12 ms·

US ‘closer to civil war’ than most would like to believe, new book says

48 points by vanusa 5y ago

echelon 5y ago
No we're not. Division is being fostered by social media ("rage = engagement") and the news media through articles such as this. People lean center and are tired of the fringes. If both parties got rid of the extreme elements, everything would be boring again.
- 01acheru 5y ago
  > If both parties got rid of the extreme elements, everything would be boring again. I don’t agree neither disagree with the article, but that’s a big “if”.
- liuliu 5y ago
  > If both parties got rid of the extreme elements, everything would be boring again. This is the key isn't it? Do we observe anything happening on this end recently? What we observed in the last decades, is the opposite.
  - kadoban 5y ago
    It's not even the key, the premise is flawed. The Democrats are pretty much just trucking along like usual, while the Republicans are embracing the end of democracy itself.
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  While fundamentally true, I think this is an oversimplification. I don't think you need the majority of people to be "extreme elements" to have a low-grade civil war.
- sofixa 5y ago
  One of those extremes literally tried to stage a coup d'état, and is in the process of doing its best to stack the deck for the next elections. Social media or not, their intentions, and the support they get, is pretty clear, and the two-party model makes opposition hard. It's entirely plausible that next time they get farther in their attempts, which triggers an agressive response from people against that.
  - fennecfoxen 5y ago
    > literally tried to stage a coup They did indeed! However, the results were mostly just pathetic. The unfortunate thing is that the President himself tried to play along with it, and best chance for significant escalation would be if the President manages to be re-elected in three years' time — which is not the most likely outcome but is still actually distressingly credible — and does more to lay the groundwork during his term in office.
    - kadoban 5y ago
      > However, the results were mostly just pathetic. It was closer to working than you'd think. It looks pathetic until it works. > The unfortunate thing is that the President himself tried to play along with it That's generous wording.
      - fennecfoxen 5y ago
        I have doubts it was close to working! It was close to placing Congresspeople at risk of life and limb, and it was a little bit further from being a hostage situation. A standoff with the National Guard, or the military itself, following such a hostage-taking, would have been very unfortunate. But disrupting the continuity of government would take a good deal more than that. A real, non-sad coup attempt would have sent the military in there to support the crazies, or at the very least, a quasi-organized group of armed men who could set up some defensible position. Instead we saw mostly maniacs looting the speaker's podium. > That's generous wording. If you're assessing his intentions, yes, but while his act of "oh look I'm doing plausible deniability, I'm not organzing any coup" was weak, so was any organization he actually did. The risk is that next time people might learn from these mistakes. (The other risk is a counter-coup crackdown like Turkey, which cracks down on the opposition and purges them from both the public and private sphere, as enemies of the state. Our due-process is still a little too strong for that to work right now, fortunately, and any attempts to that end that may exist are pretty marginal.)
        kadoban 5y ago
- kadoban 5y ago
  One party attempted a coup and no organizers have yet even been charged with any crimes. If you allow the basic system of government to be attacked without repercussion, that's not going to have a peaceful end. Social media and "the news media" may be part of our issues, but they're not the whole of them.
  - all2 5y ago
    If by "attempted a coup" you mean "walked calmly into an otherwise empty building after police let them in", then yes. The whole thing is a joke once you dig into it, all propaganda to try and make people scared of each other. We even had elected leadership lying about being on premises when it happened (Cortez). "United we stand, divided we fall", and the goal of most media rhetoric is to divide. Don't trust the "it was a coup" rhetoric. Dig in, take a look at the footage of what happened at the capitol. Don't take the media's word for it.
    - ryan93 5y ago
      Some people in Jan 6 assaulted capital guard and chased people into private areas of Congress. But I don’t think they had any chance of overturning the election.
      - kadoban 5y ago
        All they needed to do, and what the plan was, was to disrupt the proceedings and get more time.
        ryan93 5y ago
        More time for what? They left quickly and peacefully when asked. Wasn’t much of a plan. definitely not evidence of a strong desire to do what it takes.
        kadoban 5y ago
        Their goal was to prevent the certification of the vote, and to pressure Pence to assist with that. They wanted to throw it back to the states, have them do more "review" or give different electors. If nobody can convincingly be said to have the required number of electoral votes, the US House decides, with each state getting one vote. > They left quickly and peacefully when asked Oh? Then what is anyone being charged with and convicted for exactly? They finally left vaguely once Trump asked, because he was forced into it, it hadn't worked, and public pressure had risen.
- klipklop 5y ago
  Agreed, most people are far more reasonable in person than social media would like us to believe/click on. I figure even 80% of the more "radical" people would be a lot more to center if they talked to real people instead of stuck in outrage loops designed to have them view as many ads as possible.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    The fact that people perceive polarization and extremism will cause rise to polarization and extremism.
  - chris11 5y ago
    Disagree, I think we are in an extremely dangerous situation. One party tried to stage a coup, and is still claiming the election was stolen. Just because the coupe failed doesn't mean we're safe. Polls show widespread distrust about American elections, and a significant portion of the Republican party believes Trump should be president. The coup was pathetic, but what would have happened if the riot had delayed the presidential election being certified? John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry helped cause the American civil war two years later. He and most of his raiders were quickly caught and executed. But the trial turned Brown into a martyr in the north and motivated the South to form the Confederacy. I think Brown's raid was a moral action, and the Jan 6th coup was an attack on American democracy. I'm not very confident that the justice system will hold the planners accountable, or that it just did short term damage to our democracy. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/09/15/poll-finds-most-americans-think-an-election-will-be-overturned-over-partisan-sour-grapes/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/09/15/poll-... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/24/republicans-2020-election-poll-trump-biden https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/24/republicans-... https://www.axios.com/axios-ipsos-poll-republicans-lose-trust-elections-52410b23-9513-453b-8a37-d140cae2d455.html https://www.axios.com/axios-ipsos-poll-republicans-lose-trus...
- kenjackson 5y ago
  Extremes are more pervasive now than ever. It would be great if we could just avoid the war part and just split. As a progressive I feel like I have no need to ever go to a conservative state and I’m sure conservatives feel the same way. Let them define the laws they want.
- snarf21 5y ago
  I agree we aren't close to civil war but it isn't as simple as saying 'get rid of extreme elements'. All "media" is specifically designed to foster faux outrage to sell more ads. When is the last time a headline wasn't worded as click-bait. As long as outrage is extremely profitable for Hatebook, Fox News, CNN and Twitter, these "fringes" aren't going anywhere.
- UncleOxidant 5y ago
  The belief that we're on the brink of civil war only makes things worse... "Once that idea takes hold, it has a force of its own. The demagogues warn that the other side is mobilizing. They are coming for us. Not only do we have to defend ourselves, but we have to deny them the advantage of making the first move. The logic of the preemptive strike sets in: Do it to them before they do it to you." [1] (in the context of the N Ireland troubles. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/america-civil-war-prophecies/620850/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/america...
olliej 5y ago
I suspect we aren’t, but at the same time a bunch of republicans did try to use force to interrupt the peaceful transition of power that was meant to be a defining characteristic of the United States.
- chroem- 5y ago
  This back and forth will continue to escalate into an actual civil war until both sides can come to terms with their misdeeds and meet at the bargaining table before the country is torn apart. The events you are referring to were inspired by violent attacks on the US capitol (as well as every major US city) only months prior.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Did you see the presentation Trump's chief of staff had to hand to Congress? The events OP is referring to were nothing less than a failed coup d'état. Diminishing it is only giving an excuse to the perpetrators, distract from their ongoing preparations to stack the system in their favour, and fuel their next try
    - chroem- 5y ago
      This is what I'm talking about: things will continue to get worse until we drop the "my side is blameless while the other side is literally <your choice of Stalin or Hitler>" charade. What happened was terrible, but months earlier demonstrators tried to force entry into the White House so they could execute a sitting president.
      - happytoexplain 5y ago
        While the fallacy you're describing is an apt description of 90% of political bitterness, it is effectively impossible to force people - even reasonable people who acknowledge the sins of both sides - to ignore the nigh-universal opinion that "one of them is worse". I honestly am not sure how to get around that, especially considering that it's almost certainly true by many metrics, regardless of "which side" it is, since it would be an amazing coincidence for both sides in any context to express goodness and evil in effectively equal amounts. The tendency to take binary sides on a gradient issue is just too strong - even people who see and acknowledge the gradient still effectively choose sides in most conversations. Edit: It's almost as if you have to let each side feel that they are correct that "the other side" is indeed worse, but also communicate to them that it doesn't matter in the big big picture, and pursuing any manifestation of that opinion is counterproductive.
sofixa 5y ago
It'd be interesting, from a neutral-ish, academic, historic, curiosity perspective, to see a civil war / revolution in a developed country with a modern industrialised military. The resultant mess can get extremely deadly and hard, if not impossible, to resolve. That being said, i do personally think a revolution in the US has been coming for quite some and is needed to fix the broken political system ( two party model, winner take all, gerrymandering, electoral college, appointed judges, mind boggling fetishisation of an obsolete document, remnants of slavery, to name just a few). I do sincerely hope it happens as bloodlessly as possible. (I'm currently listening to the Revolutions podcast, specifically about the Russian Revolution and resultant civil war, and i find it fascinating. Living in such historic moments ( like a pandemic) feels weird. You're there while history is being written, and heck, you might be an active participant! A blessing and a curse).
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  How modern and industrialized? Syria is a real country with MiGs and submarines.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    True, but i meant a country modern and industrialised on the level of the US or Western Europe. Drones, nuclear weapons, everything digital and stuff more so than MiGs and submarines ( the latter are of somewhat limited use in a civil war, bar denying the other part supplies from overseas)
    - notacoward 5y ago
      The idea that we're that different than Syria (or many other examples one could name) is just a form of exceptionalism.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      Turkish drones have seen wide use in Syria. I am not keeping up with the situation, but for instance: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/turkey-drones-libya-nagorno-karabakh/2020/11/29/d8c98b96-29de-11eb-9c21-3cc501d0981f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/turkey-dron... https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2020/03/02/idlib-onslaught-turkish-drones-artillery-and-f-16s-just-destroyed-over-100-armored-vehicles-in-syria-and-downed-two-jets/?sh=7f7305bf6cd3 https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2020/03/02/idli...
baybal2 5y ago
5 years ago, I started raising this topic. People said, "It can't happen here" 4 years later, they got an insurrection which was few hours away from something way more serious. The harder people want to believe into "It can't happen here," the more likely it is going to happen.
- ryan93 5y ago
  The argument for a civil war is an insurrection where 80% stood around then left after an hour? The people who stole stuff, broke stuff assaulted police absolutely deserve prosecution(I’m not some Jan 6 truther). Absurd to think civil war is likely because a bunch of uncoordinated idiots followed the crowd.
  - labster 5y ago
    Uncoordinated idiots following a crowd is exactly how civil uprisings start.
    - ryan93 5y ago
      I mean literally following a crowd into a capital.
  - happytoexplain 5y ago
    >uncoordinated idiots followed the crowd That's one of the most dangerous things in history.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    > Absurd to think civil war is likely because a bunch of uncoordinated idiots followed the crowd. Not a bunch of uncoordinated idiots, but multiple insubordinating military, and law enforcement units, with one general ready to subvert the primacy of civilian leadership. This is way more scary than "a bunch of uncoordinated idiots."
- ars 5y ago
  > they got an insurrection which was few hours away from something way more serious. From what? Even if they took over the building they would not have accomplished anything anyway. What are you thinking they would have accomplished in a few hours? Let's say for the sake of argument they decided to just let them be - no police move in, no military, just let them be in the building, what would have happened next?
jkubicek 5y ago
"closer to civil war than most would like to believe" is almost certainly true. "close to civil war" is probably not true at all
- more_corn 5y ago
  Jan 6 was a violent attack on congress in an attempt to stop ratification of a fair election. People died in the attack. The instigator remains free and is rallying support. A major party is backing him. That party is actively supporting the lie that the election was stolen, undermining confidence in our democracy in close to half of our voters. There will likely be more violence following the next election. How much closer to civil war will it get before you want to call it “close to civil war”?
  - rabuse 5y ago
    Would you send a large amount of cash through the U.S. postal service? Just curious.
badRNG 5y ago
I think the idea that we are in a unique time of civil strife is a myth. From the actual Civil War, to the militant labor movement, to the first red scare, to McCarthyism and the Civil Rights Movement, to the anti-Vietnam war movement, American civil life has been defined by conflict. Maybe social media allows conflict to be persistently on the top of people's minds. While in previous years one may have enjoyed the privilege of conflict not following you home, following you on vacation, and following you to the toilet. The barricades aren't in the street, they're in your Facebook groups or Twitter threads, and they need to be persistently manned in order to ensure territory isn't lost to the other side.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- karaterobot 5y ago
  But internet flame wars and real civil wars are not equivalent. Yes, there's always been some level of civil strife in America, just as there has in every country, at every moment in history. People argue, often angrily. But, it's not until there is actual, physical violence that it becomes a civil war. The question is, are we close to an organized faction taking up arms against the state? Anything short of that is interesting in its own way, sociologically and culturally, but it is not a civil war.
- notacoward 5y ago
  > American civil life has been defined by conflict. How many times has the Capitol been stormed? How many times has it been possible for a party representing a clear minority of citizens (however defined) to gain or hold on to power via gerrymandering, rejection of votes, or state-legislative nullification of results? When, in the past, has it been possible and to a large extent legal for corporations and hostile foreign powers to influence our elections in a significant way? At least some things that are happening now are unprecedented (even if we disagree on the exact set). Also, please note that the authors have actually studied what other changes act as precursors to civil war throughout the world. Perhaps we shouldn't put our own intuition above that, without at least considering the evidence they present.
karaterobot 5y ago
Call me cynical, but if you were a serious analyst who actually believed there was a reasonable chance of a civil war, your most responsible and effective move would not be to write a book and promote it. Not even in 1982, but certainly not in 2022. On the other hand, if you wanted to sell books, a good way to do it would be to tap into the current political tension by making a massive, attention-grabbing claim that can't be disproved for several years. Now, that would be hugely irresponsible, but I bet somebody out there would do it.
- more_corn 5y ago
  Oh? What would be a better strategy than calling out a public warning?
ShamelessC 5y ago
I don't think this article is going to lead to _any_ productive discussion here. That may just further support the articles case but yeah, I don't think the HN crew is going to solve this one. @vanusa may I ask why you felt this was a good idea to post? All we do is fight on the internet and it leads to very few productive conversations and may even be causing more friction between us.
- OnlineGladiator 5y ago
  > All we do is fight on the internet and it leads to very few productive conversations and may even be causing more friction between us. Then why are you here?
  - ShamelessC 5y ago
    I have left every social media except for here and GitHub. HN is on the chopping block but I'm still here because I do indeed find critical thinking and fruitful discussion here when it's not about politics/current events. I enjoy it still, to answer your question.
- boppo1 5y ago
  I dunno, theme of the thread seems to be pretty unanimous.
- vanusa 5y ago
  Because the article dealt with a serious academic analysis of the subject, not just some blogger's speculation. And as the events of Jan 6 showed, very clearly -- the issue at hand is far from abstract.
  - ShamelessC 5y ago
    Fair enough. I agree; but I honestly have no idea what positions to hold anymore when it comes to the massive cognitive dissonance of a population of people who have been tricked into thinking they _aren't_ involved with the death of democracy. They refuse to give up and admit what happened was horrifying that day, instead endlessly deferring to whataboutisms and obvious defense mechanisms. It's just not good discussion; and it feels inevitable lately. Everything feels so broken.
standardUser 5y ago
I'd say (more) violent civil conflict is a certainty at this point. Nearly the entire Republican party has reorganized around the concept of "if we win, good, if they win, they stole our country". That mindset has already led to violence and that mindset grows stronger every day. But an actual civil war, and the sacrifices and consequences that come with it, seems far fetched in light of the fact that we are still a comfortable place to live and most people have a lot to lose and little to gain by killing their neighbor.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > Nearly the entire Republican party has reorganized around the concept of "if we win, good, if they win, they stole our country". It's not like the other side is totally immune to this, either. There used to be a very real sentiment among Democrat-leaning politically-involved activists that the 2016 election had been "stolen" from them and that they would never acknowledge Trump as a legitimate president. You would even see echoes of this mindset in press outlets like the NY Times. Of course those folks didn't march on the Capitol like the other side did post-2020, and I'll gladly praise them for that choice.
  - standardUser 5y ago
    The difference between some Democrats reaction to the 2016 election and the widespread (and growing) Republican reaction to the 2020 election is about as wide as the Grand Canyon. Or a few Grand Canyons. Even attempting to compare them seems deeply disingenuous. Trump still hasn't even conceded.
  - orwin 5y ago
    I'm taking a far left example because i don't want my argumentation to fall under partisan lines. In the 70s, we lived in europe under the threat of the RAF [0], that was born out of a mix of misery, anger, violent radicality supported by the public and by some politics. Once the terrorist attacks and the violent actions against people stated, there was an unanimous condemnation from all political parties, including the communist party (at least in France), and from activist groups, including some that would now be called "antifa" (autodefense and protection groups against "ratonnades" and other urban occupation groups). With support from a part of the population, the RAF grew and convinced more and more people. Without a firm condemnation from the affiliated political party/activist groups, i'm not sure the group would've come down as easily. That's why i think that as long as people in power support the extremists, they will perform extreme actions. In this case, this is the Republican party job to crash down on violence against people (idc about broken windows in the House tbh). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction
UncleOxidant 5y ago
Good counterpoint in this recent article in The Atlantic [1]. "Yet my father’s fears [of civil war in Northern Ireland] were not fulfilled. There was a horrible, 30-year conflict that brought death to thousands and varying degrees of misery to millions. There was terrible cruelty and abysmal atrocity. There were decades of despair in which it seemed impossible that a polity that had imploded could ever be rebuilt. But the conflict never did rise to the level of civil war." "These prophecies have a way of being self-fulfilling." "However, the belief that there was going to be a civil war in Ireland made everything worse. Once that idea takes hold, it has a force of its own. The demagogues warn that the other side is mobilizing. They are coming for us. Not only do we have to defend ourselves, but we have to deny them the advantage of making the first move. The logic of the preemptive strike sets in: Do it to them before they do it to you." [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/america-civil-war-prophecies/620850/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/america...
boppo1 5y ago
I've seen similar headlines from NYT and WaPo. I think this is irresponsible journalism. I live in a very divided swing state and while some conversations are uncomfortable, no one wants war or thinks it's necessary. I only ever see news headlines and online-political-radicals (both left & right) making this claim. My left-leaning family is terrified that Trump is building a literal army to blitzkrieg through the country, and my right-leaning family believes Biden's tuesday announcement will be about covid camps and strict federal limitations on interstate travel. It's unclear even where the boundary for 'sides' would fall. Anti-racists vs everyone who isn't 100% onboard with race essentialism? Vaxxers vs non vaxxers? gun owners vs controllers? Fundamentalist Roe v Wade repealers against everyone else? Climate change denires vs green energy people? I don't think any of those align on exact, or even similar axes. It's just more & more fear-based "news". I can only assume it's because legacy outlets can hardly turn a buck these days. I can't figure out what the motivation would be otherwise.
- vanusa 5y ago
  My left-leaning family is terrified that Trump is building a literal army to blitzkrieg through the country, Which is perfectly understandable, given that he did, in fact, incite a literal army to blitzkrieg through the Capitol.
  - boppo1 5y ago
    Jan 6 was an clearly a legitimately attempted coup but > literal army to blitzkrieg is exaggerating to the point of offense.
    - vanusa 5y ago
  - chrismcb 5y ago
    He did not in fact incite anyone, not even a figurative army. Yes a group of people, armed with water bottles and cameras infiltrated the Capitol. Not a blitzkrieg and certainly not an army.
topspin 5y ago
Serious financial collapse is all it would take at this point. The minute the social safety net fails to keep people in food and heat we'll be there. The precondition is currency collapse. The traditional precedents of currency failure are already in place and the early symptoms are visible today. It could be averted and there is sufficient time to do so. Ultimately I doubt it will be averted. The quality of citizens in the US is declining and that can't corrected prior to failure.
- boppo1 5y ago
  How do we avert currency collapse without removing the safety net? All I can think of is rapidly reducing the military budget, but the consequences of that aren't as lovely as some people believe.
  - tarboreus 5y ago
    Hike rates. But the stock market will take a big hit, so it won't be done. Rates will sit at 0% and inflation will continue unchecked, or they will try hiking rates a little, the stock market will freak, and they'll give up. What needs to happen is a rate hike and eat the consequences. But our factota don't have the fortitude for that.
    - boppo1 5y ago
      I feel like the stock market will freak out at any significant rate hike and we'll have a depression on our hands.
  - topspin 5y ago
    > How do we avert currency collapse without removing the safety net? I don't think we do. We're in the coffin corner[1] where stability becomes impossible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aerodynamics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aerodynamics) > All I can think of is rapidly reducing the military budget Parts of the military budget are clearly safety net. Angry veterans are a classic source of violent protesters/insurrectionists/revolutionaries. Arguably most of the military budget is social safety net. Cutting it would blow up a lot of lives.
avocad 5y ago
...a member of a key CIA advisory panel has said. Surely it can be prevented by giving the CIA more power and money?!
jewayne 5y ago
From 2011-2015 we celebrated the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, and I read the vast majority (if not all) of the NY Times' excellent "Disunion" series on the war. What struck me most was that at the onset of fighting, virtually everyone on both sides could agree on one thing: there was not going to be a prolonged conflict, because the other side had no real reason to fight. To a Northerner, it seemed ridiculous that working-class Southerners would die so a handful of planters could keep slaves. To a Southerner, it seemed ridiculous that any white Northerner would die to free Black slaves that had legally been born into bondage. Paradoxically, these beliefs seemed to be instrumental in driving the war, as both sides believed the other would come to their senses and lay down arms any day now. I do believe this is a danger that we face today, where the belief that civil war is impossible keeps driving us toward it.
rich_sasha 5y ago
Interestingly of course, US population actually has access to guns, a large population who knows how to use them and ready supplies at home. Still, if in this day and age you picture a democratic militia fighting a Republican one, surely some kind of armed force would come in eventually. In the Civil War, I’m guessing there was no professional army, only two citizen militias working it out.

48 points by vanusa 5y ago

No we're not. Division is being fostered by social media ("rage = engagement") and the news media through articles such as this. People lean center and are tired of the fringes. If both parties got rid of the extreme elements, everything would be boring again.

01acheru 5y ago
> If both parties got rid of the extreme elements, everything would be boring again. I don’t agree neither disagree with the article, but that’s a big “if”.
liuliu 5y ago
> If both parties got rid of the extreme elements, everything would be boring again. This is the key isn't it? Do we observe anything happening on this end recently? What we observed in the last decades, is the opposite.
- kadoban 5y ago
  It's not even the key, the premise is flawed. The Democrats are pretty much just trucking along like usual, while the Republicans are embracing the end of democracy itself.
happytoexplain 5y ago
While fundamentally true, I think this is an oversimplification. I don't think you need the majority of people to be "extreme elements" to have a low-grade civil war.
sofixa 5y ago
One of those extremes literally tried to stage a coup d'état, and is in the process of doing its best to stack the deck for the next elections. Social media or not, their intentions, and the support they get, is pretty clear, and the two-party model makes opposition hard. It's entirely plausible that next time they get farther in their attempts, which triggers an agressive response from people against that.
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  > literally tried to stage a coup They did indeed! However, the results were mostly just pathetic. The unfortunate thing is that the President himself tried to play along with it, and best chance for significant escalation would be if the President manages to be re-elected in three years' time — which is not the most likely outcome but is still actually distressingly credible — and does more to lay the groundwork during his term in office.
  - kadoban 5y ago
    > However, the results were mostly just pathetic. It was closer to working than you'd think. It looks pathetic until it works. > The unfortunate thing is that the President himself tried to play along with it That's generous wording.
    - fennecfoxen 5y ago
      I have doubts it was close to working! It was close to placing Congresspeople at risk of life and limb, and it was a little bit further from being a hostage situation. A standoff with the National Guard, or the military itself, following such a hostage-taking, would have been very unfortunate. But disrupting the continuity of government would take a good deal more than that. A real, non-sad coup attempt would have sent the military in there to support the crazies, or at the very least, a quasi-organized group of armed men who could set up some defensible position. Instead we saw mostly maniacs looting the speaker's podium. > That's generous wording. If you're assessing his intentions, yes, but while his act of "oh look I'm doing plausible deniability, I'm not organzing any coup" was weak, so was any organization he actually did. The risk is that next time people might learn from these mistakes. (The other risk is a counter-coup crackdown like Turkey, which cracks down on the opposition and purges them from both the public and private sphere, as enemies of the state. Our due-process is still a little too strong for that to work right now, fortunately, and any attempts to that end that may exist are pretty marginal.)
      - kadoban 5y ago
kadoban 5y ago
One party attempted a coup and no organizers have yet even been charged with any crimes. If you allow the basic system of government to be attacked without repercussion, that's not going to have a peaceful end. Social media and "the news media" may be part of our issues, but they're not the whole of them.
- all2 5y ago
  If by "attempted a coup" you mean "walked calmly into an otherwise empty building after police let them in", then yes. The whole thing is a joke once you dig into it, all propaganda to try and make people scared of each other. We even had elected leadership lying about being on premises when it happened (Cortez). "United we stand, divided we fall", and the goal of most media rhetoric is to divide. Don't trust the "it was a coup" rhetoric. Dig in, take a look at the footage of what happened at the capitol. Don't take the media's word for it.
  - ryan93 5y ago
    Some people in Jan 6 assaulted capital guard and chased people into private areas of Congress. But I don’t think they had any chance of overturning the election.
    - kadoban 5y ago
      All they needed to do, and what the plan was, was to disrupt the proceedings and get more time.
      - ryan93 5y ago
        More time for what? They left quickly and peacefully when asked. Wasn’t much of a plan. definitely not evidence of a strong desire to do what it takes.
        kadoban 5y ago
        Their goal was to prevent the certification of the vote, and to pressure Pence to assist with that. They wanted to throw it back to the states, have them do more "review" or give different electors. If nobody can convincingly be said to have the required number of electoral votes, the US House decides, with each state getting one vote. > They left quickly and peacefully when asked Oh? Then what is anyone being charged with and convicted for exactly? They finally left vaguely once Trump asked, because he was forced into it, it hadn't worked, and public pressure had risen.
klipklop 5y ago
Agreed, most people are far more reasonable in person than social media would like us to believe/click on. I figure even 80% of the more "radical" people would be a lot more to center if they talked to real people instead of stuck in outrage loops designed to have them view as many ads as possible.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  The fact that people perceive polarization and extremism will cause rise to polarization and extremism.
- chris11 5y ago
  Disagree, I think we are in an extremely dangerous situation. One party tried to stage a coup, and is still claiming the election was stolen. Just because the coupe failed doesn't mean we're safe. Polls show widespread distrust about American elections, and a significant portion of the Republican party believes Trump should be president. The coup was pathetic, but what would have happened if the riot had delayed the presidential election being certified? John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry helped cause the American civil war two years later. He and most of his raiders were quickly caught and executed. But the trial turned Brown into a martyr in the north and motivated the South to form the Confederacy. I think Brown's raid was a moral action, and the Jan 6th coup was an attack on American democracy. I'm not very confident that the justice system will hold the planners accountable, or that it just did short term damage to our democracy. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/09/15/poll-finds-most-americans-think-an-election-will-be-overturned-over-partisan-sour-grapes/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/09/15/poll-... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/24/republicans-2020-election-poll-trump-biden https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/24/republicans-... https://www.axios.com/axios-ipsos-poll-republicans-lose-trust-elections-52410b23-9513-453b-8a37-d140cae2d455.html https://www.axios.com/axios-ipsos-poll-republicans-lose-trus...
kenjackson 5y ago
Extremes are more pervasive now than ever. It would be great if we could just avoid the war part and just split. As a progressive I feel like I have no need to ever go to a conservative state and I’m sure conservatives feel the same way. Let them define the laws they want.
snarf21 5y ago
I agree we aren't close to civil war but it isn't as simple as saying 'get rid of extreme elements'. All "media" is specifically designed to foster faux outrage to sell more ads. When is the last time a headline wasn't worded as click-bait. As long as outrage is extremely profitable for Hatebook, Fox News, CNN and Twitter, these "fringes" aren't going anywhere.
UncleOxidant 5y ago
The belief that we're on the brink of civil war only makes things worse... "Once that idea takes hold, it has a force of its own. The demagogues warn that the other side is mobilizing. They are coming for us. Not only do we have to defend ourselves, but we have to deny them the advantage of making the first move. The logic of the preemptive strike sets in: Do it to them before they do it to you." [1] (in the context of the N Ireland troubles. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/america-civil-war-prophecies/620850/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/america...

olliej 5y ago

I suspect we aren’t, but at the same time a bunch of republicans did try to use force to interrupt the peaceful transition of power that was meant to be a defining characteristic of the United States.

chroem- 5y ago
This back and forth will continue to escalate into an actual civil war until both sides can come to terms with their misdeeds and meet at the bargaining table before the country is torn apart. The events you are referring to were inspired by violent attacks on the US capitol (as well as every major US city) only months prior.
- sofixa 5y ago
  Did you see the presentation Trump's chief of staff had to hand to Congress? The events OP is referring to were nothing less than a failed coup d'état. Diminishing it is only giving an excuse to the perpetrators, distract from their ongoing preparations to stack the system in their favour, and fuel their next try
  - chroem- 5y ago
    This is what I'm talking about: things will continue to get worse until we drop the "my side is blameless while the other side is literally <your choice of Stalin or Hitler>" charade. What happened was terrible, but months earlier demonstrators tried to force entry into the White House so they could execute a sitting president.
    - happytoexplain 5y ago
      While the fallacy you're describing is an apt description of 90% of political bitterness, it is effectively impossible to force people - even reasonable people who acknowledge the sins of both sides - to ignore the nigh-universal opinion that "one of them is worse". I honestly am not sure how to get around that, especially considering that it's almost certainly true by many metrics, regardless of "which side" it is, since it would be an amazing coincidence for both sides in any context to express goodness and evil in effectively equal amounts. The tendency to take binary sides on a gradient issue is just too strong - even people who see and acknowledge the gradient still effectively choose sides in most conversations. Edit: It's almost as if you have to let each side feel that they are correct that "the other side" is indeed worse, but also communicate to them that it doesn't matter in the big big picture, and pursuing any manifestation of that opinion is counterproductive.

sofixa 5y ago

It'd be interesting, from a neutral-ish, academic, historic, curiosity perspective, to see a civil war / revolution in a developed country with a modern industrialised military. The resultant mess can get extremely deadly and hard, if not impossible, to resolve. That being said, i do personally think a revolution in the US has been coming for quite some and is needed to fix the broken political system ( two party model, winner take all, gerrymandering, electoral college, appointed judges, mind boggling fetishisation of an obsolete document, remnants of slavery, to name just a few). I do sincerely hope it happens as bloodlessly as possible. (I'm currently listening to the Revolutions podcast, specifically about the Russian Revolution and resultant civil war, and i find it fascinating. Living in such historic moments ( like a pandemic) feels weird. You're there while history is being written, and heck, you might be an active participant! A blessing and a curse).

fennecfoxen 5y ago
How modern and industrialized? Syria is a real country with MiGs and submarines.
- sofixa 5y ago
  True, but i meant a country modern and industrialised on the level of the US or Western Europe. Drones, nuclear weapons, everything digital and stuff more so than MiGs and submarines ( the latter are of somewhat limited use in a civil war, bar denying the other part supplies from overseas)
  - notacoward 5y ago
    The idea that we're that different than Syria (or many other examples one could name) is just a form of exceptionalism.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    Turkish drones have seen wide use in Syria. I am not keeping up with the situation, but for instance: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/turkey-drones-libya-nagorno-karabakh/2020/11/29/d8c98b96-29de-11eb-9c21-3cc501d0981f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/turkey-dron... https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2020/03/02/idlib-onslaught-turkish-drones-artillery-and-f-16s-just-destroyed-over-100-armored-vehicles-in-syria-and-downed-two-jets/?sh=7f7305bf6cd3 https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2020/03/02/idli...

baybal2 5y ago

5 years ago, I started raising this topic. People said, "It can't happen here" 4 years later, they got an insurrection which was few hours away from something way more serious. The harder people want to believe into "It can't happen here," the more likely it is going to happen.

ryan93 5y ago
The argument for a civil war is an insurrection where 80% stood around then left after an hour? The people who stole stuff, broke stuff assaulted police absolutely deserve prosecution(I’m not some Jan 6 truther). Absurd to think civil war is likely because a bunch of uncoordinated idiots followed the crowd.
- labster 5y ago
  Uncoordinated idiots following a crowd is exactly how civil uprisings start.
  - ryan93 5y ago
    I mean literally following a crowd into a capital.
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  >uncoordinated idiots followed the crowd That's one of the most dangerous things in history.
- baybal2 5y ago
  > Absurd to think civil war is likely because a bunch of uncoordinated idiots followed the crowd. Not a bunch of uncoordinated idiots, but multiple insubordinating military, and law enforcement units, with one general ready to subvert the primacy of civilian leadership. This is way more scary than "a bunch of uncoordinated idiots."
ars 5y ago
> they got an insurrection which was few hours away from something way more serious. From what? Even if they took over the building they would not have accomplished anything anyway. What are you thinking they would have accomplished in a few hours? Let's say for the sake of argument they decided to just let them be - no police move in, no military, just let them be in the building, what would have happened next?

jkubicek 5y ago

"closer to civil war than most would like to believe" is almost certainly true. "close to civil war" is probably not true at all

more_corn 5y ago
Jan 6 was a violent attack on congress in an attempt to stop ratification of a fair election. People died in the attack. The instigator remains free and is rallying support. A major party is backing him. That party is actively supporting the lie that the election was stolen, undermining confidence in our democracy in close to half of our voters. There will likely be more violence following the next election. How much closer to civil war will it get before you want to call it “close to civil war”?
- rabuse 5y ago
  Would you send a large amount of cash through the U.S. postal service? Just curious.

badRNG 5y ago

I think the idea that we are in a unique time of civil strife is a myth. From the actual Civil War, to the militant labor movement, to the first red scare, to McCarthyism and the Civil Rights Movement, to the anti-Vietnam war movement, American civil life has been defined by conflict. Maybe social media allows conflict to be persistently on the top of people's minds. While in previous years one may have enjoyed the privilege of conflict not following you home, following you on vacation, and following you to the toilet. The barricades aren't in the street, they're in your Facebook groups or Twitter threads, and they need to be persistently manned in order to ensure territory isn't lost to the other side.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
karaterobot 5y ago
But internet flame wars and real civil wars are not equivalent. Yes, there's always been some level of civil strife in America, just as there has in every country, at every moment in history. People argue, often angrily. But, it's not until there is actual, physical violence that it becomes a civil war. The question is, are we close to an organized faction taking up arms against the state? Anything short of that is interesting in its own way, sociologically and culturally, but it is not a civil war.
notacoward 5y ago
> American civil life has been defined by conflict. How many times has the Capitol been stormed? How many times has it been possible for a party representing a clear minority of citizens (however defined) to gain or hold on to power via gerrymandering, rejection of votes, or state-legislative nullification of results? When, in the past, has it been possible and to a large extent legal for corporations and hostile foreign powers to influence our elections in a significant way? At least some things that are happening now are unprecedented (even if we disagree on the exact set). Also, please note that the authors have actually studied what other changes act as precursors to civil war throughout the world. Perhaps we shouldn't put our own intuition above that, without at least considering the evidence they present.

karaterobot 5y ago

Call me cynical, but if you were a serious analyst who actually believed there was a reasonable chance of a civil war, your most responsible and effective move would not be to write a book and promote it. Not even in 1982, but certainly not in 2022. On the other hand, if you wanted to sell books, a good way to do it would be to tap into the current political tension by making a massive, attention-grabbing claim that can't be disproved for several years. Now, that would be hugely irresponsible, but I bet somebody out there would do it.

more_corn 5y ago
Oh? What would be a better strategy than calling out a public warning?

ShamelessC 5y ago

I don't think this article is going to lead to _any_ productive discussion here. That may just further support the articles case but yeah, I don't think the HN crew is going to solve this one. @vanusa may I ask why you felt this was a good idea to post? All we do is fight on the internet and it leads to very few productive conversations and may even be causing more friction between us.

OnlineGladiator 5y ago
> All we do is fight on the internet and it leads to very few productive conversations and may even be causing more friction between us. Then why are you here?
- ShamelessC 5y ago
  I have left every social media except for here and GitHub. HN is on the chopping block but I'm still here because I do indeed find critical thinking and fruitful discussion here when it's not about politics/current events. I enjoy it still, to answer your question.
boppo1 5y ago
I dunno, theme of the thread seems to be pretty unanimous.
vanusa 5y ago
Because the article dealt with a serious academic analysis of the subject, not just some blogger's speculation. And as the events of Jan 6 showed, very clearly -- the issue at hand is far from abstract.
- ShamelessC 5y ago
  Fair enough. I agree; but I honestly have no idea what positions to hold anymore when it comes to the massive cognitive dissonance of a population of people who have been tricked into thinking they _aren't_ involved with the death of democracy. They refuse to give up and admit what happened was horrifying that day, instead endlessly deferring to whataboutisms and obvious defense mechanisms. It's just not good discussion; and it feels inevitable lately. Everything feels so broken.

standardUser 5y ago

I'd say (more) violent civil conflict is a certainty at this point. Nearly the entire Republican party has reorganized around the concept of "if we win, good, if they win, they stole our country". That mindset has already led to violence and that mindset grows stronger every day. But an actual civil war, and the sacrifices and consequences that come with it, seems far fetched in light of the fact that we are still a comfortable place to live and most people have a lot to lose and little to gain by killing their neighbor.

zozbot234 5y ago
> Nearly the entire Republican party has reorganized around the concept of "if we win, good, if they win, they stole our country". It's not like the other side is totally immune to this, either. There used to be a very real sentiment among Democrat-leaning politically-involved activists that the 2016 election had been "stolen" from them and that they would never acknowledge Trump as a legitimate president. You would even see echoes of this mindset in press outlets like the NY Times. Of course those folks didn't march on the Capitol like the other side did post-2020, and I'll gladly praise them for that choice.
- standardUser 5y ago
  The difference between some Democrats reaction to the 2016 election and the widespread (and growing) Republican reaction to the 2020 election is about as wide as the Grand Canyon. Or a few Grand Canyons. Even attempting to compare them seems deeply disingenuous. Trump still hasn't even conceded.
- orwin 5y ago
  I'm taking a far left example because i don't want my argumentation to fall under partisan lines. In the 70s, we lived in europe under the threat of the RAF [0], that was born out of a mix of misery, anger, violent radicality supported by the public and by some politics. Once the terrorist attacks and the violent actions against people stated, there was an unanimous condemnation from all political parties, including the communist party (at least in France), and from activist groups, including some that would now be called "antifa" (autodefense and protection groups against "ratonnades" and other urban occupation groups). With support from a part of the population, the RAF grew and convinced more and more people. Without a firm condemnation from the affiliated political party/activist groups, i'm not sure the group would've come down as easily. That's why i think that as long as people in power support the extremists, they will perform extreme actions. In this case, this is the Republican party job to crash down on violence against people (idc about broken windows in the House tbh). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction

UncleOxidant 5y ago

Good counterpoint in this recent article in The Atlantic [1]. "Yet my father’s fears [of civil war in Northern Ireland] were not fulfilled. There was a horrible, 30-year conflict that brought death to thousands and varying degrees of misery to millions. There was terrible cruelty and abysmal atrocity. There were decades of despair in which it seemed impossible that a polity that had imploded could ever be rebuilt. But the conflict never did rise to the level of civil war." "These prophecies have a way of being self-fulfilling." "However, the belief that there was going to be a civil war in Ireland made everything worse. Once that idea takes hold, it has a force of its own. The demagogues warn that the other side is mobilizing. They are coming for us. Not only do we have to defend ourselves, but we have to deny them the advantage of making the first move. The logic of the preemptive strike sets in: Do it to them before they do it to you." [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/america-civil-war-prophecies/620850/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/america...

boppo1 5y ago

I've seen similar headlines from NYT and WaPo. I think this is irresponsible journalism. I live in a very divided swing state and while some conversations are uncomfortable, no one wants war or thinks it's necessary. I only ever see news headlines and online-political-radicals (both left & right) making this claim. My left-leaning family is terrified that Trump is building a literal army to blitzkrieg through the country, and my right-leaning family believes Biden's tuesday announcement will be about covid camps and strict federal limitations on interstate travel. It's unclear even where the boundary for 'sides' would fall. Anti-racists vs everyone who isn't 100% onboard with race essentialism? Vaxxers vs non vaxxers? gun owners vs controllers? Fundamentalist Roe v Wade repealers against everyone else? Climate change denires vs green energy people? I don't think any of those align on exact, or even similar axes. It's just more & more fear-based "news". I can only assume it's because legacy outlets can hardly turn a buck these days. I can't figure out what the motivation would be otherwise.

vanusa 5y ago
My left-leaning family is terrified that Trump is building a literal army to blitzkrieg through the country, Which is perfectly understandable, given that he did, in fact, incite a literal army to blitzkrieg through the Capitol.
- boppo1 5y ago
  Jan 6 was an clearly a legitimately attempted coup but > literal army to blitzkrieg is exaggerating to the point of offense.
  - vanusa 5y ago
- chrismcb 5y ago
  He did not in fact incite anyone, not even a figurative army. Yes a group of people, armed with water bottles and cameras infiltrated the Capitol. Not a blitzkrieg and certainly not an army.

topspin 5y ago

Serious financial collapse is all it would take at this point. The minute the social safety net fails to keep people in food and heat we'll be there. The precondition is currency collapse. The traditional precedents of currency failure are already in place and the early symptoms are visible today. It could be averted and there is sufficient time to do so. Ultimately I doubt it will be averted. The quality of citizens in the US is declining and that can't corrected prior to failure.

boppo1 5y ago
How do we avert currency collapse without removing the safety net? All I can think of is rapidly reducing the military budget, but the consequences of that aren't as lovely as some people believe.
- tarboreus 5y ago
  Hike rates. But the stock market will take a big hit, so it won't be done. Rates will sit at 0% and inflation will continue unchecked, or they will try hiking rates a little, the stock market will freak, and they'll give up. What needs to happen is a rate hike and eat the consequences. But our factota don't have the fortitude for that.
  - boppo1 5y ago
    I feel like the stock market will freak out at any significant rate hike and we'll have a depression on our hands.
- topspin 5y ago
  > How do we avert currency collapse without removing the safety net? I don't think we do. We're in the coffin corner[1] where stability becomes impossible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aerodynamics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aerodynamics) > All I can think of is rapidly reducing the military budget Parts of the military budget are clearly safety net. Angry veterans are a classic source of violent protesters/insurrectionists/revolutionaries. Arguably most of the military budget is social safety net. Cutting it would blow up a lot of lives.

avocad 5y ago

...a member of a key CIA advisory panel has said. Surely it can be prevented by giving the CIA more power and money?!

jewayne 5y ago

From 2011-2015 we celebrated the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, and I read the vast majority (if not all) of the NY Times' excellent "Disunion" series on the war. What struck me most was that at the onset of fighting, virtually everyone on both sides could agree on one thing: there was not going to be a prolonged conflict, because the other side had no real reason to fight. To a Northerner, it seemed ridiculous that working-class Southerners would die so a handful of planters could keep slaves. To a Southerner, it seemed ridiculous that any white Northerner would die to free Black slaves that had legally been born into bondage. Paradoxically, these beliefs seemed to be instrumental in driving the war, as both sides believed the other would come to their senses and lay down arms any day now. I do believe this is a danger that we face today, where the belief that civil war is impossible keeps driving us toward it.

rich_sasha 5y ago

Interestingly of course, US population actually has access to guns, a large population who knows how to use them and ready supplies at home. Still, if in this day and age you picture a democratic militia fighting a Republican one, surely some kind of armed force would come in eventually. In the Civil War, I’m guessing there was no professional army, only two citizen militias working it out.