Survey experiments reveal that the phrase "use of force" is not a euphemism for protest. When probed, 55% of those who support using force to prevent Trump from being president specify they mean assassination, often with rifles.

The number one threat to the United States is not a foreign government or fringe militia, but tens of millions of mainstream Americans who now support political violence. This normalization of violence within the body politic represents a new, more dangerous era.

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.

Recent survey data reveals a shocking escalation: 65 million Americans support using force to prevent Donald Trump from being president, while 40 million support him using the military on protestors. This totals over 100 million Americans endorsing political violence.

Mass support for political violence creates a crucial motivator for volatile individuals: social approval. The expectation that their actions will be celebrated by millions nudges them over the edge to commit violent acts, a dynamic amplified by social media.

The US is not heading toward a civil war defined by organized armies. Instead, it's experiencing "violent populism," where political violence becomes normalized on both the left and right. This creates a dangerous environment where executive power, such as the use of martial law, expands under the pretext of maintaining order.

Well-off individuals engage in political violence because they are terrified that the opposing party, upon winning, will dismantle their way of life, future, and their children's future. This perceived existential threat makes them willing to risk their comfortable lives.

The descent into violence was not an organic accident but a series of deliberate choices. Radical activists organized provocative marches specifically to "show the dirt" under the system. In response, loyalists chose to ambush them with nail-studded cudgels. Both sides actively chose confrontation over de-escalation, believing it served their political interests.

The primary problem isn't the small number of violent extremists, but the far larger population that sympathizes with them. This mass support normalizes and encourages violence, creating the environment for it to flourish, as seen in conflicts from Northern Ireland to the US.