[Victoribus Spolia]

The Second American Civil War: A Poll

nearly one third of Americans think another civil war could break out in the U.S. in the next five years over opposition to President Donald Trump’s policies with more than one in ten believing it is very likely to happen.

Of the 59 percent of people who do not believe that a second civil war could happen sometime before 2023, only 29 percent said the scenario is “not at all likely” according to a Rasmussen survey of 1,000 likely voters.

The survey found that, overall, Democrats (37 percent) are marginally more fearful than Republicans (32 percent) of an upcoming civil war.

A further breakdown reveals 44 percent of African Americans think that a civil war will break out within five years, compared to 28 percent of white Americans and 36 percent of other minority voters. Women and those under 40 are also more worried about a possible civil war compared to men and older voters.

https://www.newsweek.com/second-civil-w ... -so-999254

This Poll is very interesting and is indicative of the "feel" of things in the U.S. right now.

I want to see how PoFo Compares (with some modifications of course.)

[Suntzu]

So what would be the sides in this civil war?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Proudboys v. Antifa on steroids.

[Pants-of-dog]

Why would there be a civil war?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Because of the widening ideological division in the United States, especially its polarization, the break down in dialogue, and the ascent of political violence.

[Rancid]

In the next 20 years? Impossible.

[Red_Army]

This is just a conservative fantasy that keeps popping up. Lots of overweight diabetics who wear camouflage and shoot Obama targets at a firing range think they have the tenacity of the Houthis or Vietcong. Its a pathetic video game fantasy that began in earnest under Obama's presidency. Its persistence just goes to show the delusion of these conservatives who control every branch of the American government and remain insanely paranoid.

I do not expect a civil war and think the political violence you're describing is mostly pathetic in the context of real civil wars.

[Pants-of-dog]

Because of the widening ideological division in the United States, especially its polarization, the break down in dialogue, and the ascent of political violence.

Is this widening ideological division really a thing? To me, it seems more like that is how US residents see the situation instead of how it actually is. Is there any evidence for this supposed widening division?

Also, provide evidence for the supoosed polarisation, breakdown in dialogue, and increase in political violence. This last one seems particularly fanciful, as the violence seems to have actually decreased. For example, you guys are killling leftists and people of colour less overtly these days.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Is there any evidence for this supposed widening division?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/ ... nes-243466

Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines – and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive – than at any point in the last two decades. These trends manifest themselves in myriad ways, both in politics and in everyday life. And a new survey of 10,000 adults nationwide finds that these divisions are greatest among those who are the most engaged and active in the political process.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

increase in political violence. This last one seems particularly fanciful

https://www.controlrisks.com/riskmap-20 ... -and-crime

Control Risks recorded 38,523 political violence and crime incidents worldwide in 2017, an increase of nearly 17% from 2016

Incidents in Europe: up 63% | Asia Pacific: up 51% | Africa: up 39% | Americas: up 26%

[Red_Army]

Face it @Victoribus Spolia Americans are too fat and comfortable for a real civil war. People don't even want to give up their time to get involved in political campaigns, so the idea that they are going to drop everything and take to the field to fight and likely die in a brutal civil war is laughable. We will need a significant economic crisis to precipitate the conditions amenable to civil war.

Although in your scenario it better be in the next 20 years because all the Proud Boys are homosexuals and will die out in that timeline.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Face it @Victoribus Spolia Americans are too fat and comfortable for a real civil war. People don't even want to give up their time to get involved in political campaigns, so the idea that they are going to drop everything and take to the field to fight and likely die in a brutal civil war is laughable. We will need a significant economic crisis to precipitate the conditions amenable to civil war.

It pains me to admit you could be right on this.

[Pants-of-dog]

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/ ... nes-243466

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/ ... an-public/

The first article linked here:
http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/ ... ven-wider/

Some excerpts:

In views of stricter environmental laws and regulations, for example, there has been a larger long-term change among Republicans than Democrats. Republicans are far less supportive of stricter environmental laws than they were in the mid-1990s, while Democrats have become somewhat more supportive.

While this is an ideological difference, I doubt that the two camps are going to go to war over things like requiring scrubbers on smokestacks.

And...

Partisan gaps have grown even on measures in which opinion in both parties has moved in the same direction, such as support for societal acceptance of homosexuality. Currently, 70% of Americans say homosexuality should be accepted – the highest percentage ever.

For the first time, a majority of Republicans (54%) favor acceptance of homosexuality; just 38% did so in 1994. Yet over this period, the increase in the share of Democrats saying homosexuality should be accepted has been much larger (from 54% to 83%). As a result, partisan differences have gotten larger.

So, while the divergence is greater, please note that both parties now have a majority of people who support the same policy. This is actually evidence that the risk of civil,war is less, even if we imagine that people will go to war over equal rights for LGBT people.

And...

In general terms, the public continues to express a preference for elected officials who seek political compromises. About six-in-ten (58%) say they like elected officials who make compromises with people with whom they disagree, while fewer (39%) say they like politicians who stick to their positions.

About seven-in-ten Democrats and Democratic leaners (69%) say they like elected officials who compromise. Liberal Democrats (76%) are more likely to hold this view than conservatives and moderates (63%).

Republicans and Republican leaners have much more mixed views: 52% say they like elected officials who stick to their positions, while 46% say they like elected officials who make compromises with people they disagree with. By 56% to 41%, conservative Republicans prefer elected officials who stick to their positions. By contrast, a greater share of moderate and liberal Republicans say they like officials who make compromises (55%) than say they like officials who stick to their positions (43%).

Most US residents seem to be supportive of politicians who lessen conflict.

As far as I can tell, this widening division is mostly due to Obama and Trump, and the dissatisfaction with these two presidents can probably be explained mostly by racism against Obama and Trump’s divisive nature.

https://www.controlrisks.com/riskmap-20 ... -and-crime

Are you aware of the difference between “America” and “the Americas”?

[Victoribus Spolia]

The first article linked here:
http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/ ... ven-wider/

Some excerpts:
In views of stricter environmental laws and regulations, for example, there has been a larger long-term change among Republicans than Democrats. Republicans are far less supportive of stricter environmental laws than they were in the mid-1990s, while Democrats have become somewhat more supportive.

While this is an ideological difference, I doubt that the two camps are going to go to war over things like requiring scrubbers on smokestacks.

And...

Partisan gaps have grown even on measures in which opinion in both parties has moved in the same direction, such as support for societal acceptance of homosexuality. Currently, 70% of Americans say homosexuality should be accepted – the highest percentage ever.

For the first time, a majority of Republicans (54%) favor acceptance of homosexuality; just 38% did so in 1994. Yet over this period, the increase in the share of Democrats saying homosexuality should be accepted has been much larger (from 54% to 83%). As a result, partisan differences have gotten larger.

So, while the divergence is greater, please note that both parties now have a majority of people who support the same policy. This is actually evidence that the risk of civil,war is less, even if we imagine that people will go to war over equal rights for LGBT people.

And...

In general terms, the public continues to express a preference for elected officials who seek political compromises. About six-in-ten (58%) say they like elected officials who make compromises with people with whom they disagree, while fewer (39%) say they like politicians who stick to their positions.

About seven-in-ten Democrats and Democratic leaners (69%) say they like elected officials who compromise. Liberal Democrats (76%) are more likely to hold this view than conservatives and moderates (63%).

Republicans and Republican leaners have much more mixed views: 52% say they like elected officials who stick to their positions, while 46% say they like elected officials who make compromises with people they disagree with. By 56% to 41%, conservative Republicans prefer elected officials who stick to their positions. By contrast, a greater share of moderate and liberal Republicans say they like officials who make compromises (55%) than say they like officials who stick to their positions (43%).

Most US residents seem to be supportive of politicians who lessen conflict.

As far as I can tell, this widening division is mostly due to Obama and Trump, and the dissatisfaction with these two presidents can probably be explained mostly by racism against Obama and Trump’s divisive nature.

So basically, the data supports my claim.

Thanks.

Are you aware of the difference between “America” and “the Americas”?

Sure, as long as we agree that North America is one of the Americas.

[Rancid]

Face it @Victoribus Spolia Americans are too fat and comfortable for a real civil war. People don't even want to give up their time to get involved in political campaigns, so the idea that they are going to drop everything and take to the field to fight and likely die in a brutal civil war is laughable. We will need a significant economic crisis to precipitate the conditions amenable to civil war.

Although in your scenario it better be in the next 20 years because all the Proud Boys are homosexuals and will die out in that timeline.

Spot on.

So long as money is being made, and people are fed. There will be no civil war. Things are still pretty god damn good here.

USA! USA! USA!

[Red_Army]

@Rancid People are also just super alienated from politics. In this country politics consists of "owning libtards or mocking cuckservatives" on the internet and watching their preferred television news network. This level of dedication is not going to bring about Rocky Mountain/Florida Everglades guerrilla warfare. At most it will be the cause of awkward Thanksgiving dinners and facebook family feuds.

[Crantag]

The whole notion is grounded in ignorance and lack of historical and political understanding of what 'civil war' even means.

A collapse of effectual government authority is all that could lead to a civil war scenario, with battle lines drawn between some disparate groups.

As a technical possibility, there is revolution (e.g. popular uprising), but this is also far and away not in the cards. This is in large part because the technical prerequisite conditions aren't present in the modern prevailing situation. It is also partly due to a large array of other factors.

If you consider the American Civil War as an example, this occurred due to a political factional division, in which the factional divisions coincided with geographical fixed realities (which were dependent on the politics and geography of slavery). The historical developmental situation was also much different, and this was consistent with the dissident faction retreating south, forming a government, and raising an army.

It is an exercise in and demonstration of one's ignorance of history and lack of critical thinking ability to suppose a civil war is a serious possibility under present prevailing circumstances. I voted 'impossible' (although the wording selection of this option is also problematic and probably indicative of bias--nothing is impossible--but that selection is closest to the truth. 'Nothing is impossible' is not me giving up ground, it is stating the realistic situation. The most likely catalyst I could imagine is a foreign war coming to the US shores--an actual invasion of the US--and degenerating into civil war. I see this as incredibly unlikely. But not genuinely impossible.)

[Rugoz]

People are also just super alienated from politics. In this country politics consists of "owning libtards or mocking cuckservatives" on the internet and watching their preferred television news network. This level of dedication is not going to bring about Rocky Mountain/Florida Everglades guerrilla warfare. At most it will be the cause of awkward Thanksgiving dinners and facebook family feuds.

Reminds me of this.

Ideologues without Issues: The Polarizing Consequences of Ideological Identities

The distinction between a person’s ideological identity and their issue positions has come more clearly into focus in recent research. Scholars have pointed out a significant difference between identity-based and issue-based ideology in the American electorate. However, the affective and social effects of these separate elements of ideology have not been sufficiently explored. Drawing on a national sample collected by SSI and data from the 2016 ANES, this article finds that the identity-based elements of ideology are capable of driving heightened levels of affective polarization against outgroup ideologues, even at low levels of policy attitude extremity or constraint. These findings demonstrate how Americans can use ideological terms to disparage political opponents without necessarily holding constrained sets of policy attitudes.

https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/82/S1/280/4951269

Haven't read it properly though.

[Pants-of-dog]

So basically, the data supports my claim.

Thanks.

No.

It says that ideological differences have widened since 1994, but there is no indication that these differences are enough to lead to violence.

In fact, these differences seem to be about relatively minor things.

Sure, as long as we agree that North America is one of the Americas.

Yes, but since your source has shown that political violence has increased in the Americas since last year, it does not support the claim that political violence has increased in the US over the last few decades.

[annatar1914]

It pains me to admit you could be right on this.

But, since an economic crisis is certain, the conditions favorable to another American civil war make that also quite certain.

[LeftNationalist]

There is no civil war coming in America. One side is simply not powerful enough to challenge the other in any meaningful way (this is true also in Europe, but not to the same extent). The political center in America has everything locked down and will only get stronger. They have nothing less than a total stranglehold on the media, higher education, metropolitan areas, culture, the bureaucracies, etc. People act like Trump has power...Trump has very little power. And the people who support Trump ... even less power. And what little power they have, even that will be taken from them, because they are a confused people, confused in their loyalties and misplaced allegiances.

Even though I know it's not what people mean when they say "civil war", there is in fact a "civil war" of sorts that people should be concerned with: the civil war taking place within the aforementioned political center. The war between the center-left and the center/center-right. And we should be rooting for the former, because it takes us closer to where we need to be as a society before real and meaningful change can begin take place...for everyone.

I said that it's a little different in Europe, but this is not because reactionaries in Europe are more powerful than reactionaries in America. The reason is because in Europe, the people, in general, have more power to challenge power irrespective of whether the power being challenge is better or worse. In America...in no meaningful way do the people have power to challenge power.