Why can't it be both?

Some conservatives agree with Jon Voight. Some liberals think he's crazy as a shithouse rat.

I don't see why both sides can't be right.

Voight rhetorically asks whether or not Barack Obama is "creating a civil war in our own country."

Well, yes, he is, although "perpetuating" would be a better word than "creating" -- he's "creating in the now" a situation which exists in perpetuity. The political class has always been at war with the productive class. Obama is just the political class's latest commanding general.

Voight is crazy to the extent that he thinks the Obama regime represents some kind of sudden turn toward socialism, though. Socialism hasn't been on the table for decades, and there's been no sweeping reorganization of, or change of strategy on the part of, the political class's army. It's been a substantially managerialist force for lo on 80 years now. The factional divisions in its ranks (Republican, Democrat, etc.) are substantially a question of whether the Wehrmacht or the Luftwaffe dominate at the general staff level and in the selection of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

And yes, I just made the comparison you thought I made. American managerialism ascended to dominance under FDR as a "light" version of Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Third Reich and Mussolini's Italy. These days American "conservatives" are the equivalent of the German Junkers who hoped they could control Hitler, and American "liberals" are the equivalent of the Strasserites who thought they could turn Nazism in a truly socialist direction.