Will America survive the 2016 Election? A Union on the brink of civil war

Sandy Levinson

Imagine two soldiers in Iraq (or anywhere else). One is killed, then other incurs traumatic brain injury.  We would say of the second that he/she "survived" the war in a way the first did not, but we would also go on to say that "he/she will never be the same again.  It is as if we're dealing with a very different person; I feel so sorry for the spouse, and I wonder whether he/she will or even should stick it out for a lifetime of de facto misery."  We would go on to speak of the living envying the dead.

So in that sense the U.S. will survive, but anyone who believes we are the same country today as two weeks ago is deluded.  Indeed, we are only beginning to get a glimpse of how truly terrible it may turn out to be to have a possible sociopath as President.  I put "possible" because one friend of mine, a distinguished psychiatrist now retired, agreed with my lay analysis that Donald Trump is indeed a "sociopath."  Another friend, an equally distinguished psychiatrist at Harvard, says no, that he is "merely" endlessly opportunistic, which in this context could be grounds for limited hope.  But his early appointments give no grounds for hope.  Even if they are not indicative of sociopathy, they are manifestations of a crazed ideology--the "war of civilizations"--that will undoubtedly make the world a more awful place and also carries the risk of endless war.  Think of 1984, which may be arriving in the U.S. 30 years late.

The United States is, I believe, in the most precarious position since 1860, when the election of another electoral-minority president precipitated secession and the consequent slaughter of 750,000 people (who may or may not have been "Americans," since it was the claim of the Confederate States of America that they were a separate country from the United States of America, so we might want to separate the deaths of "Confederates" and "Unionists").  I have just finished reading an advance copy of a quite stunning book by Harvard historian David Armitage, to be published by Knopf in February, Civil Wars:  A History in Ideas.  It traces the history of the notion of civil war from ancient Rome to literally the present day.  One necessary condition for a "civil war," instead of international wars, is precisely that the former is carried on between ostensible members of a common polity who have, however, become fundamentally estranged from one another.  The estrangement can take the form of asking for a divorce, i.e., secession, the strategy chosen by the South in 1860-61.  It was not their aim to "take over" the national government and run the U.S. in its entirety.  Rather, it wanted to exercise the ostensible right to self-government guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence, which justified secession from the British Empire by hitherto loyal subjects of the Crown.  Although James Buchanan believed that secession was illegal, he also believed that the national government was without the power to prevent it.  Lincoln obviously had a different view.  Were the matter one of purely abstract constitutional theory, I would be tempted to side with the secessionists.  But, of course, the explanation of the secession was the desire to maintain a wicked system of chattel slavery, and what presumably justified sacrificing 750,000 lives was the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment.  However, Reconstruction turned out to be an abject failure in terms of genuinely bringing about needed "regime change," and the South actually ended up (and remains) with a stranglehold on American politics, much to our detriment.  As Lincoln suggested in the Second Inaugural, whether by divine plan or not, we continue, every single day, to pay the cost for our original sin of chattel slavery and the racialism attached to it from the very beginning.


Although there are some, including myself on occasion, who fantasize the secessionist breakup of the U.S.--why indeed should Pacifica or New England (plus New York City) wish to remain part of a Trump-governed United States--there is an obvious problem.  Secession made sense in 1860 because the seceding states in effect simply wanted to be left alone and allowed to continue their iniquitous ways vis-a-vis slavery.  It was, after all, William Lloyd Garrison who initially broached the idea of "no Union with slaveholders" as a means of liberating the rest of the country from having to accommodate wickedness.  But secession today really doesn't make much sense, alas, because the dangers of a Trump-governed U.S. can't simply be internalized to those states who wish to remain part of a renamed Trumpland.  His policies threaten each and every one of us, not only those living in states that voted against him, but people living all over the world.  He is a clear and present danger to us all.

So this suggests the second kind of civil war, in which (at least) two groups fight, in the name of "popular sovereignty," for control of a single government.  Think of Russia, Spain, or Syria (for starters).  We're clearly not in that situation (yet), but I fear that we are close to achieving one of the necessary conditions of civil war:  That is the increasing tendency to view large segments of one's fellow citizens as basically Schmittian enemies, "deplorables" if you wish.  This doesn't require anything close to a 50-50 split.  All it requires is a sufficient base that is willing to engage in one or another form of direct action.  No one really believes that the Boston revolutionaries "represented" a majority of their fellow subjects of the Crown.  As Lenin recognized, all revolutionary (or civil war) movements are led by vanguards who make a bet that they will mobilize greater support after acting, perhaps because of the stupid responses of the so-called established government.  This was certainly the case with the Brits after the Tea Party.  Their over-reaction helped bring about the world's most unnecessary war; they were far more sagacious in Canada vis-a-vis the French-Canadians who had been absorbed after what we call the French and Indian War that resulted in the loss of Quebec to Great Britain.

So, as Lenin might ask, What is to be one?  The awful answer is I really don't know.  But Donald Trump is not yet even President-elect.  That will come only after the members of the electoral college give him sufficient votes.  If one shares the perception that he (and his developing "team") are a true menace, then we should take absolutely seriously the suggestion of David Pozen to work with Republican electors to bring forth a compromise third candidate who can bring the country back from the brink of calamity.  They would not in the least be "faithless electors," at least from the perspective of the Framers who devised the electoral college in the first place (stupid as it is); rather, they would rise to the occasion by trying to save the Union (and perhaps the entire world) from a true menace.  The idea that Republican electors should vote for Hillary Clinton is simply a fantasy.  Instead, there should be negotiations between serious Democrats and honorable Republicans like John Katich, Lindsay Graham, Jeff Flake, Susan Collins, Michael Gerson, George Will, Mike Lee, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and others to try to figure out what Republican might be able to step in and have sufficient national support to save us from the ever-more-foreseeable calamity.  (From this perspective, Trump's fatal error might be not waiting until after December 15 to begin naming his cabinet.  It is now clear what a Trump administration will look like, and no honorable person should be encouraged by what we have already seen, let alone what is likely to be coming up.)

There is no reason to give Donald Trump a chance of spending a single day as President, especially after he has begun indicating his despicable colors as president by his early appointments.  The future of the country is at stake, even if, like a brain-damaged veteran, it will "survive" under a Trump presidency  Unfortunately, the United States is "too big to fail."  Unlike the 1930s, there are no countries in the rest of the world that can provide a true haven for those seeking to escape the dangers of a Trump presidency (and his status as commander in chief).   It is up to us to save ourselves, not by force of arms or please for a military coup (yet) but by imaginative use of what the Constitution itself provides for, i.e., independent judgment by patriotic electors and then a decision by the House of Representatives as to who would best govern the country in these truly parlous times.  If it is a Republican I would never vote for, so be it.  That is almost literally the least of my worries when I contemplate a Trump presidency.

With regard to comments:  I am not in the least interested in reading anything of how Hillary Clinton would have been a better president--of course she would have--or how she blew it by engaging in some stupid political decisions--of course she did--or how the overall electoral system is truly rigged in multiple ways, including the idiotic electoral college--of course it is.  The only thing I'm interested in is whether any of you truly believe that I and others should lighten up because the early indications of what a Trump presidency will look like should not upset any truly patriotic American who wishes the best for each and every American citizen--including the non-deplorable who voted for Trump--and even non-citizens who have been welcomed to the country, not to mention people all over the world who will be worse off because of Trump's delusions about climate change and restoring the coal industry, etc., etc., etc.






Posted 11:26 AM by Sandy Levinson [link]