24 Comments
User's avatar
Grayson Reim's avatar

Two things:

1. Loved the framing of civil war around a less-though-of definition.

2. Young people hate republicans. Like, I know it's dumb analysis, but I can't help but think Trump's army would be the first geriatric army. Idk, just seems like a fundamental issue in trying to start a civil war.

3. Baby-boomer morality is accelerating, and I can't help but wonder how we under-sell the generational shift going on will have massive effects on politics: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/28/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers-as-americas-largest-generation/ (Maybe it already is.....)

Expand full comment
Grayson Reim's avatar

thorough definition* lolz should of proof read. agh

Expand full comment
Grayson Reim's avatar

Hahah should of said three things...

Expand full comment
Nathan Barnard's avatar

That's a really good point. Violence is ridiculously, overwhelmingly, a young mans game (under 35, although there probably are enough 20 year olds who spend too much time in the dark corners of reddit)

Expand full comment
Michael Haley's avatar

you made the memeorandum feed with this article fyi

Expand full comment
Noah Smith's avatar

Is that good?

Expand full comment
Michael Haley's avatar

yes, tons of people will see it, good for business if nothing else

Expand full comment
Robert's avatar

I think we're quite close to having a national police force- 88% of local law enforcement vote Republican, 7% Libertarian. This should alarm folks a lot more. A powerful unifying force(Trump) with direct orders to consolidate and centralize their collective power and we have a nightmare scenario.

Expand full comment
Robert's avatar

Sounds like we're in line for more "Kidnap the liberal governor" militia terrorism and/or "shoot into crowds of minorities" (a la El Paso) then pitched battles. Pretty bad obviously but at least the FBI has been able to break up terror networks so far

Expand full comment
Poncho's avatar

I agree with the gist of this but I have a pet peeve here. The vast majority of violence in 2020 has come from the Marxist left. They have committed more violence and property damage in a typical weekend in major cities throughout the country than Trump supporters have done all year, combined. Yet they never get mentioned in civil-war discussions. It seems to me that the real risk of civil-war is if one of them gets into a power, a Bernie on steroids, and tries to get real hard leftist sh through on the thinnest margins. Gun confiscation, property redistribution on racial grounds, CRT run amock, etc. and the right just refuses. That seems far riskier than anything Trump is doing and more likely.

Expand full comment
Noah Smith's avatar

How many people have been murdered by leftist terrorism since 2016? 2?

Expand full comment
Poncho's avatar

If we look at just cops during riots, it would be more than that: google Patrick Underwood, David Dorn, Max Brewer...and maybe even the Compton cops might have connection. Nothing comparable on the right.

Expand full comment
Calum's avatar

You say that as if a right wing extremist didn’t just blow himself and city block up in Nashville

Expand full comment
Poncho's avatar

I dont think we know the politics of the Nashville bomber. Even then, what about all the inner city businesses that had to board up there shops because they were worried about riots if Trump won election? The left-wing extremism, atleast in 2020, has been a FAR larger threat than anything the right has done.

Expand full comment
Fox's avatar

You are a moron. True bolsheviks would never confiscate guns, or "redistribute property on racial grounds". Like seriously wtf are you talking about. Do you know anything about the bolshevik revolution? Or only what you have been told through propaganda and your bourgeoisie masters

Expand full comment
Blissex's avatar

The usual TDS fantasies leading to a disappointingly thin and vacuous discussion centred on the ridiculous possibility of a generalissimo style coup based on personalities.

But nearly all wars and civil wars (including most separatisms, as opposed to rebellions from below), happen because someone can fund them, they are conflicts between factions of the elites (sometimes actually funded and supported by foreign elites).

In the USA civil war it was not the USA armed forces that split, but their ruling elites, and the same happened in Spain, China, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Lybia, Yemen, etc. (the one in the Ukraine is a rebeelion instead). Various sections of the armed forces then follow their paymasters.

There is zero short or medium term risk that any substantial faction of the business and finance elites of the USA would reckon that it would profit them to fight physically over economic issues. Can you imagine the proprietors of Wal*mart or Google, or Blackrock or Bank of America deciding to fund a civil war, when they profit so much from "business as usual" in a large continental market?

Expand full comment
Ben's avatar

One thing I've been thinking more-and-more about is the degree to which Evangelical Millenarian thinking has infected the GOP

Given that the decline in American Christianity has mostly been among Mainline Protestant churches, the broader Christian community in the US is more dominated by Evangelicals than it has been in the past.

https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/

This dominance became politically relevant thanks to the strong association of Evangelicals with the GOP.

Finally, unlike during the Reagan years when the number of irreligious people was very small, the current Evangelical movement sees itself opposed by what they see as a godless, cosmopolitan enemy. The political affiliation of Evangelicals with the GOP means that this end-times thinking becomes transposed onto broader political conflicts hence increased talk to civil war, genocide etc.

Expand full comment
Rory Hester's avatar

Initial Answer Before reading article. No... no way. See reply for post article response.

Expand full comment
Rory Hester's avatar

A. zero chance of military coup... from someone who spent 22-years in the Military. People who worry about this have never been in the military and watch to many movies. Just not culturally plausible at all.

B. On gun owners--- you are partially right. Yes, many gun owners own guns to hedge against the government. The 2nd amendment is explicitly for that purpose. Wrong about preparing for a race war. Its just not how radical gun owners thin... I live in Idaho... I know a few. Their fantasy opponents aren't minorities, they are tyrannical liberals (description... not accusation). Some scenario where a leftist government sent troops to confiscate weapons and occupy the streets.

C. Absolutely agree with this guy. Its up to conservatives/republicans to make sure that these radicals don't get nominated. Trump is just a terrible person at the wrong time. He is this terrible combination of charisma mixed up with stupidity and crazy. I honestly think that once Trump in out office, and he doesn't have as large a platform, the crazy will die down.

Expand full comment
Noah Smith's avatar

Isn't "tyrannical liberals" a proxy for "black people" in these people's minds, though?

Expand full comment
Rory Hester's avatar

No. They don't believe Blacks are going to come into power and pass laws that restrict their freedoms, they believe the danger is from generic liberals from California or NYC or DC. (Think Pelosi or AOC). Its not like they would be ok with white liberals confiscating guns, but not ok with black liberals doing it. They assume that the danger comes from white college educated liberals who live in big cities.

Basically think about gun control as a proxy for their biggest fears. Who do you see on TV advocating for gun control... you don't see BLM activists going on about it... you see people like Beto (white male) or a lot of white middle class females.

To prove my point... google "gun control advocates" images.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gun+control+advocates&rlz=1C1GCEB_enUS916US916&sxsrf=ALeKk03Gzitune5Mbv0oXlEZFJCkk2MGMQ:1609711303929&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjBmtjz4YDuAhXPmeAKHbGDAOsQ_AUoAnoECBUQBA&biw=1280&bih=521

Expand full comment
Tamritz's avatar

The US has 50 states. Most of them have a very clear color - red or blue. So secession can be the reaction to a violent constitutional crisis. California may secede if Trump is declared the winner without actually winning. And I doubt the possibility that Republicans will fight to keep California in the union as Lincoln did. They may say: good riddance.

Expand full comment
Anton's avatar

Most don't have a very clear color in actuality tho. Obviously the majority of Californians voted for Biden, but 34% voted for Trump. That's 6 million Trump voters in one of the bluest states. There are more Trump voters in California than in any other state. As this article pointes out, the Second American Civil War wouldn't be between states like the first one.

Expand full comment
Noah Smith's avatar

Yeah, it's urban/rural

Expand full comment