A Guardian Article Suggests that the US is Headed for Civil War

in #news2 years ago

dark-gbbe2cab11_1280.jpg

A story I ran across in the Guardian today gave me pause. Titled "The next US civil war is already here – we just refuse to see it," this piece neatly summed up some of the fears of the intelligensia. Here's a quote from the article:

"The United States today is, once again, headed for civil war, and, once again, it cannot bear to face it. The political problems are both structural and immediate, the crisis both longstanding and accelerating. The American political system has become so overwhelmed by anger that even the most basic tasks of government are increasingly impossible. The legal system grows less legitimate by the day. Trust in government at all levels is in freefall, or, like Congress, with approval ratings hovering around 20%, cannot fall any lower. ... The consequences of the breakdown of the American system is only now beginning to be felt. January 6 wasn’t a wake-up call; it was a rallying cry."

It may be true that our government in general and our electoral process in particular have lost legitimacy in the eyes of many. The alt-right's militarization and infiltration of law enforcement are, as the story author points out, clear signs of brewing unrest. The author's comparison of our situation with pre-Civil War times also seems appropriate, but only conditionally so. What this article leaves out is geography and technology. And I don't think those things are trivial.

The Civil War was geographically bounded. There was North and South. The article didn't make any attempt to frame the new civil war in terms of geographic sides. It instead focused on partisan, red v blue hogwash. Does the author imagine a war between urban centers and their suburban/rural neighbors? Battles between red and blue states? I mean, a war involves physical infrastructure and territory. This article didn't even mention this aspect of the theoretical future war in question.

Nor did the article consider present society's unique technological context. This is important because it changes the math of conflict on a basic level. If a person commits a terrorist act in this country today, the federal government can easily find them anywhere in the country or world. If a group physically declared war on any part of the US government, it seems likely that every member of that group would be located and apprehended or killed in short order, thanks to the tech at the government's disposal.

This is not to say that I think the author of this piece is entirely wrong. Our total system is failing in all sorts of ways. In Minneapolis, where I live, there has already been widespread civil unrest. But I think it's misleading and maybe even dangerous to start naming our country's escalating civil conflict a war. And I'm opposed to characterizing the factions involved in this conflict in partisan terms.

The blues talk about the evil reds and the reds talk about the evil blues. What a bunch of nonsense. Both parties are subservient to the same control regime. And its interests are rarely aligned with the real interests of average people.

When I first saw this headline, I was worried that something new had happened. But there was nothing new here. The piece just read like a blue telling us all to be more afraid of the reds. If anything is inching us towards a future where our low level civil conflict tilts into war, it's this kind of partisan fear mongering.

(Feature image from Pixabay.)


Read my novels:

Check out the comic I wrote:

Read my autobiographical monograph:

Sort:  


The rewards earned on this comment will go directly to the person sharing the post on Twitter as long as they are registered with @poshtoken. Sign up at https://hiveposh.com.