Second Civil War
Over at the Smallest Minority, I found an interesting discussion about possibilities for a second American civil war. Sadly, the comment thingy there would not let me post my comment, and so you are perforce subjected to my thinking here. I try to lighten the burden, but it doesn't always work.
We discussed this not long ago on this very blog, in the comments somewhere, and I'm too lazy to dig it up. There's some interesting thinking in the post I linked, and it gives context to what I say below.
Despite the deep divisions in our soceity, over abortion and many other issues there really isn't much cause for civil war.
The reason is economic. In the first civil war, issues of states' rights and slavery were claimed as the motivating causes for the two sides to start slaughtering each other. However, for those causes to reach the point of bloodshed, they had to be supported by deep economic divisions as well. The proto industrial north v. the agrarian/slaveholding south. The West by and large joined the north, although not uniformly, witness bleeding Kansas. That economic division gave substance to the philosophical and religious differences.
Our divisions today are more geographically dispersed, and also there is no major economic divide that lines up along ideological divides. People on both sides of most ideological divides are living the same lifestyle as each other - or at least the same spread of lifestyles. Rich, poor, worker, industrialist whatever.
Not to say that this can't change, but unless it does, I'm pretty sure we'll muddle through. The wingnuts on both sides are largely (largely) isolated from the power centers of either party, and government is still from the center. No one except the wingnuts is even remotely pissed enough to think about armed rebellion.
I would think that we would need at least two of these three things for a real civil war: an opening economic divide that happened to line up along an existing or new serious ideological divide; or a new movement that powerfully motivates and gains followers while simultaneously scaring the bejeebus out of everyone else; or an honest to god coup, which leaves many with divided loyalties.
Economics, ideology, and wars of succession are the big three historical causes of civil war.
Barring a world wide depression and a spectacularly poor response to it, I don't thing we'll see the economy tanking dramatically enough, or changing enough to support the first probability. Communism might (barely) have been a force like that here a most of a century ago, but now, no chance. Islam has never really spread except by the sword, and I don't think that will happen here. It would have to be something new. It can always happen, and has often in the past - the thirty years' war in Germany, countless third world civil wars in the last century, and our own civil war. Our system, for all its flaws, is pretty good at preventing the last one, even when its poked real hard like four years ago. Not to say it couldn't, but it isn't necessarily enough.
And, as a side note, bleeding Kansas situations only happen when there is a general breakdown in civil order, like when there's a civil war going on. I don't think most grabastic leftist groups, tempted into terrorism, would last very long against our pretty formidible law enforcement agencies.
on
| § 8
§ 8 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Ironbear: Based on Kevin's
Ironbear: Based on Kevin's mentioning the issue, and Buckethead's use of it as an extension to another discussion here, I've formed an opinion; not a replacement opinion, but one on a topic I'd not considered seriously enough. I, too, have been watching Britain for the past 20 years (15, actually), and I see your point.
Color me "convinced that this is a valid issue", and thus convinced that there's a fight about it due to start sometime in the near future. The shape and depth of that fight, as well as its triggering events, are open to speculation.
I remain curious how best to fight it, or how best to avoid being the frog in the pot. I presume I'll find the answer when the time comes.
"Now" seems not to be the time, since everyone's focused either on meaningless shit from half a life ago or meaningful shit from today. Ipso fatso, most folks seem temporally deaf to this issue.
Perhaps after the election, we, as a country, might find an opportunity to focus on a tomorrow within a frame of reference that's not subsumed by concerns (real & imaginary) about the GWOT? I hope so, anyway.
p.s. Apropos eminent domain:
p.s. Apropos eminent domain: George">http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20040919.shtml]George Will in a column today. Ouch. But I guess we'll get a view of whether the government is ours or not, eh?
Kevin:
Kevin:
Good points, all - in no particular order: "In which party with their hands on the levers of power..."
Answer: Well, neither. But you knew that, and I believe it was part of your point.
Eminent domain is no more onerous now than ever, but your point, that it's abusive as all hell, is inarguable, and I won't argue. McCain/Feingold is also inarguably an example of the point you are trying to make, so I won't argue it either.
Which, as those of you scoring at home can tell, leaves me nothing to argue but my presumption that we, the people, are more capable than, say, the frog put into a pot of cold water and placed over a burner - I sincerely believe that there's a point where the water gets hot enough that we jump out, unlike the frog.
Will that be a revolution? Of some sort, yes. Will it be violent? I presume not. But it won't be a civil war, a point on which I (also) agree with you, so your point is made. Thanks.
Patton:
Patton:
Thank you for your comment, and if Buckethead doesn't mind, I'll use his forum for my response.
You note that "Governments (this or any other) can misinterpret law all the time" and that was my point. The difference being that some laws are more easily "misinterpreted" than others. It's not what's in the law, it's what it can be bent to justify that bothers me. The PA is what I consider to be merely the latest in a long line of abuseable laws. Look at what's being done with Eminent Domain lately, or the obvious First Amendment violation of the McCain/Feingold Campaign Reform law.
And tyranny won't be slammed down upon us in one fell swoop, it will remain incremental, but the rate will be accelerated - with the willing cooperation of the populace - under the threat of terrorism and mayhem on our own soil. Look at the crap we put up with now just so we can fly on commercial flights.
As to your assertion that the critical dividing line is between Big Government/Small Government or Fiscal Profligacy/Fiscal Responsibility, I have to ask you: in which party with their hands on the levers of power - that is, either the Democrats or Republicans, is there any of the latter? The Democrats are Big Government/Fiscal Profligacy, and the Republicans talk Slightly Less Big Governemnt/Slightly Less Profligacy while growing and spending like Democrats want to.
What you're describing is Governed vs. Government.
And that's Revolution, not Civil War.
I already know the answer to
I already know the answer to that. The only question to be considered is "How far can they go right now?"
I don't know, Patton. I hope
I don't know, Patton. I hope you're correct.
Still... I've been watching Britian for the last 20 years. What Kevin and I fear has been happening there, and the curve is accelerating. Ask anyone at Samizdata. Ask any non-socialist Brit.
At one time, and in the not too 'orribly distant past, today's Britian would have been unimaginable to the average citizen of The Empire. Just as it's unimaginable to a lot of us that it's a probability here without constant vigilance.
Could it happen here? Today's England could be tommorow's US, 20-30 years hence. Or sooner.
The worst thing that might happen is that we don't fight it, no matter how messy the cost of fighting would be.
I'll comment here, in hopes
I'll comment here, in hopes that Kevin gets pinged and responds if he so chooses - I hate using Haloscan comments on any topic about which there's more than 1000 characters to speak. Yet I'll still try to be brief:
I understand the distinction Kevin's tried to make, but am forced to disagree about the ease with which the country could stay in "protection mode" - getting there? Easy (picture grounding all air travel on 9/11). Staying there? Bloody hard, and I'm unable to conceive of a set of circumstances where it could ever occur here.
I was originally tempted to retort along the lines of "Oh, by 'tyranny', you must be referring to the Patriot Act", but after I read Kevin's piece, it seemed clear to me that he was being far more general than that, only leaning on the Act at the very end. Quite weakly, too (no offense). Which is good, because otherwise, my response would have been "Patriot Act, my ass!". It doesn't meet any of my criteria for tyranny, so I discount arguments that rely on that, much as I discount arguments that rely on leprechauns.
Governments (this or any other) can misinterpret law all the time, and the PA is a law like any other. The day that the protections against all legal misinterpretations (not just the PA) are hobbled, I'll pay attention to tyranny theories. Until then, I'll just read them and see what there is to learn.
Separately, I've seen Killian's piece (to which Kevin referred) and was unimpressed by the theories contained therein. The presumption that there's a slice of the left that's so mentally disturbed to imagine GW Bush as evil, and thus worthy of riots to try to reverse the will of the people, is a good basis for TV and print news stories, but I'm not sure how well it comports with reality.
The American people, I'd assert, aren't really that stupid.
Final point, and then I'll shut back up: Kevin's (admittedly non-exhaustive) list of dividing lines,
...omits what I think could be the real dividing line: Big Government vs. Small Government, or Fiscal Responsibility vs. Fiscal Profligacy. Yes, it's possible to shoehorn either of these on top of one of those he listed, but the fits aren't exact, and I think that a generalization is in order: Rational people like to know that they're not going to be bankrupted by their government. At some point, a clear majority of Americans seems likely to coalesce on the concept that what's yours is yours, what's mine is mine, and what's mine isn't yours, no matter what the government tries to say about matters. Why? Because, dammit, we're that smart.
I was afraid that the signal
I was afraid that the signal would get lost in the noise.
The purpose of the essay was to illustrate that civil war was not necessary as a precursor to tyranny. "A general breakdown in civil order" is all that would be necessary for our government, which you characterize as "centrist" and I characterize as "statist" to go into full-blown "protection" mode, which would be indistinguishable from tyranny. Actually, I don't think it would even require a general breakdown in civil order, just the perceived possibility of it.
I guess I'll wait and see if other readers get that point.