This book is a worthwhile read, especially for those who think that civil war is only something that can happen elsewhere. It is not inevitable; nothing in our control is inevitable. But it can happen here, and Barbara Walter makes clear that many of the pre-requisites for civil war are already prevalent in our country today.
As someone who wrote a book culminating in a warning that civil war in this country is a real possibility, I nonetheless found this book very informative. I was amazed at how pages from successful approaches to civil wars leading to totalitarian rule in other countries seem to have been adopted wholesale by alt-right “social entrepreneurs” (Walter’s characterization) and politicians in this country, not least of all, Donald Trump. As an example, Walter’s description of how Brazil’s Bolsonaro “exploited” racial fault lines by exaggerating the “specter of lawlessness” seems totally consistent with the alt-right and right-wing media violence-ridden characterization of Black Lives Matter protests and Donald Trump’s warnings about “caravans” of drug-dealing immigrants leading an “invasion” of our southern border.
There are a number of complementary themes throughout the book. One consistent theme is that plurality is not a predictor of civil wars but is in fact a necessary component of a vibrant democracy. What is a predictor is factionalism, particularly when based upon race, ethnicity and/or religion. The danger begins when the political parties abandon policy and adopt wholesale identity politics. The author downplays the role of inequality and economics in fomenting civil war. However, I think that just begs the question of what motivates factionalism in the first place, and the author readily admits that “downgrading” from some preferred status, or perceived preferred status, is a predictor of civil war, and a major one.
Another theme running thorough the book is that most people do not see civil war coming until militias start firing guns and taking over streets and local offices. When the actual fighting starts, it is the experience of the author that most people woke that day and engaged in their typical routines, routines that were quickly destroyed, along with lives. Social tensions are part of an open society and the author states, with good reason, that protests are a part of an open society as well. Protests represent “hope” that things can change for the better. But she also states that protests are “last ditch” efforts for change and that anocracies (which the United States, as a former “democracy,” has recently been downgraded to) are particularly incapable of delivering on what is needed for the change protesters are calling for. It is when protests fail that people turn to extremists for redress. And this phase in the process is not only aided, but accelerated by social media, which can quickly turn discontent into violence. Politicians have become adept at using social media for identity politics, aided and enabled by those she refers to as “social entrepreneurs.”
I was particularly intrigued by this theme. The 1960s was a time when protests were rampant – Vietnam War protests, civil rights marches, women’s rights rallies, and more. The author does not undertake to do this, but an interesting project would be a study of the two periods – comparing and contrasting social and political attributes of the 1960s and the 2020s. Apparently, from the Supreme Court to Congress to localities, we were living in a democracy that did have some capacity for addressing protests. Of course, some of those capabilities were undemocratic, conspiratorial and lethal, with Fred Hampton as one, most egregious example of the evils of secret government programs like COINTELPRO. But both Democratic and Republican Senators seemed quite prepared and compelled by patriotic duty (and self-preservation) to rid the country of Nixon. Contrast that to the current Republican Party – the Party of Trump, which defines allegiance to him as a path for political self-preservation! Congress then was resigned to the need for opening up the voting franchise. Congress today cannot even pass a voting rights bill. Whites, at least in sufficient numbers to make a difference, made up an expansive middle class and with that status enough seemed amenable, even if begrudgingly, to make some political concessions. The progeny of those White middle class workers are those who now present themselves as the most aggrieved segments of today’s society, some of whom look to local White militias, as opposed to government, for redress.
[In yet another book about the next civil war, Stephen Marche (The Next Civil War) does take up the issue, stating that “Trust in the institutions was much higher during the sixties and seventies. The Civil Rights Act had broad support…JFK’s murder was mourned by both parties…Americans took the press seriously. The political parties felt they needed to respond to reported corruption.” By the way, this author of this “speculative non-fiction” takes the position that the Civil War is already underway.]
Returning to Walter’s book, she extensively explains the run-up to civil wars from around the globe and maps out precursors to those wars. In so doing, she provides examples that resonate with current events here in the U.S. In reviewing the start of the Bosnian War, I was reminded of the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville. Walter explains how Croatians believed that their way of life was under siege, they would soon be replaced by Serbians and only violence was capable of stopping that threat. This is relevant to current political developments here in the United States. One of the rallying cries at the Unite the Right Rally was “You Will Not Replace Us!” And since the protest was intended to stop the removal of a confederate general statue, it stands to reason that the “You” in this case was the subject of the Civil War, namely African-Americans (and the Jews that supposedly control them?)
Most troubling is that it seems clear that the truth is no longer relevant. The issue is not so much the reality but the perception of reality, an exemplar of the Thomas Theorum: if you define a situation as real, it is real in its consequences. If a statue of a confederate general is symbolic of perceived White supremacy, and it can be removed, then it could be replaced by a statue of George Floyd – a symbol of perceived Black supremacy? Of course, the perception in both cases is a White perception, and that is the issue. When Trump told his supporters to “fight like hell” if they wanted to keep their country (and not be replaced), it is clear that the country was not going anywhere, except perhaps towards the realization of a multi-racial, multi-ethnic democracy. Nothing was changing inconsistent with a pluralistic liberal democracy.
For me, there were a few disappointments in this book, but they are minor and do not take away from the value of the work. Early on, Walter provides a rather incomplete view in praise of the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The passage of this was Declaration by the U.N. was important for that era of de-colonization, but it allows for the inference that the United States was firmly behind this human rights document. It was not. In fact, we not only fought its passage but only agreed to support it after the Declaration exempted States within the United States from its provisions. [See Eyes Off The Prize, The United Nations and the African American Struggle for Human Rights, 1944-1955 by Carol Anderson] For us, this meant that only the federal government was required to respect human rights. Jim Crow, housing and employment discrimination, voter suppression and more continued locally without interruption. Citing this reality, I believe, would have been important background for recommendations made by the author, since a full recognition of where we were and where we are, is important for figuring out how we get to where we need to be.
In projecting what actions could prevent a civil war, the author suggests many approaches and nearly all are politically impractical. Some of the suggestions – strengthening democracy, limiting Presidential power, getting rid of dark money, eliminating the electoral college, expanding voting rights, re-introducing civic education in schools, focusing and expanding resources to fight domestic terrorism, improving government services – these are among the recommendations. At one point she calls on the federal government to “renew its commitment to providing for its most vulnerable citizens, white, Black or brown…” This is a difficult proposition given how Biden’s Build Back Better plan went up in flames and failed to even gain the unanimous support of democratic Senators. It is also contrary, I believe, to the author’s own analysis of where we are on the democracy/anocracy/autocracy spectrum.
It is also difficult to imagine these proposals as practical given the history of this country, which Eduardo Porter (American Poison) defines as “America’s Exceptional Contradiction.” By that term, he means that, as a country, we have historically been okay with public supports of all kinds, until that support is offered to minorities. Once that support is legally mandated or offered universally, local (White majority) response is to simply eliminate the support entirely. Heather McGee in her book, The Sum of Us, makes a similar point using – “draining the pool” – as an actual public response to forced integration and a metaphor for the denial of public benefits generally (if those benefits are to be shared).
In Walter’s book, there are recommendations that are realistic and doable. On the punitive side, she calls for the government’s response to violence to be to “arrest, prosecute and seize the assets of insurgents.” This is not only doable but necessary if we are to defeat this movement towards autocracy. Another is to regulate social media, which she describes as an accelerant for uniting revolutionary forces, cementing identity politics, and spreading lies and conspiracy theories with impunity. This is also doable given that such a proposal could find resonance among elected officials on both sides of the aisle if social media is seen by enough legislators as a double-edged sword, at best. On the non-retaliatory proactive side, she calls for providing space and opportunities for discussion and meaningful interactions across factions. She mentions groups like Embrace Race and Citizen University, which do just that. I am a member of a similar group – Braver Angels – and I find that their work is worthy of broader support and participation. However, this is a long-term approach to a short-term problem and time, if we are to pay any heed to the very powerful warning signs laid out in this book, may not be a luxury available to us. Reading books like this reminds me of holocaust survivor, Viktor Frankl’s words: “decent people are in the minority, that they have always been a minority and are likely to remain so – is something we must come to terms with. Danger only threatens when a political system sends those not-decent people, i.e. the negative element of a nation, to the top. And no nation is immune from doing this, and in this respect every nation is in principle capable of a Holocaust!” Some of our very worst people are now at “the top” of our government and if we are capable of a holocaust, we are certainly vulnerable to succumbing to a civil war.
To conclude this rather long book review, I wanted to refer to my own book, Preventing the Next American Civil War, How Culture, Community and Democracy Frame Human Progress, published through Barnes and Nobel Press in 2021. In projecting the possibility of a Civil War, I also make recommendations, but these recommendations are framed by a rather sobering thought. I refer to Martin Luther King’s famous quote, “the arc oof the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice” but follow up by disagreeing with it: “Looking at history, any progress made…cannot be said to be the result of some form of natural evolution. Change comes from trauma. Change comes from fear. Change comes from anxiety.” Our federal government can make the price of destroying democracy a price paid by individuals through the exercise of government power, or the price will be paid by all of us. Our friends, neighbors and fellow citizens will either figure out a way to extricate from social media and develop ways to interact respectfully and productively with one another, or things will continue to get worse. If these things are not possible, then we should begin deciding sooner rather than later whose side we will choose to be on.