(no subject)

[pecunium]

In other places there has been discussion of civil war, of what happens if the center cannot hold.

I have some ideas on this (I'm against it. I've made several speeches against it at Making Light One (buried in a long thread, and lots of the pieces worth reading; in this context for more of my thinking on the subject. It's in the interplay between myself and Lance) and Two which is a specific comment on lots of things, some of which are going on; still).

So, in the event that peaceful means can't correct the course of state, and some more drastic means is employed... how do you see the situation resolving itself?

What happens should the body politic reache the breaking point and chooses to excercise its right to "alter or abolish," the Nation as it is presently configured?

I'll give my ideas later, when the rest of you have chimed in.

Comments

[kightp.livejournal.com]

I don't anticipate anything like a nationwide, armed civil war; I don't think enough Americans care strongly enough about the Big Things to take sides if it came to that. That's not, exactly, a criticism; an awful lot of people are either ill-informed or simply too caught up in trying to make ends meet to take an active part in the body politic, and while I might wish that were otherwise, I know enough of those people to understand why it's so, beyond mere selfishness. And the North American geography works against armed rebellion, too.

I can imagine small uprisings, and the heavy hand of government crashing down on them with all the powers of the potential police state. Whether that would be enough to jar the apathetic into action ... I don't know. Polls suggest that, at least theoretically, many Americans believe that it's OK for the government to curtail liberty to "protect" them from peril, and I wonder if those people would react against tyranny if it moved from theory to practice.

I can foresee systems breaking down: Transportation is already perilously close to that, and development patterns over the last century mean that many people live far from the source of food and other necessities, and have no means of making do for themselves.

In my most pessimistic moments, I look at what happened last year in New Orleans and think that's not an unlikely model for how the country would react to internal crisis. That's worrisome - except that the hurricane and its aftermath also triggered the humanitarian impulse in many, many people.

I should add that I don't expect any of these things to happen. I remain perhaps an unreasonable optimist; I think we'll manage this politically, by turning the worst of the rascals out and reversing the worst of their excesses.

I'm less optimistic about our position in a world where even our allies are seeing us more and more as a nation of bullies.

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking SWAT and other paramilitaries, all over America, and no clear State-level rallying cry. It can't be passed off as States' Rights. So I'd be thinking of Quantrell rather the Lee. And Civil War supposes an opposing leadership, even if it's a guerilla war.

It would be a confused mess, everywhere.

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

We're simply too well fed to revolt. Revolution is tied intrinsically to class revolt, not moral outrage. If things break down the way you rpedict, it's a possibility.

Why would things break down? Because the US has leveraged its self into a huge debt financing a war with no economic return *ever*. Much like Viet Nam. Even if we "win", we don't really win anything. Terrorism is like communism that way. We're not able to 'defeat; it. It has to defeat its self. In the meanshile, we spend spend spend. And we incite and involve ourselves in costly conflicst that don't do any damage to the real nature of the enemy.

I'm still fairly pessimistc. A large enough amout of Americans not only supported Bush, but accepted the force feeding of the swift boat nonsese, and made decisions based on cowboy Bush versus francophille Kerry.

The long term solution to this crisis is an educated, capable, thoughtful populace. I don't know of any nation that's achived that.

[elf]

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even tacitly take part; and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all." --Mario Savio

I expect two common reactions:

1) A noticeable amount of "white mutiny" from people who are too caught within the political system to revolt outright, including in the military, which will disturb those who pay attention to such trends, but will go unremarked by the news media, because "soldiers who follow orders exactly" is not news. (Or because they're not sure how to report it.)

2) A lot of "slave tactics" from people outside of it--a lot of pretending to be stupid or careless (or just not being as careful as they are when they approve of a process), and a great many tiny "mistakes," with the thin hope of kicking off a "for the want of a nail" scenario.

A lot of tiny glitches in gov't offices from low-pay secretaries and interns who are dismayed at how things are going, and can't think of any way to *stop* it, but can hinder the process by misfiling forms, by "not noticing" that there's no signature on that one, by not checking the spelling on the address before hitting "send" on the email, and so on.

I predict an absolutely *stupendous* amount of tiny office fuckups in government settings... which will go entirely unreported, and indeed, unnoticed by the people responsible the current legal atrocities, except that they'll vaguely remember that office work went smoother before TWAT (The War Against Terrorism).

I don't think we'll get civil war in any meaningful, identifiable sense. We're too scattered; communication runs too quickly and travel too slow for traditional internal war patterns to get used. But I expect a few bits of absolutely genius hacking of gov't info sites, followed by bizarre crackdowns on anarchist geeks as "terrorists."

I don't think there's time before the next election to start concentration camps for noncriminal citizens, nor time to define large swaths of protestors as "criminals." But if 2008 goes R again, there might be time before 2012.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

I don't foresee an outright revolution (and certainly hope there isn't one) but think that if there were such it would be accompanied by total economic collapse, general chaos, and something on the order of 30% mortality, pretty much across-the-board. Followed by the ascendancy of a Charismatic Leader -- who, with luck, won't be as bad as Hitler or Stalin. More likely, I think, we'll just continue to slip gradually into third-world status without quite noticing it, and become a subsidiary of ... maybe China or India.

If we can avoid all those, I'd say that, at best, it'll be at least a century before the United States can again be a World Leader, in anything. We're not dealing, here, with just another spot of tarnish (of which we've survived many) or superficial rust (which has happened a few times); this popular (even if by less than quite a majority of the people) acceptance of the rejection of the centuries-old concept of Law and inalienable human rights indicates a fundamental flaw that might or might not be possible to repair, but certainly won't be easy. And applying a new coat of paint (even Democrat-colored) isn't going to work in the long run.

As long as we operate under a system that continues to diminish the size of the middle class and concentrate wealth in the hands of a few, that requires the expenditure of an enormous amount of money to be elected to any significant political office, that has a voting system in which the reported totals do not necessarily correspond closely to the ways the people actually voted, and that does not have a concerned and informed Electorate, it seems to me that we cannot have a well-functioning democracy, or perhaps not one at all, no matter what we may call it.

[prophet-marcus.livejournal.com]

Civil war? Revolution? Not in any meaningful sense. Upswellings of civil disobedience from the liberal side with varying degrees of supression are already on the rise. Depending on what sort of constitutional rights get stepped on as things progress in the war on terror, old fashioned conservatives might start going the militia route, with more incidents like Ruby Ridge, Waco and Wounded Knee, all being misinterpreted by government and press alike. Unless the administration (current or future) really loses its head and starts getting militant about supression, these things will come and go in waves and probably die out when the liberals gain control again - which they will as the war on terror becomes background noise as the war on drugs has.
My two cents worth.

[joxn.livejournal.com]

No comments on format, just the comment that if Bush decides he's not going to leave office in January 2009, under dubious constitutional circumstances (say, an amendment whose ratification is of dubious validity), we will have a duty to revolt.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

Yup. *sigh* He might possibly be sufficiently unsane to try, but one person really can't do much, and I'm sure (well, _pretty_ sure) his handlers would just ignore it. (Of course, if that 19-year-old Diebold programmer _does_ get 56% of the national vote (www.avantnews.com), all bets are off)

It won't happen short term - long term Hobbesian state of nature

[(Anonymous)]

To answer the question as asked - in the event peaceful means can't correct the course of state - I don't see the situation resolving itself - rather I see mass movements of populations with death counts like Caesar and the Helveti - Somme - Nanking - pick your vision. Before that happens I'd forecast no more than Gunfight at the OK Corral (which was about political spoils if it was about anything) Harlan County, Pullman Strike - folks like Mitch Werbel or even Smedley Butler doing labor and community relations inside the United States but no resolution - none of the above led to a resolution either.

In fact the center cannot hold - it's old but Duncan Black did the best description of different preference patterns - as preferences look more like a saddle than a bell curve the center drops out. On the other hand Graydon and all the other naysayers are myopic. Bush will go willingly - the alternative is to be laughed at and ignored. Bush was elected on the premise that he's stupid but he'll take good advice. Bush is stupid but he didn't take good advice. Thing is the Swift Boat folks - most of them - were right about Kerry - he abandoned his command; a command he had volunteered for after failing to cover himself with glory on the Gilmore - then gave us his reporting for duty speech after shirking it. While I cheerfully acknowledge the current imperial presidency is an abomination I am reminded that it was Jeff Cooper, with all the political freight he carries, who did most to keep the name of Lon Horiuchi in the public's eye - silent leges is an old old story.

But unless we as a race make Arthur Clarke's ship=spaceship come true the water wars of the late 21st century will end civilization as we know it (see the current NYT on India; Darfur as much as anything is a water war) probably in a competent empire. Climate change won't help anything despite the remote possibility of a net gain in agricultural potential. Remember old folks -and they vote - will be dieing in Phoenix and the Luckiest Man in Denv will be reality.

Personally I've kept enough ammunition on hand for some time what I lack are such niceties as the Schmidt & Bender Short Dot (ACOG is too far and Aimpoint is too short ranging) night vision devices and other technology. Then again Popski started with a theodolite IIRC.
CEM

Re: It won't happen short term - long term Hobbesian state of nature

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

There's something a bit unthinking about that last paragraph.

Not the possibility of needing plenty of ammunition, but the apparent reliance on high-tech accessories. If I were in a position to think of using that approach, I'd know I needed some spare pairs of spectacles before I spent a penny on the stuff that needs batteries.

[crazysoph.livejournal.com]

Somewhat tangentally - I'm reading a history book, The Search for Modern China, which starts its story in 1600, at the end of the Ming dynasty. The picture presented in the first couple chapters is fairly unsettling. Details that don't quite yet match, like widespread famine, are cold comfort.

Crazy(and hoping I'm only jumping at shadows, despite everything she's reading... but still marking where she's buried that hatchet)Soph

[lalouve.livejournal.com]

People like you and the others at Making Light give me hope for the US - while I am not myself a citizen of that nation, nor planning to be, what happens there influences the world.

[feonixrift.livejournal.com]

I can't bring myself to read the entirity of Lance's comments, the conceptual lumping and rhetorical imprecision pile on too thick. Your commentary in Two is quite well written, and makes a lot more sense than the vast majority of what I've read on the topic.

how do you see the situation resolving itself?

Messily. But that was the obvious answer.

First, this depends greatly on an (at least for me, with my background) unknowable: How far people will be willing to let matters slide, assuming matters do continue to slide, before resorting to reconfiguration on that scale.

There are two curves being simultaneously followed at the moment. One is at the steepening portion of a degredation slope, the other is just kicking up steam on an improvement slope. At this point, the degredation slope holds sway over many of the most important sectors, upon which its cummulative effects can continue to act for about a century after their occurrance. So, despite the second slope, we're in for it. We're really in for it. Unless, of course, the other slope can hit the essential points fast enough. Big bet, that.

Essential points are those most immediate for human welfare. Food, water, sanitation, education, sanity. The breaking point's location is altered by the assault on basic rationality: What isn't thought through by reason can be accepted by indoctrination even if it contradicts everyday experience. Marketting by psychological assault, promoting the view that everything is just fine. Or, at least, focusing against external enemies. The grand wars of an age distracting from its local decay.

I do not believe that the breaking point will activate fully at the point indicated by historical precident. Too much effort, both chemical and behavioral, is devoted to seperating people from the realities of their lives. If more drastic means are employed, it will most likely come long after this has devolved into a truly third world country. But I do not believe it will come to that.

I suspect that there will be a very irritatingly painful century with a few bright lights of hope in it, during which the current education and medical systems are almost completely refactored, leading to either vast improvement (for a century or two) or a reinvention of the status quo. I also suspect that, during this, politics will wave back and forth causing much dismay and argument without actually being the forum from which changes stem.

Or, alternatively, it could all blow up in 2012. =)