[Editor's note: This essay first appeared at BryanAlexander.org on September 6, 2022]
I’ve been modeling potential civil unrest in the US for a while, as some of you know (in terms of polycrisis, neonationalism, recent polls, after Trump, the 2020 election, 2018-2019, the 2016 election, egging on fears, and Sinclair Lewis).
One way of doing this futuring work is by drawing on historical
examples. History does not repeat, but some relevant historical events
can give us some rough ideas of how insurrections/civil
war/rebellions/secession/etc. might play out. At the least they give us
examples to think with.
Today I wanted to offer a group of these examples, drawn from the
past few generations, which might be useful. For each one I’ll offer a
very brief introduction, then explore how something similar might play
out in the modern American setting.
One caveat: what follows are sketches of history, not serious historiography. Each one is way
too short, and you should really dive into each on your own, including
in comments. They are samples and summaries to stir your imaginations
and investigations.
Another caveat. For these examples/models I assume a few details:
- Trump (and DeSantis, the most likely Trump successor now) live and keep doing their thing for at least a few years.
- Civil unrest happens, to some degree.
- Time horizon: medium term, the next 5 years, or so.
The future can easily invalidate #s 1 and 2. While Trump often
appears in rude health and, in American style, is rich enough to pay for
top notch medical care, he also has poor health habits and is nearing
80. He or DeSantis could, of course, be killed, either in accidents or
by the time-honored American tradition of assassination. As for my
second assumption, we haven’t seen much unrest over the past five years,
despite my forecasts. We might not experience anything of the kind –
and should hope to be so fortunate.
One last bit of throat-clearing: there are other historical examples
we can draw from, especially on the global stage. I have been working
on others, but wanted to get some out there now. I’d love to hear your
own historical ideas.
Onward:
THE YEARS OF LEAD Italy endured a low grade civil conflict starting in the 1960s.
Various extreme right and left groups targeted each other, the
government, civil society, and civilians with bombings, kidnapping,
robberies, and assassinations. The extreme right’s goal was the
notorious “strategy of tension“:
to scare people with terror enough that they would accept a reactionary
government. The left’s strategy: to mobilize the population enough to
kick off a left-wing revolution. Both used violence and terror as risky
but sometimes successful recruiting tools, as well as for
resource-gathering (cf bank robberies). Violence and terror also kept
the cycle going by instilling the desire for revenge in survivors,
friends, family, and witnesses.
The 1980 Bologna railway massacre.
How might this apply to the United States? It is not difficult to foresee some extreme right-wing groups (3%ers, Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, etc) increasing their violent acts and becoming more ambitious. One established American precedent is The Order,
a hard-right racist fringe outfit which conducted bank robberies and at
least one assassination in the mid-1980s. Following the Italian
example, not to mention the action of some Republicans around the
January 6th event, we would envision some politicians allying themselves
with these fringe activists to varying degrees of secrecy or openness,
for a shared cause and/or mutual benefit.
I’m not sure if there will be any such corresponding action on the
extreme left, since so many are wedded to nonviolent action. But we
could see such organizing happen if a group feels right-wing dangers are
dire enough and if they are willing to obtain the necessary tools.
Perhaps right wing attacks will spur retaliation. Or maybe some will see
their struggle as so fundamental to humanity that they must risk
extreme action (cf the classic “if you had a time machine, would you
travel to the 1920s and murder Hitler?” prompt).
Recall that in the Italian case the activists were very small in
number. The Red Brigades numbered a few hundred out of a nation with
circa 50 million people. The United States, in contrast, numbers nearly
330 million and is very well supplied with weaponry.
Recall, too, that in Italy’s Years of Lead neither side succeeded in
taking over the government, even after kidnapping and killing a former
prime minister.
CHINA’S CULTURAL REVOLUTION From 1966 to 1976 political chaos engulfed the People’s Republic of China. Chairman Mao, having lost a great deal of power due to the horrific failure of his Great Leap Forward,
launched a political gamble to rebuild his leadership. The story is
complex and not easy to summarize, but it took the broad form of a
revolution from above, which developed into widespread unrest to the
level of civil war. Mao used national, regional, local, and cultural
supporters to provoke political instability while building up a
Stalin-level cult of personality. To do this Mao and his allies ran
huge propaganda campaigns, created new political-military units out of
teenagers, spurred endless rounds of local political fighting (hence
struggle sessions and escalating local violence), and purged leaders
across the system, along with preparing the nation for war with the
Soviet Union, and more.
(I recommend Frank Dikötter’s The Cultural Revolution: A People’s History, 1962—1976. The complexity of this story is immense, and its recency means it’s difficult to get perspective and documents.)
How might this play out in the United States? Obviously the American
situation is very different. Contemporary America is a world leader
and is neoliberal in ideology, as opposed to China’s developing nation
status during these events, not to mention being a communist state.
However, we could imagine a right wing American leader, such as
Trump, applying some of Mao’s practices if he wins the 2024
presidential election. Imagine him authorizing various local groups
(militias, friendly state governments, local or state police) and
federal agencies to go after people he doesn’t like (liberal school
boards, tech companies, whatever Trump thinks Antifa is). Trump (or
DeSantis) could use federal powers to crack down on anyone he doesn’t
like, such as sending troops to deep blue cities, increasing digital
surveillance, or denying resources. Trump (or DeSantis) could also
follow Mao in urging repeatedly updated political opinions, talking up
foreign war to scare people at home, calling out domestic enemies, and
generally building up a cult of personality.
Obviously there are limits to this analogy. Trump is no ideologue
like Mao was; I’m not sure what a Little Red Book analog might be.
Further, today’s GOP counts economic growth as a major, even leading
achievement, while a Cultural Revolution level of chaos would undermine
that.
One thing to keep in mind: Mao succeeded, at least in terms of his
drive to rebuild his own power. He lived the last years of his life in
supreme authority, albeit in declining health, after dismantling some of
his support structures.
THE DESTRUCTION OF YUGOSLAVIA In the 1990s this nation tore itself apart,
as a nationalist party tried to seize and expand control over the whole
republic, and as different sub-nations sought to secede. A powerful
national army proved a major power source for the Serb hardliners, as
did militias. Republics generated their own forces, including irregular
militias. Violence escalated in cycles of vengeance and deliberately
inflicted terror. Republics exited the federation while the war grew in
complexity and horror. Other nations intervened, eventually
establishing a shaky peace – followed by more conflicts and more
unstable settlements.
Bosnia’s Stary Most (Old Bridge) over the Neretva River, rebuilt after being shattered in the war.
What vision for American conflict does the destruction of Yugoslavia
present? This is a more extreme model than the first two, but it could
play out in several ways. imagine if Trump or DeSantis wins the White
House and cracks down much harder than in the Mao model. Such
suppression, surveillance, and violence provokes resistance at the state
and city level. Democrats/liberals/the left attempt to secede in some
way, such as declaring local autonomy from the Republican
administration. They could organize self-defense forces at scale. This
could spark an escalated federal crackdown. Any violence would drive all
sides to further organization and action, and the nation spirals into
civil war.
Alternatively, we could imagine the reverse, with a Democratic
election victory and the Trump/reactionary right treating the winner as a
tyrant. The latter could attempt to secede at the city, state, and/or
regional level. They could organizing violence at various levels, from
lone activists to militias or suborned local police, aimed against
federal forces or locals perceived as aligned with them. The White House
follows Lincoln in 1861 and responds with greater force. The civil war
spiral kicks off.
Once more, there are obvious differences between the United States in
the 2020s and post-Tito Yugoslavia. As with the Chinese comparison,
America is not a communist state. The USA is also more powerful
geopolitically, not at the point of having foreign forces intervene and
force settlements. There are not clear-cut mixtures of ethnic,
religious, and linguistic divides; the American situation is more
complex. Yet ethnic cleansing, should it occur, might take different
forms, such as racial mass murder.
Why these historical examples out of all others?
First off, I was looking for situations that were as close to the
present as possible. That makes the comparisons less removed than, say,
examples from Europe in the 1600s. These histories are still distant
from our present in key ways. The contemporary internet, for example,
could prove a powerful tool in any actor’s arsenal. The experience and
impact of COVID-19 might inflect any such future history in ways quite
different from our examples.
Second, for each one I began by isolating present-day factors which
could drive civil unrest in the United States. Looking at dueling small
groups in Portland, Oregon and the group which rioted in the US Capitol
brought to mind the fierce, committed extremists of modern Italy.
Considering Trump’s cult of personality, I looked for contemporary
examples. North Korea offers one, as does Italy’s Berlusconi,
but not with the deliberate cultivation of chaos represented by Mao’s
top-down revolution. Considering secession presents several
alternatives, like Czechoslovakia’s split or the Eritrean war, but
former Yugoslavia has advantages: a larger number of factions, a late
industrial economic base, and a mix of ideologies with other identities.
Again, these are sketches. There is a lot more to say about
each of those stories. There are plenty of ways today’s American context
differs from each. Plus I have a lot more research behind this, but
don’t want to overwhelm in a single FB post. My goal is to get you all
thinking and commenting, so have at it.
(Bologna bombing photo by Beppe Briguglio, Patrizia Pulga, Medardo Pedrini, Marco Vaccari – www.stragi.it/, CC BY-SA 3.0; Cultural Revolution photo from Wikipedia; Mostar’s Stary Most image from Wikipedia)
**Bryan Alexander is an award–winning,
internationally known futurist, researcher, writer, speaker,
consultant, and teacher, working in the field of higher education’s
future. He is currently a senior scholar at Georgetown University.
Bryan's next book is Universities on Fire, to be published by Johns Hopkins University Press. This article was originally published at BryanAlexander.org.
