This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/12/opinion/the-argument-america-civil-war.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Is America Headed for Another Civil War? Is America Headed for Another Civil War?
(about 11 hours later)
America is divided and battling many different internal “wars” — over politics, culture, language, religion. Is it possible all this internal division could culminate in a civil war? Today’s episode of “The Argument” brings together Jamelle Bouie and Tim Alberta to assess. Bouie is a Times Opinion columnist and historian of America’s Civil War. Alberta is a staff writer at The Atlantic and made the case that the F.B.I. Mar-a-Lago search is the tipping point for political violence that could put our democracy at stake.America is divided and battling many different internal “wars” — over politics, culture, language, religion. Is it possible all this internal division could culminate in a civil war? Today’s episode of “The Argument” brings together Jamelle Bouie and Tim Alberta to assess. Bouie is a Times Opinion columnist and historian of America’s Civil War. Alberta is a staff writer at The Atlantic and made the case that the F.B.I. Mar-a-Lago search is the tipping point for political violence that could put our democracy at stake.
Their conversation with host Jane Coaston follows:Their conversation with host Jane Coaston follows:
[You can listen to this episode of “The Argument” on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, or Google or wherever you get your podcasts.][You can listen to this episode of “The Argument” on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, or Google or wherever you get your podcasts.]
Jane Coaston: Tim, before we get into the specifics about what you were talking about in your piece, when you say civil war, what do you mean?Jane Coaston: Tim, before we get into the specifics about what you were talking about in your piece, when you say civil war, what do you mean?
Tim Alberta: I think we probably start with what civil war is not in this context. We’re not talking about armies of red and blue fighting another Battle of Antietam. We’re not talking about the forces of Charlie Kirk clashing in the streets with the forces of Keith Olbermann, or pick your figurehead. We’re not talking something anywhere near I think the scale or anywhere resembling the organization of what we saw in the mid-19th century.Tim Alberta: I think we probably start with what civil war is not in this context. We’re not talking about armies of red and blue fighting another Battle of Antietam. We’re not talking about the forces of Charlie Kirk clashing in the streets with the forces of Keith Olbermann, or pick your figurehead. We’re not talking something anywhere near I think the scale or anywhere resembling the organization of what we saw in the mid-19th century.
What we are discussing is some significant scale of semiorganized, lethal, civil conflict that is organized around not just political and ideological disputes but perceived threats to economies, livelihoods.What we are discussing is some significant scale of semiorganized, lethal, civil conflict that is organized around not just political and ideological disputes but perceived threats to economies, livelihoods.
And I don’t know that we would recognize it in the U.S. But it would follow something of a pattern that I think we’ve seen in other parts of the world, where you have some sort of sectarian violence — not necessarily confined to anything resembling symmetrical warfare between citizens — but also local governments, regional governments clashing with federal government or even, perhaps, at the local level, sheriffs refusing to enforce state laws. And potential outgrowth of violence from there that could reach a scale that we haven’t seen in a very long time in this country.And I don’t know that we would recognize it in the U.S. But it would follow something of a pattern that I think we’ve seen in other parts of the world, where you have some sort of sectarian violence — not necessarily confined to anything resembling symmetrical warfare between citizens — but also local governments, regional governments clashing with federal government or even, perhaps, at the local level, sheriffs refusing to enforce state laws. And potential outgrowth of violence from there that could reach a scale that we haven’t seen in a very long time in this country.
Jane Coaston: Jamelle, when you write that we are not heading toward civil war, what is the civil war that you had in mind?Jane Coaston: Jamelle, when you write that we are not heading toward civil war, what is the civil war that you had in mind?
Jamelle Bouie: So I think that if we’re going to define civil war as basically being low-intensity civil conflict, then we shouldn’t refer to it as civil war. Because I think that when you look at what civil wars generally look like, they do involve organized factions or if not armies, then military forces. They may not necessarily involve entities trying to themselves become states. It may be a struggle for control of the existing state.Jamelle Bouie: So I think that if we’re going to define civil war as basically being low-intensity civil conflict, then we shouldn’t refer to it as civil war. Because I think that when you look at what civil wars generally look like, they do involve organized factions or if not armies, then military forces. They may not necessarily involve entities trying to themselves become states. It may be a struggle for control of the existing state.
But there are organized armed forces, there are organized political entities, and they’re vying through armed conflict for control of the state.But there are organized armed forces, there are organized political entities, and they’re vying through armed conflict for control of the state.
And that I don’t see happening in the United States any time soon. But I do think Tim is right to say that we look like we are in the range of low-intensity civil conflict. And I’m not sure we should think of that as an exceptional state in American history.And that I don’t see happening in the United States any time soon. But I do think Tim is right to say that we look like we are in the range of low-intensity civil conflict. And I’m not sure we should think of that as an exceptional state in American history.
When you look at the broad sweep of the United States since 1865, what you’ll see is that we are probably living through an unusual period, where violence between citizens over political issues is kind of at an all-time low.When you look at the broad sweep of the United States since 1865, what you’ll see is that we are probably living through an unusual period, where violence between citizens over political issues is kind of at an all-time low.
I’m extremely skeptical that we are in for anything other than what we’ve seen in the past, which is small bands of individuals, maybe with a tacit endorsement of actual, legitimate political leaders — or at least legitimate political leaders looking the other way — committing acts of violence. But at that point, again, we are looking at stuff that is actually pretty common throughout American history.I’m extremely skeptical that we are in for anything other than what we’ve seen in the past, which is small bands of individuals, maybe with a tacit endorsement of actual, legitimate political leaders — or at least legitimate political leaders looking the other way — committing acts of violence. But at that point, again, we are looking at stuff that is actually pretty common throughout American history.
Jane Coaston: Jamelle, you’re saying that we are not in a unique moment of exceptional violence and democracy destruction. And it’s not a matter of who is fighting whom but also what your goal is when you’re talking about civil war.Jane Coaston: Jamelle, you’re saying that we are not in a unique moment of exceptional violence and democracy destruction. And it’s not a matter of who is fighting whom but also what your goal is when you’re talking about civil war.
Jamelle Bouie: Right. The language of civil war is, like, a very scary kind of language. And it implies the dissolution of the country in really important ways, like the dissolution of civil order.Jamelle Bouie: Right. The language of civil war is, like, a very scary kind of language. And it implies the dissolution of the country in really important ways, like the dissolution of civil order.
And I think the thing I want to emphasize is that you can have elevated levels of political violence, even quite dramatic rates of political violence — I’m thinking here of the late Reconstruction South, where organized political violence was just like a common feature of political life in those years — and overall, civil society still is pretty normal. It still is pretty much the same.And I think the thing I want to emphasize is that you can have elevated levels of political violence, even quite dramatic rates of political violence — I’m thinking here of the late Reconstruction South, where organized political violence was just like a common feature of political life in those years — and overall, civil society still is pretty normal. It still is pretty much the same.
And that’s just like a qualitatively different thing than what life looks like under conditions of civil war.And that’s just like a qualitatively different thing than what life looks like under conditions of civil war.
Jane Coaston: I want to get Tim in here, because I think you’d differ with Jamelle about the moment that we’re in. And you’ve cited your experience in specific spaces, like gun shows and Trump rallies and Trump-leaning churches as the reason you think America is tracking toward a new scale of political violence.Jane Coaston: I want to get Tim in here, because I think you’d differ with Jamelle about the moment that we’re in. And you’ve cited your experience in specific spaces, like gun shows and Trump rallies and Trump-leaning churches as the reason you think America is tracking toward a new scale of political violence.
So what makes you think that this is a new era of civic cataclysm?So what makes you think that this is a new era of civic cataclysm?
Tim Alberta: I would start by saying that I broadly agree with Jamelle’s definition, as far as what civil war is and, again, what it isn’t.Tim Alberta: I would start by saying that I broadly agree with Jamelle’s definition, as far as what civil war is and, again, what it isn’t.
As recently as four or five years ago, I probably would have been quite dismissive of my own fears here, of the idea that we could be heading toward a meaningful scale of civic violence. But I will tell you that what really changed my perception on all of this was the coronavirus.As recently as four or five years ago, I probably would have been quite dismissive of my own fears here, of the idea that we could be heading toward a meaningful scale of civic violence. But I will tell you that what really changed my perception on all of this was the coronavirus.
And I spent a lot of 2020 just talking with individuals — not just the small-town diner thing but bigger cities — trying to absorb as much as I could of this moment in American life. And what was so unique about the pandemic was how it sort of fulfilled the prophecy for so many on the right of a hostile, weaponized, big government that was coming for them.And I spent a lot of 2020 just talking with individuals — not just the small-town diner thing but bigger cities — trying to absorb as much as I could of this moment in American life. And what was so unique about the pandemic was how it sort of fulfilled the prophecy for so many on the right of a hostile, weaponized, big government that was coming for them.
And of course, Donald Trump was fabulously successful in spearheading that message. And of course, you fast-forward all the way to Aug. 8, the search at Mar-a-Lago — what was the message coming from all of these Republican members of Congress, Republican governors, prominent, influential people in the G.O.P.? It was that same message.And of course, Donald Trump was fabulously successful in spearheading that message. And of course, you fast-forward all the way to Aug. 8, the search at Mar-a-Lago — what was the message coming from all of these Republican members of Congress, Republican governors, prominent, influential people in the G.O.P.? It was that same message.
And it was a haunting, threatening message saying, “This is just the tip of the iceberg. What do you think these 87,000 new I.R.S. agents are for? They’re coming after you.”And it was a haunting, threatening message saying, “This is just the tip of the iceberg. What do you think these 87,000 new I.R.S. agents are for? They’re coming after you.”
And I think the biggest change for me, Jane, was going to state capitals, where you had people walking around with AR-15s strapped around their shoulders. And talking to these people and hearing time and time and time again that civil war was imminent and that they were actively preparing for it. You can only hear that so many times and get into detailed conversations with individuals about what they’re doing to prepare for that conflict before you start to take it a little bit more seriously.And I think the biggest change for me, Jane, was going to state capitals, where you had people walking around with AR-15s strapped around their shoulders. And talking to these people and hearing time and time and time again that civil war was imminent and that they were actively preparing for it. You can only hear that so many times and get into detailed conversations with individuals about what they’re doing to prepare for that conflict before you start to take it a little bit more seriously.
And so to the extent that I’m now perhaps bed-wetting over it, it’s very much informed by that experience.And so to the extent that I’m now perhaps bed-wetting over it, it’s very much informed by that experience.
Jane Coaston: I do think that is an important shift. I did a lot of writing and research about white separatist movements, white nationalist movements in the 1990s and 2000s, and what you saw was some occasional winking and nodding at those groups, but generally that was perceived to be a bad thing. But now you’re seeing people in the very highest echelons of power who believe that because Donald Trump is not president, the government doesn’t count.Jane Coaston: I do think that is an important shift. I did a lot of writing and research about white separatist movements, white nationalist movements in the 1990s and 2000s, and what you saw was some occasional winking and nodding at those groups, but generally that was perceived to be a bad thing. But now you’re seeing people in the very highest echelons of power who believe that because Donald Trump is not president, the government doesn’t count.
Jamelle Bouie: I’m always unsure of how to calibrate my perception of these things, in part because they’re never dissimilar to stuff that occurred earlier, meaning quite recently, right?Jamelle Bouie: I’m always unsure of how to calibrate my perception of these things, in part because they’re never dissimilar to stuff that occurred earlier, meaning quite recently, right?
So you mentioned the 1990s. The 1990s is when you see the kind of explosion of the militia movement. And although the militia movement is less mainstream than some of the talk we’re seeing today, it also wasn’t that far from the mainstream right.So you mentioned the 1990s. The 1990s is when you see the kind of explosion of the militia movement. And although the militia movement is less mainstream than some of the talk we’re seeing today, it also wasn’t that far from the mainstream right.
You had sitting Congresspeople expressing their sympathy with the militia movement. Maybe not national leaders, and that might be an important, meaningful difference. But we’re not only talking about fringe figures when we’re talking about the 1990s. You had sitting congresspeople expressing their sympathy with the militia movement. Maybe not national leaders, and that might be an important, meaningful difference. But we’re not only talking about fringe figures when we’re talking about the 1990s.
I think it matters that up until the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, there is kind of a willingness among conservative Republicans, among the right wing of the Republican Party, to express sympathy with these groups —I think it matters that up until the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, there is kind of a willingness among conservative Republicans, among the right wing of the Republican Party, to express sympathy with these groups —
Jane Coaston: Describing the F.B.I. as jackbooted thugs.Jane Coaston: Describing the F.B.I. as jackbooted thugs.
Jamelle Bouie: Right. Right.Jamelle Bouie: Right. Right.
Jane Coaston: You do see a lot of that.Jane Coaston: You do see a lot of that.
Jamelle Bouie: New World Order conspiracies — I mean, these things are part of the fervent of conservative politics in the 1990s.Jamelle Bouie: New World Order conspiracies — I mean, these things are part of the fervent of conservative politics in the 1990s.
And so the Covid-related conspiracies, the I.R.S. stuff that we’ve seen recently, in some sense — because it’s coming from maybe a larger number of mainstream Republicans, mainstream political figures, it’s more worrisome. But it’s also, to my mind, exactly in the same kind of lane as the stuff we saw 30 years earlier and stuff that is just part of far-right politics in the United States.And so the Covid-related conspiracies, the I.R.S. stuff that we’ve seen recently, in some sense — because it’s coming from maybe a larger number of mainstream Republicans, mainstream political figures, it’s more worrisome. But it’s also, to my mind, exactly in the same kind of lane as the stuff we saw 30 years earlier and stuff that is just part of far-right politics in the United States.
And so is the mainstreaming of far-right politics itself some indication for increased civil violence? Maybe. I don’t think I necessarily disagree with that. But I’m not certain how much we should take that to mean an impending shift in overall levels of political violence in the United States.And so is the mainstreaming of far-right politics itself some indication for increased civil violence? Maybe. I don’t think I necessarily disagree with that. But I’m not certain how much we should take that to mean an impending shift in overall levels of political violence in the United States.
Jane Coaston: Tim, when I’m thinking about today’s political violence, I’m concerned about the so-called lone wolves that aren’t lone, whether that’s the shooting in Buffalo or in Charleston. And obviously, I think about Jan. 6.Jane Coaston: Tim, when I’m thinking about today’s political violence, I’m concerned about the so-called lone wolves that aren’t lone, whether that’s the shooting in Buffalo or in Charleston. And obviously, I think about Jan. 6.
But if Jamelle’s point is that this type of violence or the type of violent rhetoric is not unusual in our politics and that there has been a longer history of winking and nodding at it, in specifically right-wing circles, what do you think has changed?But if Jamelle’s point is that this type of violence or the type of violent rhetoric is not unusual in our politics and that there has been a longer history of winking and nodding at it, in specifically right-wing circles, what do you think has changed?
Attitudinally, what is different from the moments that we were having after Oklahoma City or in a time where militia movements were extremely active and continue to be?Attitudinally, what is different from the moments that we were having after Oklahoma City or in a time where militia movements were extremely active and continue to be?
Tim Alberta: Yeah, I think that we’re probably not yet addressing — maybe not the elephant in the room, but certainly an elephant in the room — which is, to me, what makes this moment feel extraordinarily unique and exceptionally dangerous.Tim Alberta: Yeah, I think that we’re probably not yet addressing — maybe not the elephant in the room, but certainly an elephant in the room — which is, to me, what makes this moment feel extraordinarily unique and exceptionally dangerous.
You mentioned a couple of those shootings that were directly tied into not just racial animus but, more broadly, notions of a great replacement theory, of weaponized demographic change in the country and its roots in a sort of strategic, big government, deep state, secularist takeover of the country and a purging of anyone on the right.You mentioned a couple of those shootings that were directly tied into not just racial animus but, more broadly, notions of a great replacement theory, of weaponized demographic change in the country and its roots in a sort of strategic, big government, deep state, secularist takeover of the country and a purging of anyone on the right.
And I think it’s hard to overstate the threat of that particular conspiracy theory to these individuals and also to overstate just how many of these individuals no longer perceive the U.S. as — if they ever did, in some cases — some pluralistic, shining city on a hill but rather as an ethnostate under siege.And I think it’s hard to overstate the threat of that particular conspiracy theory to these individuals and also to overstate just how many of these individuals no longer perceive the U.S. as — if they ever did, in some cases — some pluralistic, shining city on a hill but rather as an ethnostate under siege.
And I remember sitting with Nikki Haley in the weeks after Donald Trump had lost the election and pressing her on the president’s statements repeatedly and asking her, “Isn’t this dangerous? Aren’t people going to get hurt? Aren’t people going to get killed?” Because this is not just some internet troll. This is the president of the United States. These are governors. These are U.S. senators telling people that this election has been stolen from them, that everything as they have known it is no longer legitimate.And I remember sitting with Nikki Haley in the weeks after Donald Trump had lost the election and pressing her on the president’s statements repeatedly and asking her, “Isn’t this dangerous? Aren’t people going to get hurt? Aren’t people going to get killed?” Because this is not just some internet troll. This is the president of the United States. These are governors. These are U.S. senators telling people that this election has been stolen from them, that everything as they have known it is no longer legitimate.
And I think what we saw on Jan. 6 was not even remotely the worst-case scenario. I do think that had members of the Capitol Police opened fire, as, frankly, I think many authorities on the subject believe that they were well within their right to do, then we could have seen something of an even bloodier aftermath that we might still be spiraling from.And I think what we saw on Jan. 6 was not even remotely the worst-case scenario. I do think that had members of the Capitol Police opened fire, as, frankly, I think many authorities on the subject believe that they were well within their right to do, then we could have seen something of an even bloodier aftermath that we might still be spiraling from.
In other words, I think there is an inclination for many of us to view Jan. 6 as the culmination of this thing that had been building for such a long time. When, in fact, I’m more personally more inclined to view it as really the spark of something new — that in fact, this is just the beginning and that it will be continually building toward something much worse.In other words, I think there is an inclination for many of us to view Jan. 6 as the culmination of this thing that had been building for such a long time. When, in fact, I’m more personally more inclined to view it as really the spark of something new — that in fact, this is just the beginning and that it will be continually building toward something much worse.
Jamelle Bouie: So I don’t disagree with that. I do see the whole Stop the Steal, Jan. 6 thing as the beginning of a shift in American politics. But I don’t necessarily see it strictly in terms of more political violence.Jamelle Bouie: So I don’t disagree with that. I do see the whole Stop the Steal, Jan. 6 thing as the beginning of a shift in American politics. But I don’t necessarily see it strictly in terms of more political violence.
My view of this is very heavily influenced by the ways that violence and ordinary politics and constitutional politics interacted with each other in the 1870s and 1880s. These things existed on a continuum with each other. They were various tactics to an overall larger strategy.My view of this is very heavily influenced by the ways that violence and ordinary politics and constitutional politics interacted with each other in the 1870s and 1880s. These things existed on a continuum with each other. They were various tactics to an overall larger strategy.
And I think that’s kind of the way we should understand Jan. 6 and whatever might follow — that these are all a set of tactics to secure enduring control by this right-wing fringe, this MAGA fringe, over American political institutions.And I think that’s kind of the way we should understand Jan. 6 and whatever might follow — that these are all a set of tactics to secure enduring control by this right-wing fringe, this MAGA fringe, over American political institutions.
And to my mind, what Jan. 6 reveals is less about the violence part of it and more that there are actual mechanisms within the system that one can leverage to secure minority control, to consolidate minority rule, should you do it and that Jan. 6 reveals the possibilities of that. The attempt to storm the Capitol failed, but the attempt to subvert the Electoral College, although it also failed it, did reveal important things about the weakness of the entire system. Like you capture a statehouse, or you hold a statehouse, and then you systematically make it impossible for your opponents to dislodge you through normal means.And to my mind, what Jan. 6 reveals is less about the violence part of it and more that there are actual mechanisms within the system that one can leverage to secure minority control, to consolidate minority rule, should you do it and that Jan. 6 reveals the possibilities of that. The attempt to storm the Capitol failed, but the attempt to subvert the Electoral College, although it also failed it, did reveal important things about the weakness of the entire system. Like you capture a statehouse, or you hold a statehouse, and then you systematically make it impossible for your opponents to dislodge you through normal means.
And so, for me, the danger lies less in an attempt to storm the Capitol again — which I’m not sure it’s going to happen, even on kind of a state level — and more in an attempt to capture those institutional positions through something that looks like normal and ordinary politics and then use that power to then consolidate one’s control.And so, for me, the danger lies less in an attempt to storm the Capitol again — which I’m not sure it’s going to happen, even on kind of a state level — and more in an attempt to capture those institutional positions through something that looks like normal and ordinary politics and then use that power to then consolidate one’s control.
Tim Alberta: What’s interesting, though, is that — for all of our talk in this conversation about the political legitimizing of what would once have been considered fringe ideologies — is that taking it outside of the political arena is where I’ve probably been the most troubled.Tim Alberta: What’s interesting, though, is that — for all of our talk in this conversation about the political legitimizing of what would once have been considered fringe ideologies — is that taking it outside of the political arena is where I’ve probably been the most troubled.
I did a great deal of reporting over the last year and a half on the turmoil in the white evangelical church in America. And this is another instance, and I can’t underscore this one enough, because I’ve spent a lot of time talking with leading religious figures, scholars, academics, people who know this world inside and out, and they have all agreed with me on this point.I did a great deal of reporting over the last year and a half on the turmoil in the white evangelical church in America. And this is another instance, and I can’t underscore this one enough, because I’ve spent a lot of time talking with leading religious figures, scholars, academics, people who know this world inside and out, and they have all agreed with me on this point.
I’ve been hoping that somebody would disagree with the point — that there was once a time in this country, not very long ago at all, where, yes, you had ideologically far-right-wing churches that would traffic in overt racism or, if not overt racism, then certainly some of the more veiled arguments around states’ rights or whatever it may be. But there would not have been any sort of legitimizing or mainstream recognition of a church wherein hundreds of members on a weekly basis, while passing the offering plates, were carrying loaded weapons. That was not a thing. It would have been like the fever dream of an indie documentary filmmaker.I’ve been hoping that somebody would disagree with the point — that there was once a time in this country, not very long ago at all, where, yes, you had ideologically far-right-wing churches that would traffic in overt racism or, if not overt racism, then certainly some of the more veiled arguments around states’ rights or whatever it may be. But there would not have been any sort of legitimizing or mainstream recognition of a church wherein hundreds of members on a weekly basis, while passing the offering plates, were carrying loaded weapons. That was not a thing. It would have been like the fever dream of an indie documentary filmmaker.
And so what feels somewhat different about the moment to me is not just that there is this sort of religious fervor but that it is a violent religious fervor. And it certainly feels as though you have a moment in American life right now where you have more and more people than at any time in recent memory who are sort of addicted to both guns and to grievance.And so what feels somewhat different about the moment to me is not just that there is this sort of religious fervor but that it is a violent religious fervor. And it certainly feels as though you have a moment in American life right now where you have more and more people than at any time in recent memory who are sort of addicted to both guns and to grievance.
And when you incorporate some of the religious fervor into that and, again, some of the doomsday prophesying about that imminent day when the government is coming for you and you had better be ready — all of it in combination is, to me, what feels uniquely dangerous about this moment.And when you incorporate some of the religious fervor into that and, again, some of the doomsday prophesying about that imminent day when the government is coming for you and you had better be ready — all of it in combination is, to me, what feels uniquely dangerous about this moment.
Jane Coaston: I’d argue that it’s not just the religiosity — it’s the religiosity surrounding a specific person.Jane Coaston: I’d argue that it’s not just the religiosity — it’s the religiosity surrounding a specific person.
I will never move on from the fact that this is all about Donald Trump. Like, this is all about the guy from “Home Alone 2.” Because I don’t think Trump really cares about a civil war. I think he cares a lot about making money and, ideally, not going to prison.I will never move on from the fact that this is all about Donald Trump. Like, this is all about the guy from “Home Alone 2.” Because I don’t think Trump really cares about a civil war. I think he cares a lot about making money and, ideally, not going to prison.
And at a certain point, a civil war or increased conflict will require that type of violent religiosity, but it also will require that from a very large number of people across a very wide spectrum.And at a certain point, a civil war or increased conflict will require that type of violent religiosity, but it also will require that from a very large number of people across a very wide spectrum.
And — trying to put this in some context — where does Trump play into this? Because it doesn’t seem like it could happen with somebody who wasn’t him. There aren’t people who are like, “I will die for Ron DeSantis.” Not yet.And — trying to put this in some context — where does Trump play into this? Because it doesn’t seem like it could happen with somebody who wasn’t him. There aren’t people who are like, “I will die for Ron DeSantis.” Not yet.
Jamelle Bouie: I think with Trump and his audience, his crowd of supporters, I think what we’re witnessing is like a dialectical process.Jamelle Bouie: I think with Trump and his audience, his crowd of supporters, I think what we’re witnessing is like a dialectical process.
There are pre-existing in the electorate — anxieties, fears, anger, resentment, rage about changing cultural and demographic facts about the country. It’s not just that the country is becoming less white, though that’s a part of it. But it’s also that the country is becoming less explicitly Christian, less explicitly deferential to Christian belief.There are pre-existing in the electorate — anxieties, fears, anger, resentment, rage about changing cultural and demographic facts about the country. It’s not just that the country is becoming less white, though that’s a part of it. But it’s also that the country is becoming less explicitly Christian, less explicitly deferential to Christian belief.
It’s becoming more open and tolerant of different sexualities, different gender identities, different religions. And so you have many negative feelings about that. And Trump as a candidate both appeals to that but also reflects that stuff back onto the audience and allows an audience to kind of invest him with their hopes about beating this back.It’s becoming more open and tolerant of different sexualities, different gender identities, different religions. And so you have many negative feelings about that. And Trump as a candidate both appeals to that but also reflects that stuff back onto the audience and allows an audience to kind of invest him with their hopes about beating this back.
And this creates this cult of personality around Trump or at least around what Trump appears to represent. I think that’s sort of what’s happening with Trump.And this creates this cult of personality around Trump or at least around what Trump appears to represent. I think that’s sort of what’s happening with Trump.
I’ve been thinking through this conversation, trying to crystallize exactly my disagreement with the civil war framing. What I think my exact disagreement is — and this connects to Trump and connects to his relationship to his supporters — I think that when we’re envisioning “What is the most catastrophic thing that can happen in the United States?” We’re to envision the end of American democracy through some sort of conflict. We’re envisioning authoritarianism. We’re envisioning all these terrible things.I’ve been thinking through this conversation, trying to crystallize exactly my disagreement with the civil war framing. What I think my exact disagreement is — and this connects to Trump and connects to his relationship to his supporters — I think that when we’re envisioning “What is the most catastrophic thing that can happen in the United States?” We’re to envision the end of American democracy through some sort of conflict. We’re envisioning authoritarianism. We’re envisioning all these terrible things.
And I think there’s a common assumption that if it happens, it’s going to be a thing from outside the system imposing onto it or something that erupts from within the system that tears it apart and then creates this new status quo. And I think my view is that the system itself facilitates all this stuff — that it’s not actually coming from outside the system or a break from within the system. It actually represents aspects of the system asserting themselves in ways that they haven’t before.And I think there’s a common assumption that if it happens, it’s going to be a thing from outside the system imposing onto it or something that erupts from within the system that tears it apart and then creates this new status quo. And I think my view is that the system itself facilitates all this stuff — that it’s not actually coming from outside the system or a break from within the system. It actually represents aspects of the system asserting themselves in ways that they haven’t before.
And the Constitution creates a system, an interlocking system of countermajoritarian institutions that are explicitly designed to tamp down on popular government. And so because that is so incongruous with our sense of what the American political system is, I think we imagine it or we perceive it or we feel it to be like an assault on the Constitution, an assault on the system.And the Constitution creates a system, an interlocking system of countermajoritarian institutions that are explicitly designed to tamp down on popular government. And so because that is so incongruous with our sense of what the American political system is, I think we imagine it or we perceive it or we feel it to be like an assault on the Constitution, an assault on the system.
But I think it’s probably better to understand it as the countermajoritarian part of the American political system coming into direct conflict with the democratic assumptions of the American people. And in the absence of any kind of countervailing force to change the system, what we get — what our synthesis out of this — is something much less democratic than what we had before.But I think it’s probably better to understand it as the countermajoritarian part of the American political system coming into direct conflict with the democratic assumptions of the American people. And in the absence of any kind of countervailing force to change the system, what we get — what our synthesis out of this — is something much less democratic than what we had before.
Jane Coaston: Tim, what do you think?Jane Coaston: Tim, what do you think?
Tim Alberta: There’s a lot to the point that Jamelle is making. And I want to get specifically to what he said near the end there.Tim Alberta: There’s a lot to the point that Jamelle is making. And I want to get specifically to what he said near the end there.
But before I do, I want to tie it back to something that he said earlier about Trump. Part of the Trump phenomenon, at least through my eyes, has been and continues to be the degree to which your average on-fire Trump supporter — somebody who really defends him, somebody who defends their vote for him — the degree to which those individuals perceive an attack on Trump as an attack on them.But before I do, I want to tie it back to something that he said earlier about Trump. Part of the Trump phenomenon, at least through my eyes, has been and continues to be the degree to which your average on-fire Trump supporter — somebody who really defends him, somebody who defends their vote for him — the degree to which those individuals perceive an attack on Trump as an attack on them.
An attack on Trump’s character is therefore an attack on their character, because they voted for him in the first place. I think what that relationship between so many of these people and Trump has essentially distilled down into now is what continues to breathe life into Trump. And part of what I do worry about in the wake of the Aug. 8 Mar-a-Lago episode is this martyrdom complex that is so unique.An attack on Trump’s character is therefore an attack on their character, because they voted for him in the first place. I think what that relationship between so many of these people and Trump has essentially distilled down into now is what continues to breathe life into Trump. And part of what I do worry about in the wake of the Aug. 8 Mar-a-Lago episode is this martyrdom complex that is so unique.
In the days after the 2020 election and leading up to Jan. 6, of course, you had the Arizona State Republican Party tweeting out, endorsing literal martyrdom. You had Eric Metaxas, a very prominent and very influential voice in the evangelical world, talking to Trump on his radio show about the court challenges and saying, “I’m willing to die in this fight. God is with us. God is on our side.”In the days after the 2020 election and leading up to Jan. 6, of course, you had the Arizona State Republican Party tweeting out, endorsing literal martyrdom. You had Eric Metaxas, a very prominent and very influential voice in the evangelical world, talking to Trump on his radio show about the court challenges and saying, “I’m willing to die in this fight. God is with us. God is on our side.”
It’s so tempting, I think, to want to sweep these things to the fringe, to the periphery of our politics and say, “Well, sure, you’re always going to have some nut case muttering to himself here or there.” But in fact, this martyrdom complex became, in many ways, central to the psychology of the Trump voter — that he was being righteously persecuted on their behalf.It’s so tempting, I think, to want to sweep these things to the fringe, to the periphery of our politics and say, “Well, sure, you’re always going to have some nut case muttering to himself here or there.” But in fact, this martyrdom complex became, in many ways, central to the psychology of the Trump voter — that he was being righteously persecuted on their behalf.
I think what’s so interesting is that you joked, Jane, about nobody’s willing to die for Ron DeSantis yet. But the meaningful difference to me between Trump and DeSantis is that DeSantis has already shown an ability to wield the administrative state against his enemies. And this gets to Jamelle’s point about the system itself.I think what’s so interesting is that you joked, Jane, about nobody’s willing to die for Ron DeSantis yet. But the meaningful difference to me between Trump and DeSantis is that DeSantis has already shown an ability to wield the administrative state against his enemies. And this gets to Jamelle’s point about the system itself.
And to me, as unique as the threat has been and continues to be with Donald Trump in the picture, I’m not sure that another Republican could not at some point attempt to wield the administrative state and exploit some of the loopholes in our system in a way that could be contributing to a far greater threat of civil violence at a mass scale, whether we want to call it civil war or not.And to me, as unique as the threat has been and continues to be with Donald Trump in the picture, I’m not sure that another Republican could not at some point attempt to wield the administrative state and exploit some of the loopholes in our system in a way that could be contributing to a far greater threat of civil violence at a mass scale, whether we want to call it civil war or not.
So that’s just the way I view Trump. It’s like, yes, this has been a threat. Yes, he is the dominant figure in all of this. And yet, as we look forward, I’m not at all convinced that he represents the ultimate threat.So that’s just the way I view Trump. It’s like, yes, this has been a threat. Yes, he is the dominant figure in all of this. And yet, as we look forward, I’m not at all convinced that he represents the ultimate threat.
Jane Coaston: I think that what you see now from DeSantis and from those who wish to be like him is this idea of “The problem was that Trump didn’t go far enough.” They are justifying the wielding of the administrative state against their enemies, even if it won’t hold up in court.Jane Coaston: I think that what you see now from DeSantis and from those who wish to be like him is this idea of “The problem was that Trump didn’t go far enough.” They are justifying the wielding of the administrative state against their enemies, even if it won’t hold up in court.
There are people who should know better, who would think of themselves as being conservative, who are applauding that use of force because the threat is too great, that we’re in a war. “There’s a trans kid out there somewhere; thus I am justified to use the state against them and to threaten them with Child Protective Services.”There are people who should know better, who would think of themselves as being conservative, who are applauding that use of force because the threat is too great, that we’re in a war. “There’s a trans kid out there somewhere; thus I am justified to use the state against them and to threaten them with Child Protective Services.”
But so much of this seems to be coming from people who are wielding Trump for either reasons of economics or reasons of just wanting to have power. The economics are on the side of extremism.But so much of this seems to be coming from people who are wielding Trump for either reasons of economics or reasons of just wanting to have power. The economics are on the side of extremism.
Admittedly, Tim, I was a little frustrated with your piece because it can feel like catering to the hostage taker. I read your argument in “The Atlantic,” and I thought it was well reasoned. But part of my takeaway seemed to be that we shouldn’t perhaps pursue justice — or if this person may have committed a crime, we shouldn’t prosecute that crime, because it could provoke the people who believe a conspiracy about our democracy.Admittedly, Tim, I was a little frustrated with your piece because it can feel like catering to the hostage taker. I read your argument in “The Atlantic,” and I thought it was well reasoned. But part of my takeaway seemed to be that we shouldn’t perhaps pursue justice — or if this person may have committed a crime, we shouldn’t prosecute that crime, because it could provoke the people who believe a conspiracy about our democracy.
If Donald Trump did what the Department of Justice appears to think that he did, which seems to be, the answer is yes. What is the action that you want the country, the government, the Department of Justice to take instead? Because using the rhetoric of a foreboding civil war feels like it’s asking me to cater to the hostage takers who want to foment a civil war because we’re afraid of what they might do.If Donald Trump did what the Department of Justice appears to think that he did, which seems to be, the answer is yes. What is the action that you want the country, the government, the Department of Justice to take instead? Because using the rhetoric of a foreboding civil war feels like it’s asking me to cater to the hostage takers who want to foment a civil war because we’re afraid of what they might do.
Tim Alberta: That’s completely fair. And I want to be clear, and I try to be in the article, although — based on some reader feedback and your feedback right now — I probably wasn’t clear enough.Tim Alberta: That’s completely fair. And I want to be clear, and I try to be in the article, although — based on some reader feedback and your feedback right now — I probably wasn’t clear enough.
I stated in the piece that I believe Trump has committed crimes and should be prosecuted because no one is above the law. I think what I wanted to express in the piece is just a warning to what I perceive to be a rather complacent America that is somewhat blissfully detached from the reality of these threats.I stated in the piece that I believe Trump has committed crimes and should be prosecuted because no one is above the law. I think what I wanted to express in the piece is just a warning to what I perceive to be a rather complacent America that is somewhat blissfully detached from the reality of these threats.
I think there’s a real danger here. And at the end of the day, I don’t know that it’s at all avoidable. And I certainly don’t think it’s avoidable by, as you say, catering to the bad actors, the criminals. We have a system. We have laws. And they need to be enforced.I think there’s a real danger here. And at the end of the day, I don’t know that it’s at all avoidable. And I certainly don’t think it’s avoidable by, as you say, catering to the bad actors, the criminals. We have a system. We have laws. And they need to be enforced.
I’ve got a piece coming in the next issue of “The Atlantic” where I talk with an individual who’s one of the longtime leading authorities on election administration in the country. He’s a nonpartisan, somebody who for decades and decades has been held up as the guy.I’ve got a piece coming in the next issue of “The Atlantic” where I talk with an individual who’s one of the longtime leading authorities on election administration in the country. He’s a nonpartisan, somebody who for decades and decades has been held up as the guy.
And he was brought out of retirement in 2020 to run the Election Day operations in the city of Detroit. And so he had a front-row seat for what was perhaps the ugliest, single most chaotic Election Day activity in the entire country back in 2020. And despite everything he saw — people signing affidavits claiming they saw things that they didn’t see, ugly, horrible, racist rhetoric — despite seeing all of this and this brazen attempt by Republican elected officials on the ground to try and overturn an election that was decided by 154,000 votes — despite seeing all of that, he tells me that, you know what? I think this is going to be all right. I think this is going to be fine, and here’s why.And he was brought out of retirement in 2020 to run the Election Day operations in the city of Detroit. And so he had a front-row seat for what was perhaps the ugliest, single most chaotic Election Day activity in the entire country back in 2020. And despite everything he saw — people signing affidavits claiming they saw things that they didn’t see, ugly, horrible, racist rhetoric — despite seeing all of this and this brazen attempt by Republican elected officials on the ground to try and overturn an election that was decided by 154,000 votes — despite seeing all of that, he tells me that, you know what? I think this is going to be all right. I think this is going to be fine, and here’s why.
And I said to him at some point, “You’re just like us. You’re just like the rest of us.” We all want to tell ourselves a story that we’ve been through tough times before and this is just another case where we’re going to have to buckle up and we’ll survive it, because that’s what we do. And whether or not that’s true, it just feels disingenuous to pretend like there is not something unique about this threat.And I said to him at some point, “You’re just like us. You’re just like the rest of us.” We all want to tell ourselves a story that we’ve been through tough times before and this is just another case where we’re going to have to buckle up and we’ll survive it, because that’s what we do. And whether or not that’s true, it just feels disingenuous to pretend like there is not something unique about this threat.
For over a decade, I’ve gone to gun shows just as a matter of routine. And I will say, even during the height of the Obama-era hysteria — not just about the birtherism and all that stuff but “He’s going to come take our guns” — particularly after Sandy Hook, when you’re seeing gun sales through the roof. The thing that I saw then was very narrow in terms of its purpose. The people who were coming, they’re stocking up on guns and ammo because the big, bad government is going to put us on registries and, ultimately, they’re going to come and try to confiscate our weapons.For over a decade, I’ve gone to gun shows just as a matter of routine. And I will say, even during the height of the Obama-era hysteria — not just about the birtherism and all that stuff but “He’s going to come take our guns” — particularly after Sandy Hook, when you’re seeing gun sales through the roof. The thing that I saw then was very narrow in terms of its purpose. The people who were coming, they’re stocking up on guns and ammo because the big, bad government is going to put us on registries and, ultimately, they’re going to come and try to confiscate our weapons.
When I go to gun shows today and you talk to people there, their rhetoric and the purpose of them being there is completely different. It almost entirely revolves around these notions of an imminent mass conflict and that they need to be ready for it.When I go to gun shows today and you talk to people there, their rhetoric and the purpose of them being there is completely different. It almost entirely revolves around these notions of an imminent mass conflict and that they need to be ready for it.
And by the way, it’s not just MAGA-loving Trump supporters who are there loading up on AR-15s. I have been consistently stunned at the number of individuals who will very quietly whisper to you that they are Democrats. And these are Asian Americans. These are Black Americans. These are Hispanics. These are women, suburban moms. And they are buying guns because they believe that something is about to go down.And by the way, it’s not just MAGA-loving Trump supporters who are there loading up on AR-15s. I have been consistently stunned at the number of individuals who will very quietly whisper to you that they are Democrats. And these are Asian Americans. These are Black Americans. These are Hispanics. These are women, suburban moms. And they are buying guns because they believe that something is about to go down.
And I can’t really quantify what a sea change that feels like, at least to me. And so I guess when I write a piece like the one that you are registering some frustration with — and I don’t blame you for a minute for registering that frustration — I guess what I’m really trying to do is say, “Listen. Yes, prosecute him. Yes, treat him like anybody else. Yes, this is what we ought to do. Just be forewarned that this is all probably heading in a very dark and dangerous direction. And we all should just be prepared for it.”And I can’t really quantify what a sea change that feels like, at least to me. And so I guess when I write a piece like the one that you are registering some frustration with — and I don’t blame you for a minute for registering that frustration — I guess what I’m really trying to do is say, “Listen. Yes, prosecute him. Yes, treat him like anybody else. Yes, this is what we ought to do. Just be forewarned that this is all probably heading in a very dark and dangerous direction. And we all should just be prepared for it.”
Jane Coaston: Jamelle, if these issues are structural but the threats are moving faster than the structures can change — or even it seems like it’ll take, like, 30 years for someone to admit that we have a problem — what do we do?Jane Coaston: Jamelle, if these issues are structural but the threats are moving faster than the structures can change — or even it seems like it’ll take, like, 30 years for someone to admit that we have a problem — what do we do?
Should there be more speeches, more people talking about it? To me, that just seems almost useless when any effort to call attention to this becomes spin that says that you’re trying to make it happen.Should there be more speeches, more people talking about it? To me, that just seems almost useless when any effort to call attention to this becomes spin that says that you’re trying to make it happen.
Jamelle, what do we do?Jamelle, what do we do?
Jamelle Bouie: Great question, and I have no idea.Jamelle Bouie: Great question, and I have no idea.
The only actors on this stage who have the agency to do something are Republican politicians at this point. They are the ones who have the ability to keep these things from spiraling out of control. The problem is that doing so would probably doom them in the next election cycles.The only actors on this stage who have the agency to do something are Republican politicians at this point. They are the ones who have the ability to keep these things from spiraling out of control. The problem is that doing so would probably doom them in the next election cycles.
And on the one hand, you don’t want to say, “Well, obviously, they’re not going to do that.” They’re making a choice not to do it. They’re making a choice not to exercise their agency in this particular way. And that’s important. I think that has moral weight.And on the one hand, you don’t want to say, “Well, obviously, they’re not going to do that.” They’re making a choice not to do it. They’re making a choice not to exercise their agency in this particular way. And that’s important. I think that has moral weight.
But thinking practically, of course, people who want to win office are not going to do things that would cause them to lose office. And so if you grant that, it’s hard for me to think of what to do in the immediate term to marginalize this political movement.But thinking practically, of course, people who want to win office are not going to do things that would cause them to lose office. And so if you grant that, it’s hard for me to think of what to do in the immediate term to marginalize this political movement.
Tim has said that he supports holding Trump to account legally and that just everyone should be aware that this could spark some pretty ugly stuff. I don’t think that’s wrong.Tim has said that he supports holding Trump to account legally and that just everyone should be aware that this could spark some pretty ugly stuff. I don’t think that’s wrong.
But I do think there’s another possibility. And this kind of gets to, like, my grand narrative of the Trump era, which is I think the Trump era, and the political system’s relationship to Trump, has generally been one of avoidance. At critical stages, critical actors essentially said, “This guy isn’t going to last. He’s not going to win. He’s not going to succeed, so we can kind of let the system deal with him. We don’t have to actually do anything.”But I do think there’s another possibility. And this kind of gets to, like, my grand narrative of the Trump era, which is I think the Trump era, and the political system’s relationship to Trump, has generally been one of avoidance. At critical stages, critical actors essentially said, “This guy isn’t going to last. He’s not going to win. He’s not going to succeed, so we can kind of let the system deal with him. We don’t have to actually do anything.”
So during the Republican primary, it was very clear that Republican elites were like, “We’re just going to worry about who’s going to win after Trump inevitably collapses.” And there was very clearly no plan for what might happen if that didn’t occur, if Trump actually was a viable candidate.So during the Republican primary, it was very clear that Republican elites were like, “We’re just going to worry about who’s going to win after Trump inevitably collapses.” And there was very clearly no plan for what might happen if that didn’t occur, if Trump actually was a viable candidate.
By the time he wins the nomination, you have another opportunity to stop him by Republican elites publicly saying, “We’re just not going to support this guy.” But of course, by then, it’s like, “We want to win office. We want to shape policy. We want to do these things, so of course we’re going to support him.”By the time he wins the nomination, you have another opportunity to stop him by Republican elites publicly saying, “We’re just not going to support this guy.” But of course, by then, it’s like, “We want to win office. We want to shape policy. We want to do these things, so of course we’re going to support him.”
And you see this sort of pattern happen again and again and again. There are actors who can do something to push back on him and push back on his movement. And they don’t because they think that this will happen of its own accord.And you see this sort of pattern happen again and again and again. There are actors who can do something to push back on him and push back on his movement. And they don’t because they think that this will happen of its own accord.
But when there has been pushback, what we see is he loses support. And I kind of think that there’s one possibility in terms of what do we do. One possibility in terms of really treating Trump like any other citizen under the law is that if he does get entangled in a criminal investigation, if he does have to face those kinds of consequences, then instead of energizing his strongest supporters, it might actually peel people off.But when there has been pushback, what we see is he loses support. And I kind of think that there’s one possibility in terms of what do we do. One possibility in terms of really treating Trump like any other citizen under the law is that if he does get entangled in a criminal investigation, if he does have to face those kinds of consequences, then instead of energizing his strongest supporters, it might actually peel people off.
I think Trump really benefits from an illusion of dominance. But if in a confrontation he essentially backs down, I think that does harm him. At the same time that we recognize the danger of a cult of personality around this guy, we should also remember this cult of personality may not be as tightly wound and tightly tied as it appears to be, because we’re not sure how it’s going to react when subjected to real, serious pressure beyond just losing an election.I think Trump really benefits from an illusion of dominance. But if in a confrontation he essentially backs down, I think that does harm him. At the same time that we recognize the danger of a cult of personality around this guy, we should also remember this cult of personality may not be as tightly wound and tightly tied as it appears to be, because we’re not sure how it’s going to react when subjected to real, serious pressure beyond just losing an election.
“The Civil War” documentary by Ken Burns“The Civil War” documentary by Ken Burns
“Oklahoma City” documentary from PBS“Oklahoma City” documentary from PBS
“Bring the War Home” by Kathleen Belew“Bring the War Home” by Kathleen Belew
“What Comes After the Search Warrant?” by Tim Alberta in The Atlantic“What Comes After the Search Warrant?” by Tim Alberta in The Atlantic
“Why We Are Not Facing the Prospect of a Second Civil War” by Jamelle Bouie in The New York Times“Why We Are Not Facing the Prospect of a Second Civil War” by Jamelle Bouie in The New York Times
“Bad Losers” by Tim Alberta in The Atlantic“Bad Losers” by Tim Alberta in The Atlantic
Thoughts? Email us at argument@nytimes.com or leave us a voice mail message at (347) 915-4324. We want to hear what you’re arguing about with your family, your friends and your frenemies. (We may use excerpts from your message in a future episode.)Thoughts? Email us at argument@nytimes.com or leave us a voice mail message at (347) 915-4324. We want to hear what you’re arguing about with your family, your friends and your frenemies. (We may use excerpts from your message in a future episode.)
By leaving us a message, you are agreeing to be governed by our reader submission terms and agreeing that we may use and allow others to use your name, voice and message.By leaving us a message, you are agreeing to be governed by our reader submission terms and agreeing that we may use and allow others to use your name, voice and message.
“The Argument” is produced by Phoebe Lett, Vishakha Darbha and Derek Arthur. Edited by Alison Bruzek and Anabel Bacon. With original music by Isaac Jones and Pat McCusker; mixing by Pat McCusker. Fact-checking by Kate Sinclair, Michelle Harris and Mary Marge Locker. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta with editorial support from Kristina Samulewski.“The Argument” is produced by Phoebe Lett, Vishakha Darbha and Derek Arthur. Edited by Alison Bruzek and Anabel Bacon. With original music by Isaac Jones and Pat McCusker; mixing by Pat McCusker. Fact-checking by Kate Sinclair, Michelle Harris and Mary Marge Locker. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta with editorial support from Kristina Samulewski.