Will there be another US Civil War?

[TurkeysGhost]

Yeah. I'd argue that there are certain precincts and jurisdictions that are openly right wing supportive, for example Polk County FL, where the Sheriff, Grady Judd, openly supports Ron De Santris, and speaks at his rallies. There are also officers who are clearly supporters of white nationalism. There are even precincts in New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago which have officers who are active members of paramilitary groups such as the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters.

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/05/1052...ties-appear-on-purported-oath-keepers-rosters

But the idea that the whole of the police and its organizations and administrations nationwide are all far-right and radicalized is preposterous.
‎
‎

I never said "every" department, that would be quite silly.

Enough of them are though to make up an effective nation-wide network, should anyone charismatic enough on the right make an effort to do so.

 

[shemp]

I feel rather ambivalent about the whole thing. My heart is with the Union, but I look bitchin' in a gray uniform!

 

[Stacyhs]

American police, however, are openly radicalized and are ready and willing to be co-opted into some larger national political project. They are already out their with their whole bootlicking, police as first-class citizens above democratic control outlook. It's wild to me that Trump didn't seize on this opportunity, but he totally neglected this.

I'd sooner expect cops to be playing an active role in any civil conflict in this country than the military.

I never said "every" department, that would be quite silly.

Enough of them are though to make up an effective nation-wide network, should anyone charismatic enough on the right make an effort to do so.

No, you didn't specifically say "every" department but your wording certainly more than suggested that the US police are generally radicalized, Trump boot-licking extremists.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

No, you didn't specifically say "every" department but your wording certainly more than suggested that the US police are generally radicalized, Trump boot-licking extremists.

It's a huge problem:

Extremism in American Law Enforcement: Far Greater Transparency, Accountability Needed

https://www.adl.org/resources/report/extremism-american-law-enforcement-far-greater-transparency-accountability-needed

 

[Steve]

I feel rather ambivalent about the whole thing. My heart is with the Union, but I look bitchin' in a gray uniform!

Not to mention the sexy flag!

 

[Stacyhs]

It's a huge problem:




https://www.adl.org/resources/report/extremism-american-law-enforcement-far-greater-transparency-accountability-needed

A "huge" problem? From your link:

Using this set of strict criteria for the years 2010-2021, we developed a dataset of 76 instances in which members of law enforcement were identified as a member of – or showed overt support for – an established extremist group or movement. This included 73 unique cases (one incident per person) and three instances where an officer was hired by a different agency after the officer’s extremist associations were reported, or 73 individuals overall. Approximately 80% of this group are or were members of local law enforcement agencies.

In 11 years, they identified 73 individuals who were members of or supported extremist groups or movements.

There is no doubt there are more than that, but if that's all they could identify in eleven years, then I don't think it's quite to the point you suggested when you claimed, "American police, however, are openly radicalized and are ready and willing to be co-opted into some larger national political project."


Also of no doubt is that there are bullies, racists, misogynists, bigots, etc among the police, but that does not make them 'radicialized' anti-government extremists who would be "co-opted into some larger national political project."

You asked "What are the former doing about the latter?"

I suggest you do some research to answer that. It's not my job to do that for you.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Money runs the USA, and I'm pretty sure money would be lost in a Civil War. So it won't be allowed to happen. This is a nation of corporate interests, not principles. We'll be kept just fat and happy enough to be docile, and with just enough outrage to make us feel righteous without breaking much of a sweat or actually doing something. It's all theater at this point.

Rule of Acquisition 35: Peace is good for business.

Rule of Acquisition 34: War is good for business.

 

[theprestige]

Peace makes plenty.

People don't want plenty. They want to be right. And they want anyone they think is wrong to die in a fire.

You think you're right. You need popular support to do what you believe is right. What are you willing to do to get that popular support?

 

[Thermal]

Peace makes plenty.

People don't want plenty. They want to be right. And they want anyone they think is wrong to die in a fire.

They only want to be right casually, like in an argument. They won't sacrifice the plenty they don't even really know they have. J6ers made a loud, brash stink, but ended up wandering home in time for dinner and Netflix.

You think you're right. You need popular support to do what you believe is right. What are you willing to do to get that popular support?

Meh...maybe after amazon prime day. But then gotta get ready for Halloween, then a few weeks later is Thanksgiving and Black Friday. Don't want to miss out on the deals. Burning righteousness can hit the back of the line.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Trump notably did very little to actually co-opt the muscular arms of the state, namely the military and police, to his cause. That said, that doesn't mean the next American right wing demagogue would be similarly short-sighted.

As much as the US military has a right wing bias, it is harder to imagine them taking an active role in any coup or right wing takeover of government without years of deliberate cultivation. Their have their own culture, and while right wing, it is also quite small-c conservative in its outlook. That said, a President has tremendous authority to reconfigure the senior military leadership and could conceivably change the culture with some well placed lackeys.

American police, however, are openly radicalized and are ready and willing to be co-opted into some larger national political project. They are already out their with their whole bootlicking, police as first-class citizens above democratic control outlook. It's wild to me that Trump didn't seize on this opportunity, but he totally neglected this.

I'd sooner expect cops to be playing an active role in any civil conflict in this country than the military.

It wasn't all that surprising. A man as self-obsessed as T****y was never going to put in the effort needed to woo cops en masse.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The OP question was basically whether trump might start a civil war. Due to the gross incompetence and lack of ability to understand and care for the feelings of other people (yes, you need that to seriously screw them), I much doubt he will even come near.

A quite different question is if someone more competent person might manage to do it. I think the USA has neglected supporting and cultivating democracy in its population.

Hans

 

[Segnosaur]

Author Barbra F. Walters was once involved in a government task force which analyzed various civil wars. They examined dozens of conflicts to find any commonality in them (looking at factors like income inequality, racial disparity, etc.) They concluded that there were 2 factors that were most predictive of whether a country will end up in a civil war:

- Whether a country is an anocracy i.e. a partial or flawed democracy (as opposed to a full democracy or a dictatorship, where civil wars are less common).

- People join political parties not because of policies, but because of identity.

This is her TED talk...


At this point, the U.S. fits one of those criteria, and almost fits the other.

- They are no longer a 'full democracy'. In the democracy rankings by a research unit aligned with the Economist magazine, they were listed as a 'flawed democracy'. So they fit the first criteria (See: Wikipedia)

- Identity politics... Witness the use of racist dog-whistles used by Trump, and the way the MAGAchud respond. Look at the number of Republicans who vote against their own self interest. They may not completely be at the point where identity politics takes precedence, but they are rapidly getting there.

Based on that, the chance of a civil war is actually pretty high.

You have a large demographic who had maintained significant control for generations (i.e. the white men) who are slowly losing political power as demographics change and minorities gain more influence.

 

[Segnosaur]

Money runs the USA, and I'm pretty sure money would be lost in a Civil War. So it won't be allowed to happen. This is a nation of corporate interests, not principles.

I agree that corporations hold an excessive amount of power in the U.S., and that a civil war would harm those interests.

However, I think this is a case where those corporate interests tried to manipulate the system to their benefit by supporting the GOP, and like the Raptors in jurrasic park, things got out of their control. Companies were short sighted and went for short term profits, either not recognizing the potential risks that existed long-term if a civil war broke out, or thinking they could "pull back" at the last minute.

 

[Segnosaur]

On the one side, you have the gun toting fascist Maga crowd. But who's on the other side? So far it's been the police and the courts, and they haven't had much trouble counterbalancing the violence.

Two points:

- You said they "haven't had much trouble" counterbalancing the violence. But the number of domestic terror attacks was higher in 2020 and 2021 than it had been in over 2 decades. (See: CSIS)

- You said that "so far" the police haven't had trouble counterbalancing the violence. But that doesn't mean that there won't be an issue in the near future, as violence becomes more common

So I don't get who the opposing army is supposed to be. Antifa? Random liberals? Are extremist Democrats suddenly going to rise up with their guns and take on the Maga army?

I don't get the scenario people are picturing.

It will likely be the more violent right-wing militias (and their MAGAchud supporters) targeting government institutions and/or people they see as "left wing".

You seem to think it won't be an issue because "Police have handled it so far". It seems we differ on our perception of the cop's ability to handle this sort of thing.

 

[Segnosaur]

They are not only fractured as groups

I don't think that's all that relevant that a potential force that might cause a civil war is fractured. After all, most people would consider the Iraq conflict of 2006-2008 to be a 'civil war', yet there was no cohesive group representing the "rebels"... instead you had multiple individual sects/organizations (Mahdi army, Al Quaeda in Iraq, Iraqi ba'ath party, etc.), with various goals, but all of which used similar tactics... cause chaos and hope to

there is no territory for them to claim in any significant amount.

I don't think that's all that relevant either.

You can have a civil war where the goal is not 'capture this territory' but 'push our ideology on to the population'.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Two points:

- You said they "haven't had much trouble" counterbalancing the violence. But the number of domestic terror attacks was higher in 2020 and 2021 than it had been in over 2 decades. (See: CSIS)

- You said that "so far" the police haven't had trouble counterbalancing the violence. But that doesn't mean that there won't be an issue in the near future, as violence becomes more common

It will likely be the more violent right-wing militias (and their MAGAchud supporters) targeting government institutions and/or people they see as "left wing".

You seem to think it won't be an issue because "Police have handled it so far". It seems we differ on our perception of the cop's ability to handle this sort of thing.

I appreciate these points, and especially your previous post re: Barbra F. Walters. Honestly I'm a little ambivalent about a civil war. I feel at this point, though, that only a portion of one side has lost its sense of democracy, and gone off the far end of identity politics. Is that a faction needing to be contained, or an incipient army needing an opposing army to respond? I'm not yet convinced of the latter, though I admit I can't discount it.

 

[Segnosaur]

Honestly I'm a little ambivalent about a civil war. I feel at this point, though, that only a portion of one side has lost its sense of democracy, and gone off the far end of identity politics.

True, it does seem that those rejecting democracy tend to be supporters of the right wing. But I don't think you need "both sides" to reject democracy to end up in a civil war.

Remember, the Iraq insurgency. Those fighting the Iraq government were not being 'crushed' by anti-democracy forces. They were often former supporters of Saddam who didn't like seeing their power decline. Their opposition was the government, who was fighting to keep democracy.

Is that a faction needing to be contained, or an incipient army needing an opposing army to respond?

How do you differentiate between those 2 situations? Is there a clear dividing line or are there shades of grey in there? And how do you define 'opposing army'? (Do you need to call in the U.S. military for it to be called a 'civil war' or is it enough that you have to greatly increase police presence.)

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It wasn't all that surprising. A man as self-obsessed as T****y was never going to put in the effort needed to woo cops en masse.

Not much of a long term planner, that much is clear. Outside a few pet issues he cared about, his attention span seemed to be very short.

 

[Segnosaur]

With the Jan 6th prosecutions, the DOJ put the Fear of Prison into the militant movements and made it clear that there is no such thing as safety in numbers: you will be caught on camera, and you will go to prison.

Perhaps some may be deterred by "fear of prison". But then you sill have to deal with:
- People who still think "they won't be caught", and perhaps use the Jan 6 prosecutions as guidelines of what not to do, such as "maybe I should do better to hide my identity". (Remember, the Jan6 terrorist attacks was probably unique in the amount of coverage that was given to the situation. I suspect most terror attacks in the future will be against "softer" targets.)
- People who think "even if I get caught, once my side is in power I'll be released and treated like a hero".
- People who look at the relatively light sentences given to some of the terrorists and think "its no big deal if I get caught"
- People who are willing to martyr themselves for the cause

Most militia type groups assume they have informants in their midst, and they are probably right.

I am sure they do have informants involved in many of the right-wing terror groups. But that may not matter in the case of:
- Lone wolf attacks (or people working independently or in small isolated groups). Example: See McVey, Timothy
- If the federal government is under the control of someone who works to minimize the problem. (Remember, when Stubby McBonespurs became president, he ended some of the programs that were meant to deal with right-wing extremist violence.)
- If the level of violence rises to the point that even with informants, law enforcement cannot deal with all the cases

Informants are not perfect. A terrorist group that has sought to operate as small 'cells' may at least be partly immune. And those dealing with potential acts of terrorism have to act appropriately when they do get information. (There was plenty of warning that SOMETHING would happen on January 6, but the government did not plan for it very well.)

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

True, it does seem that those rejecting democracy tend to be supporters of the right wing. But I don't think you need "both sides" to reject democracy to end up in a civil war.

True, I agree.

How do you differentiate between those 2 situations? Is there a clear dividing line or are there shades of grey in there? And how do you define 'opposing army'? (Do you need to call in the U.S. military for it to be called a 'civil war' or is it enough that you have to greatly increase police presence.)

Yes, those are the very questions I'm wrestling with. I think they're legitimate, and I think they get to the heart of my ambivalence.

I started a thread a while back asking whether the GOP is in a cycle or a spiral. Are we at a nadir, and all it takes is a "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" to turn the tide? Or is the GOP in a perpetual downward descent from which it can't recover? I don't know the answer, but I admit a civil war in the latter case is hard to rule out.