An American Civil War part 2

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

Again, lived in Austin for years...maybe saw one or two. But whatever, people believe what they want to believe.

Well, Austin is a lot different from the rest of the state.

[Guest]

She's referencing my statement that I saw many bumper stickers in Austin. Surprisingly, Austin was the area that I noticed the most, not any of the other cities we visited.

[Pong Messiah]

Well then!

 

I don't doubt your experience, Fozzie, but it is definitely a lot different than the rest of the state. Could be like Eugene, Oregon where the only attitudes you regularly see are left or lefter near the university, but drive just two miles to the east and you got instant "red state/meth state." i.e. maybe a bunch of Tusken Raiders were driving into town for some beef jerkey.

[Destiny Skywalker]

 

I'm not aware of any Americans who celebrate that day claiming they want to be UK citizens.

at the risk of affirming fozzies spurious claims that i live in an ultra liberal bubble ive known people who whine about independence day being a horrific celebration of stupidity/racism/oppression/imperialism who openly wish they could move to canada the uk or some utopian nordic country

 

 

of course this is more of an every day thing not something that is said only once a year but still

 

I live out here, too. Fozzie, consider yourself affirmed.

 

 

She's referencing my statement that I saw many bumper stickers in Austin. Surprisingly, Austin was the area that I noticed the most, not any of the other cities we visited.

I've been to Austin once, Houston many times. I definitely heard more Texas secession talk in my one time in Austin than I ever did in Houston. But in Houston, I hang out with non-native Texans.

[Pong Messiah]

I live out here, too. Fozzie, consider yourself affirmed.

Don't take his side!!!!

[Cerina]

Austin is a hipster haven. There's also a really good chance that bumper stickers were ironic. But again, I never see them.

 

Texans also joke about such things a lot. So maybe these things are just flying over outsiders heads. Lone Star beer's motto isn't a serious declaration secession.

[Justus]

 

Is this so far fetched that it is unimaginable even under hypothetical variables? Regardless of social/political issues are United States citizens resolute enough in their identity as US citizens that succeeding from the federal government/country never gonna happen?

 

 

It will not happen, other than the occasional collection of isolationists (by culture or economic level) who crap that nonsense--usually during big election cycles. The last time the United States was on the edge of splitting apart was the mid-60s - early 1970s, where the smothering issues of race, rights, war and government abuse / corruption was as expected as the coming of morning. Somehow, the nation survived that period--in part, due to the belief that was something worth fighting for--seeking a way of eliminating or correcting a problem.

 

Today, despite the media playing "end of the world" level alarmist to whatever side they stand on, more individuals are disinterested in fighting for anything other than what appeals to their most selfish desires. That, or blindly investing in the stereotypes of regional identity--completely ignorant of, or consciously ignoring the fact that beyond the media's painting the nation in stark, political colors, innumerable citizens have migrated to areas the accusers considered geographical Kryptonite. Others obviously found some benefit outweighed the judgements of those playing the worst of partisan finger pointing, which is (ultimately) more bitchy squealing than a call to action. Squealing is not enough to lead to any great separation on the level of the Civil War, or any other destructive period since.

[The Kurgan]

If any violent change were to occur in the structure of the US government, what I'd bet on - and I don't think it will happen in the foreseeable future - but I'd expect a military coup before a secessionist movement. It's a long shot in light of America's long tradition of civilian government. If enough of the population became sufficiently disgruntled, including enlisted personnel, and a cadre of high level officers and corporate backers/sympathizers were willing to lead it, I'd suggest THAT would be the most likely of many unlikely ways in which America could dissolve into civil war - the war being between the rebelling officers and those loyal to the civilian establishment. The casus belli would most likely be economic deterioration adversely affecting military personnel, ongoing boondoggles over wasteful pentagon pork contrasting with deteriorating performance of existing weapons systems, or war weariness from ceaseless rounds of middle east adventures. It would NOT be over culture war stuff, that's mostly just fodder for the intellectual blood sport that calls itself mass media in your country. While divisive, polarization over social issues is more entertainment than anything else for most of the population.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

If any violent change were to occur in the structure of the US government, what I'd bet on - and I don't think it will happen in the foreseeable future - but I'd expect a military coup before a secessionist movement. It's a long shot in light of America's long tradition of civilian government. If enough of the population became sufficiently disgruntled, including enlisted personnel, and a cadre of high level officers and corporate backers/sympathizers were willing to lead it, I'd suggest THAT would be the most likely of many unlikely ways in which America could dissolve into civil war - the war being between the rebelling officers and those loyal to the civilian establishment. The casus belli would most likely be economic deterioration adversely affecting military personnel, ongoing boondoggles over wasteful pentagon pork contrasting with deteriorating performance of existing weapons systems, or war weariness from ceaseless rounds of middle east adventures. It would NOT be over culture war stuff, that's mostly just fodder for the intellectual blood sport that calls itself mass media in your country. While divisive, polarization over social issues is more entertainment than anything else for most of the population.

I'd have to disagree with you on that. I really don't see a military coup happening, at least in present, or foreseeable circumstances. MAYBE if there were an utter economic collapse, one that basically brings a world-wide depression, but even then, it's hard for me to imagine a civil war, or even a military coup as you describe.

 

The closest I think the US could come to a civil war, as in armed conflict, would be more a clash of law enforcement and military, and civilians. Something like a nation-wide version of the riots of Ferguson and Baltimore. It would take a massive coordination for nation-wide protests turned riots in major cities, all happening at the same time.

[Good God a Bear]

 

I'm not aware of any Americans who celebrate that day claiming they want to be UK citizens.

at the risk of affirming fozzies spurious claims that i live in an ultra liberal bubble ive known people who whine about independence day being a horrific celebration of stupidity/racism/oppression/imperialism who openly wish they could move to canada the uk or some utopian nordic country

 

of course this is more of an every day thing not something that is said only once a year but still

 

 

Let me guess...you live in Oregon.

[Driver]

I don't see a civil war but I do see a possible future America where the middle class eventually dies, possibly after some sort of financial crisis leaving us like some third world countries where the city centers are over developed and high tech whilst the countryside turns violent, lawless and tribal.

[The Human Torch]

Lived in Alaska since 1987, secession talk comes in spurts up here but is always just under the conversation. It seems the consensus, probably similar to elsewhere, is that the Feds are an unfortunate but necessary evil. Usually that sentiment is then qualified with at the moment. I think the idea stays alive because of the low population and our state budget being viable. I can't see secession ever coming to fruition however.

Side Note: Ironically most rant about socialist born ideas like universal healthcare etc, but Alaska has one of the highest welfare enrollments per capita. In addition the State funds a healthcare system for ALL children under a decently gracious income limit, plus the State funds a limited food stamps like program for citizens that are just beyond Federal limits. Let's not forget the State has the dividend fund program that spreads out profits from oil/mining taxes which are gained from playing the markets and savings by the State; playing the markets continually (based on market) grow or keep the fund viable. Alaska likes to wave the Republican flag and core, almost colonist, ideals but we're a Socio-Capitalists wet dream up here.

[Destiny Skywalker]

Odine, what parts of the US did you visit? I'd be interested to hear which areas you found so radically different. I've lived in the midwest, the southeast, and the northwest, and my husband is a native West coaster. There are some things that are very different depending on where you live, but I think the biggest divide is urban vs rural.

[Pong Messiah]

the biggest divide is urban vs rural

This by far.

[Odine]

I've only been to California and New York State (Might have strayed into Vermont and also Nevada on each trip). Even though those two states a super similar in that most people are liberal and all that.. but I can still see cultural differences. In so far as there is enough of a difference between California and NY or east/west coast from what I've seen as the difference between Australian/New Zealand American/Canadian Englsih/Irish/Scott etc... I mean yeah by in large these cultures seem fairly similar and stuff at first glance but there is plenty of nuance which made me come to those conclusions after brief observation.

 

And yes, urban versus rural does make a difference in any country.. because lifestyles are so drastically different. I dunno... I guess I cant really explain it that well.

 

But I mean... I guess my point was.. if I can notice a difference in culture between 2 states that are "closer" then I ASSUME that people from I dunno..... Idaho or wherever are gonna be way different to a New Yorker or a San Fransisco-ite(?)

[Odine]

Basically... maybe not now... but in time.. I could imagine that each state develops its own regional identity more, to the point where they're almost like their own country. (I suppose this might be slightly more difficult now because of technological communication and the internet etc so places are not THAT isolated anymore.) Particularly if economically the US took a bit of a nose-dive. Then I could see people's attentions focused more inward into their regional areas rather...

 

Basically I'm working on the assumption that from state to state.. there might be as much difference as there is between Ukraine/Estonia/Latvia/Russia/Czech Republic etc... but in your own western way. Does that make any sense or am I thinking with my ass? I'm kind of making this theory* up as I go for the sake of thinking bout ****.

 

 

*forgot.. hypothesis...cant use the word theory!

[Pong Messiah]

ut I mean... I guess my point was.. if I can notice a difference in culture between 2 states that are "closer" then I ASSUME that people from I dunno..... Idaho or wherever are gonna be way different to a New Yorker or a San Fransisco-ite(?)

To a point, yeah. But the important differences still come down to urban vs. rural.

 

Take Missouri, for example: landlocked and dirty, full of farmers, in the middle of nowhere good, and the only thing it ever wins at is topping the list of states with the most meth busts. It's totally gross and about as far from California as you can get... yet from a position of ideology/culture/lifestyle values, somebody living in the heart of St. Louis or Kansas City probably has more in common with a San Franciscan than they do their fellow Missourians. Sure, they may walk and talk a little different than folks on the West Coast, but when it comes to outlook and values, they are the same urban tribe.

 

Voting patterns in the state are fascinating because of this -- it's like two distinct species forced to live side by side, just waiting for the chance to devour one another. Oregon is similar in this regard: a few years ago, we had a Republican gubernatorial candidate who was absolutely trouncing the Democrat in early returns, but the Republican still conceded. Why did everybody know the Democrat was going to win? Easy: 'cause the early returns were primarily from rural areas, and didn't include votes from Multnomah County (Portland) -- a large population center guaranteed to be like 99.9% Democrat.

 

Urban/Rural divide... it's a big deal!

 

[PeacefulMindedJedi]

It's astounding that there are Americans who actually want to see the country break apart.

 

And proving that the Confederates committed treason would actually not be an easy task. With all the semantics and points of view that would be involved, there is way too much grey area in that particular case to definitively call it "treason."

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

It's astounding that there are Americans who actually want to see the country break apart.

 

Balkanization of nations usually doesn't help anyone. I don't want to see the US literally break apart. It would be a mistake and at the very least, the US would not be as strong financially and militarily. Simply put, the US couldn't afford to a split, but at the same time, I think politicians who advocate secession are pandering to the nut jobs for votes and in reality know their particular state couldn't afford to secede, either.

 

That said, I think those in this thread who have stated that they don't want to be part of the same country as "x" state or region of the US, are being flip. I think it is more a comment on their dislike for a particular region of the US (IE urban VS rural), than literally wanting to form separate countries. When you think about it, the US is pretty huge, as far as nations go: it's the third largest overall, behind Russia and Canada, but it could be argued the US has more usable land (much of the land in both those other nations are tundra, sub arctic, and arctic). So, if you don't like the region or the people in the region you are in, you can move somewhere else in the US you like better. A far easier solution than breaking the US up into smaller countries.

[Carrie Mathison]

All empires fall. The US is not an exception. At some point, the US will no longer be the world's leading power. Whether it happens in 20, 50, 100, 200 years (or longer), I don't know. But it will almost certainly happen at some point. That being said, I think the US will still always be a world power (at least for the next few centuries to come), if nothing else because of a large population, abundant natural resources and geographical isolation (thus protecting the country from military attack). But it will, at some point, no longer be the world's #1 power.

I don't think it will be because of a civil war, however. Rather, the more likely outcome is a gradual decline, such as the British Empire. You won't be able to point to one specific event or year that caused a fall, but like Britain, it will just be a slowly developing phenomenon, and you won't even really recognize it's happening until it's already complete. One could argue the decline has already started. Others say it hasn't, but either way, I don't think this is something that can be identified until it's already happened. Many empires decline in such way, though they are often mischaracterized by historians. Take, for example, Rome- which is popularly described as having "fallen" in 476, although a more careful reading of history reveals that the process actually gradually developed over 100 years, and even then- only describes the West. The Eastern Empire largely continued the cultural heritage of Rome and existed for another 1000 years as the Byzantine Empire- as early as the 500s, Constantinople had already eclipsed Rome as the most important and wealthiest city in the world.

Similarly, I think people that describe some type of brewing civil war are barking up the wrong tree. Civil wars are usually caused by one of two reasons- a) a very weak (or no) civil society that is conducive to military coups, juntas, etc., (you often see these in African states); or b) a high amount of ethnic strife (see, e.g., Yugoslavia, arguably the current situation in Ukraine, etc).

Neither of those two conditions really are present in the US. The first condition simply doesn't exist. Some people think the second is present, but those that do really lack perspective and an understanding of history. I've visited every US state, have lived in many different areas of the country (though living most of my life in NYC), and I now live in Europe and have been for years. Culturally, the differences between US regions are greatly exaggerated and are not anything near the types of divisions you actually see in fragile nations. In fact, I've noticed even more cultural differences within nations right here in Europe. Take, for example, Germany. Northern Germany, around Hamburg and the North Sea, is way different than Bavaria, down by the Alps. The difference is actually greater than anything I've ever seen in the US, and I've lived in both Manhattan and the South. Which makes sense given that Germany was for most of its history, a collection of many micro-states that only unified in 1871- well after the US, by the way.

I do agree that there is more of an urban/rural divide, than a true regional divide in the US, but even then, this is not a US-unique phenomenon, nor is it necessarily more prevalent in the US. Taking Germany as an example, again, you will see the same thing. The Kurfurstendamm in Berlin basically feels like a whole different country than say, rural areas of the Oberpfalz in Bavaria.

 

The culture across the US is actually way more similar than people think. Almost all mid-sized cities in the 2 million metro area range (e.g. Columbus, OH, Kansas City, MO, Sacramento, CA, Charlotte, NC, etc.) are not that different. They all have a small cluster of similar looking low height skyscrapers, the same architecturally similar strip malls, the same chains, the same food, and so on. If you took an average guy working a middle class white collar job, he would probably have nearly identical furniture, clothing, automobile, decorations, and so on, no matter where in the country he lived. In fact, he would probably have the same accent no matter where you went too- this is something that has been slowly dying off in the US, the linguistic variations. Especially with this current generation, almost everybody above a certain income level isn't too far off from a generic mid-west "neutral" accent, which wouldn't have been true in say, the 1800s. Compare this to again, a country like Germany, where you have a distinct High and Low German dialect. Or a place like Belgium where basically half the people speak Dutch and the other half speaks French.

 

Sure, there are still some differences. Speaking of Lone Star Beer, it's not like you'll be able to walk into your local pub in Pittsburgh and get a bucket of Lone Star for the game. But I think all these differences are more accurately described as mere 'quirks,' than as true cultural differences. I do think there is still one large remaining difference that exist in the US, but it's not really so much along regional lines, but rather between race. White and Black culture are still pretty different. A black person in Detroit probably has more in common with a black person in Alabama than he does with a white person in Detroit.

 

But that is basically the only large remaining difference that exists. Maybe (to an extent) the rural/urban divide too. But that's about all, and it's a far cry from the type of cultural differences that existed leading up to the Civil War, when North and South truly were like two completely different countries. What people are really talking about, when they bemoan how "bad" it's getting, is the current level of political polarization. It is certainly true that there is polarization, but even then, the level of polarization now is nothing like it has been in previous times in the US. For polarization to really get bad enough that a civil war could be on the horizon, we'd have to see some serious sh-t go down, like Bleeding Kansas in the 1850s. Sure, Congress isn't getting along now, but we haven't gotten to the point where Senators are literally beating the sh-t out of each other on the Senate floor (see e.g., Preston Brooks in 1856). And we aren't gonna see anything like that, at least in the near future, because that type of violence was reflecting a much greater cultural divide at the time. It simply doesn't exist any more.

 

The people who claim as such, in my opinion, as I've said above- simply either lack a knowledge of history, or aren't very well traveled and thus lack a more global perspective. I've talked about this extensively before (re-posted so I don't repeat myself, below).

[Carrie Mathison]

This is something that's always been fairly apparent to me, but even more so now that I don't live in the US, which has given me a lot of perspective about how many Americans are pretty much the same in many ways. But historically it was not always so- in the 19th century, heck, even in the 20th century before WW2, life was extremely different between different areas of the country. Different regions had entirely different industries, available jobs, style of architecture and housing stock, accents, cuisine, and so on. There were no chains back then, and heavy manufacturing was mostly centered around non-consumer goods, so your average person in two different areas of the country may have two completely different sets of possessions. If you went to a rural house in Mississippi vs. Massachusetts and looked in their wardrobe.. in an era before central heating and A/C, you'd see two completely different wardrobes, with garments in one that may very well be something that the other person has never actually seen in their life.

 

In contrast, the US is significantly more homogenous now and is only accelerating in this fashion. If you took an average middle class person from any given two states, their lives would look remarkably similar. Probably driving a Corolla or Civic or something similar. Probably buying clothes from the same 5-6 different chains (hell, they may even both own literally the same shirt). Probably employed by a similar job- likely some type of low-level service industry position requiring a Bachelor's. Probably both picking up food after work from the same half dozen assorted chains. Probably doing the same exact thing on the weekend.. NFL Red Zone or lazying around on Netflix or what have you. Their accents would probably be remarkably similar. Which is another striking example of how homogenous the US has become in culture- the younger generations especially, have seen a fading of the traditional regional accents to a sorta-universal generic mid-western tone. I've seen studies that suggest that TV has had a large part to do with this (which, again, is one of the factors I listed above as shrinking the 'size' of the US). Even in the past 20 years a lot has changed.. take the film probably most famous for poking fun at cultural differences, My Cousin Vinny, in 1993. One of the biggest jokes is in the accent differences, but today, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone under the age of 35 with that severe a difference, even in two places as different as rural Alabama and Brooklyn.

 

I'm not saying cultural identifiers don't still come out here and there. They obviously do. But I think you are wildly exaggerating them. I remember when I went to college, I went to a school with a strong national ranking that drew people from all 50 states. Those 4 years were probably when I met the most people from the most diverse places, and quite honestly- one thing I noticed even way back then was how similar most people were. Yeah there were obviously different things you'd notice, and I'm not saying a person from Arkansas had the same mannerisms as someone from Detroit. But regional differences, outside of a few curious quibbles here and there (e.g. "You don't know what a Waffle House is!?"), were way less significant than I assumed they would be. People identified less with regional upbringing, and more with what 'clique' they identified with (goth, nerd, jock, prep, etc).

 

[Odine]

Thanks.. that was super comprehensive!

[The Kurgan]

I would add to that Carrie that such polarization as exists today is more "virtual" than real. The types of issues that I notice people get all wound up about: abortion, gay marriage, religion and so on have rather little bearing on the actual structure and workings of the regime in Washington. I'll grant you those are significant to people directly affected by them, but if you're taking something fundamental to the workings of politics in the U.S, they're scarcely more significant than whether one is a Yankees or a Red Sox fan. All the talk of congressional dysfunction actually obscures the fact that the true elites in America are very, VERY secure in power and most certainly have the regime they want, and the more the populace flies at one another's throats over race, sex or religion, the more likely things are to stay that way.

 

"Polarization" is the result of sensationalist mass media that has found in drummed up controversy a successful business model. The ceaseless flame wars that take place in any blog or social media is more a kind of intellectual (a term I use loosely) blood sport than anything real. Atheists, LGBT types and pro choicers will hash it out with bible-belters after getting home from work, maybe after the kids are in bed. Nothing revolutionary going on here, folks. In fact, the illusion of a participatory commons created by social media and its lending of a soap box to whomever feels they have something or another to enlighten the populace about probably does more to relieve pressure on the political system than anything. Once we've trolled those ignorant, stupid [fill in blank] for a while, we feel somewhat more smug and maybe even like we've struck a blow against the other side. But it's more like the "two minutes hate" and other aspects of perpetual "warfare" in Orwell's 1984. They prop up both the regime itself and all the respective political machines involved. In truth, as Carrie said, the differences are superficial compared to the similarities, much like as is the case with Oceana, Eastasia and Eurasia.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

For Cerina:

 

Somewhat related to what I was talking about earlier, and is an example of what leads to non-Texans piling onto Texas all the time:

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/05/02/403865824/texas-governor-deploys-state-guard-to-stave-off-obama-takeover?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=news

[Pong Messiah]

Good post, Kurgan.

 

I agree that a lot of polarization is used as a tool, played up and even manufactured. I think you gotta separate tribalistic us vs. them chest-thumping from issues people are genuinely intellectually/emotionally invested in from issues that deeply affect people in the here and now.

 

For example, off the top of my head, I can think of somebody who calls herself a "fiscal conservative" who would be perfectly fine with single-payer healthcare if Ted Cruz announced tomorrow morning that he'd had an epiphany and decided single-payer is greeeeeaaat... so long as it is controlled by Republicans. I don't even want to think of the rationalization and mental gymnastics she'd go through for this, but I guarantee she would, and I know there are others out there like her. This is purely a cultural contest -- Obama does it, it's bad, because he represents the "other" (I don't mean "other" in a racial sense so much as cultural, though obviously race plays into it for some people), Cruz does it, it's good, because he's "one of us."

 

Then there are issues like abortion or gun control where there is real intellectual/emotional investment and battle lines are drawn, though I think the real urban/rual war is over things like agriculture, conservation and land-use issues, etc., where there are genuine different ways of thinking about things, and resentment from rural communities toward the "clueless" population centers that are always telling them what they can and cannot do on the land they live on.