Who Will Win America's Next Civil War?

We know what and who we don’t like, we might be willing to self-segregate, but we’re not at the point we’re willing to force other so-called enemies to go away.

If a second American civil war occurred today, it definitely wouldn’t look like this. Source

One of my favorite accounts on YouTube belongs to a user named “Whatifalthist.” As his name suggests, he explores alternate history scenarios, as well as contemplate the future. Recently, he published a video exploring a possible second American civil war, specifically the matter of who would win this hypothetical conflict. Here’s the video, which is recommend you watch before reading on:

This is actually the latest in a number of videos he’s recorded on the topic of a Second American Civil War, given the fluidity of the topic. Though I find it hard to disagree with his assessment, I reject his premise. I don’t think America’s next civil war will be anywhere near the scale and size he suggests, nor will it be as well organized as suggested. Like many who talk about the matter, I think Whatifalthist, whose real name is Rudyard Lynch, is envisioning an America which doesn’t exist, not yet, anyway.

For a civil war of the nature described in the video to occur, the dividing lines need to be much more stark than they are. I know that sounds ridiculous to say, given the apparently hyper-polarized nature of our politics. But that’s just the thing: the hyper-polarization, to the extent it exists, is limited to our politics and, to a nearly equal degree, with our culture. It certainly matters, but is it enough to spill over into open violence? Not as long as people’s identities aren’t wrapped up in it. The thing about America’s culture wars and political polarization is that it’s all kind of skin-deep. We know what and who we don’t like, we might be willing to self-segregate, but we’re not at the point we’re willing to force other so-called enemies to go away.

In his Substack, Adam Mastroianni described this sentiment as “hate without hurt:”

If you can have mistreatment without hatred, can you also have hatred without mistreatment?

I think the answer is yes, and we’re living it right now. For a country where there are supposedly “millions" of people "willing to undertake, support, or excuse political violence,” the actual amount of political violence is pretty darn low, and it hasn’t increased.

There’s no good statistics on how often, say, a Democrat pops a Republican right in the mouth for saying something conservative, or how often a conservative slashes a liberal’s tires for being liberal. One place that shows up is in hate crime statistics. Political ideology isn’t one of the protected categories that can get a regular crime labeled as a hate crime, but the other categories—race, religion, national origin, etc.—can obviously get mixed up in political hatred. Most headlines will tell you that hate crimes have increased in recent years, but what they won’t mention is that’s only true for reported hate crimes. Total hate crimes seem to have fallen, meaning that what looks like an increase in hate crimes may in fact be an increase in reporting.

It’s important to understand what’s being said here: people are claiming to be victims of hate crimes more than ever. However, the number of instances where hate crimes are verified to have occurred have actually gone down. Obviously, thinking you’ve been the victim of a hate crime isn’t the same thing as actually being the victim of one.

More [bold mine]:

Big-ticket political violence—shootings, bombings, and the like—gets counted as terrorism, and there were more terrorist attacks in the 1970s, when supposedly people with different politics got along, than there were the 2010s, especially when you account for the fact that the United States added 130 million people in the meantime. Few people remember the 159 plane hijackings that occurred between 1961 and 1972, or that white supremacists murdered a Jewish talk show host in 1984, or that the Earth Liberation Front burned down a bunch of car dealerships and university buildings in the early 2000s. If you’ve got a short memory for tragedies, it’ll always seem like we live in uniquely tragic times.

All this talk of balkanization doesn’t hold up in the face of the facts. To balkanize, you need well-defined dividing lines. They don’t exist in the U.S. Historically, balkanization requires a claim to territory or bloodlines. Differences in opinion, even when strongly-held, don’t suffice as well-defined dividing lines. Broadly speaking, American nationalism, fierce as it can be, has never been territorially-defined. Likewise, race and racism has been a feature of American history, but in 2022, racial consciousness is a serious matter mostly for Blacks, while for all other Americans, is largely performance art. It’s a matter of finding an identity because the hyper-individualism that defines American life has stripped us of any collective identity.

In effect, Americans don’t take all of this too seriously, no matter how hot the rhetoric can be at times. This isn’t to say our divisions aren’t real or of no concern. Mastroianni admits that yes, Americans dislike the other side far more than they ever did before, but that dislike isn’t enough to trigger widespread violence. We’re not forced to live near people we don’t like and, if we did, how would you know, anyway? I don’t know if my neighbors are Democrats or Republicans and neither do most Americans, because, after all, nobody talks to their neighbors anymore. Not to mention, even in 2022, talking politics is still considered taboo in polite company. And if these political divisions really mattered that much, you wouldn’t have Democrats from California moving to Republican areas because of lower cost of living, lower taxes, lower crime, etc. Like Mastrioianni says, people are complicated. They can believe something with every fiber of their being, yet lack the conviction necessary to live by it.

This is why ethnicity, geography, and religion remain far more potent manifestations of identity than ideology and political affiliations. Even more than race, because race is a broader category than ethnicity. Anyone who’s paid any attention to the topic of race in the U.S. (how could you not, it’s all our media talks about) knows it’s not strictly about race, but also culture and politics. It explains how President Joe Biden can tell Black Americans “you ain’t Black” unless they vote Democrat. It’s a horrendously racist thing to say, but Biden gets away with it despite being a White man by virtue of being at the top of the cultural and political hierarchy. Many of those at the forefront of racial politics in the U.S. are, in fact, White leftists! Again, like most things, race relations are complicated in the U.S. It’s complexity makes it unlikely race would be enough to trigger a conflict in this country. It’s not so much that things are better than they are, it’s just, again, that it’s all kind of skin deep.

Self-segregation aside, America’s divisions don’t manifest into hard, physical divisions. Think places in Europe - like the Balkans - where ethno-nationalism goes back generations and where you had large numbers of ethnic groups sharing an area of the planet much smaller than some U.S. states, while still living in effectively separate societies, even at the local level. That’s not the U.S. today. Americans of different ethnicities and races rub elbows daily. There may be predominantly White and Black cities and neighborhoods, but this isn’t a country where people of different ethnicities and races stay behind their lines and never cross paths nor interact with people of other groups. That matters.

There’s one possible hard fault line emerging as we speak, however, and it probably won’t come as a surprise to most, though what it ultimately manifests as may. Balaji Srinivasan, entrepreneur and writer, observes that Democrats and Republicans have self-segregated to a point where they could effectively become ethnic groups:

Balaji Srinivasan @balajis

Remember, Democrats don't marry Republicans. Only 4% of Democrats are married to Republicans in this survey! People will marry across race, but not across party. However, at 96%…ideology becomes biology in one generation. Parties become ethnic groups. ifstudies.org/blog/marriages…

Again, few identities have proven as potent as ethnicity. Is it possible for a political party affiliation to become literally a matter of blood? I’m skeptical, but I’m also willing to say it’s too early to project how this is going to shape out. Again, ethno-nationalism has never been much of a phenomenon in the U.S., but perhaps it could find its roots in something seemingly unrelated as political party affiliation.

I realize some of this goes beyond the scope of the argument Rudyard Lynch was making in his video. My point is that the U.S. isn’t as fatally divided as it often seems. All societies are divided to one degree or another, but the U.S. isn’t to the extent necessary to spark widespread, high-intensity violence. Even if our divisions are severe, there are many mitigating factors placing a practical lid on the outbreak of war.

That all said, the unlikelihood of a civil war, with well-defined belligerents contesting for power and control of territory, doesn’t negate the likelihood of greater violence and instability in the years to come. That much I’m sure of, America will become an increasingly dangerous place to be for the foreseeable future. We can call it a civil war in a figurative sense, as a descriptor, if not in an academic sense. Making the distinction matters in terms of understanding and preparing for exactly what’s coming. A serious civil war, like that described by Lynch, would be so cataclysmic and life-altering, it’s nearly impossible to prepare for. It’s not enough to just stock up on guns and ammunition, nor is that a practical preparation for most Americans.

Based on current, events, the U.S. is headed for a time of increased low-level political violence, greater economic and political instability, and higher levels of crime. These are all things that are happening now and are no longer hypothetical scenarios. I focus a lot on crime in this space because most of us will come within close proximity of it and the risk of victimization will only increase in the coming years. While crime is certainly a politicized issue, it’s not quite as abstract as others. Everyone agrees crime is bad, it’s just that everyone has different opinions about why crime happens and who the actual aggressor and victims are. I promise I’ll say this just one more time in this entry: people are complicated.

It’s for that reason why I believe crime is getting worse and will get much worse. From Rod Dreher [bold mine]:

Hannah Arendt said in her 1951 book The Origins Of Totalitarianism that a shared characteristic of the pre-totalitarian liberal elites in both Russia and Germany was a carefree willingness to knock down pillars of civilization, simply for the pleasure of watching those who had been unjustly excluded in the past rush in to claim a place for themselves. When the history of our own civilization's decline and fall is written, note will be taken of the Western elites -- not all leftists, not by a long shot -- who destroyed the moral and legal pillar rejecting collective guilt, and, along that spectrum, those who destroyed the liberal principle of judging people not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character.

It’s not so much that the people in charge are causing the crime. They’re not, not directly, anyway. It’s just that they can’t be bothered to stop it. Which means, if they’re not causing it, they’re certainly contributing to it. Meanwhile, the topic of guns and self-defense remains hot as ever. It’s unlikely the state will become more permissive in its attitude towards either, even if it never attempts a serious gun-grab. We are likely to see our ability protect ourselves, our families, and our property curtailed, even as self-defense becomes more important than ever due to the state’s increasing inability and unwillingness to maintain order, a trend that accelerated following the death of George Floyd under police custody in 2020.

Eventually, all these trends - anarcho-tyranny and the progressive breakdown of rule of law, political hyper-polarization, distrust in our institutions, fundamental disagreements over what America means and the nature of reality - will converge once more, just as they did in 2020. The U.S. is convulsed by periodic waves of social unrest and I believe, before the decade is out, we’ll see yet another such wave, only this time, it’ll be worse than the last. The combination of increasing polarization and politicization of even normal life and increasing crime will lead to yet another mass outburst over a supposed grievance, resulting in violent unrest on a national scale. A sobering reality many Americans will be forced to come to grips with during this moment is that while civil unrest can be contained, there aren’t enough cops or soldiers in this country to restore order in the event of a nationwide loss of domestic order.

If the Floyd riots of 2020 were a preview of what’s to come, 2021 South Africa scaled to the U.S. should give you an idea of what the next wave of violent unrest will look like. It may last only a week, like the South African unrest did, or it may last for months like the Floyd riots, punctuated by periods of higher intensity unrest, followed by less intense periods of unrest. Unsurprisingly, it’ll prove divisive and those fortunate enough not to be caught in the middle of it will take sides and point fingers at the other. If we’re not physically fighting the other side, we’ll sure be screaming at them.

It won’t be an actual civil war, but it’ll look like a civil war, at times, and that’s what will matter most. At its worst, the unrest will get so bad, it’ll lead to what’s known as a “Without Rule-of-Law” (WROL) situation. WROL refers to a scenario where law and order has effectively broken down and constitutes a worst-case scenario. However, this isn’t likely to last for long, with a complicating factor being that a lot of mayhem can occur in a short period of time. A WROL situation will definitely resemble a civil war, but again, this is unlikely to happen in most places in the country. Where it does occur, the locales are likely to be exceedingly dangerous to start (think Memphis, New Orleans, Philadelphia), with ineffective existing law enforcement. This will not be the reality for most Americans, thankfully.

A point Lynch raises is that the role of the military plays a decisive factor in who ultimately proves victorious in a civil conflict. While true, he also assumes the military will take the side of the right-wing, because that’s the faction the military historically aligns with. Again, he’s describing a non-existent state of affairs in the U.S., at least today. As I’ve explained in the past, the military is fully aligned with the Regime (academia, cultural elites, media, state) in the U.S. The armed forces aren’t a separate society and, in 2022, constitutes a uniformed bureaucracy within the massive permanent administrative ecosystem which actually runs the country. In effect, their side has already been chosen for them: the Regime and, by default, the Left.

Does this mean we should expect to see the military deployed against American citizens, like so many on the Right fear? Despite President Biden using the military as a prop in his rather threatening speech at the start of September, the likelihood of the military being used for domestic operations is quite low. Instead, the public’s faith in the military, which remains far higher than that of any other institution, is being leveraged as part of a national “cultural revolution” against the country. In fact, in a civil unrest context, the military would probably do more damage by staying out of the fray, by refusing to step in and assist in restoring order, as they did in June 2020, when they all but said outright they’d disobey President Donald Trump if he ordered them to deploy to the streets. Of course, if President Biden gave the order, the military would likely obey, but that’s just the thing: Biden isn’t likely to give the order and, if he ever did, he would do so after most of the damage had already been done. This would prevent the military from having to actually confront the prospect of drawing its arms on the public, regardless of what crimes they might be committing, while sending a surreptitious message: we’re in charge and we don’t answer to you.

Now that we’ve established the nature of the American divide, what the civil war will look like, and what side the military will take, we arrive at the inevitable question: who will win the next civil war?

The answer: the Regime. Instead of seeing their legitimacy weaken as a result of social instability, it’ll only grow, as people will come to realize there’s really no other way to survive than to submit. As I said before, owning guns and ammo might save your life, but you may end up paying with your freedom if the state doesn’t uphold your right to self-defense and to bear arms. With a population so demoralized and made dependent on the increasingly imperial government in Washington, the Regime’s legitimacy will be bolstered by the fact most people will choose to go along because the cost of resistance is so much higher. The lesson of COVID is that it doesn’t a lot to force a population of free people to submit to the state’s will. In times of instability, the people in charge tend to gain strength, not lose it.

All the fears of “fascism” and “right-wing authoritarian” in the public discourse are entirely displaced. This is the talk of a regime bolstering its position, not that of one who’s authority is faltering. We’re more likely to see a left-wing proto-totalitarianism in the near term than we are to see a right-wing authoritarianism because it’s building as we speak. What Lynch describes in his videos is likely to occur only after a period of rule under the current and soon-to-be order, after a series of prolonged crises and failures eventually erodes the legitimacy of the Regime. How long this process will take to unfold is anyone’s guess. It could take up to a generation or more, but it’s not going to happen by the next election and it’s far-fetched to think it’d occur by the end of this decade. One of the running themes of this blog is that there exists an “order of operations” when it comes to the rise and fall of empires and the U.S., as it exists today, has yet to encounter many of the more serious crises that portend decline and collapse.

The truth is, no matter what those making a living and name for themselves selling civil war/collapse narratives say, America is nowhere near death. And whether you’re on the Left or Right, I don’t see how that could be a bad thing. It’s nice not to have to worry about foreign invasion or starvation, among other things. Meanwhile, in First World Europe, foreign invasion has been something of a constant throughout history and while starvation isn’t a likely scenario at the moment, food supplies are little less reliable than here. Life in America certainly won’t be as pleasant as we’ve known it most our lives, but come what may, we are better geared to weather the storm than the rest of the world.

This is yet another reason I find a civil war in an academic sense unlikely in the U.S. America will likely become a more chaotic and disorderly place in the future, but it still has too much going for it that it likely won’t be destabilized to the point where killing each other will end up being the better option. Those who do foolishly decide to take up arms during this time will likely find few, if any, compatriots standing aside them and, to quote Master Yoda from Star Wars, their decision to fight the power will forever dominate their destiny.

What’s more likely to follow the explosion of civil disorder outlined above resembling a civil war is a protracted period of low-intensity conflict. It’ll manifest itself differently across the country, but over time, it’ll lead to the diminishing of the Regime’s credibility. Maybe, by then, the rift between Democrats and Republicans will create the ethno-nationalism necessary to create an irreconcilable divide in this country, or maybe not. After all, when it comes to politics, nationalism is derived. Many hardened communists in Eastern Europe became something else entirely after the existing order collapsed.

By the same token, a civil war might occur by the time the Regime loses legitimacy, but even then, I don’t believe it will. Instead, we’ll likely see a rebellion, a displacement of the existing order by an emerging one, and the transfer of power will be relatively peaceful. What this new order will look like is certainly anybody’s guess, though I have some ideas which I’ll explore in future posts. Lynch does share his own take on what may ultimately manifest once this cycle of chaos, instability, and conflict in America comes to a close: aggressive, militaristic Christian fascism. Whether that’s a good or bad thing certainly depends on your political convictions.

Agree or disagree, I hope you’ll watch the video and draw your own conclusions. And I hope all of you, like me, are in it until the end of this critical chapter of the American story and beyond.

Edward Chang is a defense, military, and foreign policy writer. Follow him on Twitter at @Edward_Chang_8.

If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!