And a very uncivil war.
What seems most obvious is that a civil war, like any war, requires two sides pitted against one another in outright combat or in destructive ideological engagements. And given the mass capitulation of mayors, governors, police chiefs, media editors, entertainment celebrities, CEOs and members of Congress to the insurrectionary cadres holding the nation hostage — forces of disarray like Antifa, Black Lives Matter, raging Twitter mobs, hate-promoting institutions like the SPLC, the ACLU, The Nation of Islam and others — one is hard pressed to locate and identify a respectable “other side” of the struggle.
Admittedly, there is a beleaguered though resolute president (abandoned by many who should logically be his allies, including members of his own party), a small number of conservative commentators who have stood their ground in the public square, and an inchoate “silent majority” (assuming it is indeed a majority), but they scarcely comprise a visible and identifiable “other side” equal in approximate strength to an active, vociferous and bellicose hostile power. That being the case, we cannot say that a de facto civil war is in progress. The side of law and order seems to have surrendered without much in the way of robust and concerted resistance.
We can say that the nation has grown dysfunctional and largely ungovernable — civil disintegration, not civil war — and will remain so unless those who believe in the Constitution and re-possess sufficient authority in the military and government agencies, backed by a genuine silent majority emerging at election time, can mount a viable defense against the agents of destruction. This does not mean that the left will be defeated or lay down its arms, only that the playing field — or battlefield — will have been made rather more level.
At that point, once a balance of forces is achieved and a meaningful engagement of opposing sides becomes possible, we may have entered a condition of veritable civil war, whether institutional or manifest, unless a resolution or armistice can be worked out. And the only resolution that might make some initial sense is an official divorce between the warring segments of the nation, a secession of states from the federal system, red and blue states going their own ways. Such would inevitably involve manifold complications, with citizens of differing political loyalties abiding in the same state, the division of economic and industrial property, the re-assignment of components of the military, the complexities of foreign relations, and so on.
People keep blathering hopefully about this “secession” business, as if it was anyplace near the realm of actual possibility. I’m kinda surprised to see the usually sober Solway doing it though, and apparently taking it seriously—even going so far as to suggest such a thing might be done peacefully.
Sorry to rain on the fantasist parade, everyone, but it’s a delusion, an entirely absurd proposition. Or does anybody really want to argue that the federal government of the US of A might entertain the notion of dissolving itself to allow states, regions, or whatever other imaginary subdivision go their separate ways without a tremendous, inconceivably bloody struggle?
Do I really need to point out how that worked out the first time around?
It’s a fever dream, the aimless woolgathering of a madman. Which is not to say that the nation won’t end up riven asunder, mind. In fact, any realistic assessment of the unbridgeable chasm between Normals and the agressively batshit-insane Left would almost have to conclude that some kind of division is well-nigh inevitable. But it ain’t gonna be peaceful, and it ain’t gonna be bloodless. It’s gonna be brutal, nightmarish, and destructive, with no guarantee of ending well for any of us.