Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Exotic_District_4657 t1_jbjtz8s wrote

Idk, I think the concern over the US demise is greatly exaggerated. If you look at demographics, which is going to be what wrecks most industrialized countries in the coming decades, we’re going to be fine.

We are also completely food and energy secure, which is even more important than demographics. Many nations can’t boast this.

Yeah we have our political issues. But the thought that we’re more divided now than in the 1960s is laughable. Most of it is online and perpetuated by bloviating talking heads. Rise of radical political movements that are armed and angry? Sure. Is that bad? 100%. Has this been an issue before? Absolutely.

Also the US can’t really Balkanize at this point. Not like we could 100 years ago. The divide isn’t north vs. South, it’s rural vs. urban. This issue touches every state. You walk out side of NYC, you’re in GOP land. Set foot in Milwaukee Minnesota, you might as well be in a frigid LA.

I’m convinced that most people that are calling for or are worried about a civil war are terminally online or LARPing.

5

UncreativeIndieDev t1_jbjx5y4 wrote

I'm less concerned for a civil war akin to the one in our past between two formal states and armies, and instead more concerned about increased political violence and domestic terror groups. We already have severe issues with mass shootings and have seen increases in politically motivated attacks (e.g. Jan 6, the attack on the Pelosis, attacks on LGBTQ+ venues, etc.) and, what I find especially worrying, a lack of serious criticism and opposition from our politicians. Republicans often ignore or even justify many of these attacks (as by and large most are perpetrated by right-wing actors), such as with them making fun of the attack on the Pelosis and making up a conspiracy theory about it being a homosexual affair, and while Democrats have criticized these attacks, little is done to actual go after the political agitators causing them. Moreover, wider language regarding political violence has also become more extremist as at a recent CPAC, a prominent conservative (I believe it was Michael Knowles) went on stage and called for the "eradication" of the transgender community and has since defended himself by arguing he can't genocide transgender "people" if they aren't actually a group of people. This has come with little-to-no opposition from conservatives despite this language dehumanizing and practically calling for violence against transgender people.

1

Murein OP t1_jbjupjx wrote

Sure, but what if the next government is authoritarian fascist and forces even the most liberal states and areas to comply with things such as abortion bans, don't say gay et cetera? I frankly don't think this can be dismissed.

−2

NoRich4088 t1_jbjxdjy wrote

First, America can't have a "fascist" government, and a party like the Republicans are typical in all but Western Europe. Second, any left wing revolt against a right wing government would hardly get off the ground, because the military will just side with whoever is president currently.

1

Murein OP t1_jbjz89a wrote

Why can't America have a "fascist" government?

2

NoRich4088 t1_jbk0kf6 wrote

Because we are a strong democracy, worse we could possibly get is a slightly authoritarian democracy, so basically just a slightly worse Trump.

0

ThomasMaxwell2501 t1_jbk8kfo wrote

You seem overly confident in our democracy. America could very well gain an authoritarian government, but it would ultimately be incompetent and ineffective. The military simply does not have the manpower to secure and control the entire country (people underestimate just how big USA actually is in terms of landmass and population), so the successful enforcement of said authoritarian government would be nearly impossible; to revolt and disobey such a regime would probably be fairly simple.

1

NoRich4088 t1_jbkex7u wrote

We've had some form of democracy for nearly 250 years, I don't see us losing it anytime soon.

3

ThomasMaxwell2501 t1_jbkgeiq wrote

It seems you’re using a form of induction here, as in you’re making future predictions based on past experiences. But that’s the pesky thing with induction, you never really know what the future holds. We could have some form of a working democracy for a thousand years and there would still be a chance of it disintegrating.

By the way, I don’t think it’ll dissolve anytime soon as well, the process has survived worse. But nevertheless, it is currently being tested, and there is a legitimate chance that it will fail the test this time.

1

NoRich4088 t1_jbkgr2e wrote

I see your point. I just don't see any threat.

3

ThomasMaxwell2501 t1_jbki1un wrote

The threat I see is the constant questioning of the process itself.

In the last few Presidential elections there has constantly been a narrative of some kind that the elected President was somehow “illegitimate”. People questioned W. Bush’s presidency because of the Supreme Court interference in Florida. People questioned Obama’s presidency because he was “born in Kenya” and therefore “not a U.S. citizen.” People questioned Trump’s presidency because of “Russian interference.” And now people question Biden’s presidency because the “election was rigged and stolen.” This constant questioning could only lead to an eventual loss of trust in the process from the general public. Democracy would inevitably dissolve after enough time passes, but not because of an authoritarian force taking it away, but because the people have become simply indifferent towards a process they don’t trust and value.

Hope I’m wrong somehow.

1