I heard it said recently that American is the most partisan, the most fundamentally internally divided, that we have been since the Civil War period.

Do you think this is true? Does this mean that potentially there could be a new civil war?

USA against USA idiologically based terrorism has happened in the USA. From bombing of abortion clinics, to anthrax letters mailed about. If we keep pulling apart as a nation, how bad could this potentially get?

Well considering I consider the US a shell of what it was, with the new huge battle over globalization, her role in the world, and her economic fundamentals hiding under the faux economic growth, with so many people unemployed, or even underemployed, and with communal strife at all time highs. America is destined to collapse on her own accord, with so much ignorance belying both sides of the isle, with so much partisanship to the point where the two sides can’t reach compromise the idea of democracy is coming to an end. With America under the guise of “patriotism” the sins of government can be hidden to the sheeple, with both parties being essentially the same in teleology American democracy is a joke. As I wrote in my political science essay about the “democratic deficit” in the US:

The critique of the liberal democracy is the basis for much of radical ideologies. The world today is largely dominated by liberal democracies that have adopted the neo-liberalist model. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, true globalization has occurred. This process of globalization has also brought about a democraticization of the world, but the problem is that it hasn’t necessary brought about equal distribution of wealth, which prevents radicalization of democracy. Even in the United States a well established democracy there is the classic problem between painful economic reform and political populism is occurring. With the backlash against globalization (ironically a movement that the US fought for the in Cold War) within the United States due to outsourcing and generally stagnating if not even depreciating living standards usually promises to create a democratic backlash. But if Marx is correct liberal democracies have their interests in the bourgeoisie class (who’s best interests to keep Globalization going) the proletariat of the United States will have no party that represents them because both parties are globalists, and both parties in the United States pander to special interest groups, which have money to lobby. Americans are stuck with the lesser of two evils. This is the problem with modern, neo-liberal democracies; a lack of real choice, different means same ends. This will cause there to be a popular backlash against the democratic system itself should things not change, radical ideologies like the Anti-Globalization movement may take hold with millions of voters. The parties have to change or the system does, democracy is not compatible with globalization in some parts of the world.

Civil War? No, I don't think so.

Let's say that the federal government (especially the congress and the executive) keeps pissing away the wealth of the nation. Sooner rather than later (and the first cracks are starting to show) you're going to have states that are forced to decide between total bankruptcy and their only viable remaining solution - to stop sending money to the federal government.

So now you have a sort of secession - economic rather than political, but not formalized to the extent that the state declares itself as a sovereign nation. In this case, who's going to stop the particular state from refusing to play? I don't think the federal government has the authority or the balls to go in and arrest the governor and the legislature and try to set up a new governmental structure. Once the ice is broken, however, you would then see other marginalized states either paying less into the federal government or nothing at all. Then wealthy states may decide "screw it - we're not gonna do it either". As less money flows into the national budget the federal government lays off workers and becomes progressively less able to function.

In this model the national government just falls apart - states develop their own foreign policy with nations that are relevant to it (Massachusetts looks more toward western Europe and has more in common with it culturally and economically than it does with Oregon. Same goes for Califonia and Japan, or North Dakota and Saskatchewan.).

If a state wanted to really go balls to the wall, they could sever economic ties with the federal government and then convert all their liquid assets into some other currency - like Euros, for example. It would be tough for a single state to pull this off, but I could easily see a larger region doing it - like part of New England: Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. These states could go it alone, especially with a little encouragement from Canada.

If this happened, and if the states involved could get away with it, then you'd see the whole country come unzipped into regional coalitions of states that had more in common with each other or with other nations than with the rest of the U.S.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3381&stc=1

Best thing that could happen, in my opinion.

I wasn't thinking really of an organized regional battle of one side/state/territory against the other type of civil war, I guess I was thinking more along the lines of anarchy I suppose, with some rough moralistic/religious/political lines drawn between people living in nearly every city. Ann Coltuir and Rush Limbaugh and their ilk getting on TV and the Radio and saying "For the good of America, we need each God fearing Patriot to put at least one liberal out of their misery today''. Abortion clinics getting blown up, in retaliation - Church's getting blown up. Cars with liberal stickers on them getting blown up. In retaliation, Hummers, Denali's and Expeditions getting blown up. Etc.

As a non USA'ian, it looks to me more like you might well be divided, but nobodys wanting to get up off their fat ass and do anything about it. I dont see huge fault lines cracking across society, though I do see much argument going on.
Its a bit like the 60's or so. I have read quite a few SF books based upon the premise of society cracking up like some people were thinking in the 60's, but yet it didnt get that bad.
So, I would say that no theres no danger of an actual civil war, unless, there were some sever external pressures, like a combination of lack of oil and something else. Or else that combined with the rise of several demagogues. If you want a mission go and assassinate all the future demagogues, though how you'll know who the future ones are, I dont know.

riots at the most, Civil War is miles away...

Social collapse isn't...

A civil war (I think only needs be capitalized if you are talking about the *historical* Civil War) is not really the accurate term for what I see as possible. A civil war implys two organized forces battling each other. I see more of a possibility of sporatic idiologically based killing and terroro between two roughly roughly identifiable groups. Which for convienience you could simplify into ''right vs. left''. The only scary thing there for a ''lefty'' would be that right wingers in the USA tend to be the most armed and militant folks in general.

I should say that one should be afraid of gangs in the Ghetto's they have much untapped power.

Or, don't worry about it - and as we do, just live a long way from any Ghettos -- then if the gangs rise up and feast on the bacon of the obese folks in the suburbs . . . . more power to them. :cool:

There already is Civil war in America.

Undecided alludes to it. There is an ongoing war of the dissallusioned, the poor, the free thinking masses against conservative America. They are jailed in droves. More prisoners per capita in the US than anywhere industrialized. The biker gangs are an organized resistance to the restrictive US narcissisic, nepotistic power structure. The urban gangs are less organized 'generally', but still espouse locallized resistance to the establishment.

The media refuse to acknowledge the groudswell of discontented Americans who are rising up individually to cast off the police state and it's broken moral compass. If the media centers weren't owned by the uberelite, a single person could harness this growing antipathy and take power and reform the gov't. Don't think that this is anything less than civil war. It is disguised in lawlessness, but it is at its heart a political movement. Struggling masses are yearning to be free. If Bush is reelected I predict these masses will escalate to full blown warfare. Targets will include: police stations, TV stations, power stations, jails, and gov't bulidings in general. They will be called homegrown terrorist or somesuch, but they will be freedom fighters in my book. When the crackdown comes where will you be?

question

your states pay tax's to the fed gov?

wierd
we have 2 different tax systems and where money changes hands its actually going the other way, from the fed to the states

Civil war?

Very unlikely, in any serious context. The corporate state has enough power and information control now that at most we might have a period of civil unrest; but "war" simply isn't going to happen. I agree that it is possible that there will be a period of change as the state economies continue to falter; and there is already a significant disruption in the cultural fabric due to the growing class divisions, but that's a long way from a "war". It's only a "war" if both parties in the conflict have enough power to mount an offensive, and that is not going to happen anytime soon in the US. The power vested in corporate America, realized through the Federal government, the military armed forces and the civilian police structures, and through the control of information and media, is so vast that it is hardly comprehensible by the average citizen.

The idea of any viable "civil war" is far-fetched - this should be obvious to anyone who was living in this country at the time of the Kent State shootings. Its always interesting to hear the speculation and the theories though.

"her economic fundamentals hiding under the faux economic growth", Undecided

Faux growth? When the economy grows.. it grows, nothing faux about it.

"with so many people unemployed", Undecided

Take a look at the unemployment level, it is actually low historically

"communal strife at all time highs", Undecided

Have you ever read about communal strife in the U.S. during the early 1900's? I am trying to figure out what strife you speak of?

"with so much partisanship to the point where the two sides can’t reach compromise ", Undecided

Be specific. If anything I think the problem is that the two parties essentially do exactly the same thing, and nothing gets done. Partisanship is usually in show only, but in action there is general agreement.

"Abortion clinics getting blown up, in retaliation - Church's getting blown up. Cars with liberal stickers on them getting blown up.", Gravity

This is a rarity. It is nothing compared to the civil rights movement or the Vietnam war protests. The 70's decades saw dozens of explosions in New York. Why is now so different?

"The urban gangs are less organized 'generally', but still espouse locallized resistance to the establishment.", Insanely Elite

Uh...They are not a rebel group, they are criminals selling drugs.

"our states pay tax's to the fed gov?", Asguard

State taxes are paid to support state functions. States, indeed do, receive money from the federal goverment, just as yours.

People speak a little to much about the results of globalization on the economy, and how its effects nations. In the U.S. for instance, 81% of its businesses are considered small, and have few or no ties internationally. Of the remaining corporations, which is a tax distinction, only half of those have strong international ties. A little to much is made of how the global economy will destroy a national economy. Secondly, writers have been writing about the fall of the west, and the United States for that matter, for hundreds of years. There was a trend to write about how the Asians will take over the world in the early 1900's. Sound familiar? In the 80's everyone was talking about how Japan would overcome the United States, now its China.

If you are talking about a civil war, China is a far more likely candidate for such an occurence. It is not far different from the Soviet Union in the fact that it is made up of many nations put together. Its source of water is questionable, and its agricultural policies are trading the present for the future. Of all the money its banks have loaned, 45% of it is now considered uncollectable. With the current political system in a state of confusion as to what it is, I would not consider that unlikely that a slowdown in its economy or a crisis with a natural resource like water could break it up. I do not see China overtaking the U.S. with the future problems it must overcome, including the treatment of its own citizens.

towards,

Define criminal. Define political struggle.

The great majority of incarcerated citizens are facing drug and traffic violations.
There are millions of gang members, there are millions of illegal aliens.
These people are involved in a political struggle for self determination.
Insofar as they take up arms against their oppressors, there is the civil war.

And it would be the third civil war. The war or independence was the first.

I realize I am playing a little loose with the term, but so is the entire US when they talk about War. Congress has not declared war.

I realize I am playing a little loose with the term, but so is the entire US when they talk about War. Congress has not declared war.

Very good point! But then we love to play footloose with that term. War on: Drugs, Crime, Terrorism, Iraq, etc,.

Hey Gravity,
I can't stand this whole 'war' in IraQ.
This is completely unchallenged in the media, and the democratic party.
A vote to authorize compliance with UN has turned into a declaration of war against a soveriegn nation? I don't think so. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

Well, Karl Rove and his collegues have done a brilliant job of redefining the terms used in political disourse these days. They have the liberals and even moderate Republicans scrambling on the defensive - having to use BushCo buzzwords to make their own points. And they don't even have time to fight over something like the misuse of the word ''war'' anymore, they are too busy scrambling to try and stem the flow of far worse things.

The federal government has far too much power to allow an actual Civil War occur. I think it would be more likely for the government to become authoritarian under a neo-con, Orwellian agenda. Meanwhile, the Patriots will support whatever the Feds tell them, Moderates and most of the Left won't care enough to do anything: everyone's too ingrained in the System. The few who do go out and blow stuff up will get caught, and any serious dissentors will get in legal trouble.

It's already beginning. Look at all the democratic senators who are not allowed on planes.

Didn't that Time Traveler guy (Tinton, was his name, maybe?) say that there would be a American civil war in 2005 or 2006?

(cue orchestra hit)
Dum Dum DUMMMMMMMMM!!!!!

"The great majority of incarcerated citizens are facing drug and traffic violations.", InsanelyElite


No, the majority (not the great) of federal prisoners are accused of drug violations. The federal prisons are a small part of the prison population. Secondly, nobody goes to prison for traffic violations unless:

A) They killed somone will drinking and driving

B) They have repeatedly driven without insurance, ignoring a court order. This can be up to 10 times and they may serve 30 days.

C) They continue to drink and drive, risking the lives of everyone around them. This again, will still be a matter of days in prison.

If you are stupied enough to continue the above over and over again, then you should get your 30 days. The real reason is that A and B generally go together, because who would keep getting pulled over time and time again if not a drunk?

Didn't that Time Traveler guy (Tinton, was his name, maybe?) say that there would be a American civil war in 2005 or 2006?

(cue orchestra hit)
Dum Dum DUMMMMMMMMM!!!!!
John Titor was the so called 'time traveller'. From [www.johntitor.com] (http://www.johntitor.com/):
16) There is a civil war in the United States that starts in 2005. That conflict flares up and down for 10 years. In 2015, Russia launches a nuclear strike against the major cities in the United States (which is the "other side" of the civil war from my perspective), China and Europe. The United States counter attacks. The US cities are destroyed along with the AFE (American Federal Empire)...thus we (in the country) won. The European Union and China were also destroyed. Russia is now our largest trading partner and the Capitol of the US was moved to Omaha Nebraska.
65. The civil war in the United States will start in 2004. I would describe it as having a Waco type event every month that steadily gets worse. The conflict will consume everyone in the US by 2012 and end in 2015 with a very short WWIII.

"The great majority of incarcerated citizens are facing drug and traffic violations.", InsanelyElite


No, the majority (not the great) of federal prisoners are accused of drug violations. The federal prisons are a small part of the prison population. Secondly, nobody goes to prison for traffic violations unless:
A) They killed somone will drinking and driving
B) They have repeatedly driven without insurance, ignoring a court order. This can be up to 10 times and they may serve 30 days.
C) They continue to drink and drive, risking the lives of everyone around them. This again, will still be a matter of days in prison.
If you are stupied enough to continue the above over and over again, then you should get your 30 days. The real reason is that A and B generally go together, because who would keep getting pulled over time and time again if not a drunk?
Hey towards,
I said incarcerated, not simply federal prisoners. This also includes other systemic charges, failure to appear and deliquency of fines. Traffic violations by and large are within the states jurisdiction and thereby vary. In my state of Washington, 1st time offenders who have as little as 1 beer and are sitting in their car(not on the road) face up to 1 year in the state facility. At the discretion of the officer, almost all crimes can put you in the holding pen, this most often begins with a traffic stop. Followed by aggresive search of your vehicle and/or sobriety field test.
Regarding your ABC's:
A) vehicular manslaughter is a crime regardless of drinking, though states usually add to the sentancing.
B) Perhaps this is particular to your state, in mine 1st time offenders may be hauled away
C) already mentioned

I had a short stint as a Police officer in Nevada, right out of high school. I left because of the abuses of power. We regularly were pulling over blacks and mexicans for no real reason. Following minorities until they failed to signal, or going a little above limit, or for no reason but suspicion(usually a youthful minority in a new car). I know racial profiling happens. I know how corrupted the system is. That you say who would get pulled over time and again unless you were a drunk is simply not credible.


Regarding the civil war aspect I found this at the US dept. of Justice,Bureau of statistics:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/correct.htm

Lifetime likelihood of going to State or Federal prison

If recent incarceration rates remain unchanged, an estimated 1 of every 15 persons (6.6%) will serve time in a prison during their lifetime.

Lifetime chances of a person going to prison are higher for
-- men (11.3%) than for women (1.8%)
-- blacks (18.6%) and Hispanics (10%) than for whites (3.4%)

Based on current rates of first incarceration, an estimated 32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, compared to 17% of Hispanic males and 5.9% of white males.

32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime

WTF :eek:
Sounds like your civil war has already started.

Dee Cee

Indeed that is what I'm saying DeeCee.

We can safely say that John Titor was a hoax,a beautifully executed, masterfully written one, but a Hoax, nonetheless. It's 2008, there is no war, the Al Quaeda is yesterday's news, the Bush presidency is set to go out with a whimper, no riots, a small hiccup in the housing market, a blessing for those who are BUYING a house, but nothing else.

Still, the John Titor story was entertaining. If I knew who the creator was, I'd buy him a drink.

Kudos for a kick ass ARG.

I'm quite jealous of the world you live in Torque! No war! Small hiccup in the housing market! It sounds relaxing. Unfortunately, some signs of the world I inhabit are:

http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=NYBOT_DX&v=dmax
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy
http://www.fxstreet.com/rates-charts/currency-rates
http://www.kitco.com/charts/livegold.html

Unless some stunning new technological miracle changes everything even more quickly and powerfully than even the light bulb, flight or antibiotics did. Or altruistic aliens land and solve all our problems. America is headed into a 2nd Great Depression at the very least, there are NO graphs, no import/export diagrams that show a way out at this point. Just soothing words from politicians, real estate moguls and bankers who want to stave off public panic and faster crash as long as possible.

And, every empire has big dips - that normal. One thing is --- during the 1st Great Depression we were a very self reliant hard working people. With 80% of Americans still having close agricultural ties in family or growing some food themselves. Now its less than 1%. We are absolutely NON-self sufficient now.

And history, she is a *itch. Some patterns ALWAYS repeat themselves.

Its not like "we are all gonna die". But a s*itstorm is certainly decending on us. We'll get through it, much poorer and wiser . . . as long as we don't throw a tempertantrum about being forced to lower our consumption levels, if we throw a tempertantrum? Well, we have thousands of nukes still - and THAT could get ugly. Hopefully not though!

Here is a good quote:

While it's gratifying to watch Hillary Clinton melt back into her senate seat -- in the process foiling the ascent of Emperor Bill the 1st -- one can't help but feel that that the contest for president is taking place in a different "world-line" (shall we say) than the melt-down of the US financial sector, and with it, the US economy.

Whoever wins on November 5 will wake up to preside over a different America than the schematic one he was debating about during the primaries and the election. The long campaign will beat a path straight into the long emergency. The new president will inherit a wrecked banking system, an economy in freefall, a wobbling world oil market, and an American public extremely ticked off by its startling, sudden impoverishment. (This is apart from whatever melodramas spool out on the geopolitical scene.)
The president-elect will quickly realize that the number one problem is not that Americans can't afford health care -- it's that they can't afford anything, because their income is evaporating in terms of both lost jobs and a dollar that is racing toward worthlessness. They'll be hard put to pay for food and gasoline, nevermind Grandma's emphysema treatments. They will be walking away from home ownership -- or yanked kicking and screaming by default-and-repo -- and any government scheme devised to abridge their mortgage contracts will only undermine basic contract law that has made mortgage lending a credible thing in the first place. And that too, of course, would redound straight to a real estate sector already in price free-fall, with no one willing or able to think about buying a house.

http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/

Now. We have a farm, with horses to work the land. The outside world could disappear and we'd be ok, it would be much harder, but we would be ok. EXCEPT for the fact that starving, scared, angry and armed people are generally scary fellow citizens. So we are keeping our fingers crossed that Americans snap out of their obese TV daydream and work HARD when TSHTF!

But . . . . don't believe me. Watch and wait, and someday down the road - remember some freak saying this to you in a chatroom! (again, I very much HOPE I'm wrong. But I live in a fact based world of graphs, and historical patterns . . . history is a harsh mistress). :(