“ Is it outlandish to worry about civil war breaking out in the US?
I don’t think it’s outlandish given that so many people – people with considerable influence and power – are calling for exactly that.’
I lived in the US in the late '80s and early '90s. While there is clearly a continuity, I believe there was a major cultural shift after 9/11 that was underappreciated at the time. ‘Don’t Tread On Me’ libertarianism and distrust of the state metastasized into something rather different.
3 Likes
I think the mortgage loan crisis of 2008 was another inflection point. I think the thing that most defines the period we’re in is resentment. That crisis produced a lot of resentment across the political spectrum, but I think this was the point (coinciding with Obama’s election) where the GOP started weaponizing cultural resentment as their primary political tool.
6 Likes
Just wanted to comment on the possibility of a civil war. It needs some careful definition as to what we mean. If we mean one army against another army, fighting it out, both with a possibility to win, like the last civil war between north and south, over slavery, then I really can’t see that sort of thing happening again.
But if we mean extremist right wing groups, heavily armed - though not heavily armed in comparison to what the government and its military could bring to the ‘battlefield’ - but if we mean such groups increasingly expressing discontent, and potentially having a pop at government targets, then yes, I could see that.
But it won’t be all out warfare. How could it be?
The difficulty for the government, if it comes to it, will be how extensively they choose to squash their own citizens who come at them, armed. Imagine an organized military group being called in to defend the capitol on January 6th, treating it like a confrontation with an invading foreign power. Imagine if they were permitted to use as much lethal force as necessary to put an end to the mob, in the name of defending the government? It would be a bloodbath, and quickly over as a conflict on the day.
It would be ugly, but the unruly mob, armed and all, would be no match whatsoever.
So the greater danger I see, in terms of armed conflict, is more guerilla type war, not a square off between two sets of armed forces. The extreme right wing group will cause disruption and may even take a few lives here and there, as they will outmatch your average security guard by some distance. But they won’t be equipped for a proper military encounter against trained and armed forces.
So for me, the notion of civil war, in the sense of it meaning organized armed conflict between two well matched and opposing sides, won’t happen. But I expect more small scale stuff from the loon militia types out there.
I see another sense of civil war playing out though, rather than the armed conflict, and that is through political means - gerrymandering, post truth fealty to the big lie, machinery of politics being manipulated to gain political power, elections being undermined, culture wars, etc.
3 Likes
It’s in full swing. Terrorism, assassinations, those are the next steps.
1 Like
Yep, completely agree. That sort of ‘civil war’ is well underway.
Reminds me more of Germany in the early 1930s.
Posse comitatus - the military cannot be used on domestic soil against domestic forces. The Federal government deploying them in this way would be an act of war.
Of course, a President cannot declare war so to use the troops in such a way would require a 2/3s majority of both chambers of Congress. In the context we’re talking about, this would be a partisan issue and so not only would the GOP not authorize it, but would oppose it to the point of legitimizing the forces the military is being put against. It would create the institutional break down sufficient to turn it into a legitimate civil war.
2 Likes
Exactly, well said, hence a proper civil war in the way we imagine is not on the cards.
I don’t like it, at all though, as heavily armed militia types can wield more threat than they otherwise might, since the Federal Government cannot defend itself.
This is an interesting point, and in the short term, I’d completely agree with that. No civil war in the XIXth century sense, army against army.
Then again, we have seen time and again in Middle East countries and Afghanistan that a largely inferior, but armed minority can create havoc up until the point an occupying force has to leave the country for instance. For that, they needed retreat bases with support from the civil population.
The crucial point for me is: if these are a few crazy loonies, they won’t get support from the population, and will be dispatched rather sooner than later. But if a scenario like Al Quaeda emerges, in which these armed groups benefit of support and sheltering among the population, then it can get sour quite quickly. The inferiorly armed group can then easily disrupt the country by organising terror everywhere.
So, will these people be the next Baader–Meinhof Gang (Germany in the seventies), and quickly dispatched, or the next Al Quaeda, waging war during decades and rather gaining in strength over time, instead of losing it? Time will tell, and my money would be on the first scenario (if there is a fraction of sense left in the US, that is). But on the other hand, these people seem to be ready to go all the way, so it’s concerning.
Of course, if terrorism rises in the short term, it could also rise the demand among the population for a ‘strong man who can put things right’, ie. Germany in the early thirties.
I’ve already stated this a few times over the years, and the latest political developments haven’t made me change my mind: if I was living in the states as a stranger, I’d seriously think about heading back home before it goes completely ape-shit.
1 Like
The terrorism is already being performed as marks of open support for (or opposition against his enemies) said strong man.
I think the point these posts are under estimating is the rhetorical support from the primary opposition political party and the ongoing willingness to coordinate with said forces to achieve their political ends.
3 Likes
Yes. I think we’re much further along the road than people realise. It’s frustrating that there isn’t enough outrage among the general population.
1 Like
If one of the two main parties is ready to support these groups of extremists, surely it must means that there is large support in the country for that idea, isn’t it? That for me is the most concerning aspect.
An old man in the white house, no confidence in democracy among the population anymore (“they are all rotten”, “the last elections have been fixed” etc.)., an economic crisis. Many ingredients are there, including some really malevolent elements in the media.
Ah whatever… all will be good, nothing to see here.
Ready to? Did you miss Jan 6th? The kidnapping plot of the MI governor? These are things that are rhetorically supported, justified and even given organizational support for by one of the two parties. I dont understand how often they need to tell us they are ready to rise up in armed conflict, how many times they shows us they are, and how much rhetorical (and organizational) support they get from their elected leaders before people actually believe it.
They continue to tell us that if we do anything they dont like they will respond with organized violence to get their way. The so called liberal press continues to treat that like its a legitimate point of debate, rewarding them for such disqualifying rhetoric.
This is the almost daily refrain from the most important man in news at NBC/MSNBC
https://www.rawstory.com/chuck-todd-trump-prosecution/
3 Likes
Don’t want to put you on the spot LS, but how bad would it have to get before you’d consider leaving?
Of course, everywhere has it’s issues, but, as you say, the US seems to be headed for a period of extreme political instability and possibly (probably?) violence, and it’s hard to see a way that it ends well.
where to go though?
China makes Asia and Oceania scary and Russia ditto with Europe. As I’ve been saying since Litvinenko, we need a few targeted assassinations.
My cousin stayed there for 7 years but left under Trump and he has absolutely no plans to return. He earned a lot of money there compared to what he does now (he was headhunted there and they gave him all sorts of goodies in his job).
You are not safer in the US than you are in another NATO country in Europe because of Russia. If there is such a war, it would go nuclear and then most Russian targets are in the US anyway.
Sure. Although a deep rural location in the US may be okay with better natural resources for survival than a heavily populated and (therefore irradiated) western Europe?
In my darkest moments its really possible to fear western civilisation not surviving my childrens’ lifetime. Even as a hugely cynical teenager in the 90s that is something that just couldn’t have been fathomed then.
1 Like
Hug I agree there is a minuscule risk, but I don’t think it’s high enough to have it as something to consider as to vvhere you vvant to live.
Here, cheer up vvith this historical clip of my favorite correspondent doing some quality reporting