Will there be another US Civil War?

Segnosaur said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who is going to lead this 'civil war'? You have Trump but all he does is egg on crowds at rallies and online. Is he gathering up this army? Are all these rag-tag militia wannabes plotting this civil war? What are they going to take over, another wildlife refuge and drink up their beer then give up?

I get it, yes there are going to be isolated attacks. It sucks. But just because half the country voted for Trump in two elections doesn't mean half the country is going to take up arms to fight a civil war.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Who is going to lead this 'civil war'? You have Trump but all he does is egg on crowds at rallies and online. Is he gathering up this army? Are all these rag-tag militia wannabes plotting this civil war? What are they going to take over, another wildlife refuge and drink up their beer then give up?

I get it, yes there are going to be isolated attacks. It sucks. But just because half the country voted for Trump in two elections doesn't mean half the country is going to take up arms to fight a civil war.
Click to expand...

That's the thing. They're literally dogs chasing cars. They can't actually win anything because they don't know what the **** they are doing. All they can effectively do is piddle on the rugs and chew up newspapers till the pound rounds them up. They are not a cohesive force to be reckoned with.
 
Segnosaur said:
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

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'.
Click to expand...
You are comparing Iraq to the US? Are you kidding?

Compare these 3 groups as examples: Mahdi army, Al Quaeda in Iraq, Iraqi ba'ath party with the Boogaloo Boys, Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. How poorly informed a person would have to be to believe these groups are comparable in size, spread and organization.

And how are they going to push their ideology on the population? Set off a few bombs, blow up a power station? Try to take over the Capital Building again?

Spell it out, let's hear an example of a plan rather than these vague assertions.
 
Thermal said:
That's the thing. They're literally dogs chasing cars. They can't actually win anything because they don't know what the **** they are doing. All they can effectively do is piddle on the rugs and chew up newspapers till the pound rounds them up. They are not a cohesive force to be reckoned with.
Click to expand...

Now this is an apt analogy.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You are comparing Iraq to the US? Are you kidding?

Compare these 3 groups as examples: Mahdi army, Al Quaeda in Iraq, Iraqi ba'ath party with the Boogaloo Boys, Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. How poorly informed a person would have to be to believe these groups are comparable in size, spread and organization.

And how are they going to push their ideology on the population? Set off a few bombs, blow up a power station? Try to take over the Capital Building again?

Spell it out, let's hear an example of a plan rather than these vague assertions.
Click to expand...

With few exceptions the lives of the right wing mob in the USA is waaaaay to frickin comfortable to risk death or a lengthy prison sentence. Jan 11 trials and sentences have shown that if you "**** around, you might find out".

They're gonna go get in their $80k pickup, drive to the liquor store for their $40 bottle of whisky, put their feet up in their air conn'd living room, and watch Hannity bitch about how tough WASP's have it on their 65" LED, and bitch about it on Xitter or whatever. With very very few exceptions they aren't gonna go get themselves killed.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Who is going to lead this 'civil war'? You have Trump but all he does is egg on crowds at rallies and online. Is he gathering up this army?
Click to expand...
Why exactly do you need a central organizer to 'lead' the civil war?

There are plenty of modern civil wars where multiple factions (many with conflicting goals and plans) are all engaged in staging various attacks. (The groups do not work together but they all still contribute to the chaos.)
Are all these rag-tag militia wannabes plotting this civil war? What are they going to take over, another wildlife refuge and drink up their beer then give up?
Click to expand...
Once again... why are you assuming that the goal of the militia wannabees will involve taking and holding territory?

They (meaning the right wing militia groups) are interested in control and/or forcing their ideology on on the rest of the population. To do that they don't need to take over anything.
I get it, yes there are going to be isolated attacks. It sucks. But just because half the country voted for Trump in two elections doesn't mean half the country is going to take up arms to fight a civil war.
Click to expand...
I don't think you need "half the country" to take up arms to make it a civil war. Timothy McVey managed to kill over a hundred people, and his plan involved just a small handful of people.

I wouldn't expect 10s of millions of MAGAchud to take up arms. What I would expect is maybe a few thousand might, with the MAGAchud cheering them on from the sidelines. I think that would cause enough chaos and violence to be classified as a 'civil war'.

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.)...
Click to expand...
You are comparing Iraq to the US? Are you kidding?

Compare these 3 groups as examples: Mahdi army, Al Quaeda in Iraq, Iraqi ba'ath party with the Boogaloo Boys, Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. How poorly informed a person would have to be to believe these groups are comparable in size, spread and organization.
Click to expand...
First of all, I brought up the Iraqi insurgency as an example of how you can have a civil war where there is no clear single leader on behalf of the terrorists.

I never claimed that the Oath Keepers/Proud boys/etc. were comparable in size to various Iraqi insurgent groups NOW. But then I never claimed that the U.S. was in a civil war NOW. Terrorist groups like the Oath Keepers/Proud boys are relatively small now... the risk is that they will grown in size and influence over time, as demographics shift and they see their political power decrease.

I guess that's the problem... people like myself point out that there is a real risk of civil war in the FUTURE. But then naysayers try to say "how can it be when you don't CURRENTLY have all this stuff happening?" Well, no, you don't have more people joining the oath keepers/proud boys/etc. But that's because the conditions for a civil war are not there yet, but the U.S. is HEADING there.
And how are they going to push their ideology on the population? Set off a few bombs, blow up a power station? Try to take over the Capital Building again?
Click to expand...
Why did McVey and company decide to blow up a government building? Why did Terrorist attack the capitol on Jan 6, despite their plans making absolutely no sense? Did the unabomber have a chance at forcing people to abandon modern technology like he demanded in his manifesto?

None of the people involved in these attacks had a chance at accomplishing any goals that they wanted. But they still decided try.
What various terrorists can do in achieving their goals is less important than what they THINK they can do.

So yes, they will set off bombs, perhaps attack power stations or government buildings. They will not accomplish any meaningful change, but that will not stop them from trying, because they are convinced in their mind that they are somehow "right". And all the time they will pat themselves on the back and boast to their fellow terrorists how they are "the voice of freedumb".
 
lobosrul5 said:
With few exceptions the lives of the right wing mob in the USA is waaaaay to frickin comfortable to risk death or a lengthy prison sentence. Jan 11 trials and sentences have shown that if you "**** around, you might find out".

They're gonna go get in their $80k pickup, drive to the liquor store for their $40 bottle of whisky, put their feet up in their air conn'd living room, and watch Hannity bitch about how tough WASP's have it on their 65" LED, and bitch about it on Xitter or whatever. With very very few exceptions they aren't gonna go get themselves killed.
Click to expand...

Especially since these are the same people who crap themselves in terror when someone rings their doorbell or pulls into their driveway by mistake, and has to fire volleys of bullets because they're certain they're in utmost peril.
 
lobosrul5 said:
With few exceptions the lives of the right wing mob in the USA is waaaaay to frickin comfortable to risk death or a lengthy prison sentence.
Click to expand...
Please define "few exceptions".

Roughly 70 million people voted for Stubby McBonespurs in 2020. Even if less than 0.1% of them are willing to engage in violence to fight the "evil commie socialist democrats", you are still talking about potentially thousands of people who are willing to kill for the cause.

Also, even if most MAGAchud won't directly engage in violence, they can support the right wingers in a civil war in other ways... donating money to various far-right causes, voting for politicians expressing support for the terrorists, etc.
Jan 11 trials and sentences have shown that if you "**** around, you might find out".
Click to expand...
Many of the individuals incarcerated for the Jan 6 terrorist attacks have expressed a complete lack of remorse after their trial. Others seem to have gotten what I believe is a very lenient sentence. (Getting charged for "parading in a government building" isn't necessarily that much of a deterrent for a terrorist.) Many will also hold out hope that they can engage in violence and then get pardoned by the next republican president.

One trait that many criminals share... they often think "they won't be caught". Seeing the Q-anon shaman get jailed probably makes them think "maybe I won't dress like a buffalo next time I engage in terrorist activities" rather than "Maybe I won't engage in violence at all".

The fact that crime results in jail time is a pretty well known fact. Yet it hasn't stopped all criminal activity. Why would the MAGAchud be any more willing to ignore the "crime=jail" link than any other criminal?
 
No. There may be a long period of political unrest and outbreaks of violence though.

These occur way more often than "war" as we imagine. At worst I imagine Sri Lanka in the 80s, India in the second half of 20th century, maybe the Years of Lead in post-war Italy featuring left vs right terrorism.

Liberals and socialists need to arm up!
 
Venom said:
No. There may be a long period of political unrest and outbreaks of violence though.
Click to expand...
How is a "long period of political unrest/outbreaks of violence" different from a civil war?
These occur way more often than "war" as we imagine. At worst I imagine Sri Lanka in the 80s, India in the second half of 20th century, maybe the Years of Lead in post-war Italy featuring left vs right terrorism.
Click to expand...
According to Wikipedia, the Sri Lanka conflict was a "civil war".

See: Wikipedia
 
Segnosaur said:
How is a "long period of political unrest/outbreaks of violence" different from a civil war?
Click to expand...

Scale. If there are a few violent scuffles now and again (like with the far right in the UK in the 1970s) but there isn't a real threat to the government or general law and order then it isn't a civil war IMO
 
MRC_Hans said:
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
Click to expand...

If there is a second civil war, it will most likely start with state level leaderships, just as with the first one.

Though I don't theink it will come from the traitor states this time round. They're too aware that monetarily they're wholly dependent on the more economically successful blue states. The mid-western states might. Their leaderships are idiotic enough to believe a few empty states with more sheep than people would resist the biggest army in the world.
 
I've had MAGA's try to tell me that they are the ones with the guns. So naive. :) Who are they going to shoot at, that will not return fire? Other than school children that is.
 
War, no, not an all out civil war. I could see an increase in small events like the wildlife refuge take over in Oregon in 2016. There aren't enough right-wing extremists willing to take up arms in anyone place to have a war. In the January 2021 insurrection, the enemy came from all over the place. Crucially, they did not bring guns because they knew the police and National Guard would return fire.

There won't be peace negotiations or honorable surrenders in the event of an armed insurrection in the US. There will be lots of return fire and after the fighting, years of prosecutions. It's not 1865 and you can't just go back to the farm.
 
Last edited:
Jordan as Speaker might move us a bit closer. I can see him trying to stop the certification of BIden if BIden wins in 2024.
 
All pols are corrupt thieves. The creation of a new government is only of interest to a set of thieves who will now have their own new domain.

Blue states? Nope. They already win there stuff, and can get back to business.

Red states? Nope. They already win there stuff, and can get back to business.

Members of Congress? Nope, and it's easier to hide in a double-sized budget.

Presidents? Maybe. If he looks like a hero for attacking the demonic enemy.

That's it! Now let's get back to calling our own opposition demonic enemies, from the tumescence-backed certainty of our disasterbation.
 
Craig4 said:
War, no, not an all out civil war. I could see an increase in small events like the wildlife refuge take over in Oregon in 2016. There aren't enough right-wing extremists willing to take up arms in anyone place to have a war.
Click to expand...
As I pointed out... ~70 million people voted for Trump in 2020, and the majority of those people still think the election was stolen. If even 0.1% of them decide to engage in some sort of violence, you are potentially talking thousands of terrorists.

In the January 2021 insurrection, the enemy came from all over the place. Crucially, they did not bring guns because they knew the police and National Guard would return fire.
Click to expand...
On the other hand:
- The capital was probably seen as a hardened target, with police on site. Any sort of terrorist uprising will probably target softer targets... democratic party offices, general government buildings, etc. Locations that do not have a lot of defenses.
- Nobody (at least I don't think) is saying that the U.S. is in a civil war NOW. We are arguing that it is heading in that direction and could find it in a civil war in the future. As such, the Jan 6 terrorist attacks are not a perfect predictor of what would happen in a civil war. See what happens in a decade or so, when demographics have changed and white males are butt-hurt because they no longer run the country.

There won't be peace negotiations or honorable surrenders in the event of an armed insurrection in the US. There will be lots of return fire and after the fighting, years of prosecutions. It's not 1865 and you can't just go back to the farm.
Click to expand...
Unless of course the republicans ever regain the presidency in which case its "Pardon-palooza".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom