How Civil Wars Start
There is a growing division in the U.S. between what seem to be almost irreconcilable opposites. It is hard to see how that division will be resolved short of some kind of conflict. One can hope it will not be bloody, though the violent history of this country does not inspire confidence. In any event, whoever is elected this November, a vast segment of the U.S. population will be deeply unhappy, in fact feel existentially threatened. That is the recipe for divisive clashes. More
The post How Civil Wars Start appeared first on CounterPunch.org.
Battle between the USS Monitor and Merrimack – Public Domain
On the afternoon of July 13, a family member called me.
“They just shot Trump. This is how civil wars start.”
The family member is an ardent Trump supporter, and he believes, as many others in the Trump camp, that the shooter didn’t act alone. The glaring omission of leaving a roof in the line of fire unprotected fuels that belief, as do facts such as that the shooter was seen on the roof beforehand, and that he was somehow able to carry a ladder and rifle across a distance of around 200 yards from his van to the building without being challenged.
Whether this was a monumental set of screw-ups or something worse, a truism I long ago learned about politics is that perception is reality. And for that reason, if Trump had suffered more than a flesh wound, it would have legitimated violent response in the eyes of many. This is a reason that the sentiment all too widespread, “Too bad he missed,” is remarkably shortsighted. People who believe Trump is the problem, and not the symptom of something deeper, are just not getting it.
There is a growing division in the U.S. between what seem to be almost irreconcilable opposites. It is hard to see how that division will be resolved short of some kind of conflict. One can hope it will not be bloody, though the violent history of this country does not inspire confidence. In any event, whoever is elected this November, a vast segment of the U.S. population will be deeply unhappy, in fact feel existentially threatened. That is the recipe for divisive clashes.
I have been returning to this theme over the past several years. In this post I will review a number of pieces I have written that indicate reason for deep concern. About polling which shows widespread expectations of national breakdown, and even broad sentiment for division into separate nations. And reviews of several books which delve into the potential for its occurrence. Then in a follow-up post I will offer my own thoughts for how we navigate coming years in the most peaceful manner possible.
Polling on civil war prospects
In a 2021 piece, I asked, “Is the U.S. beyond repair?”.
“Polls show broad support for secession across the political spectrum. A University of Virginia poll found support for breaking blue and red states into two separate countries at 52% among Trump voters and 41% among Biden voters. Asked if leaders from the other party are ‘a clear and present danger to democracy,’ 80% of Biden voters and 84% of Trump voters responded yes.”
The sense that the other side poses an existential threat is exactly what causes civil wars. The election of Lincoln in 1860 created that sense among Southern slaveholders, fearful of losing their property, and led to the secession of the Confederacy.
“Taken all together, one has to ask, is the U.S. as we have known it coming to an end? Will continuation in its current form become so unacceptable to one side or another that it will fly apart? If Democrats pull it out and win in 2024, will the strong tendencies toward secession in red states come to the fore? If Republicans win, and appear to cement in permanent minority rule, how will that play on the West Coast and in the Northeast?”
In 2022, I reported the results of a recent survey in a story, “New poll shows high expectations of civil war.” I wrote, “Around 40% of U.S. citizens believe a civil war will break out, 47% expect a total economic collapse, and 50% anticipate the end of the U.S. as a global superpower, all in the next 10 years. Those are the results of a poll of 1,000 U.S. citizens conducted Sept. 1-4 by YouGov and The Economist which asked people’s views on 15 catastrophic scenarios. Margin of error is 3%. Results demonstrate that the U.S., once the land of optimism, has sunk into deep pessimism over its future.”
The polling had one bright spot. “While many expect a civil war, few think it would be a good thing. Overall, 69% answered bad, and only 6% good.”
I also reported, “People who believe democracy will survive in the U.S. only marginally exceed those who expect it to end, 39% versus 38%. The end of U.S. democracy is considered very likely by 13%, but the number who think that very unlikely are not much greater at 18%.”
The results are shown in this graphic.
 |
The dangers of seeking domination
Last year I reviewed a book by conservative writer David French in a piece entitled, “Drive for domination puts U.S. unity at risk.”
“He introduces his book, Divided We Fall: America’s Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation, with these words. ‘It’s time for Americans to wake up to a fundamental reality: the continued unity of the United States of America cannot be guaranteed. At this moment in history, there is not a single important cultural, religious, political, or social force that is pulling Americans together more than it is pushing us apart. We cannot assume that a continent-sized, multi-ethnic, multi-faith democracy can remain united together, and it will not remain united if our political class cannot and will not adapt to an increasingly diverse and divided American public.’
“He lays blame for increasing divisions precisely at the feet of that class. ‘The people who actually drive American politics and policy are committed to escalation, and as they escalate, they drive their committed followers to ever-greater frenzies . . . cultural and economic incentives align to time and time again grant the most fame and fortune to those who stoke the most rage.’
“In a nation too diverse to function any other way than as a pluralist order, the drive for domination puts unity at risk. Writes French, ‘ . . . the quest for moral, cultural, and political domination by either side of our national divide risks splitting the nation into two (or three or four).’
“French himself became a target, and a meme, for his advocacy of civility and traditional liberalism in the sense of respect for civil liberties, when New York Post op-ed editor Sohrab Ahmari published an essay, ‘Against David French-ism’ that went viral. French says Ahmari typifies exactly what he warned against when the latter argued that politics was moving into a state of ‘war and enmity’ so civility and decency toward political opponents were ‘second-order values.’
“’That kind of “quest for domination is dangerous . . . Our nation’s angriest culture warriors need to know the cost of their conflict. As they seek to crush their political and cultural enemies, they may destroy the nation they seek to rule.’”
Surveying secession prospects
In a 2023 piece entitled, A national divorce? Surveying the potential for a national breakup, I reviewed another book by a conservative writer around the same theme, American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup by F.H. Buckley.
“Secession movements are rising around the world, notes Buckley. He cites the movement for Scottish independence, the breakup of Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, and separatist sentiments in nations ranging from Pakistan and Indonesia to Turkey and Nigeria. ‘Go down the list and there are secession groups in nearly every country. And are we to think that, almost alone in the world, we’re immune from this?’ To prove his point, Buckley cites secession efforts in California and Cascadia, coming from the left, and Texas, coming from the right.
“’We’re now living in a secessionist moment in world history,’ writes Buckley.
“’Countries threaten to split apart when their people seem hopelessly divided,’ he writes. ‘We’re less united today than we’ve been at any time since the Civil War, divided by politics, religion and culture. In all the ways that matter, save for the naked force of the law, we’re already divided into two nations just as much as in 1861.’
“National divisions have caused political gridlock with divided government unable to meet in the middle of key issues such as health care and immigration reform. That has produced the first constitutional crisis since the Civil War. ‘And, as in 1861, that’s a recipe for secession.’
“While the idea of secession ‘has been consigned to the political loony bin since the Civil War,’ the idea is increasingly respectable, Buckley asserts. ‘The barriers to a breakup are far lower than most people would think, and if the voters in a state were determined to leave the Union they could probably do so.’”
“Writes Buckley, ‘I see us on a train, bound for a breakup. The switches that might stop us have failed, and if we want to stay united we must learn how to slow the engine.” His recommended solution . . . is ‘a devolution of power to the states.’”
High support for regional commonwealths
In another 2023 article, “While regional independence gains traction, we need to consider our interdependence,” I reported on a poll that shows a shockingly high proportion of people in the U.S. favor some form of devolution.
“While the movements that proclaim support for secession and independence are still relatively small, the potential support for the idea is surprisingly large. A poll conducted in July 2022 by Yahoo News/YouGov found:
+ 32% of Republicans and 21% of Democrats believe the U.S. would be better off splitting into “red” and “blue” countries.
+ 42% of Republicans and 51% of Democrats say things would be worse off.
+ As a whole, 21% of voters are in the better off camp compared to 46% replying worse off.
“Though the majority favors the status quo, the numbers speak to a large potential base of support for independence movements. A July-August 2021 University of Virginia poll found significant support for regional unions, at 66% among Southern Republicans and 47% among West Coast Democrats. (Results are shown in in the opening graphic.) Overall support for new regional unions was no less than one-third in any region.
“These numbers point to scenarios for a broad rearrangement in U.S. governance structures over coming years. If history indicates anything, it is that big changes often come unexpectedly, from the French Revolution to the break-up of the Soviet Union. As tensions long rising on an earthquake fault result in a sudden snap, the conditions that lead to such earth-shattering political events build up for a long time before the break comes. Divisions have been increasing in the U.S. for some time, and could be near a breaking point. Large segments of the population feel marginalized from a political system that seems increasingly unresponsive to all interests but those of big money.”
Secession from a progressive perspective
The best work on the centrifugal tendencies of the U.S. is by a progressive author, Richard Kreitner, Break It Up: Secession, Division and The Secret History of America’s Imperfect Union. Kreitner documents secessionist movements throughout its history, including a little known effort by slavery abolitionists to have the North secede from the South when the latter dominated U.S. politics. I wrote about it in 2022 this piece “Secession from the left.” Kreitner’s conclusions are worth quoting at length.
“If the radical abolitionists of the 1840s thought the Slave Power held such complete control over the government that no progress toward emancipation could be made within it, should we wonder whether we’re fast approaching that day – if it has not already arrived – when the Money Power’s control over our politicians has become so deeply entrenched, so ineradicable, that no remedy can be found in the existing political system?”
“How long will Americans rightly terrified by the coming climate chaos work within a system that appears utterly incapable of doing anything to wean our country off a way of life that has rendered human beings an endangered species? Our government appears to be irrevocably broken, and we are running out of time . . . The breakdown in constitutional government is nearly complete. At the federal level, every branch is mired in a legitimacy crisis from which the future offers little hope of easy extraction.”
“Our political discourse is civil war by other means – we sound as if we do not really want to continue to be me members of one country . . . There never was any guarantee that the country would survive, and there is none now . . . Say we can agree, despite all our differences, that we want to preserve the Union . . . significant changes in our political and even social behavior will be required. We cannot keep trying to bludgeon one another into submission or indulge fantasies of the sudden evaporation, wholesale extermination, or unconditional surrender of the other side.”
Progressive Kreitner here echoes the sentiments of conservative French. Or as Rodney King asked, “Can’t we all just get along?”
This first appeared in The Raven..
The post How Civil Wars Start appeared first on CounterPunch.org.