A modern American civil war would not resemble the North-South geographic split. Instead, it manifests as ideologically aligned states (e.g., 'blue states' or 'red states') encouraging local resistance against a federal government controlled by the opposing party. The battle lines are political, not physical.

Related Insights

Despite growing talk of "national divorce," the idea of a state peacefully seceding is highly unrealistic. The federal government would almost certainly not allow it and would likely resort to military intervention to maintain the union, rendering the scenario a fantasy.

The real conflicts dividing society are not based on identity but on disastrous government policies. Issues like deficit spending, money printing, and anti-competitive regulations are the true "enemies" that create the economic pain fueling social division, while identity is used as a distraction.

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.

Escalating civil unrest, like that in Minnesota, is not random but a direct result of local and state governments refusing to cooperate with federal agencies. This antagonism creates a permissive environment for conflict and encourages public resistance, turning policy disputes into street-level violence.

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.

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.

Political conflict has escalated to include domestic economic warfare. A president threatening to cut off federal funding to non-compliant states represents a tactical shift where economic leverage is used internally to force policy alignment, moving beyond legislative debate to direct financial punishment.

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.

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.

A CIA task force analyzed 38 variables to predict political instability, including common assumptions like poverty and inequality. They found only two were highly predictive: 1) a country being a partial democracy, or “anocracy,” and 2) its political parties organizing around identity (race, religion) rather than ideology.