Will the US collapse?

[Saria]

I wasn’t sure which topic to post this in; honestly, it probably deserves a topic of its own, so… here it is.

There was a recent op-ed published in The Globe and Mail by a guy named Thomas Homer-Dixon that is causing a bit of stir in Canada. Homer-Dixon is a professor who specializes in conflict studies: basically, how and why societies collapse into war and chaos. The piece is titled “The American polity is cracked, and might collapse. Canada must prepare”, and despite the second sentence, ~95% of the article is describing the situation in the US, and why it is very likely to lead to civil war. (All he suggests Canada to do prepare is… make a committee to talk about it. 🤷🏾‍♀️)

The article is making waves… and it will be obvious why if you read it. Homer-Dixon lists multiple ways that the current situation could very easily spiral out of control, and notes that many of the things you’d think would prevent that have already been effectively destroyed or infiltrated by Trumpists.

Personally, I don’t know jack about peace and conflict studies, so I can’t assess Homer-Dixon’s claims about how bad things are, or how bad they’re likely to get. But there are two things that strike me about the article:

• Homer-Dixon backs his case up with extensive references. The people he cites—like Theda Skocpol—sure seem to be legit scholars, all very highly regarded in their fields, so far as I can tell. (And Homer-Dixon himself is also no small potatoes.)
• If you scroll down to the end of the article, you’ll see a whole list of other Globe and Mail articles with more or less the same takeaway. It sure looks like political experts are taking very seriously the likelihood of a collapse of the US.

So the idea of a collapse of the US does seem to be something that scholars and political experts are taking very seriously, something they consider a very real possibility… probably even a likely possibility.

I’m curious what people think about:

• how likely a collapse of American democracy is
• what will likely happen next (civil war? right-wing dictatorship?)
• how did things get to this point in the first place
• if anything can be done to prevent it; and
• if not, what the rest of the world should do.

[Missy]

All I know is if America does collapse - and I'm not sure it's not a mess to begin with - I just hope I'll be able to make it out to Canada, or somewhere, cus I don't want to be here when it turns into a shithole.

As for the collapse, without reading the article, there's a lot of crazy shit going on, there's a rot in America for the moment (and although some aspects have probably always been there, it seems to have metastasized of late). Right now we have a partisan duopoly between a party with an agenda and a party with no morals nor care for any form of democratic standard. A significant portion of the country is uneducated (which in the case can be almost as dangerous as being outright knowingly malicious) and dedicated to a series of lies and falsehoods, living in an alternate reality a significant portion of American society is verifiably schizofrenic - and more dangerously has demonstrated an character lacking in the fundamentally critical boundaries of an effective democratic society. I could linger on this for some time . . .

Perhaps more concerning is the fact that Russia has actively undertaken covert action unto this end for some time, say as you please, the Russians and so called peoples republic of China have considerable to gain from such a turn. No less so with the Chinese plan to construct no less than eight Aircraft Carriers, annex the South China Sea, demonstrated use of sharp power and project their influence, at the very least, into the Indian Ocean. I'm not the sort of person who fancies America as having some sort of especial place in the world, certainly no more so than anyone else, regardless the practical effects, both good and ill, include maintaining in check among the most autocratic powers the globe. I have no illusions about a supposed selfless character in the American political class, yet thus far it has been in the interest of the polity of the United States to act as a counterbalance to would be autocratic superpowers.

Some part of me wishes perhaps seeing a rising superpower obsessed on control in the manner which the PRC is may prompt the rest of the world to form up into a sort of Global Federation of Free States, but likely such is little more than a pipe dream.

[Azy]

I've seen this coming for a while.  Donald Trump and the GOP totally abandoning basic human decency has definitely poured gasoline on the fire so that even those who weren't paying attention before are feeling it now.  But I think tensions have been building between the two parties for the last decade.  This was kind of why before he left office George Washington warned us against a two party system.  It took nearly 300 years for it to really bite us, but it just bit us really hard. 

I'm also a big believer in the saying if you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it.  When Rome fell there were a few emperors who weren't quite all there in the head (Nero comes to mind).  The Senate was extremely corrupt, doing the bidding of the wealthy few instead of what was best for the empire.  Sound familiar?  Trump played to his base for admiration while the country was burned by Covid. 

[Chulanowa]

Well, to take things out of order...

• how likely a collapse of American democracy is

So likely that it's already happened. I mean to be very real, America's democracy has never been particularly strong; it's a winner-take-all system where the winner is decided by a simple plurality, with a very strong and continuing tradition of disenfranchisement against people the ruling castes decide are "undesirable." But even with that being the case, the collapse of the system is more recent. Ironically, it can be traced to 1984. That's when the Democratic party, after a landslide loss against Ronald Reagan, started embracing Reagan's neoliberal policies. After two decades, the merger was effectively complete, and since then we've been living in a complete neoliberal hegemon, with the only divergence being a small pocket of progressive liberals with no meaningful pull in the Democratic party (who are frequently attacked and hounded by their own party.)

In the US, only a single political ideology is "allowed." Both political parties exercise their absolute control over the legal system to suppress minor parties. Both parties have argued in court that they have absolutely no responsibility to the public, and have both argued that their primary election systems are just a sort of carnival and have no binding power should party leadership decide not to honor them. In this way you are only allowed to vote for two candidates, both chosen by their political parties, both almost guaranteed to hold the same neoliberal ideology, with the primary distinction being rhetorical and performative; the purple neoliberal is on the board of Johnson & Johnson and Starbucks and hates trans people, the orange neoliberal is on the board of Pfizer and Wal-Mart and hates gay people. And either way both will put the financial interests of corporations ahead any public interest.

• how did things get to this point in the first place

Some key events; First as I noted, the 1984 election where Ronald Reagan had an absolute blowout over Mondale, 49:1. This encouraged the Democrats to abandon any and all semblances of being a social democratic party and fully embrace Neoliberalism. Honestly the entire Reagan administration, from its massive militarism, to the abolition of FCC regulations, to the idea that corporations have the rights of individuals, to the wholesale destruction of all social safety nets can be considered landmark; but until 1984, there was at least token resistance to these ideas, so that's where I'm setting the marker.

Second was the dissolution of the Soviet Union by Boris Yeltsin. Though it had little immediate impact in the Us election system in particular, it DID create a situation where neoliberalism and absolute lasseiz-faire economics were 'the only game in town" - prior to 1989, liberal societies had to maintain at least a pretense of seeing to public welfare and interest in order to tamp down any actual socialist sympathies; with the biggest socialist political bloc in the world dissolved, there was no competition and neoliberalism had free reign after 44 years in the weeds.

Third, and more pertinent to the US election system, was the election of 2000 between Al Gore and George W. Bush. This is where we see the election system itself crumble. Not only did the man who actually won the plurality LOSE because his opponents demanded that counting stop, but his party accepted that - and then blamed a third party candidate for it (a candidate who got fewer votes nationwide than Bush received from registered Democrats in Florida alone, no less.) This set the stage we are in now, where every election can (and apparently many believe should) face constant legal and public challenge because, well after that mess, how can there be any certainty of integrity of the system? it led to the current system of chattering heads posing as "news" and the creation of political infotainment, which serves to create harsh partisan divisions while STILL promoting the singular ideology of neoliberalism to both factions. It created the current hostility towards progressives in the Democratic party, since it was of course "Nader's Fault," and it can lead straight towards the creepy and oppressive ideas of the War on Terror and the modern state of police-as-domestic-military.

• if anything can be done to prevent it

Well, purely in theory yes; There's all sorts of things that CAN be done. But just like with global warming, they won't be done because doing so would inconvenience the people in charge. And short of violent uprising there is currently no way to force the matter.

• If not, what the rest of the world should do.

Again, most of the world is pretty much on board with this bullshit; the decay of other liberal democracies is lower, but just as inevitable. Though to their credit most of them have more robust democratic systems and at least potential to be broken out of the hegemon. If you mean what should they do with regard to the US? Man I dunno, prep beds for refugees?

• what will likely happen next (civil war? right-wing dictatorship?)

Well... The US president has an amazing collection of powers granted by the constitution, and a vast amount have simply been seized in the ensuing 240 years, and of course a president with his party in the legislature and judges he picked can basically do whatever the fuck he wants. We've always been a sort of dictatorship; more of a Venetian Doge model than a 20th century military strongman (though Bush II tried) and right-wing politics have been dominant in the US since the late 1890's... with what Americans usually consider "right wing" being dominant since the 1980's (Americans for some reason think "left-wing liberalism" is a thing, and it's not, but oh well) So we've already got the "right-wing dictator" covered.

As for civil war, I don't know. One of the things about the US is that it's a really, really big place. Uprisings are usually violently quelled by government forces well before they can spread. In Syria, the driving distance between Damascus and Aleppo is less than 5 hours; if an uprising seizes the government buildings and armories in one, the other might not be too far off. But the driving distance between New York City and Los Angles is over 40 hours. While social media is a thing, there is a VERY different thing between "clicking like and being inspired, maybe" and "The convoy from the rebel province just rolled in, let's hook up with them."

I honestly think we're just more likely to slip into a continued collapse and malaise, maybe with some sporadic violence here and there - directionless riots, rather than an actual rebellion of any sort - maybe followed by a short-lived fascist takeover (well, short lived like Franco or Salazar, one man's lifetime) followed by a collapse back into social democracy and we'll get to repeat things all over again.

[Lux12]

At the very leas, the U.S. will decline in influence, but I've been grappling with the very potent possibility that this country will collapse within my life time for years now. I am no patriot, but I live here and I know certainly that should this country collapse, many will suffer and I've not a clue as to what should follow. I know what I want as a member of the far left...I am not optimistic that such will be the path taken. Perhaps it shant collapse, perhaps it will. As a wise zen master once said...We'll see. We'll see.

[Thufir Hawat]

So the idea of a collapse of the US does seem to be something that scholars and political experts are taking very seriously, something they consider a very real possibility… probably even a likely possibility.

Yes, that's been a thing for decades now. It's just that the timeline has been moving on, but I remember hearing such predictions for the next 25 years something like 15-20 years ago, while studying for...well, a politics-related Master degree (sorry, I'm unwilling to quote the exact specialty on a public forum, but let's say it's strongly related).
In 2018, my prediction (based on my own education and analysis) was "10-12 more years before acute crisis in the USA, unless it's averted", which fits almost with the analysis in the article (which mentions 2025-2030 as critical years, so basically the same time range).

I was writing a more in-depth analysis when I realized that posting it is only going to get me in a flamewar that serves me for nothing. So I'm just going to confirm that yes, such expectations have been a thing for a relatively long time now and the past years have only been confirming them .
Take that with as many grains of salt as you wish.

[Humble Scribe]

I've seen this coming for a while.  Donald Trump and the GOP totally abandoning basic human decency has definitely poured gasoline on the fire so that even those who weren't paying attention before are feeling it now.  But I think tensions have been building between the two parties for the last decade.  This was kind of why before he left office George Washington warned us against a two party system.  It took nearly 300 years for it to really bite us, but it just bit us really hard.

I don't know that there's anything inherently wrong with a two-party system. We by and large have one in the UK, and while we have a bunch of right wing buffoons in charge right now, and the Conservative party has taken a rightward lurch based around a charismatic idiot, and consequently we have taken some questionable decisions as a nation, I still don't actually doubt my ability to vote them out of office in an election. We are not, thank God, that far gone yet. But I am genuinely worried about what seems to be happening in the US, and I think it's a recent development, and I think the internet and its ability to let people experience different parallel realities, some of which only tangentially touch on the real world, is mostly to blame. I agree that levels of partisanship have been rising in the few decades in the US, and the rise of partisan news networks like MSNBC and Fox has contributed, but I really think the internet has been the most pernicious influence.

But even with that taken into account, I am still digusted by the Republican party's attitude to the January 6th coup attempt; the exact opposite of what happened in 2000 when Al Gore did the decent thing. I thought it would be their wake-up call, but - with a few honourable exceptions (including, bizarrely Dick Cheney, something I never thought I'd say) - they have not stood up to Trump, a man who clearly has no compunction in trying to fiddle election results, intimidating lawmakers into reversing the election, or even inciting an insurrection, just in the hope of clinging on to power. There's a thing called Loser's Consent - the idea that we all agree to abide by the results of an election, whether we win or lose - and it's essential to the functioning of democracy. There's a recent paper on this by a Washington right wing libertarian think tank - the R-Street Institute - which is actually quite good on the issue, in spite of some both-sidesism which tries to blame Hillary Clinton for raising doubts about Trump's election/Russian meddling (we don't have time to get into that here), maybe as a way of sweetening the message to Trump supporters. It has some sensible ideas for improving the conduct of elections and trying to take some of the heat out of things, but barring a major change of heart by the GOP establishment, it may be too little, too late.

I'm also a big believer in the saying if you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it.  When Rome fell there were a few emperors who weren't quite all there in the head (Nero comes to mind).  The Senate was extremely corrupt, doing the bidding of the wealthy few instead of what was best for the empire.  Sound familiar?  Trump played to his base for admiration while the country was burned by Covid.

I actually tweeted on January 6th 2020 that it reminded me of Clodius' supporters storming the Roman Senate House in 52BC. Three years later Caesar made himself dictator and Rome's 400 year history of democratic-ish government ended. But the key difference this time is that Trump didn't and doesn't have a sizeable segment of the military on-side, and that's going to be an insuperable barrier for any populist movement trying to take power by force. I'm not sure I see it as a realistic option at any time in the near future. The Proud Boys may have AR-15s, but the army has drones and tanks. More likely you see the death of 1,000 cuts - the kinds of changes to voting registration, zoning, election rules that conservative states are trying to push through now - a kind of Jim Crow 2.0, and a slow ebbing away of legitimacy in the democratic process itself. Until you restore Loser's Consent, I don't see how you can change that.

[Humble Scribe]

Of course that last paragraph should have read Jan 6th 2021 not 2020... I'm not psychic!

[FourStellar]

An excellent source on the topic is Heather Cox Richardson, a historian and professor of US history. She blogs almost daily. I’ve followed her from almost the beginning when she started commenting on news of the day and putting it into historical context. I believe she began in the summer of 2019. She started on Facebook and still publishes there, but you can read her here without needing a Facebook account:

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/

The blog is called Letters From An American, and it has helped me to understand things much better. The current crisis isn’t new. She frequently explains how civil war-era and reconstruction-era Democrats were not very different from today’s Republicans. The US has come close to becoming an authoritarian state before. That’s not to say everything is going to be OK. She also makes dire warnings.

The overarching thing that I get out of it, is that the future is not written in stone. If there are enough ordinary Americans who are fed up and no longer content to do little or nothing, things can turn around. That’s a big “if”, though.

[Saria]

Before I respond to specific people and points, I want to make two general observations.

First, I am legit surprised at how accepting people are that the US is on the verge of collapse. I assumed there would be a lot of push back. I’m very surprised there’s not. Surprised, and a little horrified.

And the thing that really horrifies me is the second observation: there doesn’t really seem to be a lot of concern that it’s likely to happen. I mean, I knew beforehand that Americans have been beaten down and abused by their shitty government and political and economic systems… but holy shit, I didn’t think it was bad to the point of “yeah, there’s probably a civil war coming, but what’re ya gonna do, right? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯”.

And worse, I haven’t even seen a shred of interest in doing anything to prevent it—or, in the worst case, doing something to make sure that even if the collapse can’t be stopped, people can at least ride out the storm, and build back better after. The closest thing I’m seeing to a plan is “Canada better prep for refugees”*.

(* To which, as a Canadian, I’d say: Why do you assume Canada will welcome you? You haven’t exactly been welcoming to other countries’s refugees. We’re already busy accepting refugees from those countries were you created the refugee crisis. Why don’t you try Mexico? Not like there’s some wall between the US and Mexico that would prevent― ooo, oh, right. 😬)

I honestly didn’t take the concerns of a violent collapse all too seriously—I find some of the scenarios in the article actually laughable†—but now that I’ve seen the scholarly concern, backed up by the absolute apathy of the people… yeah, I guess it kinda does seem inevitable.

(† The one that actually made me LOL was the one where Republicans win a clearly illegitimate victory due to gerrymandering and other shenanigans, and Democrats stage a violent insurrection in protest. Like, seriously, has Homer-Dixon even heard of the Democratic Party? I can tell you exactly what would happen if Republicans blatantly steal an election: Democrats will grumble, and then immediately “reach across the aisle” for “bipartisan leadership”. The Republicans can literally shoot the Dems that approach them, gunning them down like dogs in the street and laughing while they piss on their corpses, and Dems will still be like “we have to work together! we can’t be divisive!” Seriously, the idea of Democrats taking an actual principled stand is deliriously funny.)

@Azy said that if you don’t learn from history, you’re doomed to repeat it. Yes, absolutely true… but it’s also true that you actually have to apply what you learned for it to make a damn difference.

Some part of me wishes perhaps seeing a rising superpower obsessed on control in the manner which the PRC is may prompt the rest of the world to form up into a sort of Global Federation of Free States, but likely such is little more than a pipe dream.

I can tell you with great certainty that’s not going to happen. And the reason I’m so certain is because the rest of the world has been dealing with an autocratic rogue state that has violently meddled in their affairs and kept them under their thumb while simultaneously exploiting them for almost a century at this point, and no one ever managed to put together an organized bloc to resist the US.

Frankly, I’m not the least bit concerned about China. Russia, a little more so, but not China. China has been flexing its muscles globally for years now, and they are far from a perfect country. But here’s the thing: compared to the US, they’re a puppy dog. I don’t think most Americans realize just how fucking horrible, how fucking evil the US has been to the rest of the world. If the US imploded completely, and China became the dominant superpower, I think the majority of the world would breathe a sigh of relief.

I mean, you say the US has been some kind of stabilizing force, some kind of bulwark against autocratic superpowers. Yeah? D’you think South America would agree with that? Central America? The Middle East?

Here’s a reality check: Both the US and China have tried to establish control over third world countries in South and Central America, Asia, and Africa. The US has done so by supporting violent coups to overthrow democratically elected governments, and training and financing death squads to suppress any popular grassroots movement, and keep the resources flowing. China meanwhile has… given them infrastructure, helping them build massive construction projects, electrification, and technology. Now, you might object that while doing those things, China is just putting those third world governments in their debt, and planting spying technology, and so on. But you know what? Given the choice between having Beijing looking in the porn I’m downloading over 5G, and being murdered by a fucking death squad, I say huānyíng to our new Chinese overlords.

Some key events; First as I noted, the 1984 election where Ronald Reagan had an absolute blowout over Mondale, 49:1. This encouraged the Democrats to abandon any and all semblances of being a social democratic party and fully embrace Neoliberalism. Honestly the entire Reagan administration, from its massive militarism, to the abolition of FCC regulations, to the idea that corporations have the rights of individuals, to the wholesale destruction of all social safety nets can be considered landmark; but until 1984, there was at least token resistance to these ideas, so that's where I'm setting the marker.

That’s a fascinating place to draw the line. I don’t disagree—in fact, I think in a lot of ways, you’re quite right­—but I do want to make an observation.

The place where you’ve drawn the line is not actually where the rot and corruption started… rather, it’s the place where the Democratic Party gave up trying to fight it. That’s interesting to me; rather than blaming the situation on the Republicans for starting it, you’ve chosen to blame the Democrats for not fighting them hard enough.

It’s almost like you don’t think it’s worth bothering to blame the Republicans for being evil and stupid, because, well, that’s kinda their nature. Instead, you blame the Democrats because they actually have the capacity to be better, and just aren’t living up to it.

Like I say, interesting!

I honestly think we're just more likely to slip into a continued collapse and malaise, maybe with some sporadic violence here and there - directionless riots, rather than an actual rebellion of any sort - maybe followed by a short-lived fascist takeover (well, short lived like Franco or Salazar, one man's lifetime) followed by a collapse back into social democracy and we'll get to repeat things all over again.

You’re probably right, though you might be underestimating the amount of sporadic violence.

At the top there doesn’t really seem to be anyone who might actually lead the mob other than Trump, and he’s an old piece of trash who binges on cheeseburgers, so he’s probably not got many good years left. Then comes who? The Trumplings? Pfft. Any of the Trumpist wannabes like Cruz, Gaetz, Greene, Hawley? They’re all a bunch of sycophants and followers; seems unlikely they could actually lead a populist movement. No, it’s more likely that when Trump finally croaks, there won’t really be anyone who could step up and assert control over the fractious groups that make up his base. Most likely there’ll just be splintering and in-fighting.

And at the ground level, Trump’s base only appears unified if you squint. They are a hodgepodge of hate groups and morons, and the only way they can sorta-kinda function as a unified mob is when they all have a single target to rage at. That may work in the short term, but eventually they’re going to have to think about long-term goals, and then you’re going to see it all implode. The accelerationists who want a race war aren’t really going to find common ground with the libertarians who don’t really give a shit about race, but just hate the government telling them they have to wear masks, and neither of them are going to have much truck with the weirdos who think Hollywood stars are pedophile vampires.

The vast majority of Trump supporters are just ignorant dipshits caught up in the heat of the moment, driven by their anger at the economic prospects collapsing. I don’t think they’re actually ready for a real civil war, no matter their dumbass rhetoric. When things get worse, and their social security checks stop coming, they won’t actually “rethink” their position (because they didn’t think it in the first place), but they’ll probably try to duck out on any responsibility or consequence of their insurrection, go back to their trailers, and miserably lick their wounds.

The reason I say that you’re probably underestimating the amount of violence is because there is a lot of shit that there has to be a reckoning for, and every non-violent attempt to do so has failed. Think Black Lives Matter, for example: thus far, despite the stupid rantings of right-wing media, BLM protesters have been mostly peacefully protesting. Even when they’ve been repeatedly attacked by militarized police and even murdered by rando vigilante wannabes. That could change abruptly; all it would take is for a movement to evolve within BLM that decides being cut down at peaceful protests isn’t working… but maybe assassinating a few cops or police chiefs or politicians might. Now take BLM, add indigenous protesters (like at Standing Rock), add labour organizers fed up with at-will employment law and union busting, add environmental protesters fed up with fracking, add people fed up with governmental mismanagement and failing infrastructure, add women furious at having control of their bodies legislated away, add…, add…, add….

See, everyone’s terrified of far right groups because they’ve shown a willingness to commit murder and other chaos. But their numbers are actually quite small. Rabid Trump supporters, generally, are small in number, but willing to punch far above their weight. By contrast the grassroots groups I’ve mentioned above are HUGE in comparison, but generally disinclined to resort to flashy, violent acts to get what they want. If that changes….

I’m always amused by people telling me that if America’s right wing and left wing actually clashed, the left would be decimated because the right has all the guns. Here’s a dirty little secret that you don’t want to find out the hard way: the left got guns, too. Lots of guns. Left wing icons like Che Guevara? They didn’t get famous by hugging people. Left wingers are certainly more disciplined with their guns, and far less likely to shoot to kill without serious provocation… but provoke them enough, and you may be unpleasantly surprised.

So if the US does collapse, I predict you’re going to see a lot more violence. Yes, it probably won’t be anything like a civil war, and the violence will be sporadic and disorganized. But I think you’re going to see quite a lot of it.

The overarching thing that I get out of it, is that the future is not written in stone. If there are enough ordinary Americans who are fed up and no longer content to do little or nothing, things can turn around. That’s a big “if”, though.

I’d say it’s not that big an “if” at all. The evidence is clearly that there is not enough.

[Humble Scribe]

And the thing that really horrifies me is the second observation: there doesn’t really seem to be a lot of concern that it’s likely to happen. I mean, I knew beforehand that Americans have been beaten down and abused by their shitty government and political and economic systems… but holy shit, I didn’t think it was bad to the point of “yeah, there’s probably a civil war coming, but what’re ya gonna do, right? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯”.

Well, I'm not an American, but prior to Covid I used to spend a lot of my life there, and for what it's worth I completely disagree that a civil war is likely. Violence, perhaps, but as I said above, the state by and large maintains a monopoly on that, and the US military isn't yet politicised enough to start taking sides except to whack anyone who starts shooting things up with a big stick. I think that collapse narratives appeal to a kind of person who thinks they'd secretly be quite good in such a situation (see e.g. Red Dawn), but as you say, that's because they've not seen real societies in genuine collapse. My ex-wife was from Bosnia, and I can tell you a thing or two about modern societies that *actually* collapse, and it's not like the movies.

Frankly, I’m not the least bit concerned about China. Russia, a little more so, but not China. China has been flexing its muscles globally for years now, and they are far from a perfect country. But here’s the thing: compared to the US, they’re a puppy dog. I don’t think most Americans realize just how fucking horrible, how fucking evil the US has been to the rest of the world. If the US imploded completely, and China became the dominant superpower, I think the majority of the world would breathe a sigh of relief.

Here I disagree. Any geopolitical reticence on the part of China and Russia is because of lingering US military capability. They'd happily push things just as much if they were in charge, and while I completely agree that if I lived in the Middle East or, say, Vietnam, I might find the results of US intervention pretty shitty too, don't for a second belive that Russia or China would be any better were they the global hegemon. Ask anyone who lived in Eastern Europe during the 1970s and 80s whether it was better to be on the other side of the Iron Curtain. Ask a Tibetan or a Uighur or just an everyday Chinese citizen who faces China's Social Credit system whether that's better than having Facebook harvest your data. I wrote an article today about how China has bankrupted Turkmenistan by selling soft loans then tightening the screws. It does the same in Africa. The US has fucked countries up, for sure. So did we (the UK), when we were the global hegemon. But even so, I think on balance I'd take it over Xi's China or Putin's Russia guiding the world. Democracies that intervene overseas at least face political pressure at home when they mess up. Autocracies less so.

At the top there doesn’t really seem to be anyone who might actually lead the mob other than Trump, and he’s an old piece of trash who binges on cheeseburgers, so he’s probably not got many good years left. Then comes who? The Trumplings? Pfft. Any of the Trumpist wannabes like Cruz, Gaetz, Greene, Hawley? They’re all a bunch of sycophants and followers; seems unlikely they could actually lead a populist movement. No, it’s more likely that when Trump finally croaks, there won’t really be anyone who could step up and assert control over the fractious groups that make up his base. Most likely there’ll just be splintering and in-fighting.

My big worry is that Trump has highlighted cracks in the US constitution that maybe hadn't been to the fore before, and if someone came along who wasn't a lazy, corrupt, cowardly idiot, they could really take populism and run with it. But agreed that there's no-one fitting that bill right now.

[Oniya]

I have a few thoughts on this.

First of all, the question 'Will the U.S. collapse' is less useful than 'Will the U.S. collapse soon?' or 'How will the U.S. collapse?'  History tells us that governments collapse - or at least transform.  The British monarchy was replaced by a constitutional monarchy.  Russia's tsars were replaced by the U.S.S.R., which in turn fragmented over the course of the last 40 years (with Putin now trying to reconstitute it.)

Secondly - in reference to the bit where Chulanowa draws the line at the Dems not fighting hard enough:  I believe the maxim is 'For evil to succeed, it is only necessary that good [people] do nothing.'  I align closer with the Dems than any other party at the moment, and I can tell you, it's been frustrating as hell.

Thirdly - as far as 'what're ya gonna do, right?'  Personally?  If it came down to a violent overthrow, the only weapon I have is a +5 Cast Iron Skillet.  My eyesight is crap, so you don't want me behind any sort of ranged weapon.  What am I going to do if the proverbial shit hits the fan?  I can make Spam taste decent and whack people over the head - possibly in rapid alternation.  Other than that, I'm getting as far from combat as possible.  (Please also keep in mind your audience here - I know there are a few people on E trained for/physically capable of more contribution than that, but a lot of us here are more skilled with the pen than the sword.  I do what I can with the former.)

The thing is, violent overthrows - tanks in the streets and all that - are less likely to happen than you think.  I recently learned about the Cline Institute's Coup d'Etat Project.  Turns out there are a lot of different types of coups, some of them quieter than others.  (While their dataset only covers 1945 through 2019, they do classify Jan 6, 2021 as an 'attempted dissident coup', although information since then is pointing more to an 'attempted auto-coup'.) 

'Will it happen' - probably eventually.
'When will it happen' - the 'clock' is probably closer to midnight than it's ever been since the 1800's.  Some actual backbone in the elected officials could influence that in a number of ways.
'How will it happen' - probably not with a bang, but a whimper.

[Azy]

With the way the leadership of the left and right is pitting both sides against each other, the tension will eventually come to a head, and major change will likely happen as part of it.  Oniya is correct that things are always changing, and violence isn't always involved.  That being said, never say never.  Every empire that's had everything crash down around them in the past was always positive that because of their size, or economic status, or what have you, that what ended up happening could and would never happen. 

[gaggedLouise]

I was thinking last week that some of the peculiarities of American society and politics, as seen from Europe (especially), are rooted in the US having been planned, by the framers of the constitution in its original form (1788-90, including the Bill of Rights) as a state/society without government agencies. Over in Europe we're used to the idea of a network of government bureaus, public works, authorities and public boards set up to handle various kinds of public business, communcications, public health, land management, protection against disasters, environmental protection etc etc. Bureaus and works that often go back to the old days before democracy, but in modern times they'll report to government and parliament and keep up a two-way conversation with ordinary people (and with the news media). Some of this is bureaucracy of course, but it's also to ensure stability over time and ease out tensions and capriciousness that would happen if people had to solve those issues individually on a case-by-case basis.  These government agencies have also been used sometimes as tools to implement reform, and partisan political projects, though they don't *have* to be deployed that way.

The original US, by contrast, seems to have had a vision of doing away with all such public agencies as far as possible, or making their work strictly contingent upon the acceptance of every single citizen they came in touch with - or on local laws. The citizens (the landowners) were to get as much free space as possible to solve those problems locally by themselves - or if they ignored them, no one from the state would tell them they had to plan ahead and get something in place. Of course this fit in very well with later ideas of a minimal state, a nightwatchman liberal state, but the blueprint already existed in the original shape of the constitution and continues to influence American politics (the absence of a central, national election board responsible for running and overseeing the practical aspects of elections, calling out abuses and ensuring electional safety and parity is a typical example). Is this a fair way of putting it?

[greenknight]

In short, no.

The US were set up as a federal system, meaning the state and national governments as co-equal. All of the agencies, bureaus, etc, existed as state organizations with the national government envisioned to manage the necessarily collective functions; interstate trade, mail, national militaries, all manner of standards, etc. The Articles of Confederation+. However, this framework immediately began to erode in the face of reality until the language changed almost immediately following the Civil War from "the United States are..." to the "the United States is...".

[Oniya]

Oh hey - it looks like Beau's heard about the article(s):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjjtEiUIvXs

As I'm listening, the first thing he mentions is the NATO-specific problem of 'dealing with the collapse'.  Like, where the NATO troops are going to stage before they come in to support the legitimate government - whoever that is.  NATO doesn't want to lose the US Strategic Arsenal.

After that, it comes to the bureaucracy aspects with regards to the 'losing side' - whoever that is.  Streamlining the process, figuring out what qualifies as legitimate asylum-seekers, keeping those people safe while going through the process, and dealing with the (very likely) truckloads of guns that they're going to have with them (as people fleeing civil conflict).  (Get a few shipping containers was his suggestion.)

He isn't thinking this is a likely event, but it's an outline of things to keep in mind if the clock ticks down further.

[Thufir Hawat]

And the thing that really horrifies me is the second observation: there doesn’t really seem to be a lot of concern that it’s likely to happen. I mean, I knew beforehand that Americans have been beaten down and abused by their shitty government and political and economic systems… but holy shit, I didn’t think it was bad to the point of “yeah, there’s probably a civil war coming, but what’re ya gonna do, right? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯”.

Just as a note, I'm pretty sure most people, both in the USA and outside of it, would prefer to be able to do something to prevent it. The question is, what can be done?
And I'm not seeing an answer, sadly.

Too, believe me that I'd be glad to be wrong on that account !

But even if one disagrees that it would be the most likely event, it pays to prepare for all eventualities.

[Thufir Hawat]

Oh, and here's an argument that no such war is forthcoming. I'm not sure it's correct, but it is on topic, and you can evaluate it for yourself.

[Twisted Crow]

It would seem that my take sadly echoes other sentiments in this thread: It is not a matter of if, but when.

Economically, I would say that the United States has been living on borrowed time for a number of generations, now.
Diplomatically, I feel that we’ve meddled and created enemies to a point where we’ve needed gajillions of dollars to protect ourselves.
Domestically, I see our country essentially ruled by crony capitalist moguls in seats of unrivaled financial power and influence while we abandon our poor in an ever-widening gap in wealth disparity.
Individually, I have observed that your average American has to do more crapsack work and essentially get paid less for that work. And they might not ever get to rest on any retirement money.

In some ways, I would argue that the “American Dream” died long ago. Perhaps before I was ever born, really.

Even if one believes in things getting worse before they get better… that still means that the worst has not happened, yet. And I believe we still have a greater storm to weather in the future.