An expert on civil war issues a warning about America, but exaggerates

https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2022/01/08/an-expert-on-civil-war-issues-a-warning-about-america

by leafmeal • 5 years ago

32 88 5 years ago

rbanffy• 5 years ago

It's just a bit delayed in relation to John Titor's timeline. On the bright side, we may have time machines after all ;-)

vorpalhex• 5 years ago

Trump won the first time because every little thing he said or did was carried repeatedly by the media, for days.

Articles like this significantly help his 2024 run.

na85• 5 years ago

The Economist, despite being one of the few journalism outlets still worth reading, is not immune from the economics (pun only partly intended) of mass market media.

To regular folks, Trump is like a car accident. He's awful but you tend to be interested in the goings on, despite the distaste.

darkteflon• 5 years ago

I would pay real cash money for a browser extension that muted every reference, every article that has anything to do with him or his brood. Harry and Meaghan too, while we’re at it.

syki12• 5 years ago

It seems overly simplistic to say he won because of constant media exposure. The 2016 election was a white nationalist backlash against both political parties. Trump’s catering to this surely had quite a lot to do with his victory.

toolz6• 5 years ago

Trump won the hispanic vote. Trump is many bad things, but I have no idea why his haters feel the need to make him into an imaginary racist. Really all that has done is make uninterested folks (like me) more sympathetic to him for having to deal with this kind of unsubstantiated nonsense.

chiefalchemist2• 5 years ago

That's an oversimplification. They helped but white nationalists weren't the only ones not interested in the GOP status quo during the primaries, or the Democrats offering for POTUS. The two parties served up tired rehash and paid for the mistake. W.DC is still living the myth that they contributed nothing to Trump's rise. That's impossible. Every moment has context.

And while that was for the win in 2016, the fact is Trump got more votes in losing than either Obama win. Yet look at how the media paints each. I don't like Trump but the majority of the narratives spun around him are nonsense, which only fuels the idea that The People are not being served by the system.

Chyzwar• 5 years ago

It seems overly simplistic to say he won because of constant media exposure. The 2016 election was a white nationalist backlash against both political parties. Trump’s catering to this surely had quite a lot to do with his victory.

If not of free media coverage[1], he would be a failed right wing fringe politician. Because of this coverage and his polarizing policy, he created conditions where even moderate republicans needed to vote for him. He successfully hijacked the Republican Party, from party working on immigration reform helping Mexican immigrants to party that want to build a wall.

I think if Trump managed to maintain women support, he might win again.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-t... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/12/sabota...

ineedasername7• 5 years ago

It helped that Hillary was a fairly unpopular candidate. That didn't lose her anyone that was going to vote Democrat no matter what. But that's in contrast to Trump, also an unpopular candidate with the GOP establishment, but again he'd get the votes of most people who were going to vote no matter what, and his 300+ firebrand rallies were a style that attracted many new voters. Though yes-- media coverage of every controversial statement made probably helped as well.

krapp3• 5 years ago

It helped that Hillary was a fairly unpopular candidate.

And yet she got more votes than the other guy...

aeternum3• 5 years ago

Seems more likely than people think. Both sides now work hard to silence opposing or even moderate viewpoints.

Even our dictionary definitions are moving more extreme, someone pointed out a few weeks ago that the definition of anti-vaxer for example now includes anyone that opposes any vaccine mandate.

There's very little engagement on ideas or push to get closer to truth.

multjoy3• 5 years ago

Both sides

Lol.

sanedigital2• 5 years ago

Your comment does the very thing you ridicule. Be better.

syki12• 5 years ago

If the center of the political spectrum shifts too far left or right then things get distorted. Moderate viewpoints when this happens will similarly have shifted to the right or left. From my perspective the U.S. has very much shifted to the right the past 50 years. Consider that Nixon created the EPA and Regan believed that the tax on labor should be less than the tax on capital. When the starting point on discussions has shifted too far in one direction then it’s hard to have sane discussions with the majority of the electorate.

That we have sitting members of Congress openly call for secession and the suppression of voting rights without their party condemning them indicates to me that we have tilted too far to the right for common ground to be found.

anamax3• 5 years ago

the suppression of voting rights

Which countries allow voting by mail and/or without ID?

jeffbee3• 5 years ago

One side has a monopoly on calling for civil war. One side has sitting congressional representatives openly advocating a "national divorce" i.e. a civil war.

aeternum3• 5 years ago

It's not fair to say it's one-sided. CA banned state-employee travel to 1/3 of America for states that differ in their views.

This just isn't a path toward finding common ground. https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/1011253354/california-bans-st...

Some republicans definitely seem to have ramped things up but actions like this on the democratic side are nearly as concerning.

anamax3• 5 years ago

Both sides now work hard to silence opposing or even moderate viewpoints.

Who has the Right deplatformed?

ineedasername7• 5 years ago

Members of the Republican party are doing it to other members who do not support former President Trump.

gigatexal• 5 years ago

If the media is to be believed I could see it. There’s so much hate in Trump/MAGA/QAnon country and they’re armed so…

What’s really scary is the quiet coup happening. All across the country the GOP is gerrymandering in its favor, putting forward Stop the Steal acolytes for key positions so that when the time comes to not certify they can.

csw-001• 5 years ago

Yeah - when I read the news I see it... But when I go to the grocery store, the PTA meeting, or the mall I don't. It very well might be my bubble, but I don't see neighbors arming themselves, and the ones I know that are most adamant that Trump should be President for Life, would be shocked and appalled if called upon to leave the couch or keyboard to fight. It's become a passtime to predict the end of our democracy, but it takes a lot more than Twitter rants to really overthrow the government and install a new one.

sheeshkebab• 5 years ago

As the communists would say - it’s not who votes matters, but who counts. GOP is learning all the right lessons from Lenin and soviets (and Nazies too I think).

misc213• 5 years ago

Nope

fasteddie31003• 5 years ago

Here's a wild idea. Everyday people should not label themselves by a political party. Only politicians need to have a political party. Why put ideology horse blinders by self labeling yourself by a political party? That's why I'm a radical Independent. I look at each issue individually and come up with my own conclusions.

Bostonian• 5 years ago

Some research has found that many people who label themselves independent vote for one party or another a large fraction of the time. I almost always vote for one of the two major parties, so the label of that party applies to me.

milkytron• 5 years ago

The label might apply in certain contexts, but do you tie your identity to it? Will you switch parties if given a reason?

rossdavidh• 5 years ago

Technically, even politicians could run as independents, although it only very occasionally works. George Washington's farewell address warned of the dangers of political parties (he was not a member of one).

jrs235• 5 years ago

I have a dream that someday ballots will list only a candidates name. Party affiliation and incumbency status will not appear anywhere.

antisthenes• 5 years ago

I look at each issue individually and come up with my own conclusions.

That takes an enormous amount of brainpower. Not in terms of being particularly intelligent, but just in terms of time required to form a position on every single issue.

This isn't a good time investment, considering the duopoly of politics in the United States. At best you'd be able to get a slightly bigger overlap on your issues by going with one party or another, since independents are unlikely to win in the foreseeable future.

That being said, your position is admirable, if only for developing critical thinking skills and exercising them, something that modern politics is in dire need of.

scotty79• 5 years ago

It's common in multi-party democracies.

Before each elections there are even online tools to help you verify which party is best aligned with you.

It has a form of a poll. If responses that party gave match the once you gave then the fit is higher.

_jal2• 5 years ago

The war started some time ago. One side is still in denial, the other is still building strength.

mrzimmerman• 5 years ago

Which "side" are you talking about?

_jal2• 5 years ago

I'm talking about two sides. Which one are you referring to?

uejfiweun• 5 years ago

I think what we're headed for, is a total loss of credibility of all media outlets, mostly due to ridiculous hyperbolic nonsense like predicting an imminent civil war or asserting that Jan 6 was on par with Pearl Harbor or 9/11. Looking forward to it - screw these self-appointed thought police officers.

Edit: My comment was a knee jerk reaction to a misleading post title. In reality the Economist is in agreement with me here, they are reviewing a book that is predicting a civil war and calling it very hyperbolic. Good to see there are still some outlets with journalistic integrity.

pmarreck• 5 years ago

The article is actually a critique of this idea, but clearly, no one read it

IAmGraydon2• 5 years ago

The media will plant and reinforce the idea until it does happen.

happytoexplain2• 5 years ago

This will certainly be how the cause is framed by many people, if it happens.

iszomer3• 5 years ago

I came across an interesting wikipedia article that attempts to describe how and why mass media behaves the way they do..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda-setting_theory

IIAOPSW• 5 years ago

Personally I want a referendum. Why does everyone jump to war as the first option (unless the killing of the others is the true desire rather than a necessary evil)?

happytoexplain2• 5 years ago

It seems preemptive to frame a future war as the fault of people speculating about the possibility of a future war. Speculating is not "jumping to war as the first option", as that implies a desire to enact, not a speculation of the future (and it's unclear what "first option" means here). You've made that leap explicit by simply stating it as a question in your parenthetical.

badrabbit2• 5 years ago

Yes, but you would think the economist would describe the preceding economic turmoil. Whatever their politics, all americans have it relatively very good. When that changes and there is serious blaming and fingerpointing then it is the liberals fault or conservatives fault, the worse it gets the more racial and xenophobic it gets.

The difference between social unrest and civil war is the latter has organized military forces on both sides. In the US it will never be militias going at it, it will be state national guards and other branches of military. Things would need to get very bad to where for example nebraska blocks trains and California blocks trucks to opposing states.

I am not saying the whole blm vs white supremacist b.s. has no place, I am just saying that social unrear would need to be very bad with state gov/police support causing other states to intervene.

One way or the other, a state would need to refuse to cooperate with fed gov even with military intervention.

For perspective, when JFK sent troops to let the first black kid attend school with white kids, the governor did no command his military to resist. Things would need to get worse than that.

Even with the internet, this can't be less than 8-10 years away, by that time the population will change significantly. Boomer deaths but also post 9/11 kids who only knew crisis after crisis either very hungry or repulsed by the idea of an internal conflict.

Meanwhile China, Russia and pals are working very hard to undermine the US economy. My guess is they will somewhat succeed before any serious social turmoil. Also, keep in mind, terror works very well against the US population (sorry NSA guy monitoring this), be it 9/11, afghanistan or vietnam, events that get the people overhwelmed and upset will have lasting and effective change. If that were not the case the US would have invaded pakistan and afghanistan leaving them in ruins very fast and getting out, vietnam would have been a proper invasion instead of supporting south vietnam and it would have lasted as long as it needed to, the military would be much more brutal and cruel like most other non-western military forces (rape, murder,etc... rampant). My point is the US as a whole country is not the same as 156 years ago, serious conflicts will not persist due to weak stomach. It will take a lot (hunger, national shame,etc...)

Horrible things to think about.

ineedasername7• 5 years ago

I think you make some cogent points, but what do you mean by preceding economic turmoil?

After '08/'09 there were daily steady decreases in unemployment through to the 2016 election and steady market increase to ~historic highs by the 2016 election.

badrabbit2• 5 years ago

I meant one way or the other there will be a recession or depression, I don't know enough to speculate there but that and global economic trends and US isolationism are the recipies I was thinking of. All the major US states have big liberal cities and wide conservative rural areas. In the original civil war, slave based economy and livelihood was at stake. No matter what, economy will supersede ideology, there will be no civil war with a good economy. Just social unrest. And by good I don't mean stock market or cheap houses but well stocked walmart and >70% employment rate for those looking for work.

IAmGraydon2• 5 years ago

I’m very curious what Biden thought he was accomplishing by bringing this all up today as if it’s some anniversary to be remembered and then putting Trump in the spotlight. The man is either that ignorant or is attempting to push the wedge deeper.

whodunnit• 5 years ago

It’s an election year. Rather than address why voters are supporting Trump it’s easier to demonize them than reflect on one’s own shortcomings.

itcrowd• 5 years ago

Actual title:

An expert on civil war issues a warning about America - But Barbara Walter exaggerates

dang• 5 years ago

Ah thanks. Fixed above.

Submitted title was "Is America headed for a civil war?"

iszomer3• 5 years ago

I remember HN being a place to discuss microcosm of things related to hacking and tech but am saddened to see it lean towards redditesque macro style of cognitive dissonance.

If ya'll want to remember 1/6 as some hate-driven event, I want no part in it.

oldcigarette• 5 years ago

eh it's not really HN - this has been the narrative of certain elements for a long time now: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1085...

the left has become obsessed with authoritarianism under the guise of "liberalism". i don't think any of them know what the word means anymore. they rile up imaginary "injustice" to distract and sow discord. people who would do that are far more traitorous than grandma going on a larp in the capitol.

mitchbob• 5 years ago

Archived: https://archive.ph/uze0y

An expert on civil war issues a warning about America, but exaggerates

Related Stories