I'm still working my way through
The Fourth Turning is Here and came across this passage when talking about civil war being one of the possible paths through the current fourth turning. A few months back, I made an argument that civil war seemed unlikely given that the factions are not geographically separated (although, they get more so by the day). Well, it seems that argument may be without merit...
In fact, this is not how most civil wars happen. Ideological separation, absolutely. But geographic separation, only to a degree. Geographic isolation played hardly any role in the War of the Roses. Nor did it prevent deadly neighbor-on-neighbor partisan warfare within the central and southern colonies during the American Revolution and within roughly a quarter of the states and territories during the Civil War. If we look at the rich track record of civil wars outside of America, we notice as well that the geographic isolation of the two factions doesn’t really matter much. It played little role, for example, in the most memorably destructive civil wars of the twentieth century: Russia (1917−23), China (1927−49), and Spain (1936−39). Territorially mixed-up civil wars may be more the rule than the exception. They may also be exceptionally brutal.
Another sobering passage:
Barbara F. Walter, a political scientist at UC San Diego, has spent her entire career studying civil wars, from Rwanda to Myanmar. When asked about America, she says the evidence is pretty clear: “We are a factionalized anocracy that is quickly approaching the open insurgency stage, which means we are closer to civil war than any of us would like to believe.” Since the end of the Cold War, the number and severity of civil wars around the world has been growing. Yet, until it happens, few people ever think it would be possible in their own country. After interviewing people who have lived through civil wars, Walter reports that none of them saw it coming. “They’re all surprised.”
