A Whiff of Civil War in the Air

Malice and misinformation are driving national division.

By
919

On Thursday the University of Virginia released polling results that should shock exactly no one who closely follows American politics and culture. A majority of Trump voters (52 percent) and a strong minority of Biden voters (41 percent) strongly or somewhat agree that itโ€™s โ€œtime to split the country.โ€ย 

Why would they even contemplate taking such a drastic step? Well, the poll provides the answers, and theyโ€™re not surprising. Competing partisans loathe each other and view the opposition as an existential threat. This also isnโ€™t new. Itโ€™s been tracked in poll after poll for year after year. This one found that a โ€œstrong majorityโ€ of Trump supporters falsely believe there is no real difference between Democrats and socialists. A majority of Biden voters falsely see no real difference between Republicans and fascists.

What this poll tracked better than many others is that the mutual loathing is based more on emotion than policy. In fact, the poll found that majorities of Trump voters expressed support for most elements of the Biden infrastructure and reconciliation plan. Even the least popular plank (supporting unions by banning state โ€œright to workโ€ laws) garnered 42 percent support from those who voted for Trump.ย 

Yet broad consensus on the most important legislation now pending in Washington didnโ€™t stop 80 percent of Biden voters and 84 percent of Trump voters from viewing the opposing party as a โ€œclear and present threat to American democracy.โ€ย 

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
919
By
Comments (919)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Scarlette Tarte

    I disagree David. We have always been in a forced marriage, and like any forced marriage, they never turn out well.

    We NEVER should have agreed to drop the line about slavery in our declaration of Independence to appease the southern states, and we NEVER should have agreed to start the new nation with slavery just to get the southern states on board with independence.

    Yes, it goes back that far. It is basically the same argument...and these two are irreconcilable. One side wants a nation where everyone has an equal shot, where, law applies equally to all, where those with less are given a hand up, where children are cared for and educated, where education and compassion are the highest ideals, where we recognize the contributions of everyone to the whole, where justice is equal, and people pay their taxes and see it as a privilege to be able to do so, and most importantly, do not believe in anti majoritarian things like keeping people from voting or preserving a system where some people's votes count for more than other people's votes.

    The other side wants unfettered capitalism, doesn't want government to help anyone out, does not
    believe in the idea behind the 14th amendment, thinks education is a bad thing that leads to "elitism, wants to preserve power for themselves, has no use for the idea of "justice" except for the white majority, doesn't want to pay any taxes, (but, ironically, demands services, because they must be the stupidest people on the planet) and does not want any history told except that of the white majority.

    These same people were the ones that wanted to "nullify" laws pre civil war. They are the ones that wanted their "states rights" to own humans as property, but did not want northern states to have states rights to ensure that the people that were residing in their own state were free and not to have to send them back into slavery. These are the very same people that those who believe in the idea of a United States tried to compromise with time after time, only to still have them lead us into a civil war.

    Today, they are now the people that eliminated the "fairness doctrine" but now demand it from private companies, that they be allowed to spew their filth all over private platforms.

    I could go on and on about how deep the differences are among the "two Americas" and indeed, how deep they always have been.

    We, those on the "left" are the ones who have compromised and compromised and compromised, ad nauseam, to try to keep the union together, and now, we are, like our northern ancestors with the passage of the Fugitive slave act, enraged, disgusted and at the end of our tether.

    So...no one wants war. It would be far better to actually sit down and work out a way to divide this nation into two nations and let us finally get out of this marriage of inconvenience. I mean, even the kids want us to split. We never loved each other. Hell, we never even liked each other. Jefferson, Madison, et.al wanted independence awfully badly and even knew what horror they had wrought for the future, but hey, worked out for them, so screw the rest of us.

    And it was years and years of turning a blind eye to a recalcitrant people who fired on Fort Sumter then had the temerity to accuse the north of starting the war. And these are the same people today who vote for Trump, who are so obtuse as to think anything the left is doing is in any way as harmful as what they are doing to the country, to rule of law, to the very idea of representative democracy, to the republic they hump the flag of and claim to love. But indeed, just like the gross PDA"s with the flag of this country that they engage in, it is only lust, they have no idea what actual "love of country" is.

    So now, we have had it. No one wants war, I don't want to see even a spouse I hate with every bone in my body suffer any kind of violence. So our betters need to get to coming up with an idea of how to split this country. My own idea has been to give the southern half to the right wing (yes, because of climate change that they don't believe in...I confess, that is my own little dig at them) and give the northern half to the left wing. Give everyone two years to move to whichever side they wish to, give them subsidies to move. Share the cost of the military and use the military to defend both sides (which would keep the military from getting used by either side to try hurt the "other" side) decide on how to maintain the movement of goods across both new nations, etc.

    Sure, it is probably a pipe dream, but it is one a whole bunch of us are now having. I no longer wish to be married to the bully, who only wants his way and never sees the side of his spouse, never understands that they don't always get their way, especially if they want the union to last.

    Like John Lennon famously said to his fellow Beatles..."I want a divorce". Of course, the other side, Paul, convinced him to stay, only so HE could announce the breakup as a way to promote his own album. Sorry, I have no intention of letting the right wing "Paul" me here. I want a divorce. Millions of us on the left want out of this marriage that gives us absolutely nothing. And if the right wants that too, well that is a moment of clarity that we should take advantage of.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Michael Darwin

    I confess I am not sure breaking up the US would be such a bad thing. This isn't a thought from rage or grievance, but simply an acknowledgement that we have the world's third largest nation and a multi-cultural society that seems unwilling to return to the federalist policies that should allow those different cultures to co-exist in the same house. While Tip O'Neill's maxim was "All politics is local", social media has added the corollary "local politics are national." 20 years ago dropping abortion back to the state level may have defused the issue, but now I can't imagine New York liberals being able to sleep well knowing third trimester abortions were banned in Kentucky any more than Heartlanders could overlook Drag Queen Story Hour in San Francisco. Perhaps a tightly aligned group of three to five smaller nations could take us back to the provincialism that we were founded on. Just a thought.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    I think a number of people like Second Civil War LARPing fantasies. Few have any idea what it would actually be like. People want to live inside of a video game.

    Others just want a Brexit-style peaceful separation. Iโ€™ve pointed out to at least one friend that a lot more unites California and Texas than united Britain to the EU. A friend of mine lives in Berkeley California. He claims he has nothing in common and no connection to essentially most of the country and would likely support secession. In my mind, this is breathtakingly unrealistic at best.

    If you really ask me, people need to grow up. In some sense, weโ€™re stuck together and we better start acting like it. We need to put aside these pipe dreams of secession and a Second Civil War and realize that it would never give any of us the result some people dream of (some kind of red state utopia or blue state utopia freed from its โ€œenemiesโ€ in other states).

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Scarlette Tarte

      Sorry, that ship has sailed. I would not mind being "stuck together" as long as I had my rights protected and could get at least some of what I think important passed, especially since my side far outnumbers the red side, but they only want "their" rights protected and do not want to give the left any of their policy prescriptions, probably because they will be popular.

      But it is the stripping of rights of the people on the left that is the last straw as the fugitive slave act was the last straw for the North, precivil war. Taking away a woman's choice to an abortion, and trying to stop people from voting, and trying to force people to use certain bathrooms...its enough.

      So now, I want a divorce. If YOU want the marriage to work, you better start giving a little.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Ben Connelly

        Also if you think this is a marriage, thatโ€™s not really how this whole โ€œbeing a nationโ€ thing works. If I wanted to โ€œdivorceโ€ my countrymen Iโ€™d immigrate to a different country. That would be easier than starting a secession movement.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Ben Connelly

        The South started the Civil War not the North.

        Do you want a Civil War over abortion? Or a secession?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Scarlette Tarte

          I know that. The South fired the shots at Ft. Sumter and they promoted secession as an answer to their loss of political power.

          I am referring to the north having enough and voting the Dems of that time out of power and taking a chance on the upstart republican political party.

          They had had enough of the compromise with a region that would not give them anything of what they wanted.

          As in the right to determine that all who made it to their state would be free citizens under their laws rather than property the were forced to return to live in slavery.

          I don't want a civil war at all, I want to divorce and partition.

          If you don't want a civil war, then you need to figure out a way to make republicans understand they are not the majority in this country, and forcing us to live under anti-majoritarian laws will only lead to civil war.

          Abortion is my right and yes, I want my rights protected.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Picov Andropov

            A breakup of the USA would turn North America into the Korean Peninsula on steroids, with a bunch of hostile nuclear powers in a standoff with each other. I wish people would think about the consequences of calling for โ€œsecessionโ€ before jumping on that bandwagon.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Ben Connelly

            I donโ€™t think the North quite saw it that way. Lincoln explicitly ran on now wanting to break up the Union. Secession was entirely the Southโ€™s doing.

            Iโ€™m sorry but as bad as some of the election laws that Republicans are passing in some state legislatures, itโ€™s not equivalent in any way to the fugitive slave act.

            I donโ€™t see why itโ€™s my burden to make sure thereโ€™s not a war by convincing Republicans that itโ€™s all their fault.

            Also the Constitution is anti-majoritarian. By design. So I guess that would be a reason to secede for you. Or get an amendment passed. Or immigrate.

            You sound like youโ€™re saying, โ€œRepublicans are forcing my hand into a civil war.โ€ I think both sides need to take responsibility and stop acting like children.

            Secession, divorce, even without war, will be brutal economically and geopolitically. The ramifications would utterly dwarf Brexit + 2008 housing collapse. Itโ€™s fundamentally an unserious proposal.

            May I ask why you pay money to read David French if youโ€™re very pro choice and also pro โ€œdivorceโ€ (meaning between states)? He literally wrote a book about this subject (not abortion, disunion).

            Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Jason Gibson

    David

    You have my attention. I am going to read the westminster catechism

    Collapse
  5. Joe Curtis

    Well said David. "Itโ€™s hard for me to read those words and not hang my head in shame. I too often fail to achieve that standard." I'm saddened to say the same of myself but my goal is to get a little better each day.

    Collapse
  6. Davy

    I read with interest Mr. Frenchโ€™s piece and believe he discusses the correct situation of our times and country (I didnโ€™t buy his book) โ€” and future turmoil we may face. I feel bad about where we are as a nation and believe weโ€™re headed for bad times. I once read the words/thoughts of a Cistercian monk of the Middle Ages (?): Discipline creates wealth. Wealth destroys discipline. We are self-centered and pampered. If bad times are coming, we deserve them.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Michael Dan Martin

    I donโ€™t have an argument with anything written in this article, except for the words โ€œespecially on the right.โ€

    Collapse
  8. Rbmodic1

    I am with you Mr French. I wonder if you saw 60 Minutes last night. It is about the Facebook whistleblower that has exposed the hate and divisions promoted on the Facebook. As always it is about money. Here is the link https://youtu.be/_Lx5VmAdZSI

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Melissa

    Thought provoking article David. Thank you. As a conservative (not a trump supporter), I sense our general way of life in red states is being threatened. Using the proper pronoun, accepting unlimited abortion, suddenly and drastically changing our energy consumption, being restricted by heath mandates with no consideration for local conditions and being to be made to follow laws while others are not are just a few examples of these changes. I donโ€™t know what a peaceful separation of the country would be like, but I support exploration of the possibility. Please note the use of the word peaceful.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Scarlette Tarte

      Lol, of course, none of this is ever YOUR fault, is it? Thought exercise...when did the left start pushing for "unlimited abortion"?

      Just can't figure it out? Let me help you. It is when the right starting pushing to end abortion entirely, while doing things like murdering abortion doctors.

      We got along pretty well with abortion up to viability. But the right became more radical on this issue, which in turn, radicalizes the left. If you want true "middle of the road" life, you have to stay middle your self. If you push further right, it pushes the left further left and vice versa.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Kizedek

      I think the article is trying to raise the question, and to explore, and to understand why it is that some people are open to the possibility (as you are by your admission) of dividing the US over reasons that for the most part, appear far less significant or profound than the issue of slavery that led to the Civil War.

      Many of the issues you list seem the sorts of things that good people, including Christians the world over, will respectfully disagree over, yet carry on being good neighbors side by side.

      Why is it *now* that these things are being treated as existential crises and used as wedges to create social division? Is it Trump? Is it that Christians blissfully "thought" they lived in a country that resembled them and their 'general way of life' very closely, and now they are resentful to be confronted with cultural and worldview differences among their neighbors.

      These are fascinating topics, and I appreciate David French's investigation of them.

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Israel Bigelow

    I do agree with his overall assessment that there is a growing authoritarianism on the left and right but, the question of what do we do about it is one that I find very lacking from both David and Jonah's previous column. David's embrace of pluralism requires checking the growth of the federal government to be an answer and, aside from appointing conservative judges from the Federalist Society, the conservative movement has failed to stop the growth of the federal government or win the argument to do so in the public sphere. This makes David's overall strategy whistling past the graveyard as the Democrats are working at subsidizing the cultural revolution they launched last year. They might not get everything they want from whatever gets passed but blowing out the budget will impact the standard of living of all Americans for the worst. As evidenced by California, the combination of high taxation, high levels of social spending in the name of the common good, and high levels of imigration will not erase racial inequalities but heighten them and fuel further calls to expand government. To mobilize against this cultural death-spiral, whether you're a libertarian or a Reagan conservative, will get you automatically labeled a white supremacist. That's how this network of media, bureacracy, academia, tech cronies, and non-profits run by left-wingers defend their con. They expand their clout to neutral instutions which they will politicize to radicalize and push for more government.

    I don't agree with the Claremonters and JD Vance "Common Gooders" that Conservatives need to embrace being a big government party and jettison their libertarian principals but David completely misses how the lack of response to left-wing aggression pushes conservatives to radicalize. For example, his point on Trump supporter outrage over the censoring of the Hunter Biden story misses the reason for the outrage. Namely, that left-wingers used their cultural clout politicize a neutral space to censor the New York Post and stop the spread of a true story that would have hurt the Biden campaign. Liberals and left-wingers welcomed this censorship because they argued it most be Russian progaganda (it wasn't). This isn't a growing threat of authoritarianism, it is authoritarian. Similarly, Biden's move to use OSHA to force private companies to remove unvaccinated employees is another cultural power move that is also authoritarian. As is pushing an ideology like Critical Race Theory that shreds "mystic chords of memory" that undergurd American cultural history in favor of policies that won't deliver what they promise. Don't like the results? CRT theorists like all good authoritarians have white people they can blame. David may see utility in parts of critical race theory and doesn't believe that America should have a common narrative, but he understates how totalizing and destructive CRT is to any possibility of limiting the spread of the federal government or depolarizing the country. Again, David is right to hold the Right accountable for it's vaccine denialism and it's embrace of Trump election trutherism (the possibility of Trump running again in 2024 gives me nightmares). But his vision of pluralism and shrinking the federal government will not work. He will merely steamrolled and lumped together with the rest of us on the Right.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kizedek

      Whole lot of assumptions in their. Just the kind of thing David was warning about: taking some liberty with the โ€œtruthโ€, engaging in your own hyperbole.

      You are assuming the consequences of assumed trends and assumed issues. โ€œCultural Death Spiralโ€? Anything the Democrats attempt actually โ€œheightens racial tensionsโ€?

      The liberal democracies of Western Europe and elsewhere really arenโ€™t showing what you seem to assume is the inevitable conclusion of a โ€œCultural Death Spiralโ€. They are actually pretty nice places to live (disclosure: I live in the Netherlands; and personal freedom, including freedom of religion, and quality of life, is arguably greater than in the US).

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Israel Bigelow

        Speaking of assumptions, you make a lot while misinterpreting me on several points:

        First, "Cultural Death Spiral" is accurate given the trend I point out, racializing political debates to grow government and then doubling down when they fail to end racial inequalities. Maybe you find the term hyperbolic but this is an article talking about possible Civil War. Spare me the selective outrage.

        Second, I didn't say that "anything the Democrats attempt heightens racial tensions." I was specific with what they're doing that is heightening racial tensions. I also point out several things they're doing which is authoritarian which I notice you don't have a defense for.

        Third, I'm sure the Netherlands is a fine place to live (though with a birth rate below the level necessary to maintain your population, we'll see what it looks like in 50 years). My point is that trying to change the American political system in the way they're doing it is causing cultural upheaval and no one seems to have an answer or plan for us to alter course. Sadly, you also seem to be taking the "this is fine" approach to problems we're facing.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Mudskipper

          Actually, you weren't specific in your example of California. As a Californian, I was puzzled by your claim that what we were doing is heightening racial tensions. You made the claim, but you certainly didn't do the work of showing either heightened racial tension or drawing specific connections between what you said California was doing and those heightened tensions.

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Kizedek

          "Sadly, you also seem to be taking the "this is fine" approach to problems we're facing."

          A number of social programs, social policies, and safety nets in modern societies are "fine". The overreaction to what is deemed "Socialist", and the alarmist and false portrayal of them as some kind of existential crisis is "not fine". That is very much in line with this article.

          "trying to change the American political system in the way they're doing it is causing cultural upheaval and no one seems to have an answer or plan for us to alter course."

          It seems the "way *they're* doing it" is through voting. It seems the way that conservatives would like to "stop *them* from doing it", is the problem. Yes, many conservatives feel they are "preserving democracy." But that self-serving perception is a major thing that David French is attempting to address.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Israel Bigelow

            For your reference, by the "this is fine" approach I'm talking about is a reference to this meme:

            https://wallpaperaccess.com/full/2616959.jpg

            In your case, we should ignore the flames because we voted to light the house on fire. Hyperbole you say! I pointed out that it is problematic that the Democratic approach to transforming America into a social democracy by racializing our political discourse will inevitably not achieve it's outcomes, racial equality. Case in point, California has very high levels of racial inequality despite the Democrats having a filibuster proof control of the state government (https://www.ppic.org/publication/income-inequality-in-california/). You are using the Netherlands as a reference for understanding American politics but the result of the Green New Deal and other policies of the Biden administration is going to be California, not the Netherlands.

            You say I'm fear mongering over socialism. I never did anything of the sort aside from pointing out that their proposed solutions won't achieve the end results they intend. Also, many of the activists and politicians pushing this crap have no bones about being called socialist and will also blame the spectre of white supremacy when their policies fail thus causing the same cycle to repeat.

            Then you say this ridiculous nonsense: "It seems the "way *they're* doing it" is through voting. It seems the way that conservatives would like to "stop *them* from doing it", is the problem. Yes, many conservatives feel they are "preserving democracy." But that self-serving perception is a major thing that David French is attempting to address."

            If your argument is that I'm being overly broad and fearmongering about the left then you are guilty of hypocrisy here. I'm proposing fighting back through public debate and voting. I mentioned before that Trump running again in 2024 gives me nightmares. That's because I agree with David that the election hoax nonsense coming from him and his supporters is dangerous for the Republic. His sycophants also want us to be more like Europe but in the vein of Victor Orban and Hungary. I find that desire also fueling our "Cultural Death Spiral". My point is that none of this is in a vacuum. The response from the Right to the Left's failed policies and authoritarian power grabs will be an equally authoritarian identity politics based on white resentment.

            How do we correct course? Nobody knows which is why I'm wasting my time arguing with you on the internet.

            Collapse
Load More