Neil Howe: 'Civil War Is More Likely Than People Think'

[Dan '82]

https://app.hedgeye.com/insights/55206-n...les-of-his

Quote:Three scenarios could play out after this election says Hedgeye Demography Sector Head Neil Howe. Howe, a bestselling author and renowned authority on generations and social change in America (who coined the term "millennials") lays them out in the interview above.
 
The third possibility is obviously disconcerting.
 

1. Conciliation
   
2. Gridlock
   
3. Civil War..
   

https://app.hedgeye.com/insights/55206-n...les-of-his

[Eric the Green]

And remember I have predicted this as a possibility for the 2020s, for decades now.

"The stars would have to line up just right for Trump to win at this point"

It's funny how prevalent that phrase has become. It reflects the truth. The stars are not aligning for Trump today.

Excellent video, Neil.

[Eric the Green]

It's interesting too how Neil lays out the 3 scenarios. Basically, today we are voting on whether we will move toward civil war, or not. If we let the Republicans keep the Senate, then the civil war is much more likely. The next civil war is on the ballot. Voters in New Hampshire especially, but also Pennsylvania, Nevada, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, Indiana and North Carolina (and possibly Florida) need to keep this in mind. If you vote for the Republican candidate in these races, you are voting for civil war. Also, if you vote for a Republican as your Representative in the House, you are also voting for civil war.

Hillary has been spelling it out too. "The choice is between unity or division." She's right.

[pbrower2a]

Some basic themes:

1. Donald Trump has no chance.

2. US Senate -- it is a near-toss-up. Democrats have nothing to lose, but Republicans aren't losing enough to make the Senate a slam dunk.

3. Gridlock likely for now. Obstruction has become the norm.

4. Civil war -- possible. Many cannot accept that they can lose. 45% of the public will believe that the election was stolen.

Subtext: impeachment a high likelihood strictly for political purposes. Hillary Clinton could be crippled as President.

5. Economic vulnerability: likely a slowing economy, an economic downturn will not elicit buyouts. Some people would like an economic meltdown to make their agenda possible. More monetary stimulus is unlikely.

6. Foreign policy: Russia can exploit any division in the West.

7. Populism has become a theme in both Parties. Corporations can be called on the carpet for misconduct.

8. Realignment -- we are overdue. Parties must redefine themselves, but they have become increasingly rigid. But the rigidity means that they cannot meet6 a real emergency.

[Warren Dew]

Where in the world does Howe get the idea that conciliation is a possibility in a crisis era? And gridlock can't last forever. What was the only remaining option, again?

[Mikebert]

Sigh. Fans of History channel keep seeing violence as the only possible outcome from this episode of high political stress (psi) see post below:

http://generational-theory.com/forum/thr...l#pid11619

It is true that previous episodes of high psi have led to civil conflict, I would point out that the last few in Anglo-America have not.  The 19th century 4T in the UK and the next one did not feature civil conflict.  Nether did the last 4T in America. Conservatives, who do not believe in a changeable human nature, would bet on history where the vast majority of high-psi episodes have resulted in internal war.

But there is the FACT that we had a full-fledged 4T with a total rework of the government, what can only be called a political revolution, in the last 4T WITHOUT a civil war.  Ask a conservative how that happened and you will get a whirl of hand-waving.  Ask a liberal and they will break out the oils and incense and talk about the evolution of a higher consciousness, or simply point to Progress.

Yet the bald fact is there was no civil war.  Hell there wasn't even much internal violence. My database shows 79 episode of sociopolitical instability with 520 dead over 1929-1937. Compare this to a couple of decades previously:
219 episodes with 1327 dead over 1912-22; or with the 130 events and 629 dead from the 2T violence. Look at today. There are riots, but almost no deaths, so they don't get counted in the database. if you want to count them then you would have to add the large number of huge demonstrations in the last 2T. Either way, in terms of measures of protest, today is nothing. 

On one hand you have the media playing up all these BLM protests like that are some sort of big deal, and then you have the 70 year old Trump (who can remember the 2T) noting that today's protests are a joke: nobody even gets hurt.  You have these Bundy clowns all gunned up and facing off with the Feds and then nothing happens.  You have Classic Xer ominously warning about how Trump's white working class America will explode.  Yeah right.

In actuality, Trump's white working class are doing just fine. It's their sons and particularly their son's friends who are not doing fine. They are worried.  They don't know what is happening.  So they blame the liberals.

Same thing with Sander's youth. They go to college as some sort of talisman that they can use to achieve a "normal" life (i.e. what they grew up with).  Outside of technical fields like computer science, engineering, medicine or business, it is not (and never had been) clear how a college degree translates into a career. Today's youth who got to college do pursue STEM fields or business: about 55% of graduates with compared to just 32% in the arts, humanities & social sciences.  When I went to school it was the opposite. Today we have a glut of STEM and business grads.  What to do with them? Herd them into cubicles engaged in continue feverish, pointless activity that is nevertheless very profitable.

And so it goes.

[pbrower2a]

(11-08-2016, 05:24 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The descendants of the faction that lost the Civil War plus some additional angry white working class newer adherents want CW2. They want that new war to overturn at least some of the progress made by people of color and other historically underrepresented groups. In addition they want to undo 100 years of Progressivism. That's why they talk about Civil War so much.

I'm not so sure. They are so grossly ignorant that they do not know the consequences of what they have voted for -- and they will not know those consequences until those consequences hurt them. Anti-intellectualism has never produced anything but tears and bloodshed.

Hurt them? How does that happen? Their leader starts a war for profit, and their kids come back in body bags. They find that without any recourse against the demands of their employers they work as is demanded under terms dictated to them -- toil as long as possible for near-starvation rations. And when the economy goes belly up we will have a leader clueless on how to make things better. He will only make things worse and fault us for failing to make his failures work.

America -- or should I say White America -- will have soon elected a corrupt kleptocrat and will find out how such a man operates as leader of their country, and with no consequences for misconduct because he has a compliant Congress behind him.

America, meet your next President Slobodan Milosevich... and what he said and did was no prettier in the original Serbian.

[Eric the Green]

(11-08-2016, 05:24 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The descendants of the faction that lost the Civil War plus some additional angry white working class newer adherents want CW2. They want that new war to overturn at least some of the progress made by people of color and other historically underrepresented groups. In addition they want to undo 100 years of Progressivism. That's why they talk about Civil War so much.

Yes, that's right. Of course they are in the drivers seat now, so they are happy. What happens if Donald fails and the Democrats are voted back in in 2020, and make progress again? If that happens, civil war beckons.

[Eric the Green]

(11-09-2016, 02:13 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-08-2016, 05:24 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The descendants of the faction that lost the Civil War plus some additional angry white working class newer adherents want CW2. They want that new war to overturn at least some of the progress made by people of color and other historically underrepresented groups. In addition they want to undo 100 years of Progressivism. That's why they talk about Civil War so much.

I'm not so sure. They are so grossly ignorant that they do not know the consequences of what they have voted for -- and they will not know those consequences until those consequences hurt them. Anti-intellectualism has never produced anything but tears and bloodshed.

Hurt them? How does that happen? Their leader starts a war for profit, and their kids come back in body bags. They find that without any recourse against the demands of their employers they work as is demanded under terms dictated to them -- toil as long as possible for near-starvation rations. And when the economy goes belly up we will have a leader clueless on how to make things better. He will only make things worse and fault us for failing to make his failures work.

America -- or should I say White America -- will have soon elected a corrupt kleptocrat and will find out how such a man operates as leader of their country, and with no consequences for misconduct because he has a compliant Congress behind him.

America, meet your next President Slobodan Milosevich... and what he said and did was no prettier in the original Serbian.

Trump advocated war crimes. He's now to be in charge of the fight against ISIS, and he knows more than the generals do. He says he wants fewer wars and to get along with other countries. But if not, then we've got Dick Cheney on steroids. I don't think his followers care at all what the USA does to other people.

[Warren Dew]

(11-08-2016, 05:16 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Sigh. Fans of History channel keep seeing violence as the only possible outcome from this episode of high political stress (psi) see post below:

http://generational-theory.com/forum/thr...l#pid11619

It is true that previous episodes of high psi have led to civil conflict, I would point out that the last few in Anglo-America have not.  The 19th century 4T in the UK and the next one did not feature civil conflict.  Nether did the last 4T in America. Conservatives, who do not believe in a changeable human nature, would bet on history where the vast majority of high-psi episodes have resulted in internal war.

But there is the FACT that we had a full-fledged 4T with a total rework of the government, what can only be called a political revolution, in the last 4T WITHOUT a civil war.  Ask a conservative how that happened and you will get a whirl of hand-waving.  Ask a liberal and they will break out the oils and incense and talk about the evolution of a higher consciousness, or simply point to Progress.

Yet the bald fact is there was no civil war.  Hell there wasn't even much internal violence. My database shows 79 episode of sociopolitical instability with 520 dead over 1929-1937. Compare this to a couple of decades previously:
219 episodes with 1327 dead over 1912-22; or with the 130 events and 629 dead from the 2T violence. Look at today. There are riots, but almost no deaths, so they don't get counted in the database. if you want to count them then you would have to add the large number of huge demonstrations in the last 2T. Either way, in terms of measures of protest, today is nothing. 

On one hand you have the media playing up all these BLM protests like that are some sort of big deal, and then you have the 70 year old Trump (who can remember the 2T) noting that today's protests are a joke: nobody even gets hurt.  You have these Bundy clowns all gunned up and facing off with the Feds and then nothing happens.  You have Classic Xer ominously warning about how Trump's white working class America will explode.  Yeah right.

In actuality, Trump's white working class are doing just fine. It's their sons and particularly their son's friends who are not doing fine. They are worried.  They don't know what is happening.  So they blame the liberals.

Same thing with Sander's youth. They go to college as some sort of talisman that they can use to achieve a "normal" life (i.e. what they grew up with).  Outside of technical fields like computer science, engineering, medicine or business, it is not (and never had been) clear how a college degree translates into a career. Today's youth who got to college do pursue STEM fields or business: about 55% of graduates with compared to just 32% in the arts, humanities & social sciences.  When I went to school it was the opposite. Today we have a glut of STEM and business grads.  What to do with them? Herd them into cubicles engaged in continue feverish, pointless activity that is nevertheless very profitable.

And so it goes.

I agree it doesn't have to be a civil war.

[noway2]

(11-09-2016, 09:12 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: I agree it doesn't have to be a civil war.

I don't think it has to be a civil war, either, but I do think that something needs to fundamentally change.  I think that the current geographical alignment - "leftist / democrat / liberal / blue" territories sandwiched into "right wing / republican / conservative / red" territories raises the stakes and costs of a civil war should one occur.  Still, it seems to me that this geographical arrangement is a large contributor to the perceived problem as both sides do not see the other as "my people", they do not share the same culture and identity, and it can be argued that by extension that they are not really the same nation in the classic sense of the word.  In short, we have groups in close proximity to each other that have fundamentally different outlooks and desires for way of life that are coming into conflict via trying to use government as a club to beat the other with.

If war is not to be the outcome, what would it take to avoid it?  How about national secession? Could the nation be broken up into different factions that are allowed to go their own way and establish mutual cooperation agreements?  What would this mean for the liberal elements contained in the conservative regions? I know that around here I am hearing lots of talk about letting CA form their own nation in response to their threat to secede following the Trump election and taking the NE along with it as being good riddance to bad rubbish.  Clearly, the people here do not want to be part of the same nation.


Recently, I've been hearing fear talk from the left about how the right and especially the white population has been arming themselves up for war.  I know that I, myself, am getting really tired of government intrusion into my life and being told I have to pay even more so that someone else who made bad choices can have a financial break via things like affordable housing and Obamacare subsidies while I get the financial shaft.  Recently, I bought property in a rural part of a red state that had no restrictions on it and was unzoned.  Part of my plan was to establish a small business for my spouse along with establishing a lifestyle of self sufficiency.  Since commencing, the county commissioners achieved a 3-2 majority of Democrats because of a population influx into an overcrowded portion of the county that outvoted 90% of the rest of the region through sheer numbers and proceed to implement county wide zoning over the objections of the people and recommendations of the planning board because it is what they wanted.  The leader of this D coalition is a black woman from NJ - i.e. a (fill in the blank) carpetbagging (fill in the blank) as they say around here.  This is the sort of thing that does lead to violence because it is messing with people lives and livelihood.    As I said, using government as a club to bludgeon the other side.

[Warren Dew]

Let me clarify my statement:

I agree the war does not have to be a civil war.

We could be united against an external enemy.

[disasterzone]

(11-11-2016, 10:22 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Let me clarify my statement:

I agree the war does not have to be a civil war.

We could be united against an external enemy.

It will probably be a war against ISIS.

[Warren Dew]

The Islamic State is only a local power, though. If they truly expanded to central control of franchises throughout the Islamic world - and let's recall that goes as far as Indonesia - maybe. Trump would have to do a great job of leaving them alone to expand first, which would take - possibly more than 8 years.

Another possibility is that some time in his second term Russia pushes him too far in what he views as a betrayal.

Or the rest of the world could come up with a war we could intervene in. I think that's the most likely alternative to civil war.

Although, if the left continues supporting the antidemocracy protests as they get violent, it may yet be civil war. That would at least have the advantage that nuclear weapons probably wouldn't be used. Unless Washington state actually gets to the point of secession.

[Eric the Green]

Civil War is much more likely now. But Trump as commander in chief may bring about more foreign wars too. Unrest will continue in the world, and so will suppression, proxy funding and mass migration, stirring up even more xenophobia and nationalism in turn. We voted for Hell and that's what we'll get.

Remember the alternative worlds in Back to the Future? We voted for chaos and breakdown and that's what's on the way.

We could have had progress toward a better world had Amerikkka voted for Hillary Clinton, instead of believing all the lies about her from left and right alike. But instead we believed the lies and voted for the Liar.

We have made our bed, and so we'll have to lie in it. For some, it will be a premature coffin.

[Eric the Green]

(11-11-2016, 10:58 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: The Islamic State is only a local power, though. If they truly expanded to central control of franchises throughout the Islamic world - and let's recall that goes as far as Indonesia - maybe. Trump would have to do a great job of leaving them alone to expand first, which would take - possibly more than 8 years.

Another possibility is that some time in his second term Russia pushes him too far in what he views as a betrayal.

Or the rest of the world could come up with a war we could intervene in. I think that's the most likely alternative to civil war.

Although, if the left continues supporting the antidemocracy protests as they get violent, it may yet be civil war. That would at least have the advantage that nuclear weapons probably wouldn't be used. Unless Washington state actually gets to the point of secession.

You stumbled into the truth in this post. Secessions are likely, and I don't know when or from which side. If the Left gets back in power somehow in 2022-2024 then it could be red states that secede. If chaos increases too much before then, then it will be Washington or California and/or the Northeast Coast that secedes, and maybe joins Canada.

The possibility of the Russian betrayal is what I have also written about before. Some hope that a Trump-Putin bromance will bear fruit, but given their mutual tendency to be unstable and vengeful, who knows what will happen.

Trump has promised to smash ISIS, so he'll try. But having such an incompetent CIC probably means delay of success at best, and less support from the people there who are bombed or have their families tortured. War with Iran is much more likely, since they will go back to building up their nucs. But when and if they succeed before Israel and the USA attack them and start a war, it will be harder to attack them. So, more stalemate, anxiety and nuc proliferation in the middle east is a likely scenario.

[Marypoza]

(11-08-2016, 05:16 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Sigh. Fans of History channel keep seeing violence as the only possible outcome from this episode of high political stress (psi) see post below:

http://generational-theory.com/forum/thr...l#pid11619

It is true that previous episodes of high psi have led to civil conflict, I would point out that the last few in Anglo-America have not.  The 19th century 4T in the UK and the next one did not feature civil conflict.  Nether did the last 4T in America. Conservatives, who do not believe in a changeable human nature, would bet on history where the vast majority of high-psi episodes have resulted in internal war.

But there is the FACT that we had a full-fledged 4T with a total rework of the government, what can only be called a political revolution, in the last 4T WITHOUT a civil war.  Ask a conservative how that happened and you will get a whirl of hand-waving.  Ask a liberal and they will break out the oils and incense and talk about the evolution of a higher consciousness, or simply point to Progress.

[/quote]

-- uh.. could that be bcuz we were too busy dealing with Hitler? just askin

[pbrower2a]

We will see much civil strife. The President and the GOP now show no capacity for conciliation with the other side, which it treats as political vermin. Its economic policies are likely to hurt even those working people who thought that if they promised to take a hufe economic hit that they would get their cultural values (as on abortion, same-sex marriage, school prayer, and creationism) enshrined -- they will only get the economic hit.

As the Republicans gut Great Society and New Deal programs in a headlong rush to the Gilded Age, they will get the natural response -- mass hatred. Redress of grievances? "Get'em outta here!".

I expect law enforcement to get a green light for brutality against peaceful protesters. I can imagine Donald Trump going after protesters... "Couldn't they be doing some work instead?"

We have a cruel President and very cruel elected officials who will do very bad things to multitudes and wonder why people don't simply accept such as blessings. Why should they?

As the republicans relegate the saner expressions of liberalism to oblivion, the more extreme types on the Left will emerge. Such implies even more rancor and potential for violence.

Leadership that abuses people does not promote civic peace. Now add an unjust war that is obviously such from the start, and you have another cause.

[Eric the Green]

I hear about American deaths in Afghanistan today, and I find I am losing interest in these battles and want them to come home. I feel the need to focus on our emerging civil war here, and don't care what happens in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, France, etc. Maybe I will change my mind but for now, what to do in a nation under tyranny and headed for self-imposed destruction is where my mind is. Anyone feel the same?

[beechnut79]

(11-08-2016, 01:09 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Some basic themes:

1. Donald Trump has no chance.

2. US Senate -- it is a near-toss-up. Democrats have nothing to lose, but Republicans aren't losing enough to make the Senate a slam dunk.

3. Gridlock likely for now. Obstruction has become the norm.

4. Civil war -- possible. Many cannot accept that they can lose. 45% of the public will believe that the election was stolen.

Subtext: impeachment a high likelihood strictly for political purposes. Hillary Clinton could be crippled as President.

5. Economic vulnerability: likely a slowing economy, an economic downturn will not elicit buyouts. Some people would like an economic meltdown to make their agenda possible. More monetary stimulus is unlikely.

6. Foreign policy: Russia can exploit any division in the West.

7. Populism has become a theme in both Parties. Corporations can be called on the carpet for misconduct.

8. Realignment -- we are overdue. Parties must redefine themselves, but they have become increasingly rigid. But the rigidity means that they cannot meet6 a real emergency.

Wells Fargo has been called out, and the CEO was either fired or forced to resign. But this has been the exception rather than the rule in recent years.