Today's NY Times reviewed 2 new books that discuss the potential for a 2nd civil war after the 2024 election. See link below. I've seen similar discussions in other media. If Trump wins the presidency in 2024, I think the odds will decrease significantly. All of the woke-ists that make up far too many Democrats won't be happy, but at least they tend not to be well armed. Democracy will die, but the Chinese seem to be doing OK without it.
But if Trump loses..... 40 million well armed MAGA hats, armed to the teeth and spoiling for a fight. States sending "alternative" electors to DC to certify the election. Kamala Harris refusing to do so. Election gets thrown into the House. Repeat of January 6th only this time with actual gunfire and hangings in the public square.
One of the books reviewed predicts, not actually a civil war, but more along the lines of The Troubles in Northern Ireland.
I got no crystal ball, but I'd put the odds of violence at some non-zero level. And I'm thinking seriously of getting a gun and a carry permit.
Call me paranoid if you like. Or at least try and talk me in off the ledge.
See: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/18/books/review/how-civil-wars-start-barbara-f-walter-the-next-civil-war-stephen-marche.html?searchResultPosition=1
There is already a good deal of violence in the US. And there are plenty of armed militias around -- they have been in existence for a long time. It's easy to imagine violence increasing and the basic elements of democracy breaking down even more than they have up to now. Either post election, or with some other major upheaval. Disruptions are likely to be coming more frequently with growing international political instability and climate issues.
But will the US become ravaged by fighting in every street? Will we start resembling some version of The Walking Dead? I doubt it. As now, violence will be largely confined to particular areas and populations. People in wealthy neighborhoods will continue to be fine.
What are the odds for a 2nd civil war?
Zero.
Commercial books are commercial -- they're supposed to make money. And here we are, discussing them. Similarity to what neurotics get us to do -- talk about them -- is uncanny.
As I've said, system is working.
People with homes, families and pensions do not engage in armed rebellion unless they are desperate with their backs against the wall. The odds are very close to zero right now.
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 30, 2022, 12:52:14 PM
Today's NY Times reviewed 2 new books that discuss the potential for a 2nd civil war after the 2024 election. See link below. I've seen similar discussions in other media. If Trump wins the presidency in 2024, I think the odds will decrease significantly. All of the woke-ists that make up far too many Democrats won't be happy, but at least they tend not to be well armed. Democracy will die, but the Chinese seem to be doing OK without it.
But if Trump loses..... 40 million well armed MAGA hats, armed to the teeth and spoiling for a fight.
Both of these scenarios rely on Trump
getting the nomination (or, in theory, running as an independent). I wouldn't put the odds above 20% of Trump getting the nomination, and the odds of a successful independent bid
way below that. Many of the people who voted for Trump did so
because he was the Republican candidate,
in spite of their misgivings about him personally. His personal "brand" is just not that popular. The fact that his fans are especially noisy doesn't change that.
The New York Times is more likely to go under than the USA is. That's probably one reason they are thinking of such gloomy things lately.
Civil war: slim. The main path seems like it would be for someone in control of a state to defect, and that's highly unlikely. On the other hand, the chances of another insurrection--perhaps a successul one, which might subsequently be put down--are non-negligible.
Terrorism: very high. We've already seen it.
My wife thinks admitting you're a republican (I'm a registered democrat though, so far) is tantamount to saying 'I get up every morning, make coffee, then perform devil worship rituals.' So the Civil War has been here for some time, but it's a Cold War.
Agree: more violent insurrection w/terrorism either coordinated or not, I think is likely. I won't necessarily say "highly likely." I just think its very possible.
Civil War: depends on how long the above lasts. I'm going to go with unlikely if one means something more than days long, many deaths, secession of states, neighbors killing neighbors, etc.
I'm not convinced that the left will be non violent if they lose, but I think violence in the form of a similar insurrection but with politician death, etc. is more likely to be rightist.
Mahagonny is on point I must say. There was a day when the other side was simply wrong, not monstrous. I mean people said bad things about political rivals but it wasn't so pervasive and continuous, extreme. Less cheer leading and direct advice from press and on air talent.
Given the extremes of political feeling and polarization we've seen in recent years, it's actually striking just how little political violence we've seen thus far. In some parts of the world hundreds of people would have died in riots by now. In earlier eras of our own history we'd have seen some quite bloody rioting by now.
I do believe, as some above say, that domestic terrorism is a growing risk. I'm not sanguine about our prospects of seeing healing of our divisions. But authors and pundits raising the specter of civil war is as irresponsibly alarmist as shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Quote from: apl68 on January 31, 2022, 07:41:54 AM
Given the extremes of political feeling and polarization we've seen in recent years, it's actually striking just how little political violence we've seen thus far. In some parts of the world hundreds of people would have died in riots by now. In earlier eras of our own history we'd have seen some quite bloody rioting by now.
I do believe, as some above say, that domestic terrorism is a growing risk. I'm not sanguine about our prospects of seeing healing of our divisions. But authors and pundits raising the specter of civil war is as irresponsibly alarmist as shouting fire in a crowded theater.
The problem is that many of the people with the biggest platforms, such as politicians and the media, choose to fan the flames in order to get attention, rather than choosing to attempt to calm things down, which is better for society but gets them less visibility.
Another thing that could bring upheaval: if the republicans take back the Congress in November, Senator Tom Cotton may move for impeachment, charging that Biden is neglecting his duty to uphold the law. Perhaps Ted Cruz would be involved and he's a pretty effective interrogator. Southern border, out of control illegal immigration.
ETA: or maybe they decide 'let him stay. Weak leader, the longer he sticks around the more the democrats bicker among themselves.'
We should note blue state initiated breakup looks very different from red state initiated breakup.
Blue state initiated breakup looks like federal government shutdown, followed by blue state citizens and companies largely ending federal tax payments, followed by blue states taking over many federal government functions. This works because most blue states are net contributors to the federal government budget.
Red states don't have that kind of economic leverage; however in this day and age I don't think folks will have much appetite for keeping folks that clearly don't want to be part of the same country as you from seceding. Maybe a bit of terrorism, or a few riots.
The risks are longer-term. Imagine the Confederacy had been allowed to go their own way. There's no way they would've kept a democratic government; at best they'd have a history like Brazil or Argentina (each with a history of military coups), and at worst something like Colombia or Guatemala.
Quote from: Anselm on January 30, 2022, 02:46:59 PM
People with homes, families and pensions do not engage in armed rebellion unless they are desperate with their backs against the wall. The odds are very close to zero right now.
Yet, Americans report being more unhappy than ever: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/02/politics/unhappiness-americans-gallup-analysis/index.html
...while others are getting angry: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/592647-us-trucker-convoy-coming-joe-biden-will-ignore-protests-at-his-peril
I read a good article on this issue today:
https://warontherocks.com/2022/01/warnings-of-civil-war-risk-harming-efforts-against-political-violence/ (https://warontherocks.com/2022/01/warnings-of-civil-war-risk-harming-efforts-against-political-violence/)
Short version: no risk of civil war, but there is a risk of political violence. The more precise we are in our language and analysis, the more likely we can address it and turn away from the path of violence.
Quote from: pgher on February 07, 2022, 07:35:19 AM
I read a good article on this issue today:
https://warontherocks.com/2022/01/warnings-of-civil-war-risk-harming-efforts-against-political-violence/ (https://warontherocks.com/2022/01/warnings-of-civil-war-risk-harming-efforts-against-political-violence/)
Short version: no risk of civil war, but there is a risk of political violence. The more precise we are in our language and analysis, the more likely we can address it and turn away from the path of violence.
If that's the case, society is pretty much doomed. The broadening of language; "phobias", "hate" "-isms", etc. has been going on for a long time, and shows no sign of abating. Exaggerating language for dramatic effect is condoned and encouraged by politicians, media, and even academics-(particulary those who call themselves "activists"). There is
no large institution in society advocating for, let alone practicing, clarity and nuance.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 07, 2022, 07:50:16 AM
If that's the case, society is pretty much doomed. The broadening of language; "phobias", "hate" "-isms", etc. has been going on for a long time, and shows no sign of abating. Exaggerating language for dramatic effect is condoned and encouraged by politicians, media, and even academics-(particulary those who call themselves "activists"). There is no large institution in society advocating for, let alone practicing, clarity and nuance.
*Ignores the irony.*
*Looks at his entire discipline's contemporary scholarly output, which is laser-focused on teasing out precise nuances for the sake of conceptual clarity.*
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 07, 2022, 09:50:07 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 07, 2022, 07:50:16 AM
If that's the case, society is pretty much doomed. The broadening of language; "phobias", "hate" "-isms", etc. has been going on for a long time, and shows no sign of abating. Exaggerating language for dramatic effect is condoned and encouraged by politicians, media, and even academics-(particulary those who call themselves "activists"). There is no large institution in society advocating for, let alone practicing, clarity and nuance.
*Ignores the irony.*
*Looks at his entire discipline's contemporary scholarly output, which is laser-focused on teasing out precise nuances for the sake of conceptual clarity.*
So is your discipline
"laser-focused on teasing out precise nuances for the sake of conceptual clarity" exclusively for terms
within the discipline? If so, that's not the issue. If it's for those terms like the examples of those above, please elaborate.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 07, 2022, 10:23:54 AM
So is your discipline "laser-focused on teasing out precise nuances for the sake of conceptual clarity" exclusively for terms within the discipline? If so, that's not the issue. If it's for those terms like the examples of those above, please elaborate.
No?
We talk about all kinds of things. What does freedom of speech mean and entail? What is pornography? What is art? What is fiction? How do you define individual genres? What is propaganda? What is justice? What is hate speech? What is morality? What is cultural appropriation?
And on and on. We're also a key source of 'isms'.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 07, 2022, 10:26:46 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 07, 2022, 10:23:54 AM
So is your discipline "laser-focused on teasing out precise nuances for the sake of conceptual clarity" exclusively for terms within the discipline? If so, that's not the issue. If it's for those terms like the examples of those above, please elaborate.
No?
We talk about all kinds of things. What does freedom of speech mean and entail? What is pornography? What is art? What is fiction? How do you define individual genres? What is propaganda? What is justice? What is hate speech? What is morality? What is cultural appropriation?
And on and on. We're also a key source of 'isms'.
So what is "hate speech"? And what are examples of things which people might erroneously label as such? Are there media organizations, politicians, etc. improperly using the term? If so, what terms
should they be using for things that are incorrectly identified as such?
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 07, 2022, 10:45:46 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 07, 2022, 10:26:46 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 07, 2022, 10:23:54 AM
So is your discipline "laser-focused on teasing out precise nuances for the sake of conceptual clarity" exclusively for terms within the discipline? If so, that's not the issue. If it's for those terms like the examples of those above, please elaborate.
No?
We talk about all kinds of things. What does freedom of speech mean and entail? What is pornography? What is art? What is fiction? How do you define individual genres? What is propaganda? What is justice? What is hate speech? What is morality? What is cultural appropriation?
And on and on. We're also a key source of 'isms'.
So what is "hate speech"? And what are examples of things which people might erroneously label as such? Are there media organizations, politicians, etc. improperly using the term? If so, what terms should they be using for things that are incorrectly identified as such?
I don't have the time to teach a whole class on the topic, but here (https://philpapers.org/s/Hate%20speech)are 1000+ articles and books on the sibject.
And here (https://plato.stanford.edu/search/r?entry=/entries/hate-speech/&page=1&total_hits=656&pagesize=10&archive=None&rank=0&query=Hate%20speech) is the entry in our disciplinary encyclopedia.
David French on MAGA Christian nationalism: https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/the-seeds-of-political-violence-are
I think some of this also depends on what happens globally and how the US leadership responds. I see China eclipsing the US economically in the near future, and potentially unseating or at least threatening it as the global superpower. This alone will fuel the fire. If the world moves away from the US dollar as the global reserve currency, I envision domestic chaos. I dont think this is coming by 2024, but there are other more immediate tensions that could also polarize the US further (ie Ukraine).
So, while I see the odds of civil war as low, I dont see thinks calming down. As a Canadian, what concerns me at least as much is that I see it bleeding north.
In the US or on TheFora?
M.
Dr. Glenn Loury predicts that the SCOTUS will overturn affirmative action and there will be rioting in the streets, instigated by the Left. I can't think of anything he's been wrong about to date.
So far, Biden has called the voting in Georgia the return of Jim Crow, has said the greatest terrorist threat is the USA is white supremacist groups, neither of which the public believes, but a subset of them who are very excitable and active, are prone to believing.
So if/when that ruling happens, another attempt by Biden to divide the country (pander to his base, which is now something like 15% of the voters, and they're not even staunch fans) could be quite serious.
https://unherd.com/2022/02/americas-racial-torment-must-end/
'If it happens, I assure you, there will be mobs in the streets of this country. No progressive activist is going to take the Supreme Court's ruling as an opportunity to turn within and consider: "if we want to be at Harvard or the University of North Carolina in larger numbers, why don't we get busy preparing our youngsters from the cradle to be competitive in this great country that we live in where competition is the coin of the realm?" No, they're not going to do that. They're going to interpret that as an anti-black move by a racist Supreme Court. I assure you that it is a disaster and I think we're headed toward it.'
It will be overturned, yes. I'm not at all confident there will be protests, let alone rioting, in response. I expect a whimper.
Ask yourself this: how hard will people fight for the right to be given opportunities they have not earned through hard work?
ETA: Academics will make a lot of noise, of course, and then drive home to their cozy safe white neighborhoods, pour wine and have their evening game of Wordle.
Quote from: mahagonny on February 16, 2022, 09:15:29 AM
Ask yourself this: how hard will people fight for the right to be given opportunities they have not earned through hard work?
ETA: Academics will make a lot of noise, of course, and then drive home to their cozy safe white neighborhoods, pour wine and have their evening game of Wordle.
You mean opportunities from growing up in a rich, well connected households that opens up doors not available to others?
And here I thought you were against trying to address social inequalities...
Quote from: Kron3007 on February 16, 2022, 09:32:27 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 16, 2022, 09:15:29 AM
Ask yourself this: how hard will people fight for the right to be given opportunities they have not earned through hard work?
ETA: Academics will make a lot of noise, of course, and then drive home to their cozy safe white neighborhoods, pour wine and have their evening game of Wordle.
You mean opportunities from growing up in a rich, well connected households that opens up doors not available to others?
And here I thought you were against trying to address social inequalities...
Hmm...can I actually influence a trend, here with my coffee and keypad?
I'm just saying, if you look at the people who would likely start a civil war they are the left. They consist of primarily two groups:
1. Black and white academics, media hucksters and other elites who use the tired theme of racial grievance as a screen to hide their winning status in the class struggle, which is really all they were interested in;
2. Unprepossessing folks who've been lied to and bribed for votes by the democratic party for years and are in such a state of confusion they believe that good things happen automatically and bad things happen because people are plotting against you as opposed to reality, which is good things happen because people are planning and working and saving and maintaining solid family life and health and avoidance of drugs crime and bad habits, and bad things happen all the time to everyone, because that's life.
Group (1) is not looking for actual fighting with the intent to win, and involves risk, because they already have their tenure or the cushy life
Group (2) is not going to fight hard either because they are surrounded by neighbors who are tired of them acting like idiots instead of trying to improve their lives, and will push back when group (2) starts being ignorant self dramatizing pests who just want to loot stores and claim they've been mistreated by police. They do not have the fortitude to stand up to the pushback because they have no clear idea what they're after.
And yet it was the right that actually attempted a coup.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 16, 2022, 11:05:03 AM
And yet it was the right that actually attempted a coup.
A small subset of them, and it was stopped by people appointed by republicans and elected by republican voters.
They believed the voting was rigged, which was not what happened, although in places it was certainly compromised more than the standard amount. The election itself was not stolen but instead legally bought by a coalition of organized wealthy and connected liberals.
They were wrong about the votes being counted improperly, but they had reason not to believe the media, because the media, which is mostly left, lies.
And you've got another victory for people who want the media to go on with political agenda lying without consequences, just recently, in the Sarah Palin vs. New York Times Company. Congratulations. I wonder if that will apply to Joe Rogan?
I can't imagine riots due to a repeal or modification of AA. The people who benefit from AA tend to be middle class people with jobs, pensions and families. Those people don't riot unless they are destitute and they would be grandfathered into their current jobs. Rioting also would not change anything with court decisions. We had actual riots in 2020 and there was no subsequent civil war.
Quote from: mahagonny on February 16, 2022, 11:18:46 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 16, 2022, 11:05:03 AM
And yet it was the right that actually attempted a coup.
A small subset of them, and it was stopped by people appointed by republicans and elected by republican voters.
They believed the voting was rigged, which was not what happened, although in places it was certainly compromised more than the standard amount. The election itself was not stolen but instead legally bought by a coalition of organized wealthy and connected liberals.
They were wrong about the votes being counted improperly, but they had reason not to believe the media, because the media, which is mostly left, lies.
And you've got another victory for people who want the media to go on with political agenda lying without consequences, just recently, in the Sarah Palin vs. New York Times Company. Congratulations. I wonder if that will apply to Joe Rogan?
Your evidence is that the right attempted a coup, and that the establishment right has decided to whitewash the incident and accept the false narrative that motivated the coup.
But your conclusion is that the
left is more likely to start a civil war. Over... *checks notes* the repeal of affirmative action policies. Not even the gutting of the Voting Rights Act (or, indeed, the fact that the 2000 election
was actually stolen). Repealing affirmative action. Right.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 16, 2022, 11:30:42 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 16, 2022, 11:18:46 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 16, 2022, 11:05:03 AM
And yet it was the right that actually attempted a coup.
A small subset of them, and it was stopped by people appointed by republicans and elected by republican voters.
They believed the voting was rigged, which was not what happened, although in places it was certainly compromised more than the standard amount. The election itself was not stolen but instead legally bought by a coalition of organized wealthy and connected liberals.
They were wrong about the votes being counted improperly, but they had reason not to believe the media, because the media, which is mostly left, lies.
And you've got another victory for people who want the media to go on with political agenda lying without consequences, just recently, in the Sarah Palin vs. New York Times Company. Congratulations. I wonder if that will apply to Joe Rogan?
Your evidence is that the right attempted a coup, and that the establishment right has decided to whitewash the incident and accept the false narrative that motivated the coup.
But your conclusion is that the left is more likely to start a civil war. Over... *checks notes* the repeal of affirmative action policies. Not even the gutting of the Voting Rights Act (or, indeed, the fact that the 2000 election was actually stolen). Repealing affirmative action. Right.
What they could start, I expect, would be a 'mostly peaceful demonstration' in which a few cops get killed, and then the sissies will go home once they are faced with something that would actually take a real set of balls to oppose. The left starting a war and then losing it, unpleasant as it would be, might be better than the dystopian place we are in now. Wars do get things settled.
So which citizen perpetrated the largest single act of violence in the US in my life time?
Hint: his last name rhymes with that of the current winning Super Bowl coach, and he was definitely not on the left of the political spectrum.
Civil War? Not... yet.
A political party devolving into a protected oligarchy that outsources its ambitions through extremist propagandizing of its worker class? Yes.
Possibly true, that.
They need to keep the rowdy folks at a slow simmer for maximum effect.
They haven't got the control chops (maybe...yet?) to manage a full boil without getting severely burned themselves.
One hopes, anyway....
M.
Quote from: Aster on February 17, 2022, 05:34:11 AM
Civil War? Not... yet.
A political party devolving into a protected oligarchy that outsources its ambitions through extremist propagandizing of its worker class? Yes.
Replace "worker class" with "students" or "young people" and you can switch parties.
Every political party ever has (unfortunately) stirred up the grievances (both real and perceived) of some segment of the population that they think will advance their own agenda. When out of power, they do it more intensely.
It's *rare (if not basically unheard-of) for any party to tell any segment of its own supporters that the problems they perceive are something they're just going to have to learn to live with for the good of society.
*The exception being in times of war or natural disaster, when everyone feels themselves to be in more or less the same boat. But that only lasts a short time.