Nothing is inevitable until it happens. Discussions about impending civil conflict don’t necessarily mean civil conflict is impending. Certainly, there are ways to avoid political violence through negotiation and reconciliation. Those possibilities are remote, right now at least, because our warring factions haven’t quite committed themselves to a declaration of violence. How remote those possibilities remain, however, depends on how far the factions are willing to push.
From my perspective, we’re approaching a decades-long political apotheosis whose roots lie in the last days of the Civil Rights Era, when the segregationist powers ebbed. The 1960s were turbulent, but that decade did face Jim Crow’s ghost, banishing it from national politics in the form it had previously inhabited. A climax, an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, a redistribution of political loyalties. Resistance to state and political violence culminated in the genuine accomplishment of expanded rights, fulfilled citizenry.
Apparently ghosts cannot be killed. Playing a long game through deception, linguistic appropriation and veiled intent, the unrepentant segregationists built a covert political movement from the 1970s until today, culminating with the first presidential administration aligned with the authoritarian movement since Coolidge and Wilson. On the other hand, as sympathetic to the segregationists as Coolidge and Wilson were, they never intended dissolution of the Union.
It is an ironic tragedy that the Republican Party has been captured the G.O.P. (the distinction is mine). The party of emancipation, of civil rights in the 1860s and 1950s, of women’s suffrage, and defenders of classical liberalism has been hijacked by forces antithetical to its tradition. These forces I call the G.O.P. because its an ugly acronym of their devising and it separates out the rot from the root.
The party whose existence was founded to save the Union from slavery and dissolution now fetishizes violence openly against its political opponents and fantasizes an irreparable future. State violence in the form of police-led lynchings. Threats to autonomy by attacks on women’s right to choose their medicine.
The aggression, bullying, boorishness, distrust, anger, and fear that characterizes the G.O.P. today is an intimidation tactic. In all likelihood, the little men who foment hatred are the last we’ll see on the battlefield. Donald Trump’s bluster, Ted Cruz’s zealotry, Tucker Carlson’s agitation reveal a fundamental weakness of character.
We should exploit this weakness.
First, they play with words of violence, revolution, insurgency. Fine. The fact is, these words inspire violence within their constituency. And as they increase the heat of rhetoric, so too do they increase the likelihood of real political conflict. If this is the case then, why not turn the tables? Match their rhetoric, bring on the (rhetorical) heat. Next time they attempt sedition, meet them at the appointed time and place. Appease an aggressor and they’ll go for more.
Second, isolate the insurgency. Find ways to push it beyond the bounds of legitimate society. A key thread tying together the G.O.P.’s “policies” are how antisocial they are. Reinvigorate society. Society is a space where everyone belongs, except for those who wish to exclude. The call this cancel culture. I call it accountability. Shame demeans these weakest individuals when facing chastisement. It’s weird how conformist authoritarians are when they are so easily driven to divide up society. They yearn for the simplicity of routine and monoculture despite their drive to violence they instrumentalize to achieve this conformist ideal. That split psyche needs to be exploited, neutered, directed toward pro-social ends.
Third, if they declare war, accept it. Call their bluff. Stand up to the challenge. For decades, the G.O.P. self-indoctrinated themselves into the belief that liberals feared conflict (we certainly wish to avoid it). They bandied masculinist terms and imagery (as if being armed in one of history’s safest eras were a sign of strength). But what their fixation on strength, force, might reveal is cowardice, weakness, a misunderstanding of what it means to get along. Weak people cannot countenance change, difference or pluralism — strong people can. If they declare war because they want to enact a fantasy of the past, let them. Show up. Resist. Who is going to back down first? Who wilts under the words of truth and history (boycotting black history in the guise of anti-CRT laws, for instance)? Who can’t accept an absence of attention being paid to them?
Political violence in the United States (at least in this novel incarnation) is not inevitable because we haven’t yet landed on the moment of commitment by those inciting it. So far, they have played a deceptive game in public. But once we arrive at a point where our political leaders have declared open season on vigilantism and violence (we’re close), let’s not argue with them. Imploring their better angels will not be enough. They will deride that as weakness and move to escalation.
Instead, agree. Say, okay if it’s civil war you want, it’s civil war you’ll get. Show up. This doesn’t mean commit the same acts of terrorism they crave. Absolutely not. This is more rhetorical than that. It means creating clear lines of separation between the citizenry and the insurgency. It means disrupting the pull of tit-for-tat antagonism that spirals uncontrollably by reversing the roles.
Ultimately, facing calls of civil conflict means defending and strengthening our civic institutions — our government. Despite its disparate and many flaws, our government is adaptable, amenable to change. As citizens, government is our ultimate possession, shared across time and class, ethnicity and gender. An insurgency wishes to destroy those institutions. To capture them and implement oligarchic rule. Don’t be a witness to the devolution of our shared heritage. What would emerge should horrify you. Do what you can to strengthen and improve what exists and innovate and invent what doesn’t.
