4 ms·

Is there any data to suggest whether public belief that a civil war is imminent is indicative of a civil war actually being imminent?

• lazide 4y ago
  It probably doesn't help? That said, in the '70s it was probably 80%+ I don't see an ACTUAL (declared) civil war happening. None of the participants actually could I think, nor would they benefit from taking anything. Would Texas try to actually take Washington DC? Nah. Could they? No chance. Would the Feds do anything but setup sanctions/blockades and wait for Texas to beg to come back if they tried to leave? Nah. They might arrest a few key leaders or 'leak' a bunch of embarrassing intel too, of course. Simmering 'fuck yous' and 'civil disobedience' I see building though, with the occasional unhinged terrorist, and a lot of folks haven't deal with conflict enough to see the difference between that and civil war.
  • stale2002 4y ago
    Well, the incorrect part of you analysis is implying that right leaning states would start the war here. Given the current state of upcoming election polls, local politics, and the supreme court, the right leaning states are going to get most of what they want. They have no reason to secede, when they are winning the current politics battles, and are likely to win future elections in the next few years.
    • amanaplanacanal 4y ago
      The talk of secession is from the right leaning states. If, say, Texas were to secede, I wouldn’t be totally surprised if the US were to invade, after all that’s how the last civil war started. On the other hand, maybe they would do nothing.
      • stale2002 4y ago
        > The talk of secession is from the right leaning states. There has been rhetoric from right leaning people, for decades on this,yes. But the point is, that from the actual on the ground political reality, the right is winning. They are winning in the courts, local/state power, and based on current voting polls, they are going to win in the upcoming federal elections. There is no need to secede if you simply control all the levers of government. And the recent facts are that the right is only going to get more power. Therefore, despite the rhetoric, right leaning places have no need to secede, when they can instead just take over the government the regular way.
    • lazide 4y ago
      I never said they would start the war, I’d say neither “side” seems to have any actual need or desire to start an actual shooting civil war, since there is no ground in dispute (or that it would help to dispute), or major economic/resource dispute. If someone ‘captures’ Washington DC, for instance, it would not help them one bit. No one seems to be in any position to try to leave either, usefully. There is a lot of complaining and grumbling, and ideological disagreements. Maybe there could be a ‘crusade’, but doesn’t seem likely right now. If we’re talking elections, that’s the opposite of civil war. Right now it just seems like an old bitter married couple bitching about each other and talking about how they want to split. Far cry from actually doing it, let alone paying the legal bills.
  • fatherzine 4y ago
    I wonder if this perspective is colored by the American Civil War experience. Run-of-the-mill civil war has nothing to do with traditional military objectives. Rather, it is a messy business where various factions viciously fight over turf, often times eliminating populations with (perceived) allegiances to other faction(s) from the territory they control. See Lebanon, Yugoslavia, ISIS, etc.
    • lazide 4y ago
      My perspective is more based on what faction would fight over someone else’s turf here? No one seems interested, in a physical space way, at least so far. Would the feds fight Texas over texas? Doesn’t seem like it. Would texas go to the Feds, or New York, or whatever, to fight to take it? Doesn’t seem like it. Seems more like everyone wants to lob angry messages at each other from over the border.
      • fatherzine 4y ago
        The classics: ethnic rifts, religious rifts, ideological rifts. A good old fashioned economic shock is all it takes.
        • lazide 4y ago
          Typically you’d need opposing groups to be in a shared physical space without enough room to stay away from each other comfortably though. Cities, for sure, and there were low level versions of this kind of unrest, though nothing that got too widespread. But where would the ‘civil war’ happen in this scenario now? Online? If so, hard to cause much actual blood here.
  • krapp 4y ago
    > Would the Feds do anything but setup sanctions/blockades and wait for Texas to beg to come back if they tried to leave? Nah. Texas represents two trillion dollars in revenue, billions of dollars in taxes, a big chunk of American agricultural, manufacturing and tech infrastructure, miles of coastline and ports and military assets like Fort Hood. The premise that the US would just let that go is laughable.
    • lazide 4y ago
      And Texas depends on the rest of the US even more. I’m not saying they’d let it go. I’d saying, they wouldn’t need to cross the border to make the impact felt of trying to leave.
  • chasd00 4y ago
    > Simmering 'fuck yous' and 'civil disobedience' I see building though, with the occasional unhinged terrorist this has been happening since i've been old enough to remember though. "unhinged terrorist" = unibomber, the OK city bombings, the list goes on. Fuck yous and civil disobedience are basically constant with some ebs and flows around election time and current events.
    • lazide 4y ago
      Yup, frequency will increase is all.