One of the best ways to understand the present is having a firm understanding of historical patterns so that one is aware of the sort of time period one is in. By recognizing the same social and political patterns, one can understand the deep nature of crises and problems and avoid ascribing them merely to superficial matters. In understanding the contemporary political crisis of the United States, the most helpful comparison, unfortunately, is that of the period preceding the American Civil War, the only time thus far that America’s crisis has been internally directed, as it is now.

In the late 1850’s, the United States was deeply divided on moral issues, as some parts of the United States became ever more censored because of concerns about “hate crimes” against the evil of slavery. Other concerns, such as a growing regionalism within politics, as well as deeply different economic models, were connected with the larger questions of right and wrong as well that ultimately fueled the ferocious and increasingly divisive politics of the era. Not only that, but there were ferocious anti-immigrant movements as well that threatened to form “single-issue” third parties on the part of nativists.

If we compare the politics of the 1850’s with those of today, we will find a lot of similarities, even if we find a somewhat different coalition. We have one group of party that cannot stand for evil to be called evil, that seeks to abuse the power of the federal government to benefit its own narrow sectional concerns, and thumbs its nose at our nation’s founding principles and is willing to accept no criticism of its ways, threatening uprisings and rebellions against the rule of law whenever its demands are opposed. Nowadays those groups are the occupiers and the daily Kos folks, whereas in the 1850’s they were pro-slavery Southerners. There were also plenty of moderates both then and now that have wanted nothing more than peace and for a quieting of the problems. But there will be no peace until everything is fought out and settled, possibly by blood and iron.

In the late 1850’s, there was a belief that the prestige of the Supreme Court, and its safety from electoral majorities, would allow difficult questions that divided the politics of the nation to be answered in a way that (in the eyes of Southerners) could not be challenged by an electoral majority. So, Chief Justice Taney, a “moderate” Border Southerner who was nevertheless closely aligned with the interests of the slave power of the Democratic Party, gleefully decided a sweeping case that attempted to make unconstitutional the entire electoral program of the rising Republican party. Obviously, instead of meekly accepting the decision, the Republicans (eventually led by Abraham Lincoln) sought to use ballots rather than judges to decide the matter, and the treasonous hotheads of the South chose not to accept the verdict of ballots and instead sought a verdict of bullets, which they lost as well.

Justice Taney’s decision came down in 1857, just after an election bitterly fought and narrowly won by the Democrats. Less than four years later, the Republicans won another bitterly fought election, the South refused to accept it, and the issues of slavery (as well as federalism) were decisively dealt with by warfare. If the Obamacare decision was intended on being a Dred Scott sort of decision, it suggests that time is definitely running low if we are to avoid some serious internal difficulties, given that we already have had the early hints of violent uprisings on the part of the far left of the Occupy movement. This suggests time is running out to resolve matters politically.

Let us note what Justice Roberts did in his Obamacare decision. He refused to legislate from the bench. In a very savvy (or cowardly, depending on your perspective) decision, he forced the issue back on the elected officials. He refused to try to resolve the underlying philosophical divide between the two camps by a Supreme Court decision that would decrease its own power (especially, as it seems likely, that Obama would not have obeyed an adverse decision). Seeking to maintain the credibility of his office, his decision reveals that a resolution of the underlying worldview problems will have to take place via the political process, and that the Supreme Court is not going to be a party on either side.

The Supreme Court made a similar decision at a similar point in history in the last crises period of the United States, when Chief Justice Hughes was faced with a court-packing scandal as the unscrupulous and wicked FDR sought to ensure his unconstitutional laws, and where Hughes backed down because of the lack of electoral support in the general population. It is likely that Justice Roberts had no interest in suffering a similar loss of prestige for the Supreme Court and decided to protect his own institution in a longer term strategy by punting the issue back to the elected politicians, rather than allow someone the freedom to run against a “corrupt” court that votes against laws passed by Congressional majorities.

So, what does this mean? For one, it means that in the short term we can expect our political crisis to become even more heated. The Supreme Court in two decisions (both this one and the Arizona immigration law) has said that it is not going to allow the easy way out–either for states to do what the federal government is refusing to do or for the Supreme Court to save us from our unconstitutional laws. What that means is that the American people are going to have to choose what sort of society they want, and hold their elected leaders accountable for it. We can expect plenty of false dilemmas, extremists on both sides, and a continued erosion of freedom to maneuver for any moderates in either major political party. Things are going to be more ferocious before they get better.

Whether that is good news or bad news depends on where you stand. Ultimately, we all have to decide what model we want for our country, that of Greece or that of Texas. As for myself, I do not really want either model for myself, but those appear to be the only choices on the table right now. It remains to be seen whether these serious matters of political worldview can be sorted out peacefully, if a decisive majority of people reject one way and choose the other while the other side accepts the voice of that majority. If not, then there are still questions over who will provoke a conflict and on what terms. I am somewhat pessimistic about our abilities to wrestle with our problems (which fundamentally break down to a few serious concerns–individual responsibility as opposed to extreme government regulation, as well as selfish irresponsibility as opposed to a focus on rebuilding institutions of family and community where we show concern for others who are struggling) in a peaceful manner. My own preference would be for both encouraging increased individual responsibility as well as showing a deep concern for those who are less off, and lessening the burdens and providing greater opportunities for as many people as possible.

Unfortunately, it would appear as if there has not been an articulation of that vision as a way out of our current political crisis. Our choices right now seem to be a hostility to those who are poor and indigent, in a savage libertarian paradise, or massively unsustainable debt and government spending due to ever-increasing entitlement programs. Neither of those options is acceptable to me. Since Chief Justice Roberts has refused to decide the matter for himself, it remains for us to choose what we want for ourselves, hopefully with an understanding of the greater repercussions of that choice. But it is difficult to be optimistic about the wisdom of our present generation.