This Is What a Modern American Civil War Would Look Like (feat. Stephen Marche)

Key Takeaway

Treat political stability as something built through daily habits of trust, not as a permanent national guarantee. Today, reduce one source of escalation: verify a provocative political claim before sharing it, avoid treating fellow citizens as enemies, and support a local institution that creates cross-group contact. Marche’s core warning is that civil conflict is usually a cascade—polarization, inequality, distrust, and perceived status threat reinforcing one another—rather than one dramatic event caused by one leader.

Episode Overview

Sam Harris speaks with journalist and author Stephen Marche about Marche’s book, The Next Civil War, and why he believes the United States displays multiple interacting risk factors for political violence. They discuss democratic instability, institutional distrust, hyperpartisanship, inequality, demographic change, and why a modern civil war would more likely resemble dispersed political violence than conventional armies fighting state against state.

Full Transcript

Transcript of This Is What a Modern American Civil War Would Look Like (feat. Stephen Marche) from Making Sense with Sam Harris. Auto-generated from episode audio; may contain minor errors.

I don't think Americans need a lot of convincing that they're in a country that is not stable. Civil wars tend to be a complex cascading system. It's the factors that combine into each other. We know that that's coming in America. It seems from here that America is a bus going off the cliff and we're pretty attached to that bus. I'm here with Steven Marsh. Stephen, thanks for joining me. Pleasure. So, I read your um your I think it's your latest book, The Next Civil War. dis dispatches from the American future uh with great interest.

It came out in in 2022, however, so I'll be interested to um see if your view has has darkened or or not in the in the meantime. Uh but but before we get into the the book, what is your background as a journalist and writer? What what kinds of issues have you focused on and how do you view that? Well, all of them. I mean, basically anything that I've had a very strange career. I mean be in before by the time I was 30 I was a Shakespeare professor in New York.

Um and then I became a sort of freelance writer. I was a columnist for Esquire for many years. I've written you know cover stories and features for the Atlantic and the New Yorker and uh the New York Times and pretty much everywhere else. Um and so you know in 2016 I was commissioned to uh write a piece for a Canadian magazine about the inauguration of Donald Trump. And that's sort of where this project began and where I really started to work on, you know, what is the what is happening in the United States.

So your book, as you know, paints a very grim picture of the American future and also the American present. Uh before we jump into the the book itself, what how are you viewing America from Canada at this moment? I'm gathering that you guys are not eager to be the 51st state. Uh, can you give us a Canadian's eye view of uh how our political landscape looks at the moment? Well, I mean for us it's terrifying. Like it's I I mean to me it's sort of like your big brother shows up at the door in a meth binge with a knife asking for money.

I think that would be roughly the the take of the uh Canadian public. I mean, we've gone from basically, you know, when I was 33, there was no border with the United States, like you just drove across. Um, to, you know, very aggressive statements. Uh, over half of Canadians consider the United States an enemy at this point. Um, it and and we're making the most drastic possible changes to our political life because of the second Trump administration. We have to figure out new security arrangements. We have to diversify our trade in a very elaborate way.

Plus, we're we're just going to be punched in the face by by the United States. So, it has altered the um the essence of Canadian life, I would say. I I don't think it would be too much to say that at this point. Does the 51st state talk seem serious to you on any level? I mean, I understand the tariffs are serious and and the just the chaos and disorder um uh provoked by much of what the second Trump administration is doing and and aims to do is serious.

But does it the specific idea does that just seem like any more than a troll to you? Oh, very much so. Yeah. I mean, ask the people of Venezuela if they think it's just a troll. I mean, countries that slide into authoritarianism, which is how I see the current status of the United States. um it is absolutely textbook for them to have uh you know wars with their neighbors for no good reason to prolong the authoritarian state right and that's that's a risk that we just cannot you know cannot take lightly and we're we're nobody nobody here is taking that lightly at all but um obviously you couldn't really prepare for it right I if America wanted to conquer Canada I assume that would be a fairly easy thing to do right I mean in the scheme of things.

Well, I mean, yes and no. I think um you know, America's not very good at conquering places. Doesn't have a very good track record at actually holding on to them. Um even poor countries without, you know, we have machine learning experts and petroleum engineers. But I I think what we're really thinking about, I mean, and these are being widely seriously discussed, is one option is to become a nuclear power, which is, you know, well within our capacities to do. Um but the other is a strategy much like Finland uses with Russia um which is called whole society defense and I think that I think something like that is probably coming to Canada if in effect a kind of national service or conscription where I mean the Finland knows that if Russia comes for them they they will not be able to withstand it indefinitely.

But they can make it clear to Russia that it will be so painful for them to conquer Finland that that it's not worth it. And I think those are really options that are both very much on the table, both very much being discussed here. And they uh so we're not powerless at all. Um the the it would be asymmetrical, but um you know, asymmetrical warfare does not tend to work out well for the country that you know is the is the Goliath in the David and Goliath uh scenario.

Have gun sales changed in Canada as a result? No. Canada is a very gunheavy country. I think we're like we're compared to you of course we're nothing but you know um we're we have a lot of wide open spaces. I mean half my uncles would own guns here, right? I mean there's lots of people hunter there's lots of hunting here. There's lots of people who live in uh remote areas. Even people who have acreages probably have a 22. So we're we're already a very armed society.

So what most worries you about Trump and his second administration in general? Boy, you asked me to pick one. That's a hard one. Give me your top three or top three. Well, I mean, I think it's just the chaos, right? Like, it's the it's the flood the zone strategy. It's just the um the unreliability um and the and the sort of um slap dash nature of everything. You just you literally just don't know what's going to happen next week. Um and that I mean that in the broadest sense is is the real danger.

Um because you know it seems from here that America is a bus going off a cliff and we're pretty attached to that bus. I mean you know we we everyone in here has family in the United States. I've lived and worked in the United States. Almost everyone I know has. I mean as I said I I write for all these American publications. Um we're pretty intertwined, right? Like we're we're intertwined countries. And so um this loss is very painful and the danger that um is imminent in it is because of the sort of the broader sense of incipient chaos from emerging from America.

I understand that's not a very satisfying answer because it's so vague. But on the other hand, it's the fact that you don't know what's coming next week that's the that's the really scary part if you know what I mean. So, I mean, I obviously agree with your view of of Trump and and Trumpism, and and we'll get into just how hyperartisan and and fragmented our political landscape is over here in America, but um yeah, I mean, what would you say to someone who doesn't see any of this?

I mean, I so I I think we have witnessed just immense brand brand damage being done to America in the last 10 months. It's just a colossal act of vandalism from my point of view. Yeah. But I I would think you would share that. But what as an as an outsider, as a someone who's principally viewing this from from um across the border, how would you explain this to someone in America? I mean, this is probably half of American society still at this point who simply doesn't see it this way.

I mean, they just see a lot of strength. I mean, Trump, what Trump is doing is he's he's forcing our eur European allies to shoulder their finally their fair share of defense costs. Um, he's there was a massive free rider problem that he solved. He's he's brought peace or or a precursor to peace to the Middle East. Uh, he's solved a bunch of other wars uh that no one can probably name, but um he's claimed credit for. uh there's just a lot of strength and cutting through red tape and and norm busting where the norms were were preventing progress.

All of this tariff uh juggling is just a way of of resetting um everyone's expectations in a way that is will redown to the advantage of our country in the end and now everyone knows to really take us seriously. I mean, finally the the the sheriff's in town and rather than an oxygenarian who can't utter complete sentences, we have a strong near oxygenarian who speaks in a very persuasive word salad. Um, and uh, this is just this is fantastic. I mean, we're we're born again as a strong country.

How is it that you can't see that strength for what it is? Well, I guess the question that I see, you know, the the Canadian point of view would be a um to the side of that in a certain sense. I mean, because um to me, power in the 21st century is a combination of things. One, it's alliance networks and trade networks, right? That is this that the the scope of your trade networks is the size of your power. That's why Europe formed the European Union to get more powerful.

It's your scientific community and your engineering base which was until a year ago, you know, everyone was trying to get a tiny fragment of what America possessed in that space and you're just throwing those people to the to to the world um for free basically. And also I I I wouldn't underrate soft power as well. Like I think the idea of America as an aspirational place and ideal um has totally shattered. But, you know, like I don't think I need to explain that to Americans. I mean, you know, like there are a large number of Republicans who believe that the 2020 election was stolen, right?

Like there there is this is truly the collapse of the United States is apparent to people on both sides. And I mean, I think when you look at American polling, you you see people consistently who are under the impression that their country is in collapse, right? So, it's not like I I I certainly would never lecture Americans on this subject because I think they know all too well what's happening to them. And I don't think it's left and right that knows what's happening to them. They both have figured out that this system is breaking and the constitutional order is falling apart and everything that that sustained America from that constitutional order is collapsing.

Right? And so that that is apparent. It's just everyone is happy when their side is winning for now. But, you know, the the other side always comes in and then and then you're under the impression that the breakdown is total. So, I I mean um I don't think Americans need a lot of convincing that they're in a in a country that is uh not stable. I I I think that is that is very apparent to people on both sides. And I would also add that um you know the case I make in the book and which I really do believe is that Trump is really just a symptom, right?

And you can you can get infuriated by him and he he does damage in himself. But what he represents properly understood is a breakdown in trusted institutions, a breakdown in you know the American dream of your children doing better than you and a lot of other breakdowns. Yeah. So, I mean, I I I think blaming Trump is just a that's just a mug's game. That's not that's not clarity of of vision to me. Okay. We'll get into the details here. U first when when did you write the book?

It was published in 2022. I forget when in the year, but when when were you actually writing it? It was based on a magazine article I wrote in 2018. So, that was the first like I the first thing I wrote called The Next Civil War came out in 20 2018. None of my editors then believed it was they thought it was all alarmist. And then of course my publisher when he thought it was alarmist and then I've been called alarmist the entire publication history of it.

But um yeah I wor I worked on it from 2018 pretty much through through 2021. And how did you go about researching first describe what you do in the book? I mean you you basically in in a kind of semi-fictional way you I mean you there's it's a non-fiction book but they're they're fictional vignettes where you present a plausible case for how a civil war in the 21st century in America would unfold would un I mean you know just to be clear like what the strength of the book is really the models I mean and what I wanted to do was take these these political models of various things agricultural models um uh uh political decline in um faith in the legal system models uh you know the models from pre po about civil war because the United States is a textbook case of a country headed for civil war.

Take those models and th synthesize them um and then present sort of projections of what that might look like. All the while being very clear that like no one knows what the future brings. Some models are stronger than others. All models are wrong. Some models are interesting. And also, you know, I crossed America multiple times talking to white power groups and far-left groups and, you know, ordinary people being torn up by this. So, um, I I I I interviewed about 200 people for the book and I and and then I brought those insights together into one place and then provided sort of projections just to give flesh to the bones, right?

Because the models can be a bit dry if you're just trying to read them. You must have seen Alice Garland's film Civil War. Yes. Yeah. What did you think of that in terms of how it depicts the just the kind of the mechanics and and unraveling culture of of the situation? Look, it's a very entertaining film. I and I and I think it was a necessary film for its time. But, you know, for one thing, as a journalist who knows a lot of like war reporters, you probably know them, too.

That's not really what war reporters are like. Um that character. But also, you know, a the Civil War when I talk to the experts on it, what they don't imagine is like, you know, I mean, in his film, Texas and California are on the same side fighting the federal government. I mean, if Texas and California could agree on something, we wouldn't we wouldn't be having this conversation, right? Like like you wouldn't be having me on your show. Like and also I think the nature of the civil war that I'm talking about certainly isn't uh pitted armies against each other, you know, like blue coats versus gray coats in some kind of battle like it's the rise of political violence where it it explodes and then I mean what really becomes dangerous is that the attempt to suppress the political violence itself becomes a cause of the political violence.

And this is what has happened in all the um major civil wars from Algeria, Vietnam um and um and many many others Iraq, Syria and so on. So like the vision of political of civil war in my book is really about expanded political violence. It's not, you know, state against state or anything like that. Yeah. Yeah. That's a hang-up that some people have with the phrase civil war. They're imagining it makes better tele I mean it makes better movie, right? But like but that's not the way these things actually work.

Well, the the the film is uh really must be seen for at least one scene with the scene with Jesse Plemens where he's wearing those those red kids glasses. Incredible. Anytime a guy with a um AR-15 is digging a mass grave and he's wearing kids dime store glasses, you know that civilization has has properly unraveled. Well, I'm sure that I I know also like having talked to snipers in very like in various situations that those scenes are very close. That's like those scenes are not wrong.

I just think the political framework is wrong. But, you know, uh emotionally correct at a lot of points of that movie. So, you did uh you said 200 around 200 interviews for the Yeah. around that I mean around that if you if you include all the people I talked to just on the street and stuff. Yeah. But but talking to military experts and and people who've kind of modeled this out. Yeah. And people who I tried in the in the military stuff. I mean I talked to quite a few military people.

I tried to get you know multiple perspectives on civil war because you know America's been fighting these uh you know partisan conflicts for you know 80 years and there's a lot of expertise. Um I mean the vast bulk of that opinion is don't ever start one but there I wanted to get different perspectives on it and I did. So we'll talk about the problem with counterinsurgency and how that u you know creates the the chaos it's trying to solve. But um what are the risk factors as you view them for civil war in America?

Well, I I mean what the typical model like the model that I got from Prio is that civil wars tend to be a complex cascading system. So that means that it's not any one thing, right? It's not any it's it's what it is is it's the factors that combine into each other. Um and some of them are very deep. Environmental considerations play a big a surprisingly big role, but they they do like um they do play a big role. um a country becoming a minority majority country.

So like uh that that was one of the the biggest bellweathers of civil war uh in India and that's not a we know that that's coming in America with like white people are about to be by 2040 are will be a minority majority they will no longer be over 50% of the country wherever that happens in the world um there's violence there's political violence um and that's not a white people thing that happens in India it happens it happens in Africa it happens everywhere so how just linger on that point because this this is obviously politically toxic left of center.

I mean there's this mantra diversity is our strength which said in scare quotes uh makes you sound like a white supremacist like oh yeah diversity is really our strength. Oh tell me about it. But this this seems to be a pattern where in a a truly pluralistic open society is uh vulnerable to this um negative attractor on the landscape which is diversity does actually undermine social trust. I this was Robert Putnham's argument. Yeah. No, I mean and I say this as a d I mean I am a multiculturalist to my fingertips like to to my essence.

I was raised in a multicultural society. I cons it's the only society I could live in. But there's no question that that that it does undermine social trust and that and that it leads and that it has causes to that. But I mean what is more interesting there's a really fascinating study by out of India where you know the the sort of un the Muslims are sort of the lower cast in India and Hindus are higher and when Muslims get higher spending power in relation to Hindus so not higher but just coming up to equality that's you you can literally chart the violence on that nature.

on that reality. So it's not Hindus losing, it's just losing in relation to a a sort of underclass, right? And this is a very horrific aspect of human nature that as I said is not, you know, that's not some problem with just white Americans. Um, you know, American diversity, I mean, it is it it is the one of the most diverse countries in the world, I think, by far. Like I think it is the most diverse country in the world by far. Right. um like other countries talk about it, America actually lives it in a very in in a way that is um unique frankly and a lot of the American strengths is a lot of its economic strengths, a lot of its uh political strengths, a lot of its aspirational strengths, its soft power strengths have come from that but you know that's that's one element of this as well.

The other one is just the decline in trust in institutions that's been on course since about 1980, right? And which which is just a continuous line that and it's all institutions. It's the church, it's the media, it's government, it's the boy scouts, it's everything. And so that's that's also Putnham talked about that a lot, right? So you have this decline in social trust. Then you also have inequality at uh both horizontal and vert vertical inequality at these just simply unbelievable levels. I mean much higher than America in 1776.

Right? So you have um economic stressors, you have political stressors, you have social stressors. Um you know they're what they're what the CIA calls a threat multiplier, right? And America has a lot of threat multipliers at the time. As I said, it's not one thing. It's just all of them folding in on each other. Add to that. I mean, I didn't even mention hyperartisanship. Yeah. Right. Which is like which is sort of uh you know the the the tip of the spear, if you will, but it but that too is you know that's a very classic precursor to civil war.

Yeah. That's the one that is truly visible I think to everyone. I mean, obviously there's wealth inequality and and uh other um other of these factors, but those can be kind of out of sight and out of mind to many people much of the time. What you really can't ignore and certainly if you have any online life uh you and consuming the stream of current events on any level, you can't ignore this hyperartisanship which seems to have achieved a new level. I mean there just there's just frank hatred of the other happening in our society politically and there's just a you know one norm violation after another in the sense of there's like there's no expectation of fairness or collegiality at the level of politics anymore.

It's simply if you can do something and get away with it then you're going to do it now so lest it be done to you the next time around. Um, and so there's a kind of a tit fortat sort of political um, war happening here, which is uh, seems genuinely new. I mean, I'm sure we've had periods of it in the past that that people can recall or reference, but it's pretty new since about 1876. Like the last time it was this bad was you're really going into the preodern era to get hyperartisanship levels like you have now.

genuinely like there there was not this level of hyperartisanship during the Great Depression for instance, right? Violence leads to violence. Politics exists so that we don't have to kill each other. We can talk through our problems. Once that goes, we're really in a chaotic realm. But why do you think trust in institutions has eroded as fully as it has?