Civil War 2.0?

For years now, a variety of political commentators, Timothy Snyder (On Tyranny), Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (How Democracies Die) among them, have sounded the alarm about the rising tide of authoritarianism in America.?This authoritarian trend seems clear enough, embodied in Trump’s rise to power, his behavior as President, and his refusal to accept defeat in 2020, as he perpetuated, and continues to perpetuate, the Big Lie about that loss.?

Proponents of authoritarianism invariably identify a population with long-festering grievances to act as the base of their movement.?In the American style, they begin by damaging, then overthrowing democratic processes at the local, state, and federal levels — chiefly by empowering local and state governing bodies to cast aside majority voting, through gerrymandering districts and empowering legislatures to simply overturn the popular vote.?The subversion of democratic process is amplified by Orwellian narratives that justify the subterfuge.?(Note the promise made by Trump and his loyalists to punish the “undemocratic” opposition, once they have been returned to power.)?And not just the opposition.?Throughout the world, the populist base fiercely supports the closing of boundaries against outsiders, even those already living within that country, as part of a race-based ideology.?The cult of personality enshrines the leader.?Trump is out of central casting for this part, and he has played it well.

In the face of this building authoritarian tide, most Democrats have emphatically focused on restoring what they see as the sacred rule of law as the bulwark of democracy.?Resisting the urge to turn authoritarian themselves, Democratic lawmakers who might be in position to turn the tide, have, for the most part, taken a cautious approach.?I am thinking principally about Attorney General Merritt Garland and President Joe Biden who, I fear, might defend the strictest interpretation of democratic processes until it is too late.

There’s a second explanation that occurs to me – the human tendency to ignore or minimize unpleasantness…the head-in-the-sand phenomenon.?The tide of White Nationalist rebellion is like the onrushing climate catastrophe.?We see it coming.?We know about its destructive power.?But we keep failing to give it sufficient credence and do not express the urgency necessary to join together in defined and decisive action.?In both cases, we seem more like Nero, fiddling while our civilization burns, than like democratic activists ready to fight for our rights.

Like others, I’ve been as confused as I’ve been upset by the authoritarian tide, unable to envision how exactly it might peak and what will happen on the other side.?For instance, I don’t envision a straight-forward takeover, as we saw with the likes of Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.?I don’t see the organization and determination on Trump’s part, or on any of the Trumpist followers, for that kind of systematic, post-revolutionary activity.?Nor do I see a neat division into two sides, as we had in the American Civil War of 1860.?American geography no longer seems to work that way.?Nor is there a clear and compelling Trumpian ideology to rally or organize around, as Communism and Fascism once were.

On the democratic side, the opposition is disorganized.?Democrats, Independents, and a few disgruntled and disempowered Republicans comprise a fragmented, relatively leaderless group.?They appear unable or unwilling to coalesce around a decisive political agenda – essentially a ‘wartime’ strategy.?Do we even have one??

It's the fragmentation, itself, that may provide a clue to how the fighting will take shape, and how civil war, not a revolution, may emerge.?This possibility was brought into sharper focus for me by Ian Bassin’s recent New York Times review of two newly published books: Barbara Walter’s?How Civil Wars Start and How to Stop Them, and Stephen Marche’s?The Next Civil War: Dispatches from the American Future.?

I found Walter’s description of the three factors that predict the march to civil war particularly cogent.

First, she asks: Is a country in transition toward or away from democracy??I think we can confidently say that ours is moving away.?We see that in every realm of politics, from state and local legislators to the Supreme Court, which has systematically undermined voting rights in our nation.?We see the transition in the increasing threats of militias and conspiracy theorists.?We see it in the authoritarian rhetoric and the blatant disregard for democratic norms, epitomized by the Big Lie about the 2020 presidential election.?A lie, supported by the majority of Republicans, that casts doubt about the legitimacy of our entire electoral process.

The second sign, says Walter, is the growth of factionalism.?In the United States, political movements and parties divide into Red and Blue.?Local politics often break into Black and White groupings, Christians and “Others,” working classes and what they see as elites.?Highlighting and exacerbating such divisions, the movement to ban “progressive” books and outlaw the teaching of critical race theory because it makes some students uncomfortable is hopping from one school district to another.?So, too the hyperbolic and distorted debate about “defunding” the police.?Each group stirring up fears about the other side.?

And what we don’t see are coherent ideologies, within and between parties, that could form the basis of manageable social and political discourse.

The third sign, according to Walter, is a dominant group’s loss of status.?This plays out in America in so many ways, not least in the “great replacement” story propagated by the White, male, Trumpist base. According to this theory, immigrants and people of color will soon be the majority in the United States, a trend that must be either stopped or managed — and soon.?It is, of course, this White, male demographic minority that most thrills to Trump’s call to violence.??

Trump provides a powerful focus for grievances, but he does not present a coherent plan of the future.?What would replace the “elites?” Who would rule the Black and Brown multitudes??How would the old America be restored??For that reason, I can’t see his troops fighting in unison any more than I see white liberals and people of color joining together.?

If Trump wins the presidency in 2024, however, liberals will wade into the fray.?If that victory involves cheating and illiberal tactics, as it almost surely will – the result of massive gerrymandering, overturning electoral votes at state and local levels, and other strategies now openly planned – then Democrats will go to the streets.?Even if the cheating isn’t blatant, I envision massive demonstrations of the sort that seemed to win the day during the Civil Rights and anti-war marches of the ‘60s, and the Black Lives Matter marches just a year ago.?And when those marches prove futile because Republicans, like the South African ruling parties of old, have control of government and military resources, then those demonstrations may also turn violent.?

Trump famously tests his most outrageous ideas out in public.?In a recent speech, he foreshadowed, even urged, this kind a nakedly anti-democratic, violent response if he fails to come up the winner.?As we know, he cannot abide being a loser, much less a two-time loser.?

So, what kind of civil war are we talking about? It might look more like guerrilla warfare, threatening and dangerous, fought in local skirmishes throughout the country.?Or perhaps it would take the form of loud, disrespectful argumentation in state and local government buildings and public events.?Local and state police would be stretched thin as an increasing percentage of the population armed itself.?Public safety would erode.?Calling out the National Guard could become a regular and ordinary activity, with a significant percentage of Guard members, and indeed the military altogether, loyal Trumpists.?Or maybe the wheels are government are just so gummed up that public business comes to a virtual halt. This potential for sustained, intermittent chaos across the country, fueled in part by a shameless media fed by coverage of spectacles and drama, seems more than possible, and perhaps more likely than a pitched battle between two sides.?

Yet all these possibilities—however this 21st century civil war might proceed—would be poisonous, exhausting, and demoralizing. It is hard for me to imagine how, in the longer term, we would avoid the destruction of our democracy.

Now look, I could be entirely wrong. I’ve been called an alarmist before.?And now, when the future of our families, our democratic ideals, and our planet seem even more vulnerable than they did five years ago when I wrote my first blog of this nature, I desperately hope I am.?But what are we going to do, today, if I’m not?