Local Localist wrote:What one tribe calls 'civil war' and the other calls 'revolution' seems oft discussed in the United States these days. Westerners, and particularly Americans, seem much more prone to posturing than to acting. There is an undeniable laziness to the masculinity of American reactionaries. Though they might like to imagine themselves warriors, they still want their 60 inch TV and their 7-11 big gulp. They are by no means a reliable militant force to be called upon. Of course, this is mirrored in American progressives as well, many of whom cannot and will not even use a gun. Lets say, hypothetically, that November rolls around. Joe Biden is elected president by as slim a margin as you might imagine. Donald Trump officially declares the election result invalid. Protests erupt on a scale larger than anything already seen. The military is sent in on behalf of the president, who utilises a kind of half-hearted martial law to remain in power.
January 20. No sign of Joe Biden. An effective military stewardship descends upon the United States, supported by approximately forty percent of the American populous, including a vast majority of the military. An active resistance of approximately one quarter of America intensifies guerrilla operations and occupation of urban areas, because street fighting won't cut it anymore. The reactionaries aren't strong, but they don't need to be. They have the flag and the army to hide behind. The progressives, on the other hand... how will they ever launch a revolution, in their current state? The dominant ideology among them is anarchism, which is too decentralised and disorganised to actively overthrow anything. How can it become a civil war, with no outright battles? It seems to me that tensions can only continue to escalate ad infinitum, until America Balkanises itself in some extremely messy way. Thoughts?
I had to re-read the OP before responding. It's a rather extensive 'what if?'.
In the first PP, there's a statement about President of the United States of America 'officially' declaring the election results invalid. That simply would not happen. President Donald Trump might well blather and bluster about election results as he has in the past, but we have mechanisms in place to handle such complaints. The president has no power to set aside the results of an election.
In addition our military, steeped in tradition, would maintain its neutrality. We would not become a 'banana republic'.
I expect a tumultuous period during and after November 3rd, but expect things to settle down after the vote of the Electoral College, which is the actual determiner of the winner in our constitutional republic.
Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.