A movie that gained significant attention this year is “Civil War” directed by Alex Garland. Set in a hypothetical near-future dystopia, it depicts a situation where the federal government is fractured into competing factions and broken apart through armed conflict. The discussion surrounding the movie itself is worth noting, since beyond the criticism targeting the movie itself, people thought that it prophesied the dissolution of the United States in light of current political tensions. Especially since the release of this movie, talks related to the plot of the film revealed how and why the idea of a second civil war looms over America.
“The Second Civil War” is not a scenario that became popular in fiction only recently, nor is Garland the first director to explore the idea in cinema. Nevertheless, it is apparent through public opinion on political events that the scenario in which the United States falls into internal conflict has become a more popular talking point in American politics. This is evident from the fact that, especially during presidential elections, the hostile nature of the debate on domestic affairs has repeatedly led to jokes and memes spreading online about the country being on the edge of civil war. Historically, the 2016 and 2020 elections both happened against the backdrop of major tensions which sparked this phenomenon, and it is likely that the upcoming 2024 elections will lead to new debates on national unity.
The problems faced in American politics primarily stem from the fact that, with a traditional system that gives power to only two political parties, accurate representation of public opinion remains stagnant and inefficient. In addition to this isolated nature of national politics, the biased attitude of media coverage, especially on domestic affairs, also continuously fuels polarization, radicalization and distrust among the population. It is more important to focus on these particular root causes in this discussion as, though the reasons for why the United States may dissolve has changed from scenario to scenario, politically divisive issues like unbalanced representation, polarization of media and social inequality remain the common symptoms.
The actual U.S. Civil War was fought over 160 years ago, when the principles of the relationship between the individual states and the federal government could not be agreed upon. One hundred and sixty years later, the same issues on how the country is supposed to be run and represented persist relentlessly together with many familiar internal problems such as welfare, social rights and inequality. Especially in terms of active issues such as immigration and abortion, subjects where the divide between states and the federal government has been seen most clearly in recent years, the balance of power between the two sides remains ambiguous. Important concerns such as the control of borders and command of armed units will inevitably lead to more debates on which level of government holds how much power. The struggle for such a delicate balance requires careful navigation for resolution, which is why it is important to consider the hypothetical danger of a civil war when analyzing recent events, such as the dispute over border security in Texas between the state governor and the federal government.
The presidential race will begin in earnest in the following months with the official declaration of candidates by their parties. Without a doubt, the 2024 elections will have more of the same bitter partisan resentment across the two major political parties everyone got used to in the past decade. However, beyond the usual debate on the familiar issues, which will decide the result of the election, it is more important than ever for the American public to think deeper and more clearly about the state this country is in from the point of national unity.
Even if an outright civil war between the two major parties in the United States is unlikely, the current rate at which the public divide is growing can just as easily lead to a period of violence reminiscent of the Years of Lead in Italy or the left-right divide in Turkey in the 70s. In such a case, the radicalization of political parties and groups might be followed by their militarization, resulting in civil strife that can pose an open danger to democracy and public safety. And while the typical risk of a public uprising or a military intervention would not directly apply to the circumstances of the United States, political discontent fueling violence would mean more incidents like the 1992 Los Angeles riots where civilian order would be interrupted by chaos and disorder.
The idea of a second civil war is thankfully still only a fictional scenario, as there are no major dangers in the United States volatile enough to ignite such a conflict today. Still, this must not deter the public this year from debating the ongoing problem of polarization and division more openly and thinking about both how the nation is represented in the Capitol as well as how power and authority is balanced in between the different levels of government in the United States. Most importantly, the way civil war scenarios appear so frequently in the media these days should remind us all that the phrase “it can’t happen here” is a dangerously naive attitude toward national politics. When ignored, no matter how unrealistic it might seem, the symptoms felt in this nation today may just as easily lead to the next Fort Sumter in the future.
Deniz Gulay is a freshman majoring in history.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the views of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.