Posting without reading the article warning!
That said, and I will read it later when I have time, I’ve thought the same (that we are living in particularly acrimonious times), but a brief review of American history shows, I believe, the acrimony of our times are not all that particular to our age. It’s just more observable.
From the majority of the populace during the Revolution itself being quite ambivalent to the whole affair, romantic revisions aside, to the fierce fighting between the Whigs and Torries, the new Republicans split from the Democratic Republican Party, up to the partisan bickering over race, war hawks vs isolationists during WWI and WWII, all the way through the turbulent 60’s, there really wasnt much less “division” in our country than what we see today.
We just see it and experience it more often thanks to “social” media. I don’t see CWII starting anytime soon because quite frankly the majority in this country are much like the majority throughout history: we are too busy just paying bills to start a revolution.
“I don’t see CWII starting anytime soon because quite frankly the majority in this country are much like the majority throughout history: we are too busy just paying bills to start a revolution.”
Two reasons I doubt there will be any sort of sustained civil unrest in the near future:
Everyone generally is fatter than in the past, but the poorest are now the most likely to be obese. That hasn’t happened before. Hard to imagine well fed people deciding to undergo hardship in order to revolt.
The eligible voters that haven’t deigned to exercise their right to vote have outnumbered any single political party for 100+ years. We haven’t had even 65% eligible voter turnout since 1908. Seems like more would at least try voting first if anything political was bothering them before they march on to battle.
Freegards