With every election, it becomes more and more evident that America is extremely divided. It isn’t just about those who love Donald Trump and those who hate Donald Trump. Maybe the level of vitriol wouldn’t be quite as high without Trump’s personality in the mix, but there were deep divisions before Trump ran for president in 2015/ 2016, and there will be deep divisions after he leaves office.
In fact, it is important to realize that the election of Trump was more a result of this division than a cause of it. A certain segment of Republican voters, along with a few previously apathetic voters, gave Trump the nomination because he showed he would fight. They were tired of Republicans rolling over.
I don’t think the media has ever attacked a president with so much vitriol. The media certainly went after Bush in 2000 and 2001, especially with the extremely close vote count in Florida. But once 9/11/2001 happened, the media mostly went along with Bush and his wars. Even in regards to Iraq, the media did a lot of cheerleading for the establishment.
The media certainly did not like Reagan, but they likely realized rather quickly that his bark was bigger than his bite (which isn’t completely unlike Trump). Reagan spoke in favor of liberty on many things, but he still kept an establishment line in regards to many of his policies. While the establishment media certainly had criticism for Reagan, I don’t think it was on the same level as Trump.
The media hatred for Trump just further divides everybody. Those who hate Trump will just continue to hate him more because almost everything they hear confirms their beliefs. Meanwhile, the pro Trump crowd just hates the media that much more because they obsess, and often distort or lie, about Trump on every little thing.
There is really a small percentage on each side that is extremely passionate and vocal about the situation. So we shouldn’t fool ourselves that these minorities represent a large swath of the population. However, at the same time, there are many people who take a side without necessarily obsessing over it. I know of people who are pro Trump and I know of people who are anti Trump, but they are just not really outspoken about it. They aren’t announcing their views on Facebook.
There is a deep division with everything, and it just gets deeper and deeper. While I love the Internet for the open communication, there is an element to it that does add to the division. People go to websites and read and watch things that confirm their already-held beliefs. They seek out what they want to hear.
As a libertarian, I could be accused of doing the same thing. There is no question that I go to mostly libertarian websites, with a few others mixed in with certain libertarian leanings. But I am also exposed to the establishment media. I don’t sit there and watch “news” on television on any consistent basis, but I still catch 5 or 10 minutes here or there. And I see the headlines of what pops up on my newsfeed. It is mostly anti Trump stuff. And when it isn’t about Trump, it is mostly touting the pro establishment line. Therefore, despite the libertarian websites I visit, I am well aware of the information that others are getting on a regular basis.
I have little trouble in explaining the views of conservatives or modern-day liberals (who aren’t really liberals). I don’t agree with their views, but I can at least explain them, even if I do have to go down to a 2ndgrade level to do so. I understand that people on the left support a higher minimum wage because they think it will raise wages for low-income people. It is childish, but I can explain it from their point of view. I don’t think that many conservatives, and most on the left, would be able to explain libertarianism, other than some caricature version of it from their imagination.
With this deep division, we hear that we need more unity, at least from some. We also hear that we may end up with another civil war in this country.
Americans Only Favor Government Violence
In terms of unity, this call is coming more from the left than the right. But it is really common to hear this phrase from all sides. The problem here is that their definition of unity is that others should just comply with their dictates.
You could say there was unity in the Soviet Union, as nobody openly criticized the government. If they did criticize the government in public, then you could be assured that it wouldn’t last very long.
The problem is that we are talking about violence. That is what virtually all of government rests on today. Something is considered a law and not a suggestion because it is backed up by the use of force. If you don’t follow a suggestion, then people with guns don’t hunt you down. If you don’t follow a law and you ignore commands to start following it, then you will eventually find a gun pointed at you.
It’s hard to have unity when someone is sticking a gun in your face.
Almost all Americans are willing to allow the government to initiate violence in order to enforce their dictates. The few people who don’t advocate such a thing are called libertarians. Maybe some of them call themselves some variant, such as a classical liberal or an anarcho-capitalist, but they really all fall into the libertarian category.
This is the one unique thing that makes a libertarian a libertarian. A libertarian does not believe in the initiation of force to achieve their political or social goals.
Although most Americans are willing to let the government point guns at people for things other than violating other people’s rights, they themselves would never use force outside of self-defense. The actual criminals in our society, other than government officials, who use initiatory force, are a relatively small number.
I don’t expect this to change. This is why I don’t think there is going to be a civil war that is violent in any significant way. We are not going to see a repeat of the 1860s, where both sides stupidly fought.
It wasn’t technically a civil war because the South just wanted to secede. They were not seeking to gain power over the national government. Because of that, the war was more the fault of the North and Lincoln. But both sides were aggressive and stupid. Just the fact that they stood there in lines and fired at each other is stupid. It’s possible the South could have used guerilla tactics and other forms of resistance to avoid the mass casualties.
It is especially absurd to think that there were actually brothers (they had the same parents) who fought on opposite sides.
I don’t think Americans today have the stomach for war. They have the stomach for war when it is fought thousands of miles away. But I don’t think there will be war on American soil. There may be little skirmishes between the hardcore factions, but they will not be widespread.
Even if we get another version of the Great Depression, I think too many Americans live comfortable lives.
The other thing is that there are no clear dividing lines. Sure, California is on the left, and Alabama is on the right, but there are still no clear lines. Even in a statewide election in California, there are still at least a quarter of the people who are voting Republican.
If you go in to the suburbs of most places, there is a total mix of politics. They probably lean slightly more Republican, as the urban areas are more heavily Democratic. But you could easily have a neighbor on one side who is a Republican, and a neighbor on the other side who is a Democrat. Meanwhile, your neighbor across the street considers himself to be an independent.
So how exactly would this fighting take place? Are you going to shoot it out with your neighbor because you have different political views.
Interestingly, you probably don’t have that many differences with your neighbors when it comes to local issues. Or if you do, then there isn’t enough power to be had to make things so serious. If somebody really hates the left, then he probably isn’t going to live in San Francisco. If somebody really hates the political right, then he probably isn’t going to live in the suburbs in Alabama.
But even here, there are exceptions. There are people who live in Montana who consider themselves to be on the left. Yet, then don’t want to move to New York City or San Francisco. Even though they may hate Trump, they have more in common with their Republican neighbor than the Democrat in New York City. These people aren’t going to shoot at each other because they disagree on which party should control Washington DC. If they did, what would it accomplish anyway? The country is split down the middle.
This is why, ultimately, I think there will be more decentralization, which is really what most libertarians have been calling for all this time. There is no need for 320 million people to argue about marijuana, abortion, education, or a long list of other issues. There is no need to have one president who has so much power, with half the people feeling alienated. There is no reason for 5 out of 9 Supreme Court justices deciding on law for 320 million people.
If we don’t get decentralization, then we are just going to keep getting more of the same of what we have now. It is a struggle for the reins of power. I wish I could say that Trump supporters just want to remove the power used against them, but most of them are not playing purely defense. While they say they want to drain the swamp, some of their rhetoric and policies indicate otherwise.
There will be no violent civil war in America. We will keep getting the status quo of rhetorical fighting, or we will get decentralization. If and when we get decentralization, then things will calm down significantly.