My local radio station ends the daily morning broadcast with different renditions of The Star-Spangled Banner. It’s a beautiful and inspirational way to begin the day. Our National Anthem has always provoked emotion from me, associating it with the best of America; a flag flying over Little League diamonds, small -town parade floats and, fluttering defiantly over the sandy expanses of Iraqi desert. This morning, however, it was different. I don’t recall who performed it, and it is not that it wasn’t a beautiful arrangement, but somehow the first few measures began, and they sounded like a funeral dirge. This is, sadly so, appropriate. The United States of America is dead as a country, as a nation of shared ideals.
Ask yourself, what makes an American? Legally speaking, one can be an American citizen by birth or through naturalization. A baby born in Buffalo to Yemeni parents, who returns to Yemen within days of birth, and never returns, remains an American by law, even absent any sense or exposure to “Americanism”. But what really makes an American? “American” is not a geo-ethnic group, attaching a national identity to geographic area and ethnic identity, such as is found in Germans, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Chinese, and most other peoples of the world. There is no “American” DNA. There is nothing magical about the soil of the United States that imbues people born here or naturalized with a sense of “Americanism”. So what exactly is an American?
Since the founding of the country, being an American meant sharing certain values that were nearly universal in the country. These values included belief in the Rule of Law over the Rule of Man, a belief in property ownership, individual independence, and civil liberties such as the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience and freedom of association. These values developed over time, drawing from the respective cultures of the early settlers, and blending into a singular, uniquely “American” culture.
Political differences have always existed in the United States, and we’d be ignorant of history of we didn’t acknowledge that these differences were just as fervently felt in prior generations as they are now. In 1856, Representative Preston Brooks beat Senator Charles Sumner with a cane on the Senate floor. A few years later the nation was engulfed in a civil war. The Red Summer of 1919 and the turmoil of the 1960s resulted from a combination of racial and political strife. The United States survived those periods, why shouldn’t it survive the current troubles?
In previous periods of discord, there was always a commonality between the opposing sides. North and South had major political differences, yet both sides were overwhelmingly Christian, spoke the same language, believed in the same capitalist system of commerce, and, with the obvious exception of African-Americans, believed in the ideals of individual freedom as outlined in the founding documents. The Left and Right fought bitterly over policy in the 1950s, but both sides agreed that the Soviet Union and International Communism was the common threat. In the 1960s, major unrest rocked major American cities repeatedly, yet the “Silent Majority” still held traditional American values, as did the press, the educational establishment, and “Big Business”. These institutions all held firm against the efforts to overthrow or revolutionize our government. Certainly, changes came about from these movements, but they did so through a process of law, not by mob rule.
This is no longer the case. The Left and Right [admittedly it’s a very generalized characterization, but for purposes of this article, I will refer to the two diametrically opposed political and cultural forces as Left and Right] have nothing in common, and in that sense, there is nothing that makes us American. There are no shared values that we can all look at and say “this makes us Americans”. The Left and Right disagree upon the most basic of issues, such as the definition of a man and the definition of a woman, whether or not socially unacceptable “hate speech” is constitutionally protected, the role of God in public life, the ability of the government to compel individuals to purchase a certain product, or to require the wearing of masks, etc. etc. etc. There is not a single issue that they have in common.
Will this lead to civil war? I think we are already there. The battle lines are drawn up, and people have chosen sides. So how will this civil war play out? I have no idea, and there are infinite variables that will effect that.
Through history civil wars have been fought for a number of reasons; ethnic strife, economic disparity, ideological reasons being some. The breakup of Yugoslavia is a recent example of an ethnic civil war, with each of the various ethnic groups fighting to secure their own independence. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was fueled by the economic disparity between the wealth of the landed Kulak class and the crushing poverty of the peasant-class muzhiks. The proletariat answered Lenin’s call for “Peace, Land, and Bread” by overthrowing the czarist government. Finally, a civil war fought mostly over ideological differences is best exemplified by the Spanish Civil War which raged from 1936 until the Fascist victory in 1939.
This last example is the one that most resembles our current situation. Yes, the United States is a multi-ethnic society, undoubtably the most diverse population of any country. Certainly, there is a vast gap between the wealthiest and the poorest in this country, and both of these factors do play a role in the current unrest, but neither is the primary driver. The biggest divide between Americans now is ideological. If this divide isn’t somehow bridged, we’re in for a very bad future.
The Left spent the last four years screaming “Not my President!” and labelling anyone on the Right as a racist, misogynistic, homophobic xenophobe. Now they call for unity. I’m ok with that, because without unity we won’t survive as a nation. Unfortunately, though, that call for unity is conditional; its often followed by the caveat of “except for anyone who supported Trump”. When half the population is excluded from consideration in a society, its no longer a society but two opposing societies. That won’t last.
If this continues, conflict is simply inevitable. The question becomes then how can we avoid this, and if we can’t, what are the potential outcomes? When nations dissolve, its through one of 4 ways: They are conquered and annexed by an outside enemy; there is an amicable dissolution; there is a contested dissolution; or there is genocide. Which are we headed for?
As to the first, that is highly unlikely. Despite our internal political rot, the United States still has the world’s most powerful military, and there aren’t any external threats with the capability to subjugate the county. This is highly unlikely.
As to the second, if we can’t unify as a people, perhaps its best to go our own ways and peacefully dissolve the Union. In this scenario, the United States would be dissolved, with new borders drawn according to the respective cultures in various geographic areas. In this manner, areas who are predominantly Left would not have to worry about interference from the Right, and could govern as they prefer. They could institute more social programs, higher taxes, gun control etc.. Likewise, the areas with predominantly Right culture could do the same, barring abortion, less restrictions on business, lower taxes, etc. To accomplish this would require an assembly akin to a Constitutional Convention, where the terms and geographic lines could be drawn (as well as deciding into how many individual entities should be created). Some other countries recognize that static geographical boundaries don’t always remain consistent with cultural boundaries. In fact, the German Grundgesetz (constitution) provides for adjusting the boundaries of the various federal states from time to time, including a provision that “due regard shall be given in this connection to regional, historical, and cultural ties, economic efficiency, and the requirements of local and regional planning”. What about Right citizens living in very Left areas, or vide versa, Left citizens living in very Right areas? They will be even more politically underrepresented than currently. They would of course have a choice to move. Migrations of whole peoples, by choice or compelled, are extremely common throughout history. If the end result is a more peaceable solution in line with more peoples’ individual ideological stances, it is worth it. Although clearly the most preferred outcome should unity not be found, I also think this scenario is highly unlikely. Too many in positions of power are there because they love the power, and each side will try to grab more of the pie than their due. There would be too many areas up for dispute and neither side would want to compromise.
As to the third, a contested dissolution is what was attempted during the American Civil War, and what succeeded in the more recent dissolution of Yugoslavia in 1991. In this scenario, the central or federal government would side with either Right or Left and wage war against the areas the opposite side. In America it was the United States (federal government) versus the Confederate States. In Yugoslavia, it was the Serbs and Montenegrins (as the federal or central government) versus Croats vs Bosnians vs Kosovars vs Slovaks. I find this scenario possible but unlikely. During the American Civil War the nation was mostly divided along both state geographic lines and cultural lines. In the cases where this was not the case, those areas split off to side with the faction most like them (ie West Virginia breaking away from Virginia). This is not the case today, as within every state are enclaves of both Right and Left, without two delineated “sides”. In the case of Yugoslavia, there the delineations were geographic and ethnic, again not a condition we see in America, where no particular ethnic groups control states (with perhaps an exception with Hawaii), and both the Right and Left draw adherents from across ethnic groups (although clearly more ethnic attraction to the Left).
As to the fourth, unfortunately, I see this as the most likely scenario should we not find common ground to agree on soon. The Spanish Civil War started in 1936 with a coup by General Francisco Franco against the Republican government of President Manuel Azana. Azan’s government was a coalition of Left-wing parties that won the election by less than a 1% margin. The country was bitterly divided along ideological lines. Backing Azana were the intellectuals, Marxists, Communists, and peasant classes. Franco had the backing of the Roman Catholic Church, the military, business owners and industrialists, land owners and Carlists, a faction that wished to re-instate the monarchy by installing the Infante Alfonso Carlos, Duke of San Jaime as King of Spain. Although each side had geographic areas that they had more or less control over, with Nationalists (Right) controlling Corona and Seville, and the Republicans (Left) controlling Madrid and Barcelona, that was at the macro level. On the ground it was much different, with farmers fighting landowners, workers fighting business owners, soldiers fighting teachers, all at the local level. It was horrifically bloody, with the execution of civilians and reprisals being common on both sides. In this type of war, there is no “behind the lines”. I label this as “genocide” because the goal was not so much capturing territory or a war over fishing rights, the goal was to kill as many of the opposing side as possible until they gave up. That is exactly what they did, until the Republicans were driven from Spain in 1939. In addition to combatants killed, hundreds of thousands of Spanish civilians were killed by both sides, and the victorious Franco continued to root out Republican and communist sympathizers until his death ended his rule in 1975.
Where are we today? An evenly split electorate, bitterly divided along nationalist/Right views and Marxist/Left views, with voices from each side calling for no quarter to be given the other. Spain 1936. A situation like that leaves few choices for people, the vast majority of whom live in a moderate middle ground. Their choices are to join the Left or join the Right. We do not want such an ideological civil war in this country. Any such war wouldn’t be a grandiose clash between heroes with the righteous being victorious and everyone lives happily ever after; it will turn every town into Shiloh, every city into Stalingrad. Neighbors will be fighting neighbors, families torn apart. One side will eventually win, but what is left of the prize? To paraphrase Thomas Jackson, the time may come to draw the sword, and if it does, throw away the scabbard. But until that day comes, we need to work in earnest toward reconciliation or a peaceful parting of ways. The alternative is too grim.
Comments