OPINION
MICHELLE
GOLDBERG
Are We Really Facing a Second Civil War?
Jan. 6,
2022
Michelle
Goldberg
By Michelle
Goldberg
Opinion
Columnist
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/opinion/america-civil-war.html
Barbara F.
Walter, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, has
interviewed many people who’ve lived through civil wars, and she told me they
all say they didn’t see it coming. “They’re all surprised,” she said. “Even
when, to somebody who studies it, it’s obvious years beforehand.”
This is
worth keeping in mind if your impulse is to dismiss the idea that America could
fall into civil war again. Even now, despite my constant horror at this
country’s punch-drunk disintegration, I find the idea of a total meltdown hard
to wrap my mind around. But to some of those, like Walter, who study civil war,
an American crackup has come to seem, if not obvious, then far from unlikely,
especially since Jan. 6.
Two books
out this month warn that this country is closer to civil war than most
Americans understand. In “How Civil Wars Start: And How to Stop Them,” Walter
writes, “I’ve seen how civil wars start, and I know the signs that people miss.
And I can see those signs emerging here at a surprisingly fast rate.” The
Canadian novelist and critic Stephen Marche is more stark in his book, “The
Next Civil War: Dispatches From the American Future.” “The United States is
coming to an end,” Marche writes. “The question is how.”
In
Toronto’s Globe and Mail, Thomas Homer-Dixon, a scholar who studies violent
conflict, recently urged the Canadian government to prepare for an American
implosion. “By 2025, American democracy could collapse, causing extreme
domestic political instability, including widespread civil violence,” he wrote.
“By 2030, if not sooner, the country could be governed by a right-wing
dictatorship.” As John Harris writes in Politico, “Serious people now invoke
‘Civil War’ not as metaphor but as literal precedent.”
Of course,
not all serious people. The Harvard political scientist Josh Kertzer wrote on
Twitter that he knows many civil war scholars, and “very few of them think the
United States is on the precipice of a civil war.” Yet even some who push back
on civil war talk tend to acknowledge what a perilous place America is in. In
The Atlantic, Fintan O’Toole, writing about Marche’s book, warns that
prophecies of civil war can be self-fulfilling; during the long conflict in
Ireland, he says, each side was driven by fear that the other was mobilizing.
It’s one thing, he writes, “to acknowledge the real possibility that the U.S.
could break apart and could do so violently. It is quite another to frame that
possibility as an inevitability.”
I agree
with O’Toole that it’s absurd to treat civil war as a foregone conclusion, but
that it now seems distinctly possible is still pretty bad. The fact that
speculation about civil war has moved from the crankish fringes into the
mainstream is itself a sign of civic crisis, an indication of how broken our
country is.
The sort of
civil war that Walter and Marche worry about wouldn’t involve red and blue
armies facing off on some battlefield. If it happens, it will be more of a
guerrilla insurgency. As Walter told me, she, like Marche, relies on an academic
definition of “major armed conflict” as one that causes at least 1,000 deaths
per year. A “minor armed conflict” is one that kills at least 25 people a year.
By this definition, as Marche argues, “America is already in a state of civil
strife.” According to the Anti-Defamation League, extremists, most of them
right-wing, killed 54 people in 2018 and 45 people in 2019. (They killed 17
people in 2020, a figure that was low due to the absence of extremist mass
shootings, possibly because of the pandemic.)
Walter
argues that civil wars have predictable patterns, and she spends more than half
her book laying out how those patterns have played out in other countries. They
are most common in what she and other scholars call “anocracies,” countries
that are “neither full autocracies nor democracies but something in between.”
Warning signs include the rise of intense political polarization based on
identity rather than ideology, especially polarization between two factions of
roughly equal size, each of which fears being crushed by the other.
Instigators
of civil violence, she writes, tend to be previously dominant groups who see
their status slipping away. “The ethnic groups that start wars are those
claiming that the country ‘is or ought to be theirs,’” she writes. This is one
reason, although there are violent actors on the left, neither she nor Marche
believe the left will start a civil war. As Marche writes, “Left-wing
radicalism matters mostly because it creates the conditions for right-wing
radicalization.”
It’s no
secret that many on the right are both fantasizing about and planning civil
war. Some of those who swarmed the Capitol a year ago wore black sweatshirts
emblazoned with “MAGA Civil War.” The Boogaloo Bois, a surreal, violent,
meme-obsessed anti-government movement, get their name from a joke about a Civil
War sequel. Republicans increasingly throw around the idea of armed conflict.
In August, Representative Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina said, “If our
election systems continue to be rigged and continue to be stolen, then it’s
going to lead to one place and that’s bloodshed,” and suggested he was willing,
though reluctant, to take up arms.
Citing the
men who plotted to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Walter writes that
modern civil wars “start with vigilantes just like these — armed militants who
take violence directly to the people.”
There are
parts of Walter’s argument that I’m not quite convinced by. Consider, for
example, America’s status as an anocracy. I don’t dispute the political science
measures she relies on to show the alarming extent of America’s democratic
backsliding. But I think she underplays the difference between countries moving
from authoritarianism toward democracy, and those going the other way. You can
see why a country like Yugoslavia would explode when the autocratic system
holding it together disappeared; new freedoms and democratic competition allow
for the emergence of what Walter describes as “ethnic entrepreneurs.”
It’s not
clear, however, that the move from democracy toward authoritarianism would be
destabilizing in the same way. As Walter acknowledges, “The decline of liberal
democracies is a new phenomenon, and none have fallen into all-out civil war —
yet.” To me, the threat of America calcifying into a Hungarian-style right-wing
autocracy under a Republican president seems more imminent than mass civil
violence. Her theory depends on an irredentist right-wing faction rebelling
against its loss of power. But increasingly, the right is rigging our sclerotic
system so that it can maintain power whether the voters want it to or not.
If outright
civil war still isn’t likely, though, it seems to me more likely than a return
to the sort of democratic stability many Americans grew up with.
Marche’s
book presents five scenarios for how this country could come undone, each
extrapolated from current movements and trends. A few of them don’t strike me
as wholly plausible. For example, given the history of federal confrontations
with the far right at Waco, Ruby Ridge and the Malheur National Wildlife
Refuge, I suspect an American president determined to break up a sovereign
citizen encampment would send the F.B.I., not an Army general relying on
counterinsurgency doctrine.
Yet most of
Marche’s narratives seem more imaginable than a future in which Jan. 6 turns
out to be the peak of right-wing insurrection, and America ends up basically
OK. “It’s so easy to pretend it’s all going to work out,” he writes. I don’t
find it easy.
Michelle
Goldberg has been an Opinion columnist since 2017. She is the author of several
books about politics, religion and women’s rights, and was part of a team that
won a Pulitzer Prize for public service in 2018 for reporting on workplace
sexual harassment. @michelleinbklyn
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário