If even 5-10% of the US population decided “nope,” it would not work. You nail everyone who is cooperating.
Ask Hong Kong? What percentage of China’s population does Hong Kong comprise? And what percentage of those willing to resist were armed? Again, not a credible comparison.
Perhaps the question to ask is: what would our government do differently if it was already controlled by China? (Assuming China was playing a long game.) Anything? Access to US assets? It’s already taken the factories and the IP. Centers in key institutions of learning (or, at least, accreditation) spreading party propaganda? Done. Open intimidation of regime opponents and corruption of the ruling class? 10% for the Big Guy.
I guess it depends on how serious you want your cancellation to be.
I’ve invented a new medal: “[G]et Br’er Putin well and truly stuck to the Tar Baba Yar” is the Ricochet Line of the Month.™
I guess they could but there are two questions at that point:
1) How long do they last?
2) What does that really mean?
If it means the Chinese trying to do to the US what they are doing in Hong Kong or to the Uighurs then that isn’t going to happen too many guns too many people most of which are unruly by nature. If it means the US is subservient to China’s foreign policy aims but life at home is pretty much undisturbed. That will depend on how tight a control of the information stream the elite could manage. As long as Americans don’t see the atrocities maybe you could keep them quiet.
Covid policy.
I really think you are on to something. How well would we fare if China cut off all exports to the U. S.? They would still have the rest of the world as willing customers, while we would be without vital pharmaceuticals, electronic components and a lot of our heavy industrial products. They are in a much better trade position than we are.
I’m not completely sure what poll you are referencing. I think that it is this Quinnipiac poll released March 7, 2022. Please let me know if I am incorrect about this.
For the rest of this comment, I’m going to assume that I’ve referenced the correct poll. Obviously, if this is incorrect, I’d like to see the actual poll results on which you relied.
So the first problem is that I think that you mischaracterized the poll. The question was not what a person would do if the United States were invaded. The question was: “If you were in the same position as Ukrainians are now, do you think that you would stay and fight or leave the country?” (This is poll question #8.)
That’s not a question about some hypothetical, unspecified invasion of the US. It’s not even clear what it means — whether the respondent is supposed to imagine himself to be a Ukrainian, or to somehow imagine the US facing the exact situation that Ukraine faces right now.
The position faced by Ukraine, of course, is an attack by a much larger, more populous, and more militarily powerful country. The US cannot face such a situation, because there is no nation that is much larger, more populous, and more militarily powerful than the US.
So it seems to me that you’ve mischaracterized the poll result — assuming, again, that I’ve located the correct poll.
It looks like there’s a significant numerical error in the OP, also. The claim in the OP is that “55% of those polled stated they would flee the United States rather than fight to defend it.” The actual poll result is that 55% would stay and fight, while 38% would leave the country. (Again, this is poll question #8).
It might be better to look up the actual poll results, and carefully read the poll question, before drafting a post about the results of such a poll.
@arizonapatriot , the question is mildly ambiguous or capable of misinterpretation, but I think your assertion is wrong. The question is not “If you were a Ukrainian… ” but “If you were in the same position as Ukrainians… ” — that is, if your homeland were under physical military attack. This is how most people interpret the question and I think it’s the correct one.
Jerry, I am sure if someone said 2 plus 2 equal four you would argue, no it equals five. No amount of arguing would convince you to say otherwise. I get that. It is some weird game you enjoy playing. Just as you insist the Doolittle Raid was a strategic mistake, the Japanese didn’t know they were losing World War II until March 1945, that there were only 500 or fewer US citizens stranded in Afghanistan in 2021 and a slew of similar nonsense.
Similarly you choose to misinterpret this poll in your own weird Jerry way. Fine. Misinterpret it any way that pleases you. It’s not worth engaging you because it wastes everyone’s time and makes only you happy. I have better things to do than argue over your misinterpretations.