True civil war is a nonstarter for all the reasons you identified, most especially geography.
However, the federal government is completely sclerotic and getting worse. At some point, a red state (or a few of them) will say "we've had enough". Today, a federal judge in Austin ruled that Gov Abbot has to remove his border barrier. What if Abbot simply refuses -- "let's see them enforce it" style. What happens when the Army Corp of Engineers goes to remove the barriers and the Texas National Guard refuses to allow it? And that's just one of many examples. We could have had something like that with the states that legalized marijuana 10 years ago, but the feds wisely decided not to go to the wall over it. The Left will go to the wall over immigration and most of the culture war.
Secondly, what happens if Trump actually manages to win 2024? Unlikely, I know. But the Democratic Party has spent 7 years convincing themselves that Trump is Hitler, and you CAN NOT turn over power to Hitler, even if he does win an election. Would the Democratic Party peacefully transfer power back to Donald Trump? If the leadership decides to, how will they talk their armed wing (that's what antifa actually is) off the ceiling? I don't know. I don't think they can.
The long-term solution is federalism, a return to "live and let live" on a wide variety of issues. I believe the Right could get there. It would be hard on LGBT and abortion, but there's a strong states rights and limited government tradition among conservatives. The Left has a harder time. Progressivism believes they're pursuing the "best practices" to run society, a universalism that makes any return to "live and let live" very hard.
Nancy Pelosi and the entire Democratic leadership kneels in the House Rotunda in the name of "social justice" while antifa goons are burning down buildings (sometimes with people in them) in the name of social justice. The future Vice President of the United States raises bail money for said antifa goons. When they are finally brought to trial, most charges are dismissed by Democratic D.A.'s. Those that are found guilty are generally given very light or suspended sentences.
Whether it's actual coordination or just ideological commonality, the effect is the same. An armed group escapes justice because its actions are useful to the political party currently in power. That's an "armed wing".
You have to substantiate that, and I’d genuinely be thrilled if you have something, because I’m racking my brain trying to figure out how you’ve arrived at that reasoning other than Vibes.
Most arrests during 2020 riots were NOT of antifa folks. You are arguing that prosecutors are sparing them, but if most folks being arrested aren’t even antifa folks it’s just Vibes to say so. Police arrest folks, not leftist DAs, and I don’t think a cop’s gonna be like “oooop can’t touch this guy in black bloc”, if anything, it seems reasonable that the opposite would be happening.
What you are claiming is happening is definitely an area that could be, and probably has been, researched. Please share, because I’m struggling to find shit other than Vibes.
DAs were more lenient than they should’ve been in Portland and Seattle, sure, but to be frank, PPA and PPB really should be gutted from the inside out. It’s pretty hard to blame folks for raging against the police union founded by a member of Der Bund that has gotten off officers for leaving sacks of dead raccoons on the stoops of black businesspeople for being too uppity.
It's a biased source, but so are all of them on this subject. It also includes only federal charges, which skews the BLM / ANTIFA numbers considerable. But it is a decent starting point for you. I would submit the Rittenhouse prosecution is probably example #1 of political agenda skewing prosecutorial discretion. Also lookin the sentences of the 2 lawyers in NY who firebombed a cop car. News stories about these injustices are available, but you won't find them on CNN.
There have been numerous DAs refusing to prosecute rioters (even regular crimes, but especially rioters.) Your comment that "DAs were more lenient than they should’ve been in Portland and Seattle" tacitly admits that you are aware of this, but I'm unclear why you think it is confined to Seattle and Portland.
In the end, if you really believe there aren't a considerable number of progressives willing to use violence to force society to accept their policy positions, convincing you otherwise at this point is above my paygrade.
Rodney, you asked me to demonstrate why I call antifa the "armed wing of the Democratic party". I did. I gave you specific examples both of ideological conformity between senior Democratic leadership and BLM/antifa's stated aims and my belief that there was disparate justice based on ideology. When you asked for evidence, I gave you a summary and told you honestly that I considered the source biased.
Fundamentally, I'm not in the "let's debate January 6th" world. I do not believe J6 rioters have been treated comparably to BLM rioters. Measured by any objective standard of lives or damage, the latter were far more serious. I respect that for many liberals, despite vastly less violence or damage, January 6th was subjectively far worse. I felt that way at the time too, but as the months and years have dragged on, as more surveillance video has emerged, increasingly, I believe J6 was blown hugely out of proportion by people who find it politically useful, and who minimize the BLM / antifa riots for the same reason. The differences in treatment of similar conduct are so egregious that I can not simply call it ideological blindness (which we all have for our own side) and must conclude it be purposeful: the intentional use of law to hurt ones' political enemies.
Perhaps you think that's OK. There's a large pool of liberals who certainly appear to believe that Donald Trump and his voters represent such an emergency that all norms and standards and restrictions on power must be tossed out the window to "get Trump!" Hence my comment about the Democrats needing a way to pull their activists off the ceiling. Because such an attitude is extremely dangerous. Once adopted by one party, it will increasingly be adopted by the other, and everyone then loses.
In a functional democracy, both parties must see the other as legitimate contenders to rule. What started with "not my President" is dangerously close to degenerating into a von Clausewitz-ian state.
I only got to the first bullet point; that’s not even just a biased source, they aren’t even comparing apples to oranges for petes sake. Comparing the impact of ALL of the individual, separate riots from 2020 to JUST January 6th? Holy hell dude you are *trying* to find a conspiracy if you’re looking at that and alarm bells aren’t sounding off.
Rittenhouse is free and those lawyers are in prison. Your best examples of abuse of the justice system from the left is a man who the justice system kept free and enabled to be a millionaire and leftwing lawyers who landed in prison for property damage.
Rittenhouse killed three men in self defense, walked by the cops after, and had his day in court. Compare that to Reinohl, who supposedly also killed a man in self defense and then, was gunned down by police. 21 of 22 witnesses. Reinoehl, much like Rittenhouse, is also broadly a piece of shit.
I’m not even looking at CNN for information. I think you might need to leave your suburb.
Anarchists aren’t progressives anymore than fascists are libertarians, but I’ll stick with “progressive” since you’re using that term to paint anything left of center and highlighting examples of anarchists, people who would be *insulted* being lumped in with progressives, since progressives are libs.
Look into portland police, honestly. I think there are few actual criminal gangs in the united states with such a rich history of violent intimidation. Remember the dude with a boombox over his head who they shot in the face during the protests? You’re more upset upset about broadly defined “progressives” using the state, where actual state power is principally exercised against those same folks. ACAB is fucking dumb, but APCAB seems pretty reasonable; if you’re unwilling to call out your actual nazi-sympathizing founder for those views it’s hard to see that as anything other than deference.
I didn’t even comment on the most obvious point earlier; “the BLM riots were useful for the party in power” being the democrats(who weren’t nationally in power at the time) who were fucking CLOBBERED with association with the riots. If that is beneficial for them, why would republicans highlight it in attack ads? If you were a democratic politician, you would find some dumbfuck smashing up a target to be for your benefit? Do you only consume attack ads, fox, and breitbart and literally think democrats campaign on increasing crime? You’re reading an economics blog, what is even the incentive?
You’re quite literally on a different planet from me, sir. I’m gonna finish that article now and maybe will reapond if there’s anything useful, but it’s really hard not to feel like anybody comparing headline numbers from a single event to 3 months of events already serves only to obfuscate and has nothing useful to say.
I would be absolutely shocked if even half of the people involved with antifa even voted, much less for centrist hacks like HRC and Biden. Just cause fox news calls them dem storm troopers doesn't make it so. They are mostly anarchists.
I really like this post by Noah and feel I learned a lot from it, especially as someone outside the USA. Also your post. But I don't understand why civil war is a non-starter. Your scenarios are plausible, as are things like the CIA deciding to drone strike a governor who is in "revolt".
Nor do I follow Noah's logic that because there are some woke generals, therefore the military won't split and there won't be a civil war. Surely it's actually much more likely to split if the generals go all in on white-man-hating? There seems to be an assumption here that the men would just follow the generals regardless of their policies.
There also seems to be a foundational assumption being made that a modern civil war would look like previous civil wars. But would that be so? Wars often look different to prior wars. We saw the outlines of modern civil war a couple of years ago in Canada with the truckers (the countryside conservatives) trying to express their displeasure with the woke liberal city government. The liberals crushed them completely without firing a shot just by manipulating the institutions they control (mostly banks, but also the media).
It makes me kinda sad, but an American civil war would probably not be fights over land between men with ordinary hand guns. It would be fought in the way a communist government fights uprisings: anyone who tries to organize is immediately detected by the secret police and executed, probably remotely and by AI, without the people doing the shooting ever getting within 100 miles of those getting shot. Anyone who aids them would be economically executed via the sanctions regime and institutional control. And most people would never hear about it, or they'd hear propaganda that they'd be unable to detect.
I agree with you that it seems likely that the left will turn culture war into hot war if they need to, but I don't think they need to. They can just continue with the current set of strategies and turn America (and the world) into a dictatorship by the back door. By the time anyone notices what's happened it's already too late: anyone who tries to protest will be labelled a traitorous coup-ster and jailed for life. You could argue we're already there.
"the CIA deciding to drone strike a governor who is in 'revol'"
In light of recent American actions, I understand this comment, but this only seems plausible from outside the USA. There are very rigid laws on the books that would prevent something like this (Posse Comitatus Act for one) and even progressive institutions would not go along with it. You would have to already be in a hot civil war to get away with anything close to this.
I agree with all of your comments about Leftists embracing digital totalitarianism, which is precisely why I don't believe a hot civil war will happen. The only institution my side is capable of controlling is the ballot box (and even then only on a good day), but the Right is pathologically resistant to using government as a club to oppose the woke. As a result, the woke are going to win. I don't like it, but there's nothing I can do about it.
That's not a civil war you describe it's a loss of freedoms. Even if one of the scenarios you mention happen there just aren't the geographic rivalries (can't fight a war between cities and rural) or strongly felt enough animosity that many would be willing to die for sake of the conflict. However, I don't think thhat rules out becoming substantially less democratic (eg the military intervenes to maintain order and becomes a kingmaker).
Antifa are a bunch of kids who rioted in Portland. To compare them to the insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol and were going to kill members of Congress is egregiously ridiculous.
Talk to Andy Ngo and get back to me. "A bunch of kids". Children don't throw Molotov cocktails at police officers. Children don't torch buildings with people inside them.
And you're right, by any objective standard of either death or property damage, there is absolutely no comparison between the summer, 2020 riots and the January 6th riot.
It means being willing to force your cultural views even when they directly contradict the public will. The Left's commitment to liberalism (maximal individual autonomy) trumps their commitment to democracy (law expresses the will of the people).
For example, most progressives are unwilling to allow states to have different rules for abortion or marriage or sexual autonomy. CA voters passed a "no gay marriage" proposition by wide margins in roughly 2006 (I know, hard to believe, but it happened.) Progressives refused to accept this, first by our AG refusing to defend it, then by judges that overturned it (largely since no case was presented in favor of it, since our AG refused to do so). Progressives commitment to normalizing homosexuality is so strong they can not abide even limitations passed by a popular vote. The EU's treatment of Hungary is similar and for the same reason. Many issues on the Left are like this. To be fair, there is a corresponding group on the Right, but the issues are rarer, and the group is smaller. And most importantly, they control no institutional power in America.
Are there issues one should "go to the wall" over and defend despite democratic opposition? Of course. Legalizing murder or rape or slavery or theft can never be accepted. But the Left's list of issues that fall into this category is larger and perpetually expanding. This is a recipe for a progressive totalitarianism. It is not a stretch to say that Mill's claim that "my rights only end at your nose" had yielded an ever growing progressive state policing an ever greater number of conflicts between rights and noses.
How would you take into account the behavior of Senator Tubberville with halting military promotions? The pro-authoritarians may use the instrument of promotions to place their own Francos in place or hinder those opposed.
That’s just dumb. Neither presidents nor senators pick who makes admiral or general in the military. Admirals and generals are selected by a board of their peers. They are confirmed, after selection, by the Senate, Tommy Tubberville is taking a principled position. The secretary of defense is trying to create an end around the Hyde amendment that prevents using federal funds for abortion purposes. The secretary of defense could change his position just as easily as Tommy Tubberville could change his period, but only one man is acting on principle.
Is that true? I think you'd need to call for a change to the Senate rules, to do something like tell the Armed Services Committee they can wave through a bunch of promotions as a "consent calendar" type item, and at least _two_ Senators have to object to pull one. Though you'd think with 51 Democratic votes, Schumer would be calling for that by now. The Senate Dems do seem singularly incapable of the kind of hardball McConnell played all the time.
I thought this was a matter of senatorial privilege, not of senate rules. If it's the former - then Schumer can change that instantaneously.
From the AP: "Democratic leaders would have to hold roll call votes on every single one to get around the hold, an unwieldy and time-consuming process in a chamber that already struggles to finish its basic business." So - there's definitely some way around this.
Where I think Sen Schumer is being too nice is that he did not scheduled any debate on these nominations during the August recess or on weekends. If Sen Tuberville wants to keep ahold on these nominations, make him show up on weekends, rather than going to his home in Florida.
It's worth noting that even in the Spanish Civil War, the initial putsch from morocco was largely a matter of Spanish ultra-right-wing officers leading Moroccan Regulares, who had no love for Spain. And even then the process of invading was initially stymied by the Navy remaining loyal to the republican government - they were only able to reach Spain with the assistance of the fascist governments in Germany and Italy.
That was after the revolt - one of the things that happened was that all the moderating forces in the Republic got pushed out. Remember that the Republic was originally a liberal-led popular front and ended up as a communist dictatorship.
I think this is the big thing that lots of conservatives learned in the 1930-1970 period - that the sort of extreme leftist that wants to do things like that won't be able to as long as conservatives don't withdraw from politics and turn it into a liberal vs socialist fight.
That still doesn't change the fact that in retrospect it's clear that Franco was the least bad option when push came to shove. Although he was a brutal son of a bitch, he was also not that ideological and was a pragmatist to a certain extent.
My point is that you can't justify the revolt itself by what the anarchists and communists did after (and in response) to it.
Once there's a choosing-sides point, that's a difficult question. The people whose side I want to be on - the people who believed in liberal democracy - were all on the side of the Republic, but their allies were so awful that it's hard to support them. OTOH, Franco conducted a military coup, with no intention of stepping down, and his allies (particularly the Falange) were just as bad - he just did a better job of reining them in than Azaña.
The problem with this view is that it would also have you siding with the Mensheviks as well. But that period showed that the liberals were very, very, bad at keeping the communists at bay.
Kadets back then, but yes, that was a problem at that point.
Though note that Léon Blum did a very good job of it in France in exactly the same era.
Liberals (and democratic socialists, for all my disagreements with them) have got better at that since the 1930s. I'm not sure that the lessons of von Papen and von Schliecher have been learned as well on the right.
He was clearly the least bad of the 2 options. You don't always get an ideal choice in history. The communist republic gave away Spain's gold reserves to Stalin on top of the atrocities they committed.
I suspect that Spain would have been in a much better state in 1950 if the Republicans had won, but the reasoning for that (they'd have entered the war in 1941 to defend the Soviet Union, been occupied by the Nazis and then been turned into a democracy by the liberating Allied forces) is not something that you could reasonably anticipate in 1936.
All of my instincts are to align with the liberal republicans, but Azaña was such a fuck-up as leader that he makes it hard to do so: the failure to do anything about Negrin sending the gold to Moscow, or the assassination of Sotelo makes it really hard for me to actually support him.
"I suspect that Spain would have been in a much better state in 1950 if the Republicans had won, but the reasoning for that (they'd have entered the war in 1941 to defend the Soviet Union, been occupied by the Nazis and then been turned into a democracy by the liberating Allied forces) is not something that you could reasonably anticipate in 1936."
Would it have? Many more people would have died, life under Franco once he took power was not that bad, and Spain became a normal European democracy once he died. We're talking about a 20 year difference in a transition to democracy under your alternative history, with the possible cost of millions of more dead.
The notion that a civil war was possible seems to have been pushed by the left, not the right.
This is the same crowd that characterizes the January 6 riot as an attempted coup and ignores the years of Russia-gate cooperation between the Dems, the DOJ and the Intelligence community by dismissing these outrageous actions as acceptable politics rather than the calculated attempt to undermine a legitimately elected President. Your endorsement of the tech platforms concerted efforts to censor opposition voices at the direction of the government, government entities and government financed NGOs marks you as a member of the managerial class which endorses a form of totalitarian control that is contrary to what once was democratic republic.
I'd suggest you ignore your hysterical fevered nightmares of Trumpist plots and focus on the 2024 election, which is likely to leave the country only more fractured as neither Presidential candidate is qualified to serve and none of the alternatives offered by either party have the capacity to do so either. This will end up in a world war, not a civil war.
You are clueless—RussiaGate was a coup attempt orchestrated by Bush Republicans and Trump appointed the DOJ official that appointed Mueller. Even the MSNBC host pushing the lies is a Bush Republican in good standing.
Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and Nancy Pelosi are Bush Republicans? Rachel Maddow is a Bush Republican in good standing? The things I learn in Substack comment sections.
Mueller was appointed by Rodentstein. Trump appointed Rodentstein. Nicole Wallace was MSDNC’s primary mouthpiece for RussiaGate. Trump lost in 2020 because in 2017 he got rolled by Bush Republicans like a drunk tourist in Times Square at 4 am.
My opinion is that I don’t think we will see organized violence. Disorderly conduct? Some. I think we are seeing the phenomenon now, which is “quiet quitting.” This is much more insidious and can be difficult to identify. Even though the US is at full employment, the labor participation rate says otherwise. There are probably solutions to this, but the current administration hasn’t recognized a problem. They have only partially addressed the populist movement, which is not a wholly American phenomenon (Brexit and other European discontent).
I feel the heart of the matter is the Western governments are all plutocracies. Moreover, the governments create their plutocrats. The government chooses who will be the plutocrats. The government also maintains the plutocrats who work with it. The plutocrats don’t share its wealth with the commoner, as noted in the hightened Gini index for the US.
The public was never taught this about their system, nor has there been any course correction in their education. Many things in their formal education was incorrect, and allowed to propagate. Hence, there is public frustration and the conservative movement to change things back to the ideal, which is impossible at this point.
Yes, obviously a literal war is absurd [1]. What we should be worried about the end of the norms that allow us to have rule governed elections rather picking leaders by last minute congressional intervention or by just arresting your opponent.
Unfortunately, both right and left are putting those norms under threat. Trump's actions and their defense by the GOP are inexcusable. But it horrifies me almost as much that a party that claims to care about safeguarding our democracy won't consider the possible negative consequences of prosecuting Trump.
Sure he deserves it. But it's obvious that almost half the population does and will continue to believe it's politically motivated. Doesn't matter if it is or isn't. If the voters and members of the next republican admin believe it's now fair game to use the DOJ against opponents what do you think will happen? [2]
And it doesn't help that the Dems talk about impeaching members of the supreme court or stuffing the court because they are upset with their rulings. I hate many of the rulings too but those justices were selected by the political process w/o hiding their judicial philosophy and intervention will just result in tit for tat reprisals. And don't say the rights of such and such group are important enough to risk it: in a system that swings back and forth every 8 years no one will have any secure rights.
Ultimately the us constitutional system is more norm based than we like to admit and I fear we are well into a game of chicken. Break either the norm about political prosecutions or even the norm about packing the court and I see no mechanism to prevent a slide into a significantly less democratic system.
This isn't a new problem in America. Adams passed the alien and sedetion acts to effectively make it illegal to campaign against him. Let's take a page from Jefferson, the target of those laws, who didn't try to punish or retaliate against Adams when he won.
1:. There just isn't anything at stake most people care enough about to die for, there isn't a clear enough geographic distinction and (most importantly) many of the angriest people have children or parents on the other side
2: While I'm sure there are some good justifications the standard arguments are laughably bad. It can't be about deterrence because if you accept a loss you might get prosecuted but if you steal a victory you won't. It can't be that it's just morally necessary, the justice system let's literal murderers skate all the time if we believe larger national needs justify it (eg witsec).
Biden needs to take a play from Ford. Pardon Donald Trump and his entire family, and convince the Atlanta prosecutor to drop her changes.
Many people think Presidential pardons are just bennies to be given out late in the term, but they have a higher Constitutional purpose. The pardon power allows the executive to help move the country past feuds by pardoning both Hatfields and McCoys alike,
Pardoning Nixon was very unpopular in 1975. But in hindsight it was the right thing to do. It allowed the country to put Watergate behind us instead of litigate it for the next decade. We need that today as well.
I'd agree except for the fact that Biden really has no power to convince Fonnie Willis (sp?) tho a pardon on the underlying federal crimes might scuttle the NY prosecution. The problem is such a pardon would make continuing the state prosecution Fonnie's ticket to the big time. But maybe there is some way he can do it after the election.
I'm not that sure about Nixon anymore. Maybe if he'd faced consequences back then (republicans weren't convinced it was all political) we'd be in a better place now.
Other countries successfully prosecute their criminal former politicians, including at the highest level.
The usual reason for prosecuting criminal politicians is maintaining the rule of law. There is no cause to believe that the US democracy is so weak that it can no longer do this.
However, when it comes to coups, a more important reason emerges: not maintaining the rule of law, but preservation of the democracy itself. Without prosecution, there are no consequences, no deterrent to future attempts.
History demonstrates that democracies fail when they choose not to defend themselves, especially after an initial, usually somewhat bumbling coup attempt, which results in a later, more competent attempt.
the line between "using government to defend democracy" and "using government as a club against your political opponents" is pretty vague. It's a 'fredom fighter" vs "terrorist" problem.
"There is no cause to believe that the US democracy is so weak"... I think you're being optimstic. Many Democrats seem to conflate "liberalism" (in the Millian sense) with "democracy", believing that if we're moving toward greater personal autonomy and liberty, our democracy must be healthy. To be fair, many on the Right do the same with respect to govt regulation and taxation. Neither are accurate.
Democracy means that, outside of truly extraordinary circumstances like legalizing murder or rape or slavery, the laws broadly reflect the will of the people. On those terms. American democracy is not healthy. Our "representatives" have no interest in representing or legislating, preferring to outsource governance to unelected (and therefore unaccountable) bureaucrats and judges. Maybe their rules do enjoy the "consent of the governed"; maybe not. Since none of those people ever have to face voters, we'll never know.
As I said I don't doubt there are good arguments but most send don't seem to be thinking seriously about what they claim to care about so much. People who claim to care deeply about democracy should have a couple layers thought out and opinions about which prosecutions are appropriate and have general principles that aren't trivial to counterexample-- almost all people who claim to be so motivated don't.
re: other countries. Sure, and there were plenty of times in the past we could have prosecuted an ex-president. We could have prosecuted Nixon if he'd not been pardoned. Maybe it would have been ugly but there would have been little sus it was a political prosecution. What's going on now is a particularly odd time at which the trust in experts by the GOP is at a minimum, it's turning a corner so has no prior leaders that can speak to new base and in very large part because it's fundamentally more difficult in a 2 party first pass the post presidential system than a multiparty system.
As I point out above when it comes to stealing elections the incentives go the other way. Let's imagine you have Trump2 in the WH, he's hated with a passion by the other side and he almost certainly done something that our extensive federal laws would let him be prosecuted for. His incentive is to steal the election so he isn't prosecuted not to avoid stealing it.
re: rule of law there isn't much correlation between what can be prosecuted criminally and the unconstitutional and horrible things a president can do. John Adams and his congress had people thrown in prison for critisizing his admin and he wasn't punished and that seems to have resulted in pretty stable norms going forward. Indeed the constitution expressly prevents congresspeople from being punished criminally for anything they do via speaking or voting on legislation even if what they vote on is a bill to authorize paying someone to kill their political rival. Besides we choose not to prosecute ppl all the damn time for less important benefits like taking down a bigger criminal so surely preservation of democracy gets equal billing.
I appreciated your thoughtful post, and a number of the points you made.
Preservation of democracy doesn't get equal billing, because it is the environment that allows all else. For preservation of democracy, we all have to be vigilant, including the legal system.
I agree that we don't prosecute people all the time, particularly those with power - but that's a failing, not an excuse. I much prefer norms which holds people to a higher standard, commensurate with their power and responsibilities, because such norms produce durable political systems, smaller power distances, and either a greater sense of fairness for all, or at least less cynicism. It must start, of course, at the top.
I'd absolutely prefer a system in which there wasn't freedom not to charge people and under such a system the prosecution of Trump would be much less dangerous. Indeed, the danger arises preciscely because there are so many federal crimes that are so broad that they could be creatively charged against any long-serving politician (thankfully SCOTUS said honest services fraud is quite as terrifyingly broad but it's only one such statute) and it's only norms about charging at the DOJ which limit such uses.
If it was up to me SCOTUS would hold that it was an affirmative defense to prosecution on each count individually that the government regularly choose not to bring equally strong cases with similar mitigating circumstances.
I'm even of mixed feelings about the federal prosecution -- that's been carefully brought in a narrow way that, even if many voters don't understand, is much less likely to convince a future GOP admin to abuse prosecution. Though the behavior of judge Canon makes me think that it will probably will be dismissed or scuttled meaning the price was paid for no gain.
However both the NY and GA prosecutions are very suspect. NY is charging a crime they'd never have charged against anyone else on a novel legal theory (that u can bootstrap to a felony by using a state law that makes it a felony to falsify records in commission of another crime -- and u can use an uncharged federal crime for it) after failing to indict on stronger charges and then getting political pushback.
The GA behavior is much more serious but the the prosecutor there went and fundraised on the fact she was going to charge Trump and since then has both charged it and filed motions that are very troubling. For instance, she threatened to withhold discovery bc some defendants invoked their speedy trial rights and including as part of her theory that it's a crime to ask the legislature to behave unconstitutionally. I've been telling the conservatives I argue with that it's not really treating Trump that differently -- it's the cost of coming into contact with US justice system in a case the DA thinks can bring them good press (same thing that happened to Alec Baldwin but the obvious holes in that case eventually got it dropped).
Unfortunately, both the GA and NY cases are therefore exactly the kind of things that are likely to give a future republican DA the idea that they can prosecute a Dem canidate for some random bullshit theory.
"The usual reason for prosecuting criminal politicians is maintaining the rule of law. There is no cause to believe that the US democracy is so weak that it can no longer do this."
The problem with this is that past Presidents, and other prominent government officials, have committed crimes far worse than Trump has been accused of. George W Bush lied us into war in Iraq and ran an illegal torture program, Obama committed literal treason by backing Al Qaeda in Syria, went to war with Libya without congressional authorization, etc. And Clinton was more clearly guilty of lying under oath than Trump is of any of these accusations. Hillary Clinton and David Patreus are at least equally guilty of breaking classified records laws, and HC obstructed justice by deleting 30k emails. Why is Trump all of a sudden the 1st president who has to go to jail for breaking the law?
In the "I committed a worse crime" contest, Trump trumps them all. A coup attempt is nullification of the existing state, the highest crime extant.
America likes to think of itself as a people where people are equal before the law, but the truth is that the powerful are rarely charged. However, when the state itself is threatened, of course it is going to respond, even in the US. It's too big to ignore, especially when the perp likes to brag about his crimes.
Some of the cases you cite are political opinions, and not illegal actions. Others were not Presidents, who, let's remember, are sworn to defend the Constitution. But if we were to grant you that they were all readily prosecutable crimes, none of them were undermining the state. Although Bush's torture regime definitely ended anyone's view of America as the exceptional state, and that has cost the US incalculably.
I believe letting Nixon off the hook was the wrong call , and letting Bush off likely the right call, in part because I believe the case against Bush would have almost assuredly failed. But those are political opinions and decisions, not legal ones.
In what way did Trump attempt a coup? He believed that the 2020 election was illegitimate, which has happened before in US history, and tried to challenge it based on the legal advice he was given. And if you are going to argue that he incited J6, then you would have to overturn the very high legal bar for incitement that currently exists.
And no, the crimes I cited are no more opinion than the accusations against Trump. Obama really did provide aid and comfort to a congressionally recognized enemy in Syria. Bush really did violate US law against using torture. Bill Clinton clearly lied under oath. These are indisputable.
It's you're responsibility to read up on publicly known events, and the 4 stages of Trump's coup attempt are now widely distributed.
When you're the President, and your AG is yelling at you in the Oval not to attempt to overturn the election, it should be a clue. Trump didn't follow his lawyers, he sought lawyers willing to abet his coup plans, and made them his lawyers. It's called lawyer shopping. And ultimately, he has to take responsibility for his actions, not blame his lawyers.
Ah yes, Bill Barr, the clean up man for Iran Contra and son of a Epstein benefactor, is a moral paragon of virtue who only has the best interest of the American people and rule of law.
It's always strange hearing the tales of despair over in the States if you follow particular news outlets. Thanks for being a voice of reason. All these point to a very low (but non zero!) chance of civil war.
"The squeeky wheel gets the most grease." Some politicians command a large media presence, but they are few in number, but loud in voice. Because a few like MTG make outlandish statement doesn't mean that most or very many conservatives believe as she does. Her comments are foolish, but do drive ratings. The media doesn't care what damage they do to our democracy, they only care about ratings and ad revenue.
It is one thing to talk about fighting, but it is another thing to give up your job, your home, and put your life on the line. One positive thing that came out of Jan.'6 was that no where elese did we have violence. It could have spread, but it didn't.
I have complete confidence in our military that they will follow the consitution they were sworn to uphold, even if they may have some regrets. I also view Tommy Tuberville's position as a positive. Any thinking member of our military will note that he doesn't care about them or the damage he is doing to their lives or our military posture. All he cares about is his political position. None of his colleges are willing to openingly criticise him or even support him. Are these the type of people you want to give up your career for? I don't believe that many will be willing to support people who don't care about them. Their actions or lack of actions speak loudly to their lack of moral couage.
Relatively speaking, there are few Proud Boys and White Supremists, but very many true Americans who may differ with their neighbors, but are not willing to start killing anyone. As the legal proceedings continue, people will see Trump's supporters abanding him, as facing years in jail prove to be a high barrier to overcome. Additionally, Trump has no loyality to anyone except himself. So I see a race between his supporters and himself as to who abands who the first.
No matter what your feelings are about John McCain's politics he refused to leave his fellow service menbers and spent many additional years in prison becuase of his sense of loyality. Trump denigrated him becuase he was captured - how many service men and women will support a man who did this one of their own? A true American hero! How many Trump supporters have anywhere near this much courage to support Trump?
I don’t think a North v South or similar conflict was ever in the cards, but some kind of sustained insurgency has, at times, felt plausible. Thinking armed militas blowing up Amazon trucks and logistics infrastructure. Lots of IEDs and makeshift drone strikes.
I think Robert Evans probably has the most clear eyed take on the topic.
LOLz if the "armed militias" are anything like the rabble that attacked the capital in 2021 they'd likely accidentally blow themselves up before they did any damage to our infrastructure.
This worries me as well. A group of 50 men with hunting rifles engaged in guerilla tactics could besiege a major city dependent JIT flows of 18 wheelers. And that covers a lot of mid-sized cities.
Were this to occur, it would give the Left exactly what they want: an excuse to use economic and perhaps physical force to destroy their political opponents. Think what Canada did to the protesting truckers, but on steroids.
The GI Bill, great training for careers/trades outside the military; discounts on housing, groceries at the PX, full health and dental insurance, & etc. What exactly would military factions be fighting over? The closest we’ll get to this is the annual Army vs Navy football game.
As for Trump and his band of Banana Republicans. With 20 million newly registered voters in November 2024, voters more than 90% don’t like Republican Party policies -- with a decent turnout, I think Trump loses by more than 7 million votes. I think independent voters who voted for Trump in 2020 won’t do so again,!or they’ll sit this election out at home because of no incentive. Guys like former Arkansas Governor Huckabee boast if Trump loses because of “indictments and trial” the 2024 election will be settled by “bullets not ballots.” No doubt Huckabee will grab his spear, put on his horned buffalo hat, and lead Steve Bannon’s “army of 50,000 angry patriots” into battle. These cranks play tough guys on talk radio.
Very interesting observation. Here is one difference: Afghanistan has only two large cities, but the US has many more. Also, in Afghanistan probably 80% of the population is ex urban, whereas in the United States it's more like 40%.
I think we are presently in a civil war of sorts. Republicans can't win on a national level, so they're not interested in competing in the same game any more. They're working outside of the system.
Ask yourself whether we are at war with Russia right now or not. It's not such an easy question to answer, right? I think the same is true of domestic politics right now: the leader of one of two major parties is actively trying to undermine the rule of law, and the "soldiers" are playing along, lest they give up their remaining power base.
Is it possible to work "inside the system" when all the gatekeepers of that system think everything you stand for is evil incarnate and are willing to use the tools of that system to prevent you from working within it?
I really like your analogy to the Russia war. Are we at war with Russia or not? Are we in a civil war or not? Neither has been "declared", but... Clausewitz was right: the line between politics and war turns out to be rather nebulous.
Remember that the Republicans won the 2016 elections. I doubt losing one election gives them enough of a "We can't win" attitude to have most republicans switch to a "outside of the system" strategy. However, I could see limited states, i.e. Florida/Texas, independently taking such a stance, but largely I don't believe Republicans are as desperate as you claim at the moment, especially considering they still have the 2024 elections to compete in.
Despite this, if the democrats win 2024 it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say Trumpists and his detachments (Vivek, DeSantis) may become more desperate to revive their ideology. It comes down to when, and if, the republicans do really feel they are up against a system which they cannot win in. I don't believe they are all the way there now.
You may be right. I was mainly referring to the current ongoing extralegal stuff like trying to claim the 2020 election was rigged. "No election is legitimate if my party doesn't win" seems to be a strategy in and of itself, with many GOP politicians between 2020 and today remaining in this extralegal boat.
and the leader of the other political party has done nothing but demonize his opponents instead even bothering to attempt to "unify". The appearance of political prosecution to interfere with the election does not help.
Don’t forget about Wall Street. The money men and women don’t want the American consumers distracted from consuming. They control our politicians. They want the profits flowing, not guns a blazing.
One big difference between the last insurrection Jan 6 and future parallels is the last was focused and the upcoming are very diffuse. Trump's tweets called on the faithful to assemble on Jan 6 for several months before the event and he promised them it would be "wild." The MAGAs had plenty of time to charter busses and plan their armament.
The only corresponding focus moment for upcoming events is verdict day. Since the authorities now know the MAGA penchant for violence, they can be fully prepared. They can also be uncooperative on the scheduling—they can announce the exact day, with only one- or two-days advanced notice. No time to charter busses.
In terms of logistics and in terms of preparedness by the authorities these are very different situations.
On J6 I saw Trump and a whole bunch of Trump supporters speaking on at the ellipse to get folks riled up. "You gotta fight like hell or you won't have a country anymore.”
True civil war is a nonstarter for all the reasons you identified, most especially geography.
However, the federal government is completely sclerotic and getting worse. At some point, a red state (or a few of them) will say "we've had enough". Today, a federal judge in Austin ruled that Gov Abbot has to remove his border barrier. What if Abbot simply refuses -- "let's see them enforce it" style. What happens when the Army Corp of Engineers goes to remove the barriers and the Texas National Guard refuses to allow it? And that's just one of many examples. We could have had something like that with the states that legalized marijuana 10 years ago, but the feds wisely decided not to go to the wall over it. The Left will go to the wall over immigration and most of the culture war.
Secondly, what happens if Trump actually manages to win 2024? Unlikely, I know. But the Democratic Party has spent 7 years convincing themselves that Trump is Hitler, and you CAN NOT turn over power to Hitler, even if he does win an election. Would the Democratic Party peacefully transfer power back to Donald Trump? If the leadership decides to, how will they talk their armed wing (that's what antifa actually is) off the ceiling? I don't know. I don't think they can.
The long-term solution is federalism, a return to "live and let live" on a wide variety of issues. I believe the Right could get there. It would be hard on LGBT and abortion, but there's a strong states rights and limited government tradition among conservatives. The Left has a harder time. Progressivism believes they're pursuing the "best practices" to run society, a universalism that makes any return to "live and let live" very hard.
Calling antifa the armed wing of the democratic party is complete and utter nonsense. Have you even met any of those people?
If you could get those nutters to give enough of a shit about the democratic party to even bother voting the USA would be a very different place.
Nancy Pelosi and the entire Democratic leadership kneels in the House Rotunda in the name of "social justice" while antifa goons are burning down buildings (sometimes with people in them) in the name of social justice. The future Vice President of the United States raises bail money for said antifa goons. When they are finally brought to trial, most charges are dismissed by Democratic D.A.'s. Those that are found guilty are generally given very light or suspended sentences.
Whether it's actual coordination or just ideological commonality, the effect is the same. An armed group escapes justice because its actions are useful to the political party currently in power. That's an "armed wing".
"armed group" is the weakest link in the argument
You have to substantiate that, and I’d genuinely be thrilled if you have something, because I’m racking my brain trying to figure out how you’ve arrived at that reasoning other than Vibes.
Most arrests during 2020 riots were NOT of antifa folks. You are arguing that prosecutors are sparing them, but if most folks being arrested aren’t even antifa folks it’s just Vibes to say so. Police arrest folks, not leftist DAs, and I don’t think a cop’s gonna be like “oooop can’t touch this guy in black bloc”, if anything, it seems reasonable that the opposite would be happening.
What you are claiming is happening is definitely an area that could be, and probably has been, researched. Please share, because I’m struggling to find shit other than Vibes.
DAs were more lenient than they should’ve been in Portland and Seattle, sure, but to be frank, PPA and PPB really should be gutted from the inside out. It’s pretty hard to blame folks for raging against the police union founded by a member of Der Bund that has gotten off officers for leaving sacks of dead raccoons on the stoops of black businesspeople for being too uppity.
https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-race-and-ethnicity-suburbs-health-racial-injustice-7edf9027af1878283f3818d96c54f748
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/09/09/realclearinvestigations_jan_6-blm_comparison_database_791370.html
It's a biased source, but so are all of them on this subject. It also includes only federal charges, which skews the BLM / ANTIFA numbers considerable. But it is a decent starting point for you. I would submit the Rittenhouse prosecution is probably example #1 of political agenda skewing prosecutorial discretion. Also lookin the sentences of the 2 lawyers in NY who firebombed a cop car. News stories about these injustices are available, but you won't find them on CNN.
There have been numerous DAs refusing to prosecute rioters (even regular crimes, but especially rioters.) Your comment that "DAs were more lenient than they should’ve been in Portland and Seattle" tacitly admits that you are aware of this, but I'm unclear why you think it is confined to Seattle and Portland.
In the end, if you really believe there aren't a considerable number of progressives willing to use violence to force society to accept their policy positions, convincing you otherwise at this point is above my paygrade.
Christ dude, among the sources indicating that folks aren’t being charged there is literal opinion polling of officers.
“Hey police, how many of the people do you feel the DAs locked up, tell us from “a lot” to “not many””
THAT is the information you’re working with. Holy shit.
Rodney, you asked me to demonstrate why I call antifa the "armed wing of the Democratic party". I did. I gave you specific examples both of ideological conformity between senior Democratic leadership and BLM/antifa's stated aims and my belief that there was disparate justice based on ideology. When you asked for evidence, I gave you a summary and told you honestly that I considered the source biased.
Fundamentally, I'm not in the "let's debate January 6th" world. I do not believe J6 rioters have been treated comparably to BLM rioters. Measured by any objective standard of lives or damage, the latter were far more serious. I respect that for many liberals, despite vastly less violence or damage, January 6th was subjectively far worse. I felt that way at the time too, but as the months and years have dragged on, as more surveillance video has emerged, increasingly, I believe J6 was blown hugely out of proportion by people who find it politically useful, and who minimize the BLM / antifa riots for the same reason. The differences in treatment of similar conduct are so egregious that I can not simply call it ideological blindness (which we all have for our own side) and must conclude it be purposeful: the intentional use of law to hurt ones' political enemies.
Perhaps you think that's OK. There's a large pool of liberals who certainly appear to believe that Donald Trump and his voters represent such an emergency that all norms and standards and restrictions on power must be tossed out the window to "get Trump!" Hence my comment about the Democrats needing a way to pull their activists off the ceiling. Because such an attitude is extremely dangerous. Once adopted by one party, it will increasingly be adopted by the other, and everyone then loses.
In a functional democracy, both parties must see the other as legitimate contenders to rule. What started with "not my President" is dangerously close to degenerating into a von Clausewitz-ian state.
I only got to the first bullet point; that’s not even just a biased source, they aren’t even comparing apples to oranges for petes sake. Comparing the impact of ALL of the individual, separate riots from 2020 to JUST January 6th? Holy hell dude you are *trying* to find a conspiracy if you’re looking at that and alarm bells aren’t sounding off.
Rittenhouse is free and those lawyers are in prison. Your best examples of abuse of the justice system from the left is a man who the justice system kept free and enabled to be a millionaire and leftwing lawyers who landed in prison for property damage.
Rittenhouse killed three men in self defense, walked by the cops after, and had his day in court. Compare that to Reinohl, who supposedly also killed a man in self defense and then, was gunned down by police. 21 of 22 witnesses. Reinoehl, much like Rittenhouse, is also broadly a piece of shit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_Reinoehl
I’m not even looking at CNN for information. I think you might need to leave your suburb.
Anarchists aren’t progressives anymore than fascists are libertarians, but I’ll stick with “progressive” since you’re using that term to paint anything left of center and highlighting examples of anarchists, people who would be *insulted* being lumped in with progressives, since progressives are libs.
Look into portland police, honestly. I think there are few actual criminal gangs in the united states with such a rich history of violent intimidation. Remember the dude with a boombox over his head who they shot in the face during the protests? You’re more upset upset about broadly defined “progressives” using the state, where actual state power is principally exercised against those same folks. ACAB is fucking dumb, but APCAB seems pretty reasonable; if you’re unwilling to call out your actual nazi-sympathizing founder for those views it’s hard to see that as anything other than deference.
I didn’t even comment on the most obvious point earlier; “the BLM riots were useful for the party in power” being the democrats(who weren’t nationally in power at the time) who were fucking CLOBBERED with association with the riots. If that is beneficial for them, why would republicans highlight it in attack ads? If you were a democratic politician, you would find some dumbfuck smashing up a target to be for your benefit? Do you only consume attack ads, fox, and breitbart and literally think democrats campaign on increasing crime? You’re reading an economics blog, what is even the incentive?
You’re quite literally on a different planet from me, sir. I’m gonna finish that article now and maybe will reapond if there’s anything useful, but it’s really hard not to feel like anybody comparing headline numbers from a single event to 3 months of events already serves only to obfuscate and has nothing useful to say.
Well put. And, put well.
I am in total agreement on federalism.
The progressive impulse to impose best practices to others raises the question, “Who indeed are the fascists here?”
I would be absolutely shocked if even half of the people involved with antifa even voted, much less for centrist hacks like HRC and Biden. Just cause fox news calls them dem storm troopers doesn't make it so. They are mostly anarchists.
I really like this post by Noah and feel I learned a lot from it, especially as someone outside the USA. Also your post. But I don't understand why civil war is a non-starter. Your scenarios are plausible, as are things like the CIA deciding to drone strike a governor who is in "revolt".
Nor do I follow Noah's logic that because there are some woke generals, therefore the military won't split and there won't be a civil war. Surely it's actually much more likely to split if the generals go all in on white-man-hating? There seems to be an assumption here that the men would just follow the generals regardless of their policies.
There also seems to be a foundational assumption being made that a modern civil war would look like previous civil wars. But would that be so? Wars often look different to prior wars. We saw the outlines of modern civil war a couple of years ago in Canada with the truckers (the countryside conservatives) trying to express their displeasure with the woke liberal city government. The liberals crushed them completely without firing a shot just by manipulating the institutions they control (mostly banks, but also the media).
It makes me kinda sad, but an American civil war would probably not be fights over land between men with ordinary hand guns. It would be fought in the way a communist government fights uprisings: anyone who tries to organize is immediately detected by the secret police and executed, probably remotely and by AI, without the people doing the shooting ever getting within 100 miles of those getting shot. Anyone who aids them would be economically executed via the sanctions regime and institutional control. And most people would never hear about it, or they'd hear propaganda that they'd be unable to detect.
I agree with you that it seems likely that the left will turn culture war into hot war if they need to, but I don't think they need to. They can just continue with the current set of strategies and turn America (and the world) into a dictatorship by the back door. By the time anyone notices what's happened it's already too late: anyone who tries to protest will be labelled a traitorous coup-ster and jailed for life. You could argue we're already there.
"the CIA deciding to drone strike a governor who is in 'revol'"
In light of recent American actions, I understand this comment, but this only seems plausible from outside the USA. There are very rigid laws on the books that would prevent something like this (Posse Comitatus Act for one) and even progressive institutions would not go along with it. You would have to already be in a hot civil war to get away with anything close to this.
I agree with all of your comments about Leftists embracing digital totalitarianism, which is precisely why I don't believe a hot civil war will happen. The only institution my side is capable of controlling is the ballot box (and even then only on a good day), but the Right is pathologically resistant to using government as a club to oppose the woke. As a result, the woke are going to win. I don't like it, but there's nothing I can do about it.
Great article from N.S. Lyons on this exact subject. He's brilliant and unlike most of his, it's not paywalled. https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/the-china-convergence
Whatever unique "pathological resistance" there was on the right, it's fading fast enough to the point where I don't see it anymore.
As for the woke winning - I'm pretty sure they've already lost this round. Of course, this is not the kind of war that ends.
He's eloquent, sure. Not quite as coherent as I was expecting.
That's not a civil war you describe it's a loss of freedoms. Even if one of the scenarios you mention happen there just aren't the geographic rivalries (can't fight a war between cities and rural) or strongly felt enough animosity that many would be willing to die for sake of the conflict. However, I don't think thhat rules out becoming substantially less democratic (eg the military intervenes to maintain order and becomes a kingmaker).
Antifa are a bunch of kids who rioted in Portland. To compare them to the insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol and were going to kill members of Congress is egregiously ridiculous.
Talk to Andy Ngo and get back to me. "A bunch of kids". Children don't throw Molotov cocktails at police officers. Children don't torch buildings with people inside them.
And you're right, by any objective standard of either death or property damage, there is absolutely no comparison between the summer, 2020 riots and the January 6th riot.
As a member of "the left" I would like to know what part of "the culture war" I'm supposed to "go to the wall" over. And what that even means.
It means being willing to force your cultural views even when they directly contradict the public will. The Left's commitment to liberalism (maximal individual autonomy) trumps their commitment to democracy (law expresses the will of the people).
For example, most progressives are unwilling to allow states to have different rules for abortion or marriage or sexual autonomy. CA voters passed a "no gay marriage" proposition by wide margins in roughly 2006 (I know, hard to believe, but it happened.) Progressives refused to accept this, first by our AG refusing to defend it, then by judges that overturned it (largely since no case was presented in favor of it, since our AG refused to do so). Progressives commitment to normalizing homosexuality is so strong they can not abide even limitations passed by a popular vote. The EU's treatment of Hungary is similar and for the same reason. Many issues on the Left are like this. To be fair, there is a corresponding group on the Right, but the issues are rarer, and the group is smaller. And most importantly, they control no institutional power in America.
Are there issues one should "go to the wall" over and defend despite democratic opposition? Of course. Legalizing murder or rape or slavery or theft can never be accepted. But the Left's list of issues that fall into this category is larger and perpetually expanding. This is a recipe for a progressive totalitarianism. It is not a stretch to say that Mill's claim that "my rights only end at your nose" had yielded an ever growing progressive state policing an ever greater number of conflicts between rights and noses.
How would you take into account the behavior of Senator Tubberville with halting military promotions? The pro-authoritarians may use the instrument of promotions to place their own Francos in place or hinder those opposed.
With Trump as President, I would worry about this. Right now it's just sand in the gears.
That’s just dumb. Neither presidents nor senators pick who makes admiral or general in the military. Admirals and generals are selected by a board of their peers. They are confirmed, after selection, by the Senate, Tommy Tubberville is taking a principled position. The secretary of defense is trying to create an end around the Hyde amendment that prevents using federal funds for abortion purposes. The secretary of defense could change his position just as easily as Tommy Tubberville could change his period, but only one man is acting on principle.
You are aware, of course, that Schumer could end the right of senators to use these type of holds, immediately, if he wanted to do so, right?
Is that true? I think you'd need to call for a change to the Senate rules, to do something like tell the Armed Services Committee they can wave through a bunch of promotions as a "consent calendar" type item, and at least _two_ Senators have to object to pull one. Though you'd think with 51 Democratic votes, Schumer would be calling for that by now. The Senate Dems do seem singularly incapable of the kind of hardball McConnell played all the time.
I thought this was a matter of senatorial privilege, not of senate rules. If it's the former - then Schumer can change that instantaneously.
From the AP: "Democratic leaders would have to hold roll call votes on every single one to get around the hold, an unwieldy and time-consuming process in a chamber that already struggles to finish its basic business." So - there's definitely some way around this.
Where I think Sen Schumer is being too nice is that he did not scheduled any debate on these nominations during the August recess or on weekends. If Sen Tuberville wants to keep ahold on these nominations, make him show up on weekends, rather than going to his home in Florida.
Well, that punished everyone for Tuberville's intransigence.
It's worth noting that even in the Spanish Civil War, the initial putsch from morocco was largely a matter of Spanish ultra-right-wing officers leading Moroccan Regulares, who had no love for Spain. And even then the process of invading was initially stymied by the Navy remaining loyal to the republican government - they were only able to reach Spain with the assistance of the fascist governments in Germany and Italy.
I can't imagine watching the "Republic" rape and murder clergy and then siding with them.
That was after the revolt - one of the things that happened was that all the moderating forces in the Republic got pushed out. Remember that the Republic was originally a liberal-led popular front and ended up as a communist dictatorship.
I think this is the big thing that lots of conservatives learned in the 1930-1970 period - that the sort of extreme leftist that wants to do things like that won't be able to as long as conservatives don't withdraw from politics and turn it into a liberal vs socialist fight.
That still doesn't change the fact that in retrospect it's clear that Franco was the least bad option when push came to shove. Although he was a brutal son of a bitch, he was also not that ideological and was a pragmatist to a certain extent.
My point is that you can't justify the revolt itself by what the anarchists and communists did after (and in response) to it.
Once there's a choosing-sides point, that's a difficult question. The people whose side I want to be on - the people who believed in liberal democracy - were all on the side of the Republic, but their allies were so awful that it's hard to support them. OTOH, Franco conducted a military coup, with no intention of stepping down, and his allies (particularly the Falange) were just as bad - he just did a better job of reining them in than Azaña.
The problem with this view is that it would also have you siding with the Mensheviks as well. But that period showed that the liberals were very, very, bad at keeping the communists at bay.
Kadets back then, but yes, that was a problem at that point.
Though note that Léon Blum did a very good job of it in France in exactly the same era.
Liberals (and democratic socialists, for all my disagreements with them) have got better at that since the 1930s. I'm not sure that the lessons of von Papen and von Schliecher have been learned as well on the right.
Carrying a torch for Franco?
He was clearly the least bad of the 2 options. You don't always get an ideal choice in history. The communist republic gave away Spain's gold reserves to Stalin on top of the atrocities they committed.
I suspect that Spain would have been in a much better state in 1950 if the Republicans had won, but the reasoning for that (they'd have entered the war in 1941 to defend the Soviet Union, been occupied by the Nazis and then been turned into a democracy by the liberating Allied forces) is not something that you could reasonably anticipate in 1936.
All of my instincts are to align with the liberal republicans, but Azaña was such a fuck-up as leader that he makes it hard to do so: the failure to do anything about Negrin sending the gold to Moscow, or the assassination of Sotelo makes it really hard for me to actually support him.
"I suspect that Spain would have been in a much better state in 1950 if the Republicans had won, but the reasoning for that (they'd have entered the war in 1941 to defend the Soviet Union, been occupied by the Nazis and then been turned into a democracy by the liberating Allied forces) is not something that you could reasonably anticipate in 1936."
Would it have? Many more people would have died, life under Franco once he took power was not that bad, and Spain became a normal European democracy once he died. We're talking about a 20 year difference in a transition to democracy under your alternative history, with the possible cost of millions of more dead.
The notion that a civil war was possible seems to have been pushed by the left, not the right.
This is the same crowd that characterizes the January 6 riot as an attempted coup and ignores the years of Russia-gate cooperation between the Dems, the DOJ and the Intelligence community by dismissing these outrageous actions as acceptable politics rather than the calculated attempt to undermine a legitimately elected President. Your endorsement of the tech platforms concerted efforts to censor opposition voices at the direction of the government, government entities and government financed NGOs marks you as a member of the managerial class which endorses a form of totalitarian control that is contrary to what once was democratic republic.
I'd suggest you ignore your hysterical fevered nightmares of Trumpist plots and focus on the 2024 election, which is likely to leave the country only more fractured as neither Presidential candidate is qualified to serve and none of the alternatives offered by either party have the capacity to do so either. This will end up in a world war, not a civil war.
You are clueless—RussiaGate was a coup attempt orchestrated by Bush Republicans and Trump appointed the DOJ official that appointed Mueller. Even the MSNBC host pushing the lies is a Bush Republican in good standing.
Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and Nancy Pelosi are Bush Republicans? Rachel Maddow is a Bush Republican in good standing? The things I learn in Substack comment sections.
Mueller was appointed by Rodentstein. Trump appointed Rodentstein. Nicole Wallace was MSDNC’s primary mouthpiece for RussiaGate. Trump lost in 2020 because in 2017 he got rolled by Bush Republicans like a drunk tourist in Times Square at 4 am.
The average American citizen is way too old to wage civil war. That helps matters.
My opinion is that I don’t think we will see organized violence. Disorderly conduct? Some. I think we are seeing the phenomenon now, which is “quiet quitting.” This is much more insidious and can be difficult to identify. Even though the US is at full employment, the labor participation rate says otherwise. There are probably solutions to this, but the current administration hasn’t recognized a problem. They have only partially addressed the populist movement, which is not a wholly American phenomenon (Brexit and other European discontent).
I feel the heart of the matter is the Western governments are all plutocracies. Moreover, the governments create their plutocrats. The government chooses who will be the plutocrats. The government also maintains the plutocrats who work with it. The plutocrats don’t share its wealth with the commoner, as noted in the hightened Gini index for the US.
The public was never taught this about their system, nor has there been any course correction in their education. Many things in their formal education was incorrect, and allowed to propagate. Hence, there is public frustration and the conservative movement to change things back to the ideal, which is impossible at this point.
Yes, obviously a literal war is absurd [1]. What we should be worried about the end of the norms that allow us to have rule governed elections rather picking leaders by last minute congressional intervention or by just arresting your opponent.
Unfortunately, both right and left are putting those norms under threat. Trump's actions and their defense by the GOP are inexcusable. But it horrifies me almost as much that a party that claims to care about safeguarding our democracy won't consider the possible negative consequences of prosecuting Trump.
Sure he deserves it. But it's obvious that almost half the population does and will continue to believe it's politically motivated. Doesn't matter if it is or isn't. If the voters and members of the next republican admin believe it's now fair game to use the DOJ against opponents what do you think will happen? [2]
And it doesn't help that the Dems talk about impeaching members of the supreme court or stuffing the court because they are upset with their rulings. I hate many of the rulings too but those justices were selected by the political process w/o hiding their judicial philosophy and intervention will just result in tit for tat reprisals. And don't say the rights of such and such group are important enough to risk it: in a system that swings back and forth every 8 years no one will have any secure rights.
Ultimately the us constitutional system is more norm based than we like to admit and I fear we are well into a game of chicken. Break either the norm about political prosecutions or even the norm about packing the court and I see no mechanism to prevent a slide into a significantly less democratic system.
This isn't a new problem in America. Adams passed the alien and sedetion acts to effectively make it illegal to campaign against him. Let's take a page from Jefferson, the target of those laws, who didn't try to punish or retaliate against Adams when he won.
1:. There just isn't anything at stake most people care enough about to die for, there isn't a clear enough geographic distinction and (most importantly) many of the angriest people have children or parents on the other side
2: While I'm sure there are some good justifications the standard arguments are laughably bad. It can't be about deterrence because if you accept a loss you might get prosecuted but if you steal a victory you won't. It can't be that it's just morally necessary, the justice system let's literal murderers skate all the time if we believe larger national needs justify it (eg witsec).
Biden needs to take a play from Ford. Pardon Donald Trump and his entire family, and convince the Atlanta prosecutor to drop her changes.
Many people think Presidential pardons are just bennies to be given out late in the term, but they have a higher Constitutional purpose. The pardon power allows the executive to help move the country past feuds by pardoning both Hatfields and McCoys alike,
Pardoning Nixon was very unpopular in 1975. But in hindsight it was the right thing to do. It allowed the country to put Watergate behind us instead of litigate it for the next decade. We need that today as well.
I'd agree except for the fact that Biden really has no power to convince Fonnie Willis (sp?) tho a pardon on the underlying federal crimes might scuttle the NY prosecution. The problem is such a pardon would make continuing the state prosecution Fonnie's ticket to the big time. But maybe there is some way he can do it after the election.
I'm not that sure about Nixon anymore. Maybe if he'd faced consequences back then (republicans weren't convinced it was all political) we'd be in a better place now.
Other countries successfully prosecute their criminal former politicians, including at the highest level.
The usual reason for prosecuting criminal politicians is maintaining the rule of law. There is no cause to believe that the US democracy is so weak that it can no longer do this.
However, when it comes to coups, a more important reason emerges: not maintaining the rule of law, but preservation of the democracy itself. Without prosecution, there are no consequences, no deterrent to future attempts.
History demonstrates that democracies fail when they choose not to defend themselves, especially after an initial, usually somewhat bumbling coup attempt, which results in a later, more competent attempt.
the line between "using government to defend democracy" and "using government as a club against your political opponents" is pretty vague. It's a 'fredom fighter" vs "terrorist" problem.
"There is no cause to believe that the US democracy is so weak"... I think you're being optimstic. Many Democrats seem to conflate "liberalism" (in the Millian sense) with "democracy", believing that if we're moving toward greater personal autonomy and liberty, our democracy must be healthy. To be fair, many on the Right do the same with respect to govt regulation and taxation. Neither are accurate.
Democracy means that, outside of truly extraordinary circumstances like legalizing murder or rape or slavery, the laws broadly reflect the will of the people. On those terms. American democracy is not healthy. Our "representatives" have no interest in representing or legislating, preferring to outsource governance to unelected (and therefore unaccountable) bureaucrats and judges. Maybe their rules do enjoy the "consent of the governed"; maybe not. Since none of those people ever have to face voters, we'll never know.
As I said I don't doubt there are good arguments but most send don't seem to be thinking seriously about what they claim to care about so much. People who claim to care deeply about democracy should have a couple layers thought out and opinions about which prosecutions are appropriate and have general principles that aren't trivial to counterexample-- almost all people who claim to be so motivated don't.
re: other countries. Sure, and there were plenty of times in the past we could have prosecuted an ex-president. We could have prosecuted Nixon if he'd not been pardoned. Maybe it would have been ugly but there would have been little sus it was a political prosecution. What's going on now is a particularly odd time at which the trust in experts by the GOP is at a minimum, it's turning a corner so has no prior leaders that can speak to new base and in very large part because it's fundamentally more difficult in a 2 party first pass the post presidential system than a multiparty system.
As I point out above when it comes to stealing elections the incentives go the other way. Let's imagine you have Trump2 in the WH, he's hated with a passion by the other side and he almost certainly done something that our extensive federal laws would let him be prosecuted for. His incentive is to steal the election so he isn't prosecuted not to avoid stealing it.
re: rule of law there isn't much correlation between what can be prosecuted criminally and the unconstitutional and horrible things a president can do. John Adams and his congress had people thrown in prison for critisizing his admin and he wasn't punished and that seems to have resulted in pretty stable norms going forward. Indeed the constitution expressly prevents congresspeople from being punished criminally for anything they do via speaking or voting on legislation even if what they vote on is a bill to authorize paying someone to kill their political rival. Besides we choose not to prosecute ppl all the damn time for less important benefits like taking down a bigger criminal so surely preservation of democracy gets equal billing.
Also
I appreciated your thoughtful post, and a number of the points you made.
Preservation of democracy doesn't get equal billing, because it is the environment that allows all else. For preservation of democracy, we all have to be vigilant, including the legal system.
I agree that we don't prosecute people all the time, particularly those with power - but that's a failing, not an excuse. I much prefer norms which holds people to a higher standard, commensurate with their power and responsibilities, because such norms produce durable political systems, smaller power distances, and either a greater sense of fairness for all, or at least less cynicism. It must start, of course, at the top.
I'd absolutely prefer a system in which there wasn't freedom not to charge people and under such a system the prosecution of Trump would be much less dangerous. Indeed, the danger arises preciscely because there are so many federal crimes that are so broad that they could be creatively charged against any long-serving politician (thankfully SCOTUS said honest services fraud is quite as terrifyingly broad but it's only one such statute) and it's only norms about charging at the DOJ which limit such uses.
If it was up to me SCOTUS would hold that it was an affirmative defense to prosecution on each count individually that the government regularly choose not to bring equally strong cases with similar mitigating circumstances.
I'm even of mixed feelings about the federal prosecution -- that's been carefully brought in a narrow way that, even if many voters don't understand, is much less likely to convince a future GOP admin to abuse prosecution. Though the behavior of judge Canon makes me think that it will probably will be dismissed or scuttled meaning the price was paid for no gain.
However both the NY and GA prosecutions are very suspect. NY is charging a crime they'd never have charged against anyone else on a novel legal theory (that u can bootstrap to a felony by using a state law that makes it a felony to falsify records in commission of another crime -- and u can use an uncharged federal crime for it) after failing to indict on stronger charges and then getting political pushback.
The GA behavior is much more serious but the the prosecutor there went and fundraised on the fact she was going to charge Trump and since then has both charged it and filed motions that are very troubling. For instance, she threatened to withhold discovery bc some defendants invoked their speedy trial rights and including as part of her theory that it's a crime to ask the legislature to behave unconstitutionally. I've been telling the conservatives I argue with that it's not really treating Trump that differently -- it's the cost of coming into contact with US justice system in a case the DA thinks can bring them good press (same thing that happened to Alec Baldwin but the obvious holes in that case eventually got it dropped).
Unfortunately, both the GA and NY cases are therefore exactly the kind of things that are likely to give a future republican DA the idea that they can prosecute a Dem canidate for some random bullshit theory.
"The usual reason for prosecuting criminal politicians is maintaining the rule of law. There is no cause to believe that the US democracy is so weak that it can no longer do this."
The problem with this is that past Presidents, and other prominent government officials, have committed crimes far worse than Trump has been accused of. George W Bush lied us into war in Iraq and ran an illegal torture program, Obama committed literal treason by backing Al Qaeda in Syria, went to war with Libya without congressional authorization, etc. And Clinton was more clearly guilty of lying under oath than Trump is of any of these accusations. Hillary Clinton and David Patreus are at least equally guilty of breaking classified records laws, and HC obstructed justice by deleting 30k emails. Why is Trump all of a sudden the 1st president who has to go to jail for breaking the law?
Sorry, no.
In the "I committed a worse crime" contest, Trump trumps them all. A coup attempt is nullification of the existing state, the highest crime extant.
America likes to think of itself as a people where people are equal before the law, but the truth is that the powerful are rarely charged. However, when the state itself is threatened, of course it is going to respond, even in the US. It's too big to ignore, especially when the perp likes to brag about his crimes.
Some of the cases you cite are political opinions, and not illegal actions. Others were not Presidents, who, let's remember, are sworn to defend the Constitution. But if we were to grant you that they were all readily prosecutable crimes, none of them were undermining the state. Although Bush's torture regime definitely ended anyone's view of America as the exceptional state, and that has cost the US incalculably.
I believe letting Nixon off the hook was the wrong call , and letting Bush off likely the right call, in part because I believe the case against Bush would have almost assuredly failed. But those are political opinions and decisions, not legal ones.
In what way did Trump attempt a coup? He believed that the 2020 election was illegitimate, which has happened before in US history, and tried to challenge it based on the legal advice he was given. And if you are going to argue that he incited J6, then you would have to overturn the very high legal bar for incitement that currently exists.
And no, the crimes I cited are no more opinion than the accusations against Trump. Obama really did provide aid and comfort to a congressionally recognized enemy in Syria. Bush really did violate US law against using torture. Bill Clinton clearly lied under oath. These are indisputable.
It's you're responsibility to read up on publicly known events, and the 4 stages of Trump's coup attempt are now widely distributed.
When you're the President, and your AG is yelling at you in the Oval not to attempt to overturn the election, it should be a clue. Trump didn't follow his lawyers, he sought lawyers willing to abet his coup plans, and made them his lawyers. It's called lawyer shopping. And ultimately, he has to take responsibility for his actions, not blame his lawyers.
Ah yes, Bill Barr, the clean up man for Iran Contra and son of a Epstein benefactor, is a moral paragon of virtue who only has the best interest of the American people and rule of law.
Excellent comment
It's always strange hearing the tales of despair over in the States if you follow particular news outlets. Thanks for being a voice of reason. All these point to a very low (but non zero!) chance of civil war.
All good arguments. But isn't even a "low" risk of another American cicvil war a scary thought?
"The squeeky wheel gets the most grease." Some politicians command a large media presence, but they are few in number, but loud in voice. Because a few like MTG make outlandish statement doesn't mean that most or very many conservatives believe as she does. Her comments are foolish, but do drive ratings. The media doesn't care what damage they do to our democracy, they only care about ratings and ad revenue.
It is one thing to talk about fighting, but it is another thing to give up your job, your home, and put your life on the line. One positive thing that came out of Jan.'6 was that no where elese did we have violence. It could have spread, but it didn't.
I have complete confidence in our military that they will follow the consitution they were sworn to uphold, even if they may have some regrets. I also view Tommy Tuberville's position as a positive. Any thinking member of our military will note that he doesn't care about them or the damage he is doing to their lives or our military posture. All he cares about is his political position. None of his colleges are willing to openingly criticise him or even support him. Are these the type of people you want to give up your career for? I don't believe that many will be willing to support people who don't care about them. Their actions or lack of actions speak loudly to their lack of moral couage.
Relatively speaking, there are few Proud Boys and White Supremists, but very many true Americans who may differ with their neighbors, but are not willing to start killing anyone. As the legal proceedings continue, people will see Trump's supporters abanding him, as facing years in jail prove to be a high barrier to overcome. Additionally, Trump has no loyality to anyone except himself. So I see a race between his supporters and himself as to who abands who the first.
No matter what your feelings are about John McCain's politics he refused to leave his fellow service menbers and spent many additional years in prison becuase of his sense of loyality. Trump denigrated him becuase he was captured - how many service men and women will support a man who did this one of their own? A true American hero! How many Trump supporters have anywhere near this much courage to support Trump?
I don’t think a North v South or similar conflict was ever in the cards, but some kind of sustained insurgency has, at times, felt plausible. Thinking armed militas blowing up Amazon trucks and logistics infrastructure. Lots of IEDs and makeshift drone strikes.
I think Robert Evans probably has the most clear eyed take on the topic.
LOLz if the "armed militias" are anything like the rabble that attacked the capital in 2021 they'd likely accidentally blow themselves up before they did any damage to our infrastructure.
Doesn't take much to cause disruption https://www.npr.org/2023/01/18/1149694402/another-north-carolina-power-substation-shot
This worries me as well. A group of 50 men with hunting rifles engaged in guerilla tactics could besiege a major city dependent JIT flows of 18 wheelers. And that covers a lot of mid-sized cities.
Were this to occur, it would give the Left exactly what they want: an excuse to use economic and perhaps physical force to destroy their political opponents. Think what Canada did to the protesting truckers, but on steroids.
The GI Bill, great training for careers/trades outside the military; discounts on housing, groceries at the PX, full health and dental insurance, & etc. What exactly would military factions be fighting over? The closest we’ll get to this is the annual Army vs Navy football game.
As for Trump and his band of Banana Republicans. With 20 million newly registered voters in November 2024, voters more than 90% don’t like Republican Party policies -- with a decent turnout, I think Trump loses by more than 7 million votes. I think independent voters who voted for Trump in 2020 won’t do so again,!or they’ll sit this election out at home because of no incentive. Guys like former Arkansas Governor Huckabee boast if Trump loses because of “indictments and trial” the 2024 election will be settled by “bullets not ballots.” No doubt Huckabee will grab his spear, put on his horned buffalo hat, and lead Steve Bannon’s “army of 50,000 angry patriots” into battle. These cranks play tough guys on talk radio.
I feel like Afghanistan is the better model for a civil war between blue cities (with national institutions) and red counties (with militias).
Very interesting observation. Here is one difference: Afghanistan has only two large cities, but the US has many more. Also, in Afghanistan probably 80% of the population is ex urban, whereas in the United States it's more like 40%.
I think we are presently in a civil war of sorts. Republicans can't win on a national level, so they're not interested in competing in the same game any more. They're working outside of the system.
Ask yourself whether we are at war with Russia right now or not. It's not such an easy question to answer, right? I think the same is true of domestic politics right now: the leader of one of two major parties is actively trying to undermine the rule of law, and the "soldiers" are playing along, lest they give up their remaining power base.
Is it possible to work "inside the system" when all the gatekeepers of that system think everything you stand for is evil incarnate and are willing to use the tools of that system to prevent you from working within it?
I really like your analogy to the Russia war. Are we at war with Russia or not? Are we in a civil war or not? Neither has been "declared", but... Clausewitz was right: the line between politics and war turns out to be rather nebulous.
Remember that the Republicans won the 2016 elections. I doubt losing one election gives them enough of a "We can't win" attitude to have most republicans switch to a "outside of the system" strategy. However, I could see limited states, i.e. Florida/Texas, independently taking such a stance, but largely I don't believe Republicans are as desperate as you claim at the moment, especially considering they still have the 2024 elections to compete in.
Despite this, if the democrats win 2024 it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say Trumpists and his detachments (Vivek, DeSantis) may become more desperate to revive their ideology. It comes down to when, and if, the republicans do really feel they are up against a system which they cannot win in. I don't believe they are all the way there now.
You may be right. I was mainly referring to the current ongoing extralegal stuff like trying to claim the 2020 election was rigged. "No election is legitimate if my party doesn't win" seems to be a strategy in and of itself, with many GOP politicians between 2020 and today remaining in this extralegal boat.
and the leader of the other political party has done nothing but demonize his opponents instead even bothering to attempt to "unify". The appearance of political prosecution to interfere with the election does not help.
Don’t forget about Wall Street. The money men and women don’t want the American consumers distracted from consuming. They control our politicians. They want the profits flowing, not guns a blazing.
One big difference between the last insurrection Jan 6 and future parallels is the last was focused and the upcoming are very diffuse. Trump's tweets called on the faithful to assemble on Jan 6 for several months before the event and he promised them it would be "wild." The MAGAs had plenty of time to charter busses and plan their armament.
The only corresponding focus moment for upcoming events is verdict day. Since the authorities now know the MAGA penchant for violence, they can be fully prepared. They can also be uncooperative on the scheduling—they can announce the exact day, with only one- or two-days advanced notice. No time to charter busses.
In terms of logistics and in terms of preparedness by the authorities these are very different situations.
Why would they do that when they can have federal informants get the crowd riled up and make the right look worse? It worked in OKC and J6.
On J6 I saw Trump and a whole bunch of Trump supporters speaking on at the ellipse to get folks riled up. "You gotta fight like hell or you won't have a country anymore.”
Yes, because no politician has ever told his supporters to fight for something before.
And I'm talking about someone who spent 1/5 and the morning of 1/6 begging everyone to go into the Capitol.