The Digital Age and Civil War

Understanding the cause is the first step in avoiding one.

I make an uncontrolled eye-roll when people suggest we are on the cusp of a civil war in the US. “What issue are you willing to kill for or die for?” I coldly ask, reminding people of the horror they are casually bringing up. So far, everyone dials back their rhetoric and talk more accurately about the toxic hyper-partisanship we are experiencing.

Certainly toxic hyper-partisanship can cause social tension that can spark individuals or groups to be violent, but that possiblity is a far cry from civil war. But the more we talk about a civil war that is not going to happen, the more social angst we create that motivates extremists. So we need to stop all this civil war talk before it becomes a self-fulling prophecy.

Having said all that, the underlying premised of this newsletter is that the impact of the Digital Age is driving much of our politics today. If so, then history suggests that a full blown civil war maybe exactly where we are heading. As we enter the early days of the digital era, will the demise of current traditions, institutions and assumptions create similar social upheaval that lead to the British Civil Wars, the American Civil Wars (1775 and 1861) and French Revolution during in the “early days” of the development of liberal democracy and the Industrial Age?

So while I concede that a civil war in the future (40 years?) is possible, it is not inevitable. While history shows we have the capacity to do some very stupid things, we also—sometimes—have the capacity for common sense. Fortunately, many Americans only have “feelings” that we are facing impending civil strife. But as pointed out, we can not identify a particular issue we would kill or die for. So, the possibility for a third American Civil War should be far off, if at all.

Historian Heather Cox Richardson writes about how one intractable issue, between the advantages of southern slave owners and northern “free soil” farmers who were both settled into the new territories, did motivate Americans to kill each other. There was no compromise to be had, no middle ground between systems that used wage labor and slave labor. It was a subject we wrestled with in 1788 and it played a big part of our national political debate until the 1850’s, when slavery became the volatile powered keg issue that exploded into civil war in 1861.

So what issues could fester over decades and lead to a third American civil war in, let’s say, 2061? Given that the American Right has drawn a line in the idealogical sand to the 17th century—where conservative originalist’s look for the origins of the “tradition and norms” our Framers as they wrote their 18th century Constitution. It are these 17th “traditions and norms” that originalist argue should govern 21st century rights and laws, which very well could create intractable conflicts between Americans.

Therefore, overturning Roe could be a harbinger for a series cultural clashes driven by the Supreme Court that could create “two Americas”, where crossing a state line brings dramatically different rights relative to personal freedoms. These divides are fueled by growing white christian radicalism, a response to the diminishing role religion plays in the Digital Age; and the long simmering conflict between “liberty” and “equality” among Americans, which is really a debate between the “haves” and “have nots” in society.

While the chance of a civil war in the near term (the next decade) is remote, our political system is already close to being a failed state. Decades of congressional gridlock, bipartisan lies by government officials—from Vietnam to January 6th—has resulted in a sharp decline in the public’s trust in government other civic institutions. This distrust in many ways is now symbolized by the politicization of a deadly pandemic. Moreover, our rickety constitutional system has barely missed catastrophic meltdowns and more dangers appear to be on the horizon. Such a meltdown is the precursor for greater violence that could lead to a wider level of violent strife that would qualify as a civil war.

But history doesn’t have to repeat itself, it can just rhyme. Nor is technology determinant to specific kinds of change, as it interacts with the culture and ideas of the era (like the Reformation in the 15th century). Unfortunately—and somewhat because of—the digital revolution comes at a bad time, when income inequality, increased racial animus and an upswing in political partisanship increasingly dominates our culture.

But we also have a 200-plus year tradition of the peaceful transfer of political power and most Americans have a deeply ingrained values that have fostered successful self-governing for generations. These are strong antibodies against the many anti-democratic forces in the US today. The question is, can “we the people” activate these antibodies? Sadly, even the events of January 6th did not generate a big increase in these antibodies.

Looking at the current trajectory of American politics, it is hard to be optimistic that things will improve. But like people diagnosed with a preventable chronic illness— obesity for example—”we the people” have some hard decisions to make. Do we change our lifestyle habits and get (moderately) more healthy? Our do we blissfully go about our day, ignoring the accelerated pace of our own death? Given the legitimate pessimism many have around current events, many I suspect feel that “we the people” will continue our gluttony. But we also have to recognize that many people do opt to make that lead to more healthy lives.

We can do the same in our civic space. We may fail. But what are our choices? Keep eating Bonbons (that is watching Fox and MSNBC) and drink the Kool-Aid served by our tribal chieftains. We all know how that ends. Or, can “we the people” change our diet and create new market demands for healthier food (served by the media and politicians) that can change our lives for the better.

Even with all the challenges we face as a country, we do have an underlying system that allows individual behavior—and that of our neighbors—to impact our future. We just need to decide if we want to eat more bonbons or go for a long walk.