The fatal ICE shooting in Minnesota is a symptom of extreme political division. People now view federal agencies as illegitimate, leading them to resist actions they disagree with, escalating situations to a level resembling civil conflict.

Related Insights

Unlike historical conflicts with pitted armies, a contemporary American civil war would manifest as exploding political violence. The key dynamic is that state attempts to suppress this violence would themselves become a primary cause for more violence, creating a dangerous feedback loop seen in conflicts in Algeria, Vietnam, and Syria.

Instead of incremental shifts around a moderate center (e.g., between 4 and 6 on a dial), US policy now swings violently between ideological extremes (3 and 9). This dynamic makes stable, consensus-based governance on issues like immigration nearly impossible.

In populist moments, leaders often abandon the idea of compromise and instead treat the opposing side as an enemy to be defeated. Language describing American cities as "war zones" or "training grounds" reveals this divisive mindset, which prioritizes conflict over unity.

Tragic political events rarely change minds. Instead, they function as Rorschach tests where people see what they want to see, using the event to confirm their pre-existing biases and deepen societal divisions rather than fostering unity or understanding.

The current level of hyper-partisanship is not a recent phenomenon but the culmination of a continuous, 40-year decline in public trust across all major institutions, including government, media, and church. Trust was significantly higher even during past national traumas like the assassinations of the 1960s and Watergate.

In times of extreme polarization, the political middle is not a safe haven but a kill zone. Moderates are targeted by both sides because they have no tribe to defend them. The escalating cost of neutrality forces everyone to pick a side, eliminating compromise and accelerating conflict.

The conflict between state and federal governments is moving beyond rhetoric into "soft secession." This involves states actively refusing to cooperate with the federal government on a practical level, such as withholding tax revenues, representing a significant escalation in political brinksmanship.

The perception of national decline in the US is not limited to one political side. Polling indicates that both left and right-leaning citizens believe the country's constitutional order and institutions are breaking down. The key difference is that each side is simply happy when their faction is temporarily "winning" the process of collapse.

Trump's efforts are not just breaking norms but constitute an attempt at a full-blown "political revolution." The goal is to gain direct political control over institutions like the FBI and DOJ, weaponize them against political opponents, and eliminate the checks and balances that constrain presidential power.

Focusing on which political side is "crazier" misses the point. The fundamental danger is the psychological process of tribalism itself. It simplifies complex issues into "us vs. them," impairs rational thought, and inevitably leads to extremism on all sides.

Political Polarization Turns Minor Conflicts Into Microcosms of a Modern Civil War | RiffOn