Maybe we have different definitions of 'civil war'? To me, that's all-out war. (Even if one side could be deploying guerilla tactics; there don't have to be actual battlefields.)
That's not what's happening now. You could argue that the right is already fighting back in the form of police brutality and that new federal police, but the riots and police brutality quickly decreased after a turbulent start, and it remains to be seen what will really happen with that federal police (which is as yet very small and big very effective). Given that the violence trend in current protests is thus actually downwards and some stuff has been achieved (public opinion has shifted, a lot of municipalities have changed police protocols, etc. - there had even been lame executive order), I don't see this becoming a civil war.
You're right that, if Trump is reelected and a similar incident and ensuing dynamic happen, the protests might be more violent and right-wing language might be more incendiary. But public opinion will have shifted even further and cities will have improved protocols and policies, softening things somewhat. I still don't see that exploding into an actual civil war, just a repeat of moves, leading to further incremental change. That's the history of the west since WWII and I don't see that going differently in the US now. (But I don't live there, I should add.)
But anyway (to get back on topic), say things do spiral out of control into a civil war or another kind of (relatively) violent conflict: what's to guarantee that progressives will come out on top? And if they do, what's to guarantee that they will significantly change the system instead of just assuming the presidency and continuing as before? Alternatively, if things do not spiral out of control and remain peaceful protests (if tense and occasionally violent), that will result in incremental change at best, then how's that worth reselecting Trump?
Last edited:
