Transcript: Is the U.S. on the Verge of Civil War? | Jan 11, 2022

Steve Paikin sits in his home office, which has the Ontario flag and a framed photograph of Walter Kronkite hanging on white walls behind him.
Steve wears a light blue dress shirt and a blue checkered tie. He is clean-shaven and has short brown hair.

Text reads, Is the U.S. Heading Toward Civil War?
@spaikin @theagenda

Steve says, YOU NO DOUBT SAW
SOME OF THE COVERAGE LAST WEEK
OF THE FIRST ANNIVERSARY OF THE
EVENTS OF JANUARY 6, 2021.
MANY OF US WATCHED IN
ASTONISHMENT A YEAR AGO, AS THE
CAPITOL BUILDING IN
WASHINGTON, D.C. CAME UNDER
ATTACK.
SOMEONE WHO PROBABLY WASN'T
SURPRISED WAS CANADIAN AUTHOR
STEPHEN MARCHE, WHO HAS BEEN
PREDICTING A SECOND AMERICAN
CIVIL WAR FOR SOME TIME.
HE CHARACTERIZES WHAT HE THINKS
IS COMING IN HIS NEW BOOK "THE
NEXT CIVIL WAR: DISPATCHES FROM
THE AMERICAN FUTURE.”

The book’s cover is half red and half blue with a white rip down the middle. It sits on a white shelf in front of a white brick wall.

Steve continues, AND WITH
THAT, WE WELCOME STEPHEN MARCHE
BACK TO OUR PROGRAM FROM SEATON
VILLAGE IN ONTARIO'S CAPITAL
CITY.
STEPHEN, IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU
AGAIN.
HOW ARE YOU DOING?

Text reads, Dangers Lurk.

Stephen says, GOOD TO SEE YOU
TOO.

Steve says, LET'S START BY ME
PUTTING TO YOU A QUOTE THAT IS
IN YOUR BOOK.
THIS IS FROM RETIRED U.S. ARMY
COLONEL PETER MANSOUR WHO SAID:
“IT WOULD NOT BE LIKE THE FIRST CIVIL WAR,
WITH ARMIES MANEUVERING ON THE BATTLEFIELD.
I THINK IT WOULD VERY MUCH BE A FREE-FOR-ALL, NEIGHBOUR ON NEIGHBOUR
BASED ON BELIEFS AND SKIN COLOURS AND RELIGION.
AND IT WOULD BE HORRIFIC.”
WELL, THAT CERTAINLY SETS THE
SCENE.
AND MY FIRST QUESTION FOR YOU
IS: HOW MUCH IN YOUR VIEW DID
DONALD TRUMP'S PRESIDENCY
CONTRIBUTE TO YOUR SENSE OF AN
IMPENDING CIVIL WAR?

Stephen says, VERY LITTLE, TO BE
HONEST.
YOU KNOW, I THINK ONE OF THE
ASPECTS OF THIS BOOK IS TRYING
TO GET BELOW THE SORT OF HORSE
RACE POLITICS THAT DOMINATES
COVERAGE.

Text reads, Stephen Marche. Author, “The Next Civil War”

Stephen continues, YOU KNOW, WHAT MARJORIE TAYLOR
GREENE'S TWITTER FEED IS SAYING
OR WHAT TED CRUZ DID OR DIDN'T
DO ON FOX NEWS, AND DONALD TRUMP
OF COURSE WAS THE MASTER OF THAT
KIND OF AGGRESSIVE POLITICS.
THE TRENDS HERE ARE REALLY DEEP.
I THINK THE THING I FOUND REALLY
HARD TO EXPLAIN, PARTICULARLY TO
LIBERAL AMERICANS, IS THAT I
BELIEVE EVERYTHING IN THIS BOOK
WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF HILLARY
CLINTON HAD BEEN ELECTED IN
2016.

Steve says, THAT'S A FASCINATING
INSIGHT.
BUT I DO -- LET ME PUT IT THIS
WAY.
I'M A LOT OLDER THAN YOU AND I
WAS ALIVE FOR THE
ASSASSINATIONS OF MARTIN LUTHER KING--

Stephen says, INDEED.

Steve says, AND
BOBBY KENNEDY -- YOU DON'T HAVE
TO RUB IT IN.
BUT ANYWAY, I DO REMEMBER
WHEN --

Stephen says, YOU BROUGHT IT UP.

Steve says, -- POLITICAL
ASSASSINATION SEEMED FAR TOO
FREQUENT.
IT WAS HORRIFIC.
AND YET AMERICA DID NOT DESCEND
INTO A CIVIL WAR AT THAT TIME,
EVEN THOUGH IT SURE LOOKED LIKE
IT MIGHT HAPPEN.
WHY DO YOU THINK WHAT WE'RE
SEEING TODAY COULD LEAD TO
WORSE?

Stephen says, WELL, THE '60s
WERE VERY DRAMATIC AND THERE
WERE OF COURSE MAJOR CONFLICTS
AND 140 CITIES BURNED AFTER THE
ASSASSINATION OF MLK.
AND POLITICAL ASSASSINATION IS
VERY COMMON IN AMERICAN HISTORY.
YOU KNOW, BASICALLY ONE OUT OF
11 PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN
ASSASSINATED, A LITTLE LESS NOW.
BUT TO COMPARE THAT, BRITAIN HAS
ONLY HAD ONE PRIME MINISTER
ASSASSINATED.
SO AS ONE SECRET SERVICE
AGENT SAID TO ME,
ASSASSINATION IS PART OF THE
POLITICAL PROCESS IN THE UNITED
STATES.
WHAT'S CHANGED NOW, WHAT'S
DIFFERENT FROM THE '60s IS
THAT THE INSTITUTIONS ARE NO
LONGER PREPARED TO DEAL WITH THE
FALLOUT FROM VIOLENCE.
SO, YOU DON'T HAVE THE SAME
LEGITIMACY OF THE POLITICAL
INSTITUTIONS, YOU DON'T HAVE THE
SAME LEGITIMACY IN THE LEGAL
INSTITUTIONS.
IF YOU TAKE AN EVENT LIKE
WATERGATE, IN HINDSIGHT THAT WAS
EVIDENCE OF THE SYSTEM WORKING.
YOU HAD A PRESS THAT
INVESTIGATED CORRUPTION.
YOU HAD AN AUDIENCE THAT
BELIEVED THE PRESS.
YOU HAD POLITICIANS WHO THEN
NEEDED TO RESPOND TO THE MASS
SENSE OF CORRUPTION.
AND THEN FROM THAT, YOU HAD
POLITICAL-LEGAL ACTION FROM BOTH
PARTIES.
NONE OF THAT WOULD HAPPEN TODAY.
THAT'S WHY AMERICA IS SO MUCH
MORE VULNERABLE, IT'S BECAUSE
ITS INSTITUTIONS ARE IN DECLINE.

Steve says, NOW, IT SEEMS TO ME
BACK IN THE DAY THE BIGGEST
CLEAVAGE IN THE UNITED STATES,
OR ONE OF THEM ANYWAY, WAS SORT
OF LEFT VERSUS RIGHT.
AND TODAY IT FEELS TO ME -- AND
YOU CAN TELL ME IF YOU AGREE OR
DISAGREE -- IT SEEMS TO ME THE
BIGGEST CLEAVAGE IS SANE VERSUS
INSANE.
DOES THAT MAKE CIVIL WAR MORE
LIKELY?

Stephen says, YES BUT, YOU KNOW,
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO
REMEMBER THAT YOUR SANE AND THE
OTHER SIDE'S SANE ARE TOTALLY
OPPOSITES, RIGHT?
THEY ALSO REGARD THE INSANITY AS
TAKING OVER BUT FROM THE OTHER
SIDE.
YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN
COMPLETE DISAGREEMENT ABOUT
BASIC FACTS, ABOUT THE BASIC
ROLE OF GOVERNMENT, ABOUT WHAT
FREEDOM MEANS, AND ULTIMATELY
WHAT THIS CIVIL WAR IS ABOUT --
WILL BE ABOUT IS ABOUT THE
MEANING OF AMERICA, AND THAT
STRUGGLE KIND OF IS PERMANENT.
SO, YEAH, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I
THINK IT'S NOT A DEBATE OVER
POLICY, IT'S A DEBATE ABOUT
VERY, VERY FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE NATURE OF, YOU KNOW,
THE COUNTRY ITSELF.

Steve says, WE TALKED A SECOND
AGO ABOUT THE ROLE OF
ASSASSINATION IN AMERICAN
POLITICAL HISTORY, AND I DO WANT
TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT A BIT RIGHT
NOW.
AND I HAVE TO SAY YOU DID WRITE
A CHAPTER IN THIS BOOK THAT
BASICALLY DESCRIBES THE
CHARACTERISTICS THAT YOU BELIEVE
THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSIN
WILL HAVE AND HOW HE WILL DO IT,
AND IT IS A HE, AS YOU SUGGEST.
AND -- OKAY.
WHY DID YOU PUT ALL THAT IN THE
BOOK?
LET'S START THERE.

Text reads, Assassination.

Stephen says, WELL, I MEAN, WHAT
I WANTED TO CAPTURE THROUGH
THESE IMAGINED SCENARIOS IS
HOW -- YOU KNOW, IT'S A WAY OF
SORT OF GIVING A HOOK TO VARIOUS
DIFFERENT KIND OF ABSTRACT
CATEGORIES.
SO, ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES IS
HYPERPARTISANSHIP WHERE, YOU
KNOW, AMERICANS DON'T WANT THEIR
CHILDREN TO MARRY PEOPLE OF
OTHER PARTIES.
THE HATRED REALLY DRIVES
ENGAGEMENT, LIKE HATRED IS THE
NUMBER ONE WAY THAT POLITICS
WORKS IN AMERICA NOW.
AND THAT HATRED BUBBLES UP.
AT THE SAME TIME AS YOU HAVE THE
RISE OF WHAT THE EXPERTS CALL
STOCHASTIC TERRORISM, WHICH IS
SELF-GENERATING TERRORISTS, AND
SO IS A WAY OF KIND OF CAPTURING
THAT REALITY.
ALSO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE
REALLY IMPORTANT PART OF THAT
BOOK IS NOT THAT PRESIDENTIAL
ASSASSINATION IS POSSIBLE,
THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN TRUE IN
AMERICAN HISTORY.
I THINK WHAT THAT SHOWS IS IF A
PRESIDENT WERE TO BE
ASSASSINATED, IT WOULD BE ALMOST
IMPOSSIBLE FOR THERE TO BE
NATIONAL UNITY AROUND IT.
HALF THE COUNTRY WOULD PROBABLY
REGARD IT AS A GOOD THING AND
THE OTHER HALF PROBABLY
WOULDN'T.
WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE '60s,
WHEN JFK WAS ASSASSINATED, IT
WAS GENUINELY TREATED AS A
NATIONAL CATASTROPHE, AND THAT
COULD NOT BE SAID ABOUT THE
PRESIDENCY OF DONALD TRUMP OR
JOE BIDEN OR BARACK OBAMA, FOR
THAT MATTER.

Steve says, NO, AND IN FACT THE
SAME THING HAPPENED, WHATEVER IT
WAS, 41, ALMOST 42 YEARS AGO
WHEN THE ATTEMPT WAS MADE ON
RONALD REAGAN'S LIFE, AND IT
DIDN'T MATTER IF YOU WERE A
REPUBLICAN OR A DEMOCRAT AT THAT
TIME, EVERYONE WAS MORTIFIED BY
THAT INSTANCE.
I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT WITH
THE QUESTION IS, YOU DO GO INTO
SOME DETAIL ABOUT WHY YOU THINK
THE ASSASSIN WILL DO WHAT HE
WILL DO, HOW HE WILL DO WHAT HE
WILL DO, AND I JUST WONDER IF
YOU HAD ANY NERVOUSNESS ABOUT
PUTTING THAT MUCH SPECIFICITY
ABOUT, AFTER ALL, SOMETHING THAT
IS A RATHER TABOO TOPIC OUT
THERE FOR PUBLIC DISPLAY?

Stephen says, WHY WOULD IT BE
BAD TO PRODUCE MODELS -- THOSE
ARE MODELS THAT ARE DRAWN FROM
THE BEST AVAILABLE MODELS ON
TERRORISM.
I DON'T THINK CONFRONTING THE
POSSIBILITY OF THAT REALITY CAN
BE NEGATIVE.
I MEAN, PUTTING YOUR HEAD IN THE
SAND WHEN IT COMES TO AMERICA
IS -- YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT A
GOOD OPTION.
THIS IS NOT GOING TO LEAD TO
BETTER OUTCOMES.
SUDDENLY PRETENDING THAT THERE
ISN'T THIS VIOLENCE OUT THERE IS
NOT GOING TO DIMINISH THE
VIOLENCE AT ALL.

Steve asks, WHAT DO YOU THINK
THE ASSASSIN'S MOTIVE WOULD BE?

Stephen says, WELL, I MEAN, YOU
KNOW, IT WOULD BE POLITICAL
LOATHING OF A REALLY PROFOUND
WAY.
THE BOOK GOES INTO REAL
SPECIFICS OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL
CHARACTERISTICS THAT TEND TO
MAKE UP TERRORISTS: SENSES OF
LOSS, SENSES OF PERSONAL
GRANDEUR.
THEY ACTUALLY HAVE INCREDIBLY
STRONG MODELS FOR THE
PSYCHOLOGICAL MAKEUP OF
ASSASSINS AND POLITICAL RIDERS
AND SO ON, AND IT WAS JUST AN
ATTEMPT TO RECREATE WHAT THAT
WOULD LOOK LIKE.
YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THE MODEL.
I SORT OF KIND OF PUT FLESH ON
THE BONES AND MAKE IT FEEL LIKE
WHAT IT WOULD ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE
IF IT HAPPENED.

Steve says, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR,
YOU DON'T WORRY YOU'RE PUTTING
ANY IDEAS IN PEOPLE'S HEADS?

Stephen says, OH NO, THE IDEAS ARE
OUT THERE, THE IDEA THAT I'M
CONTRIBUTING TO THAT, I MEAN,
THOSE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY OUT
THERE, AND YOU KNOW WHAT, THEY
ARE NOT READING THE ESSAYS OF
TORONTO JOURNALISTS.
THAT'S NOT THEIR PRIMARY
CULTURAL CONSUMPTION, IS LIKE,
ME.

Text reads, tvo.org/theagenda AgendaConnect@tvo.org

Steve says, THANK YOU FOR
SETTING THE TABLE FOR THE
DISCUSSION TO COME, STEPHEN,
BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO BRING
SOME OTHER VOICES INTO OUR
CONVERSATION RIGHT NOW.
THEY ARE ALL JOINING US FROM THE
AMERICAN CAPITAL.
SO LET'S WELCOME JULIE WRONSKI,
WHO IS A PROFESSOR AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI
SPECIALIZING IN POLITICAL
PSYCHOLOGY AND AMERICAN
POLITICS.

Julie sits in front of a decorative orange and red patterned rug hanging on a white wall. She has long brown hair and wears dark-rimmed glasses and a black blazer.

Steve continues, NATE HOCHMAN, WHO IS THE ISI
FELLOW AT THE NATIONAL REVIEW
AND NOVAK FELLOW AT THE FUND FOR
AMERICAN
STUDIES.

Nate sits in front of a black bookcase full of books. A small plant and a framed photograph sit on one of the shelves. He has thick reddish-brown hair and a neatly trimmed red beard. He wears a blue button-down shirt.

Steve continues, AND DYLAN MATTHEWS, WHO IS A
SENIOR CORRESPONDENT AT THE NEWS
AND OPINION WEBSITE, VOX.

Dylan sits in front of a colorful patchwork-style portrait hanging on a white wall. He wears dark-rimmed glasses and has short brown hair with a neatly trimmed beard. He wears a black t-shirt and over-ear headphones.

Steve says, AND WE WELCOME ALL OF YOU THREE
AS WELL TO OUR CONVERSATION
ABOUT STEPHEN MARCHE'S NEW BOOK,
OF WHICH I'D LIKE TO READ
ANOTHER EXCERPT TO PROPEL US TO
THE NEXT AREA OF OUR
CONVERSATION.
HERE'S WHAT STEPHEN WRITES:
“AMERICA IS BECOMING TWO AMERICAS,
AMERICAS THAT HATE EACH OTHER,
THAT DON’T SPEAK TO EACH OTHER.
NOONE OCCUPIES THE MIDDLE GROUND ANYMORE;
EVERYONE HAS SEPARATED INTO ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER,
ONE PARTY OR THE OTHER, NO MATTER WHAT THEY MAY CLAIM.”
OKAY, I JUST WANT TO GET THE THREE OF
YOU GENERALLY SPEAKING ON THE
THESIS OF THIS BOOK, WHICH IS
BASICALLY, THE NEXT CIVIL WAR IS
COMING, AND IF WE WANT TO AVOID
IT, THERE ARE SOME STEPS, PRETTY
SIGNIFICANT, THAT NEED TO BE
TAKEN.
JULIE, CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT,
PLEASE?

Text reads, Taking Sides.
Julie Wronski. University of Mississippi.

Julie says, HI, YES.
FIRST, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME
ON THE SHOW.
SO, I WANT TO DRAW ON SOME OF MY
OWN RESEARCH THAT LOOKS AT
PARTISAN DIVISIONS IN THE UNITED
STATES AND HOW WE THINK ABOUT
PARTISANS AND HOW WE THINK ABOUT
FELLOW CITIZENS AS BEING EITHER
AMERICAN OR UN-AMERICAN.
AND A LOT OF MY RESEARCH FINDS
THAT THERE IS A SMALL BUT
NON-TRIVIAL, SIGNIFICANT PORTION
OF AMERICANS WHO THINK ABOUT
THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS,
ESPECIALLY OUT-PARTY CITIZENS AS
UN-AMERICAN, MAYBE AROUND THE
MAGNITUDE OF 15 TO 20%.
SO THIS IS SOMEWHAT DISTURBING
THAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT PEOPLE
THAT TECHNICALLY ARE CITIZENS AS
THESE UN-AMERICAN FOREIGN
THREATS.
AND THAT'S FAIRLY DANGEROUS TO
HAVING NATIONAL COMMUNITY,
ESPECIALLY IN A TIME LIKE A
NATIONAL PANDEMIC, LIKE
COVID-19.
SO, I AM DEFINITELY CONCERNED
THAT THERE ARE THESE DIVISIONS
SET UP.
WE SEE A LOT OF PARTISAN SORTING
WHERE EACH POLITICAL PARTY IS
INCREASINGLY CHARACTERIZED BY
ONE SET OF PEOPLE THAT IS
DEFINED BY RACE, RELIGION,
GEOGRAPHY, GENDER, VALUES, AND
IDEOLOGY.
SO, WE ARE SEEING THE TWO PARTIES
ARE VERY DIFFERENT ACROSS THE
AISLE OF WHO THEY REPRESENT,
WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN, AND WHERE
THEY LIVE.
SO, IN SOME WAYS A LOT OF
ON THE GROUND, THE PUBLIC
OPINION AND THE PARTISAN
COMPOSITION OF AMERICA REALLY
DOES ALIGN WITH STEPHEN MARCHE'S
PREMISE.

Steve says, I TAKE YOUR POINT ON
ALL THAT.
BUT I GUESS THE DEFINITION OF
CIVIL WAR THAT STEPHEN USES IN
HIS BOOK IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO
AT SOME POINT SEE HUNDREDS, IF
NOT THOUSANDS, OF PEOPLE KILLED
EVERY DAY BECAUSE, TAKEN TO ITS
LOGICAL --

Stephen says, NO, NOT EVERY DAY.

Steve says, NOT EVERY DAY?
HOW OFTEN, STEPHEN?

Stephen says, THE TECHNICAL
MARKER FOR A CIVIL WAR IS 1,000
COMBATANT DEATHS A YEAR.
THAT'S WHAT AN INSURGENT
CONFLICT LOOKS LIKE.
IT'S NOT THOUSANDS OF DEATHS A
DAY.
THAT'S A VERY HIGH NUMBER.

Steve says, THAT BEING THE CASE,
CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT HAPPENING
IN YOUR COUNTRY?

Julie says, IN SOME WAYS AREN'T
WE ALREADY THERE?
HOW DO WE DEFINE COMBATANTS, HOW
DO WE DEFINE VIOLENCE?
WHEN DO SCHOOL SHOOTINGS OR MASS
SHOOTINGS OR MASS HOMICIDES
COUNT INTO THAT THRESHOLD.
STEPHEN CALLED IT STOCHASTIC
FIGHTING, THESE KIND OF
UNCOORDINATED, INDIVIDUAL
ATTACKS.
SO, IF WE START RELINKING OR
RECONCEPTUALIZING A LOT OF THE
VIOLENCE WE ALREADY SEE IN
AMERICA IN THESE TERMS, WE MIGHT
ACTUALLY BE FAIRLY CLOSE TO
STEPHEN'S THRESHOLD OF THAT
1,000 DEATHS.
SO IN SOME WAYS IT IS
DEFINITIONAL, BUT IT'S ALSO IN
SOME WAYS, BECAUSE IT'S NOT
COORDINATED, IT MIGHT ALREADY BE
APPEARING IN WAYS THAT ARE
NATURAL.
SO, SAY SOMETHING LIKE
JANUARY 6TH MIGHT ALREADY BE AT
THAT THRESHOLD.
AND IT DOESN'T TAKE A LOT OF
PEOPLE -- YOU KNOW, IF IT ONLY
TAKES A THOUSAND OR 10,000
PEOPLE TO HAVE VIOLENCE TO MEET
THIS THRESHOLD, WE MIGHT BE
THERE.
THAT'S A FRACTION OF THE
AMERICAN POPULATION.

Steve says, NO, THAT'S A GOOD
POINT TO PUT ON THE RECORD HERE,
IS THAT IT'S NOT -- IF THERE IS
A NEXT CIVIL WAR, IT'S NOT GOING
TO BE LIKE THE BLUE AND THE GRAY
OF THE 1860s WHERE PEOPLE LINE
UP AND START SHOOTING AT EACH
OTHER WITH MUSKETS, IT'S GOING
TO BE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY.
AND I GUESS, NATE, I WANT TO GET
YOU ON THE RECORD NOW AS TO WHAT
YOUR VIEW IS OF THE THESIS BEING
PUT FORWARD BY STEPHEN MARCHE.

Text reads, Nate Hochman. National Review.

Nate says, WELL, LOOK, I AGREE
WITH STEPHEN'S TAKE THAT
INSTITUTIONAL BREAKDOWN HAS A
LOT TO DO WITH THE DIVISIONS IN
AMERICA TODAY, AND I THINK
THINGS ARE GETTING REALLY BAD IN
AMERICA.
WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE ON OUR WAY
TO A CIVIL WAR I THINK IS
CERTAINLY OPEN FOR DEBATE.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE AT A POINT
WHERE WE'RE AT A CIVIL WAR YET.
JANUARY 6TH, FOR EXAMPLE, WAS
LESS THAN 10 DEATHS.
THE BLM RIOTS THE SUMMER BEFORE
WERE SOMEWHERE IN THE BALLPARK
OF ABOUT 50 DEATHS, ALTHOUGH
THERE WAS A LOT OF DESTRUCTION.
SO WE'RE SEEING AN ENORMOUS
AMOUNT OF CIVIC BREAKDOWN
CERTAINLY AND WE'RE SEEING A
LOSS OF TRUST IN OUR
INSTITUTIONS.
THAT COULD GO A LOT OF DIFFERENT
WAYS, THOUGH.
YOU HAVE SEEN COUNTRIES GO
THROUGH THIS PROCESS BEFORE
WITHOUT DESCENDING FULLY INTO
CIVIL WAR.
SO, I THINK I'M A LITTLE SLIGHTLY
MORE OPTIMISTIC IF NOT NAIVE
THAN STEPHEN IS.
I WOULD JUST ADD, THOUGH, THAT I
THINK THE BREAKDOWN IN
CONFIDENCE IN OUR INSTITUTIONS,
THE CONTEXT THAT NEEDS TO BE
ADDED THERE, IS A LARGE PART OF
THAT IS THE RESULT OF THE
BEHAVIOUR OF THE PEOPLE WHO RUN
OUR INSTITUTIONS THEMSELVES.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF
TALK IN D.C. CIRCLES, FOR
EXAMPLE, ABOUT SORT OF THE
PROBLEM WITH THE DECLINING
TRUST IN INSTITUTIONS.
THERE'S NOT AS MUCH
SELF-REFLECTION AS I'D LIKE TO
SEE FROM THE ACTUAL PEOPLE WHO
ARE RUNNING OUR INSTITUTIONS
ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT THEIR ROLE
WAS IN DECLINE IN TRUST.

Text reads, Nate Hochman @njhochman

Nate continues, I MEAN, I THINK THAT HAS TO BE A
LARGE PART OF THE CONVERSATION.
THE DIVISIONS BETWEEN AMERICANS
TODAY AREN'T JUST LEFT-RIGHT,
THEY ARE AN INSULAR UPPER CLASS
OF ABOUT THE UPPER ONE-THIRD OF
AMERICAN SOCIETY AND MIDDLE
AMERICA, AND I THINK THAT THOSE
DIVISIONS HAVE BEEN EXACERBATED
BY PEOPLE AT THE TOP BEHAVING IN
WAYS THAT ALIENATE MIDDLE
AMERICANS, AND THEN TURNING
AROUND AND LECTURING MIDDLE
AMERICANS ABOUT NOT HAVING
CONFIDENCE IN THEIR
INSTITUTIONS.
SO, PART OF THESE DIVISIONS I
THINK HAVE TO DO WITH THE FACT
THAT THE INSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITIES THAT WE
TRADITIONALLY LOOK TO AS A
SOURCE OF EXPERTISE, A SOURCE OF
AUTHORITY ON ANY NUMBER OF
THINGS, HAVE RUINED THEIR OWN
LEGITIMACY WITH A LARGE SWATH OF
AMERICANS.
AND ANY SORT OF PATH TO RENEWAL
AND HEALING HAS TO TAKE THAT
INTO ACCOUNT.

Steve says, DYLAN, LET ME GET
YOU ON THE RECORD AS TO WHETHER
AMERICA COULD BE HEADED FOR
ANOTHER CIVIL WAR.

Text reads, Dylan Matthews. Vox.

Dylan says, I DON'T FIND CIVIL
WAR TO BE A USEFUL TERM FOR THE
KIND OF CIVIC CONFLICT THAT WE
HAVE IN THE UNITED STATES RIGHT
NOW, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF THE
SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL CONTEXT
IN THE UNITED STATES.
OFTEN IN THESE DISCUSSIONS,
PEOPLE LIKE STEPHEN OR THE
POLITICAL SCIENTIST BARBARA
WALTER, WHO HAS BEEN VERY VOCAL
AND RAISING ALARMS ABOUT A
POTENTIAL SECOND CIVIL WAR, WILL
BE CAREFUL TO STATE THAT THEY'RE
TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE AN
INSURGENT CONFLICT, SOMETHING
LIKE 1,000 DEATHS PER YEAR, AS
STEPHEN SAID.
WALTER HAS DRAWN ANALOGIES TO
SOMETHING LIKE THE TROUBLES IN
NORTHERN IRELAND.
IN AMERICAN POLITICAL CONTEXT,
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE WORDS
CIVIL WAR TO MEAN SOMETHING
RATHER SPECIFIC, WHICH IS ARMIES
ON BATTLEFIELDS MOBILIZED BY
STATES.
THE FIRST AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
KILLED 2.5% OF THE AMERICAN
POPULATION.
THE EQUIVALENT TODAY WOULD BE
SOMETHING LIKE 7 MILLION
AMERICANS BEING KILLED IN ARMED
CONFLICT.
THERE JUST ISN'T EVIDENCE TO MY
EYES THAT ENOUGH AMERICANS
SUPPORT VIOLENCE OF THAT SCALE
THAT THE KIND OF BREAKDOWN IS SO
SECTIONAL AND REGIONAL AS IT WAS
IN THE 1860s.

Text reads, Dylan Matthews @dylanmatt

Dylan continues, IF YOU LOOK AT A PROVINCE LIKE
QUEBEC, THERE'S NO ANALOGUE IN
THE UNITED STATES FOR THE KIND
OF SOVEREIGNIST NATIONALIST
MOVEMENT OF CAQ OR PQ.
THERE'S NO CALIFORNIAN
SOVEREIGNIST MOVEMENT, THERE'S
NO TEXAS SOVEREIGNIST MOVEMENT,
AND MOST OF THE CLEAVAGES ARE
INTERNAL TO STATES.
IT'S AUSTIN VERSUS RURAL TEXAS.
IT'S SAN FRANCISCO VERSUS
HUMBOLDT COUNTY.
SO, AM I CONCERNED ABOUT LOW
LEVEL VIOLENCE, ASSASSINATIONS?
YES.
THOUGH I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT,
AS YOU SAID, STEVE, TO POINT OUT
THAT IN THE 1960s, THE
ABSOLUTE RATES OF THOSE THINGS
WERE MUCH HIGHER.
AND WHILE THE DEATH OF PEOPLE
LIKE JFK WERE MOURNED AS
TRAGEDIES, THE DEATHS OF PEOPLE
LIKE MALCOLM X OR MARTIN LUTHER
KING, JR. WERE NOT UNIVERSALLY
MOURNED AS TRAGEDIES AND WERE
CELEBRATED IN CERTAIN QUARTERS.
SO, I DON'T THINK THE SITUATION
IS AS BAD AS IT WAS IN THE
MID-1960s, THE EARLY 1970s, WHEN
YOU WERE AVERAGING ABOUT FIVE
MOSTLY NON-LETHAL BOMBINGS IN A
DAY IN THE UNITED STATES, MOSTLY
FROM POLITICAL GROUPS.
BUT I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO
DIMINISH THE IMPORTANCE OF
POLARIZATION IN AMERICAN SOCIETY
RIGHT NOW.
I THINK SORT OF ALARMISM AND USE
OF THE TERM "CIVIL WAR"
SPECIFICALLY IN AN AMERICAN
CONTEXT IS NOT AN ACCURATE
REFLECTION OF THE CURRENT STATE
OF PLAY.

Steve says, STEPHEN, YOU'VE HAD
TO DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST THE
USE OF THE TERM "CIVIL WAR" IN
THE PAST AND YOU JUST HEARD THE
WORD "ALARMIST" USED IN RELATION
TO IT.
DO YOU WANT TO DEFEND YOURSELF
ON THAT?

Stephen says, WELL, I MEAN, I'VE
BEEN CALLED ALARMIST, YOU KNOW,
FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, AND I'M
STILL CALLED ALARMIST TODAY.
BUT YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THE THING
IS THE UNIMAGINABLE KEEPS
HAPPENING.
YOU WOULD SAY, IF YOU HAD GONE
BACK FIVE YEARS AGO AND SAID
THERE WILL BE TANKS ON THE
STREETS OF WASHINGTON ON
JULY 4TH, NO ONE WOULD HAVE
BELIEVED YOU, BUT THAT HAPPENED.
I WAS ON YOUR SHOW SAYING THE
MILITIAS ARE COMING AND BEING
ROUNDLY ATTACKED FOR IT AND SIX
MONTHS BEFORE JANUARY 6TH
HAPPENED.
SO, I'M USED TO THIS PROCESS.
I WOULD TAKE DYLAN'S POINT
SERIOUSLY, THOUGH.
LIKE, WE ARE TALKING HERE --
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE
CIVIL WAR.
I DON'T THINK ANYONE IS TALKING
ABOUT THE LEVEL OF DESTRUCTION
OF THE FIRST CIVIL WAR.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT INSURGENCE,
EXACTLY THAT.
AMERICA IS SO BIG AND SO
DIVERSE, BOTH IN TERMS OF
POPULATION AND IN TERMS OF
GEOGRAPHY, THAT HISTORICAL
ANALOGUES -- IN ITS OWN HISTORY
OR ANYONE ELSE'S HISTORY ARE
REALLY HARD TO GET TO.
IN THE BOOK I DO GET AT THAT.
WHEN YOU'RE TALKING TO THESE
MILITARY EXPERTS ABOUT WHAT IT
WOULD BE LIKE TO OCCUPY THE
UNITED STATES, THERE'S NO REAL
MODEL BECAUSE NO COUNTRY IS LIKE
AMERICA.
NO COUNTRY HAS EVER BEEN LIKE
AMERICA.
WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS
LARGE-SCALE POLITICAL VIOLENCE,
AND I DO THINK IT'S CORRECT TO
FEAR LARGE-SCALE POLITICAL
VIOLENCE, LIKE NOT SMALL
AMOUNTS, AND THE INABILITY OF
THE GOVERNMENT TO CREATE ORDER
FOR IT.
I WOULD SAY ABOUT THE POINT
THAT, YOU KNOW, THE ELITES HAVE
TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS
DECLINE IN INSTITUTIONS.
THAT'S TRUE AS FAR AS IT GOES.
YOU KNOW, I THINK WHEN YOU SEE
THE INABILITY TO EVEN MOURN A
CAPITOL POLICE OFFICER -- LIKE,
THEY LITERALLY CAN'T GET
TOGETHER TO MOURN SOMEBODY WHO
HAS DIED PROTECTING THEM.
WHEN YOU SEE -- LIKE, FROM A
CANADIAN POINT OF VIEW THE FACT
THAT BASIC GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS
HAVE BECOME LUDICROUS HIGH
STAKES GAMES, LIKE THE
DEPLOYMENT OF DIPLOMATS, THE
CONSTANT FLIRTING AROUND
RENEGING ON THE DEBT WHICH IS
JUST TOTALLY INSANE.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE BUILD
BACK BETTER BILL WHICH IS
ESSENTIALLY A BUDGET.
THAT'S A WEDNESDAY IN MOST
MATURE DEMOCRACIES.
THAT'S TRUE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE REAL
STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS TOO HERE.
LIKE, BY 2040, YOU KNOW, THE
ESTIMATES SUGGEST THAT ABOUT 30%
OF THE POPULATION WILL CONTROL
68% OF THE SENATE.
ANOTHER WAY OF PUTTING THAT IS
50% OF THE POPULATION WILL
CONTROL 84% OF THE SENATE.
AND ALREADY YOU HAVE A SUPREME
COURT WHERE FIVE OUT OF NINE
JUSTICES WERE NOT SELECTED BY A
PRESIDENT WHO WON THE POPULAR
MANDATE.
WHEN THEY MAKE A DECISION ON
ABORTION, WHICHEVER WAY IT GOES,
HALF THE COUNTRY WILL FEEL IT'S
ILLEGITIMATE.
THAT'S NO ONE'S FAULT.
THAT'S A PROBLEM WITH STRUCTURE.
TO ME, WHEN I LOOK AT AMERICAN
POLITICS, WHAT I SAY IS NOT, WE
NEED BETTER LEADERS.
IF ONLY WE COULD GET MODERATE
REPUBLICANS IN.
IF ONLY WE COULD FIGURE
SOMETHING OUT.
IT'S MORE LIKE, THIS SYSTEM IS
VERY ANTIQUATED, 240 YEARS OLD.
JEFFERSON SAID YOU SHOULD ONLY
HAVE A CONSTITUTION FOR 19
YEARS.
IT'S TIME TO GET ANOTHER ONE,
BASICALLY.

Steve says, WE'LL TALK IN A BIT
ABOUT HOW THAT MIGHT POTENTIALLY
HAPPEN.
BUT I WONDER, JULIE, IF I CAN GO
BACK TO THIS ISSUE OF SANE
VERSUS INSANE AS PART OF WHAT
LED US TO THIS MOMENT.
THERE IS A -- I CAN'T TELL YOU
WHAT THE PERCENTAGE IS, BUT
THERE'S A CHUNK OF THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY TODAY THAT
BELIEVES THAT JEWISH SPACE
LASERS STARTED FOREST FIRES IN
CALIFORNIA WHICH ADVERSELY
AFFECTED THAT STATE.
NOW, HOW DID IT GET TO THIS?

Julie says, ONE THING THAT THE
POLITICAL SCIENCE TELLS US IS
THAT WE THINK ABOUT NEW
INFORMATION AND WE APPROACH NEW
INFORMATION THROUGH THE LENSES
OF THE GROUPS AND IDENTITIES WE
ALREADY HAVE.
SO, THIS MEANS THAT IF YOU ARE A
DEMOCRAT, YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK
AT DEMOCRAT AND LEFT-LEANING NEWS
ARTICLES AND TRUST THEM MORE, IF
YOU'RE REPUBLICAN YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THOSE
ELITES AND THOSE TRUSTED SOURCES
AND FOLLOW THOSE LEADERS.
AND, AGAIN, THIS MIGHT GET TO
THE POINT THAT WAS MADE ABOUT
THE INSTITUTIONS AND THE ELITE.
THAT IF THE ELITE ARE POLARIZING
AND IF THE ELITES ARE TELLING
PEOPLE DIFFERENT STORIES OR
DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF REALITY,
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT
INFORMATION TO DEFEND THEIR
IDENTITY.
THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT
INFORMATION TO SAY, "LOOK, I'M A
REPUBLICAN, AND MY TRUSTED
REPUBLICAN NEWS SOURCE TELLS ME
THIS, I'M GOING TO BELIEVE IT."
AND, IN SOME WAYS THAT MIGHT
EXPLAIN A BIT MORE OF THE
POLARIZATION WE'RE SEEING
ESPECIALLY IN AREAS LIKE SOCIAL
MEDIA WHERE THERE'S A WAY BIGGER
VARIETY OF NEWS SOURCES OR JUST
INFORMATION SOURCES THAT EXIST
IN THE WORLD.

Text reads, Julie Wronski @julie_wronski

Julie continues, SO IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO
UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN PEOPLE
START DEFENDING CERTAIN
POSITIONS, IF IT SOUNDS SANE
VERSUS INSANE, IN SOME WAYS THIS
IS MORE ABOUT PEOPLE DEFENDING
THEIR OWN EGO AND THEIR OWN
SENSE OF "I'M IN A GROUP, AND I
WANT MY GROUP TO BE RIGHT, AND
I DON’T WANT MY GROUP TO BE
PROVEN WRONG."
AND ONCE YOU START BELIEVING
THINGS IN DEFENSE OF YOUR OWN
IDENTITY, YOU GET ENTRENCHED.

Steve says, STEPHEN SAYS IN THE
BOOK, AND, NATE, I'LL BRING YOU
IN ON THIS.
STEPHEN SAYS IN THE BOOK THAT
VIOLENCE COULD VERY WELL START
AT THE HANDS OF I GUESS WHAT
MIGHT BE CALLED THE ARMED
MILITANT WING OF THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY.
WHAT'S YOUR VIEW ON THAT?

Text reads, Violence.

Nate says, WELL, LOOK, I KNOW
I'M THE CONSERVATIVE ON THE
PANEL, BUT I HAVE TO SAY, I
THINK THE PROBLEM WITH THIS
DISCUSSION AND THIS NARRATIVE IN
GENERAL IS THAT IT IS LARGELY
ONE-SIDED AND PARTISAN.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, STEPHEN WAS
TALKING EARLIER ABOUT THE
PROBLEM WITH A LACK OF BELIEF IN
OUR INSTITUTIONS, AND CERTAINLY,
YOU KNOW, NOT -- FAILING TO
CELEBRATE A FALLEN CAPITOL
POLICE OFFICER IS A BIG DEAL,
BUT THERE'S AN ENTIRE OTHER SIDE
OF THE EQUATION THAT'S BEING
MISSED, WHICH IS THE
MISBEHAVIOUR OF THE LEFT-LEANING
ELITES.
YOU HAVE EVERYTHING FROM KAMALA
HARRIS, WHO IS NOW
VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
RAISING BAIL FUNDS FOR PEOPLE
WHO WERE ARRESTED FOR VIOLENT
CRIMES DURING BLM RIOTS IN 2020
TO PEOPLE LIKE ANTHONY FAUCI
ADMITTING THAT THEY LIED
MULTIPLE TIMES TO AMERICANS
ABOUT ANY NUMBER OF THINGS
THROUGHOUT THE PANDEMIC TO
PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS --

Steve says, HANG ON, HANG ON.
I'VE GOT TO JUMP IN THERE.
I DON'T RECALL ANTHONY FAUCI
ADMITTING SEVERAL TIMES THAT HE
LIED DURING THE COURSE OF THE
PANDEMIC.

Nate says, THAT'S NOT TRUE.
THAT'S NOT TRUE.
HE LIED ABOUT MASKS.
HE FLIP-FLOPPED.
HE APOLOGIZED FOR IT LATER --

Steve says, HANG ON.
LIED?

Nate says, YES.

Steve says, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT
DOWN IN WASHINGTON, BUT IN
CANADA WHEN YOU USE A WORD LIKE
"LIE," THAT MEANS THAT HE
KNOWINGLY PUT OUT FALSE
INFORMATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF
DECEIVING PEOPLE.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

Nate says, ANTHONY FAUCI ON HERD
IMMUNITY SAID THAT AMERICANS
WEREN'T READY TO HEAR THE ACTUAL
HERD IMMUNITY NUMBERS.
HE SAID ORIGINALLY, I SAID THEY
WERE 60% WHEN THE POLLS SHOWED
THAT MOST AMERICANS DIDN'T WANT
TO GET VACCINATED.
THEN I BUMPED IT UP TO 75 TO 80%
WHEN THE POLL NUMBERS STARTED TO
GO UP.
HE LITERALLY SAID, "I DON'T
THINK AMERICANS WERE READY TO
HEAR THE TRUTH."
IF THAT ISN'T LYING, I REALLY
DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEFINITION
OF LYING IS.
BUT THIS IS A REPEATED PATTERN.
ANTHONY FAUCI IS INDICATIVE OF A
LARGER FAILURE OF A LARGELY
LEFT-LEANING ELITE THAT LACKS
SELF-AWARENESS, FRANKLY.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO STEPHEN,
YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T IN ONE
BREATH TALK ABOUT A LOSS OF
FAILURE -- OR A FAILURE OF
CONFIDENCE IN OUR INSTITUTIONS
AND THEN IN THE NEXT BREATH
ESSENTIALLY CALL THE SUPREME
COURT ILLEGITIMATE AND SAY THAT
WE NEED A NEW CONSTITUTION,
RIGHT?
YOU CAN'T DO THE TWO THINGS AT
THE SAME TIME.
YOU CAN'T HAVE AN AMERICAN
RULING CLASS, BUT YOU ARE PART
OF AN OPINION-MAKING CLASS
THAT --

Stephen says, NO, I'M A
CANADIAN.
I'M NOT PART OF AMERICA AT ALL.

Nate says, AND THERE IS A
DECLINING TRUST IN OUR
INSTITUTIONS LARGELY BECAUSE WE
HAVE AN AMERICAN CLASS OF RULERS
WHO HAS ESSENTIALLY GIVEN UP ON
OUR INSTITUTIONS, WHO DOESN'T
BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION, WHO
DON'T BELIEVE THE AMERICAN
SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IS
LEGITIMATE, WHO NEVER ACCEPTS
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS, RIGHT,
FROM GEORGE BUSH TO DONALD TRUMP
AS LEGITIMATE IN THE FIRST
PLACE, AND THEN COMPLAIN WHEN
REPUBLICANS SAY THAT ELECTIONS
ARE ILLEGITIMATE, RIGHT?
THIS IS THE PART OF THE EQUATION
THAT'S MISSED WHEN YOU TALK
ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS.
CERTAINLY, YOU CAN POINT TO ANY
NUMBER OF THINGS THAT RIGHT-WING
AND REPUBLICAN ELITES DO THAT
ARE WORTHY OF CONDEMNATION.
BUT YOU'VE GOT TO GET YOUR OWN
HOUSE IN ORDER FIRST.
AND PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE FACT
THAT ALL OF AMERICA'S GOVERNING
INSTITUTIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION
TO SOMETIMES OF CONGRESS AND THE
WHITE HOUSE ARE CONTROLLED BY
PEOPLE ON THE LEFT.
THE LEFT NEEDS TO LOOK AT ITSELF
AND FIGURE OUT WHAT IT'S DOING
WRONG BEFORE IT STARTS TO SORT
OF LECTURE AMERICANS IN RED
AMERICA ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE DOING
WRONG.

Steve says, OKAY, STEPHEN, COME
ON IN --

Stephen says, MY HOUSE IS
CANADA.
MY HOUSE IS NOT THE DEMOCRATIC
PARTY, WHICH DOESN'T REPRESENT
ME IN ANY WAY, EITHER IN
IDENTITY TERMS OR IN POLITICAL
TERMS.
LIKE, IT'S NOT -- THEY'RE NOT
EVEN AN ENEMY TO ME.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, LIKE, I DON'T
WANT TO STOP YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE
REALLY MAKING MY POINT FOR ME,
BUT, LIKE, DON'T YOU GUYS THINK
THERE'S NO POINT IN FIGHTING
OVER THIS STUFF?
WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT THE
INSTITUTIONS ARE ILLEGITIMATE.
AND WHERE THAT ILLEGITIMACY
COMES FROM IS IRRELEVANT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE SOCIOLOGY
ABOUT THE RISE OF THE MILITIAS,
THE RISE OF THE, YOU KNOW,
VIOLENCE AND, YOU KNOW, JUST TO
BE CLEAR, 94% OF POLITICAL
VIOLENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
COMES FROM THE RIGHT.
THERE ARE LEFT-WING PEOPLE WHO
DO IT, BUT THEY ARE MUCH SMALLER
THAN THE RIGHT, THEY'RE MUCH
LESS OF A THREAT.
YOU CAN FIND THAT RESEARCH
REALLY ACROSS THE SPECTRUM.
YOU KNOW, THE REASON -- IF YOU
REALLY WANT TO GO BACK TO IT, IT
COMES FROM 2008 AND THE CRUSH OF
THE HOUSING MARKET AND THE
FAILURES IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
AND, YOU'RE RIGHT, AN AMERICAN
ELITE THAT IS COMPLETELY NOT
WORTHY OF TRUST.
LIKE, THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT
THAT'S RIGHT.
BUT WHEN YOU SAY "GET YOUR HOUSE
IN ORDER," AMERICA IS YOUR
HOUSE.
THAT'S THE HOUSE YOU NEED TO GET
IN ORDER.
NOT THE OTHER GUY'S PARTY, NOT
YOUR PARTY.
YOU NEED TO GET A SYSTEM WHERE,
EVEN IF YOU LOSE, YOU FEEL LIKE
YOUR GOVERNMENT IS LEGITIMATE.
I JUST -- YOU KNOW, STEPHEN
HARPER WAS MY PRIME MINISTER.
I WROTE AGAINST HIM, I ATTACKED
HIM.
IT GOT NASTY SOMETIMES.
BUT I NEVER FOR A MOMENT FELT
THAT HE WAS NOT CANADIAN OR THAT
HE WAS NOT A LEGITIMATE STEWARD
OF THE CANADIAN PEOPLE, RIGHT?
SO, YOU KNOW, HERE IS THE POINT.
WHEN YOU CANNOT AGREE ON DID
FAUCI LIE, IT'S PROBABLY NOT
WORTH EVEN DEBATING WHEN YOU
DON'T HAVE A FRAMEWORK WHERE A
REAL ANSWER CAN EMERGE FROM.
IT'S JUST MORE SCREAMING.

Steve says, DYLAN, COME ON IN
HERE AND LET ME GET YOUR TAKE ON
WHAT YOU HAVE JUST HEARD.

Dylan says, I'M MORE SYMPATHETIC
TO NATE ON THIS THAN I THINK
PEOPLE MIGHT SUSPECT.
I DO THINK THERE WERE MASSIVE
MESSAGING FAILURES BY THE CDC
AND THE FDA EARLY IN THE
PANDEMIC, AND THAT THAT WORSENED
TRUST IN INSTITUTIONS, WHICH I
THINK IS A PATTERN YOU SEE
THROUGHOUT AMERICAN HISTORY.
IF YOU LOOK AT POLLS ASKING
AMERICANS IF THEY TRUST THE
GOVERNMENT, THE BIG DECLINE
HAPPENED IN THE WAKE OF VIETNAM
AND ESPECIALLY THE CHURCH
COMMITTEE WHICH INVESTIGATED THE
CIA AND INTELLIGENCE SERVICES
AND FOUND THERE WERE DOING
THINGS LIKE SECRET ATTEMPTS TO
ASSASSINATE FIDEL CASTRO,
UNAUTHORIZED SURVEILLANCE ON
AMERICANS AT HOME, LSD TESTING
ON UNSUSPECTING CIVILIANS.
THAT WAS BAD BEHAVIOUR THAT
CORRECTLY REDUCED AMERICANS'
TRUST IN THE INSTITUTIONS THAT
DID IT.
BUT WE'RE SOMEWHAT FAR AFIELD
FROM THE QUESTION OF HOW THIS
TRANSLATES INTO VIOLENT
CONFLICT.

Text reads, Taking Sides.

Dylan continues, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
REMEMBER THAT WHEN POLITICAL
SCIENTISTS HAVE TRIED TO POLL
AMERICANS ON HOW SYMPATHETIC
THEY ARE TO VIOLENCE, THERE ARE
A FEW PAPERS ON THIS THIS PAST
YEAR FROM A TEAM AT STANFORD AND
A TEAM AT DARTMOUTH, SUPPORT FOR
ACTUAL VIOLENCE IS INCREDIBLY
LOW.
AND SOME OF THAT IS SOCIAL
DESIRABILITY BIAS -- YOU DON'T
WANT TO TELL RESEARCHERS THAT
YOU'RE ACTUALLY REALLY GUNG HO
ABOUT VIOLENCE.
BUT SOME OF IT IS ALSO ABOUT
MISPERCEPTION.
THERE HAS BEEN SOME RESEARCH
SUGGESTING THAT WHEN YOU GIVE
ACCURATE INFORMATION ON HOW FEW
OF THEIR NEIGHBOURS SUPPORT
POLITICAL VIOLENCE, AMERICANS
BECOME LESS LIKELY TO SUPPORT
POLITICAL VIOLENCE.
THAT FITS WITH SOME OF WHAT WE
KNOW ABOUT CIVIL WARS IN OTHER
CONTEXTS.
WAR IS INCREDIBLY COSTLY.
NO ONE RATIONALLY WOULD WANT TO
SETTLE A DISPUTE OVER WAR RATHER
THAN THROUGH A NEGOTIATED
SETTLEMENT.
THE COSTS ARE ALMOST ALWAYS
HIGHER.
AND SO, WHEN WAR DOES BREAK OUT,
IT TENDS TO BE BECAUSE OF SORT
OF PARANOID ARMS RACE BETWEEN
SIDES WHERE ONE FEELS LIKE THEY
NEED TO BUILD UP ON ARMS AND
PREPARE FOR WAR BECAUSE THEY
ASSUME THE OTHER IS.
AND PART OF MY WORRY ABOUT THIS
DISCOURSE IS THAT IT MIGHT
CONTRIBUTE TO A SENSE -- AND I'M
NOT ATTACKING STEPHEN PERSONALLY
HERE.
HE'S ONE WRITER.
THIS IS A MUCH LARGER DISCUSSION
IN THE UNITED STATES THAT HE'S
PARTAKING IN.
BUT I DON'T WANT THE SENSE AMONG
AMERICANS TO BE, WELL, A CIVIL
WAR IS COMING WHETHER I LIKE IT
OR NOT.
I BETTER LEARN HOW TO USE AN
AR-15 AND GET READY FOR IT.
MY WORRY IS THAT THAT DYNAMIC
CAN HAVE A CORROSIVE IMPACT AND
MIGHT SORT OF EXACERBATE SOME OF
THE VERY TRENDS WE'RE TRYING TO
FIGHT AGAINST IN THIS
DISCUSSION.

Steve says, WELL, DYLAN, YOU'VE
LED US NICELY TO WHERE WE WANT
TO GO NEXT, WHICH IS TO SAY,
SOME PEOPLE ARE ASKING RIGHT NOW
WHETHER AMERICA MIGHT NOT BE
BETTER OFF ENGAGING IN A MASSIVE
DIVORCE.
AND TO THAT END, I WANT TO BRING
A MAP UP HERE THAT IS IN STEPHEN
MARCHE'S BOOK THAT BASICALLY
SHOWS AN AMERICA THAT WOULD BE
BROKEN UP INTO SEVERAL DIFFERENT
COUNTRIES.
LET ME ASK OUR DIRECTOR, SHELDON
OSMOND –

A graphic showing a redesigned map of the United States appears. Washington, Oregon, and California are blue, Texas is pink, much of the northeast is orange, and most of the country is green.

Stephen says, THIS WAS JUST
SPITBALLING.

Steve says, I GET IT.

Stephen says, THIS IS JUST A ROUGH
IDEA, LIKE, AND IT SAYS THAT IN
THE BOOK.

Steve says, STEPHEN, I TAKE YOUR
ADMISSION TO HEART BUT, LET'S
JUST TAKE A LOOK.
AND FOR THOSE LISTENING ON
PODCAST AND CAN'T SEE THE MAP,
LET ME JUST DESCRIBE IT A LITTLE
BIT.
IF WE GO WEST TO EAST, YOU HAVE
GOT THE THREE WESTERN STATES,
WASHINGTON, OREGON, AND
CALIFORNIA IN A NEW COUNTRY
CALLED CASCADIA.
YOU HAVE GOT I GUESS A LOT OF
RED STATES ACROSS THE MIDDLE OF
AMERICA INTO THE NEW REPUBLIC OF
THE UNITED STATES.
TEXAS OF COURSE HAS TO BE ITS
OWN REPUBLIC, SO THE REPUBLIC OF
TEXAS STANDS ON ITS OWN.
AND THEN IN THE NORTHEAST YOU'VE
GOT WHAT ARE BEING CALLED HERE
THE UNITED STATES, AND THESE ARE
A LOT OF THE BLUE STATES,
MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN, ILLINOIS,
MICHIGAN, PENNSYLVANIA, NEW
ENGLAND STATES, NEW YORK,
VIRGINIA, ET CETERA.
AND THIS IS A POTENTIALLY NEW
MAP, AND, STEPHEN, I'LL LET YOU
MAKE THE CASE, THAT I GUESS -- I
DON'T KNOW -- HOW MUCH SERIOUS
THOUGHT IS BEING GIVEN TO THE
UNITED STATES SEPARATING INTO
DIFFERENT COUNTRIES TO AVERT THE
NEXT CIVIL WAR?

Text reads, A National Divorce?

Stephen says, WELL, THERE IS A
LOT OF NEW INTEREST IN
SECESSION.
ABOUT 58% OF TRUMP VOTING
REPUBLICANS ARE IN FAVOUR OF
SECESSION, BUT ALSO 41% OF BIDEN
VOTING DEMOCRATS AT LEAST
SOMEWHAT SUPPORT SECESSION.
SO IT'S RISING, IT'S GROWING AS
AN IDEA.
THAT DIVISION THAT I HAD THERE
WAS REALLY ABOUT WHERE YOU SEE
NOT JUST THE POLITICAL DIVISIONS
OF RED AND BLUE BUT ALSO MAJOR
SOCIAL DIVISIONS, SO CHURCH
ATTENDANCE, GUN OWNERSHIP,
PROXIMITY TO ABORTION ACCESS --
A WHOLE HOST -- CORPORAL
PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLS, VERY
BASIC THINGS THAT ARE REALLY
PROFOUND.
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT
AMERICAN POLITICS, YOU SEE BOTH
OF THESE SIDES IN A NEGATIVE
LIGHT, BECAUSE OF
HYPER PARTISANSHIP, BECAUSE
ESSENTIALLY IT'S BECOME ATTACK
MODE, THEIR POLITICS IS IN
CONSTANT ATTACK MODE.
BUT ANOTHER WAY OF LOOKING AT IT
IS BOTH OF THESE COUNTRIES HAVE
POSITIVE VISIONS OF POLITICAL
REALITY.
IN SOME OF THE UNITED STATES IT
WOULD BE INDEPENDENCE.
IT WOULD BE A BASIS ON
TRADITIONAL FAMILY AND COMMUNITY
PARTICIPATION AS WELL AS, YOU
KNOW, GOVERNMENT RESTRICTION
FROM INDIVIDUAL LIFE.
THAT'S A POSITIVE VISION.
WHEREAS THE NORTHEAST ALSO HAS A
POSITIVE VISION OF ITSELF AS A
MULTICULTURAL DEMOCRACY WITH A
GREAT DEAL OF OPENNESS AND
FREEDOM ON A DIFFERENT TERM.
SO, TO ME IT'S POSSIBLE TO SEE
THESE TWO SIDES AT WAR.
BUT IF THEY WERE SEPARATE, THEY
WOULD ACTUALLY KIND OF FULFIL
THEIR POLITICAL DESTINY WHICH IN
A SENSE THE UNITED STATES HAS
KEPT THEM FROM, RIGHT?
BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO
NEGOTIATE WITH EACH OTHER, THEY
HAVEN'T REALLY BEEN ABLE TO
ACHIEVE A FULL -- LIKE, WHAT
WOULD A NORTHEASTERN SEABOARD
LOOK LIKE WITH PARENTAL LEAVE,
YOU KNOW, REAL HEALTH CARE, REAL
GUN CONTROL?
AND WHAT WOULD THE SOUTHERN AND
MIDWEST LOOK LIKE IF IT WASN'T
CONSTANTLY TRYING TO DEAL WITH
WASHINGTON?
YOU KNOW, THESE ARE REALLY
INTERESTING POLITICAL QUESTIONS.
I MEAN, UNFORTUNATELY, THEY'LL
PROBABLY NEVER BE ASKED BECAUSE
SECESSION IS MORE OR LESS
CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE --

Steve says, LET'S NOT GET THERE
YET --

Stephen says, I THINK IT'S WORTH
SEEING.

Steve says, I APPRECIATE THAT.
LEGALLY SPEAKING --

Stephen says, IT'S WORTH
THINKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES
IN A POSITIVE WAY.

Steve says, OKAY.
I TAKE YOUR POINT.
LET ME FIND OUT FROM JULIE
WHETHER SHE SEES ANYTHING
POSITIVE IN THAT MAP.

Julie says, SO I'M ACTUALLY
SOMEWHAT CONCERNED ABOUT THAT
MAP BECAUSE A LOT OF THE
GEOGRAPHIC SORTING WE SEE IN THE
UNITED STATES IS ALONG THE
URBAN/RURAL DIVIDE.
SO IF YOU TAKE LARGE GEOGRAPHIC
SWATHS THROUGH THAT MIDDLE
SECTION OF THE COUNTRY, YOU'RE
ACTUALLY ABANDONING A LOT OF
LARGE CITIES AND A LOT OF
COMMUNITIES THAT COULD REALLY
BENEFIT FROM A UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA.
SO SAY AS A PROFESSOR AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI, I
KNOW A LOT OF MISSISSIPPIANS
REALLY DEPEND ON FEDERAL AID.
AND IF WE'RE LEFT IN A WORLD
WHERE WE'RE KIND OF DIVIDED INTO
RED STATE NATION VERSUS BLUE
STATE NATION, WHAT DOES THAT
MEAN FOR LOCAL COMMUNITIES?
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR RED
COMMUNITIES IN THESE NEW BLUE
AREAS OR BLUER COMMUNITIES IN
RED STATES?
SO, I'M ACTUALLY KIND OF
CONCERNED THAT A MAP LIKE THAT
MIGHT FORCE EITHER SOME PEOPLE
TO WANT TO MIGRATE, EMIGRATE, OR
IF THEY CAN'T AFFORD THAT, AS
MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT UPPER
MIDDLE CLASS, THEN YOU'RE STUCK
IN THIS MISMATCH.
BUT I ALSO WANT TO SAY IN SOME
WAYS WE'RE ALREADY SEEING
ELEMENTS OF THIS MAP BECAUSE OF
OUR FEDERALISM SYSTEM.
BECAUSE WE HAVE STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS WHO ARE INCREASINGLY
MAKING DAY-TO-DAY LIFE CHOICES.
WE SEE THIS IN TERMS OF MASK
MANDATES, VACCINE MANDATES, HOW
INDIVIDUAL STATES AND INDIVIDUAL
COUNTIES HANDLE THE COVID
VACCINE.
SO IN SOME WAYS WE DON'T
NECESSARILY NEED A LARGE
SECESSION OR A LARGE REDRAWING
OF BOUNDARIES TO GET A LOT OF
THIS. EACH STATE KIND OF TREATS
THINGS DIFFERENTLY IN TERMS OF,
SAY, ABORTION ACCESS, VOTING
RIGHTS ACCESS, VACCINE ACCESS,
ET CETERA.

Steve says, OKAY.
NATE, I WONDER WHETHER YOU THINK
THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF
CONSERVATIVES IN THE UNITED
STATES WHO WOULD SIMPLY BE
HAPPIER ABOUT BEING AMERICANS
IF, FOR EXAMPLE, CALIFORNIA WERE
JUST ITS OWN COUNTRY OR THE NEW
ENGLAND STATES OR NEW YORK WERE
THEIR OWN COUNTRY.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Nate says, WELL, LOOK, IN SOME
WAYS IT WOULD MAKE OUR LIVES
EASIER, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE
SHOULD DO IT.
STEPHEN WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT
WHEN HE SAID EARLIER THAT
AMERICA IS OUR HOUSE, THIS IS
OUR HOME, THIS IS OUR COUNTRY,
AND WE HAVE A DUTY TO PRESERVE
AND PROTECT IT, RIGHT?
I'M NOT AN OREGONIAN, I'M AN
AMERICAN FIRST AND FOREMOST.
UNLESS LINCOLN WAS WRONG ABOUT
PRESERVING THE UNION DURING THE
CIVIL WAR OR UNLESS YOU THINK
THAT OUR DIVISIONS NOW ARE MORE
SIGNIFICANT THAN THEY WERE
DURING THE CIVIL WAR WHERE WE
DISAGREED ABOUT LITERALLY
WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD OWN
HUMAN BEINGS, I THINK THAT OUR
SITUATION NOW IS CHALLENGING AND
REQUIRES STATESMANSHIP, BUT ALSO
IS SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY COULD
BE SOLVED RATHER THAN BY DIVORCE
OR NATIONAL SECESSION, WHICH I
DON'T THINK WOULD WORK ANYWAYS
BECAUSE OF THE URBAN/RURAL
DIVIDES THAT WERE JUST
DISCUSSED, WE JUST RECOMMIT TO
THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF
FEDERALISM.
I MEAN, THIS IS ACTUALLY THE WAY
THE AMERICAN SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED
TO WORK.
IT'S THE GENIUS OF THE AMERICAN
SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, IS THE
FACT THAT PEOPLE IN MISSISSIPPI
DON'T HAVE TO LIVE THE SAME WAY
AS PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA.
THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES.
AND THE WAY THAT WE ACTUALLY
LOWER THE TEMPERATURE AND COOL
THINGS DOWN IS BY DISPENSING
WITH THE IDEA THAT EVERYTHING
NEEDS TO BE DONE AT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
ACTUALLY, THE ORIGINAL SORT OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE
POWERS ENUMERATED IN THE STATES
ARE THE BEST WAY TO SOLVE OUR
NATIONAL DIVISIONS, JUST TO
BASICALLY RECOMMIT TO A SYSTEM
IN WHICH LOCAL COMMUNITIES HAVE
MORE SELF-DETERMINATION, AND THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS LESS SAY
OVER OUR LIVES WOULD BE A GREAT
WAY TO DEAL WITH THIS WITHOUT
HAVING TO DEAL WITH SOME REALLY
SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL DIVORCE
SCENARIO.

Steve says, WELL, DYLAN, AS I
GET YOUR TAKE ON THIS, I GUESS I
SHOULD POINT OUT THAT TEXAS DOES
HAVE A BIT OF A SEPARATIST
MOVEMENT DOWN THERE, AND
CALIFORNIA IS EASILY ONE OF THE
TOP -- I THINK IT'S -- WHAT?
THE FIFTH OR SIXTH LARGEST
ECONOMY IN THE WORLD ALREADY, SO
IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS THEY COULD
EXIST AS THEIR OWN COUNTRY, AS
PRESUMABLY COULD NEW YORK STATE.
THE NEW ENGLAND STATES HAVE
PRECIOUS LITTLE IN COMMON WITH
THE DEEP SOUTH OTHER THAN THE
FACT THAT THEY'RE ALL AMERICANS.
IS THE COUNTRY IN YOUR VIEW
EFFECTIVELY DIVORCING ALREADY?

Dylan says, I DON'T THINK SO, IN
A WAY THAT I THINK SOME OF THE
PREVIOUS DISCUSSION HAS LED UP
TO.
AS A PROFESSOR WRONSKI SAID,
THERE'S ACTUALLY A GREAT DEAL OF
VARIATION FROM STATE TO STATE ON
A LOT OF THESE HIGHLY
CONTENTIOUS POLICY ISSUES.
LOW-INCOME PREGNANT PEOPLE CAN
GET ABORTIONS THROUGH MEDICAID
IN NEW YORK STATE.
THEY CAN'T IN MISSISSIPPI.
IN NEW YORK STATE AND
CALIFORNIA, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED
TO OWN GUNS WITH MAGAZINES
HOLDING MORE THAN 10 CARTRIDGES.
IN MISSISSIPPI, YOU CAN OWN
ANYTHING SHORT OF A MACHINE GUN,
BASICALLY.
AND ONE THING THAT'S BEEN
INTERESTING TO ME IS HOW SLIGHT
THOSE DIFFERENCES ARE DESPITE
THE FACT THAT OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM
ALLOWS A LOT MORE VARIATION.
CALIFORNIA DOES NOT HAVE SINGLE
PAYER HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AKIN TO
CANADA'S, DESPITE BEING WELL TO
THE LEFT OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.
MISSISSIPPI IS NOT A SORT OF
LIBERTARIAN, NO GOVERNMENT
REGIME DESPITE BEING WELL TO THE
RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN MEDIAN.
AND I THINK SOME OF THAT IS THAT
THERE MIGHT BE LESS DISAGREEMENT
OVER THE CORRECT EQUILIBRIUM
THAN WE LIKE TO THINK.
IF YOU LOOK AT A STATE LIKE
MASSACHUSETTS, IT'S A VERY
LIBERAL STATE BY AMERICAN
STANDARDS.
THEY'VE ENTHUSIASTICALLY ELECTED
A MODERATE REPUBLICAN IN THE
LAST TWO ELECTIONS.
SAME THING FOR VERMONT, ONE OF
THE MOST LEFT-WING STATES IN THE
UNITED STATES.
AND I THINK IT INDICATES THAT
THERE IS SOME IMPLICIT
MODERATION IN AMERICAN PUBLIC
OPINION THAT WE MIGHT NOT BE
APPRECIATING.

Steve says, THAT MASSACHUSETTS
GOVERNOR, CHARLIE BAKER, WHO IS
A MODERATE REPUBLICAN, IS NOT
STANDING FOR REELECTION BECAUSE
HE THINKS HE'S GOING TO BE
ATTACKED FROM THE RIGHT AND
THEREFORE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO
WIN HIS NOMINATION BACK, DESPITE
THE FACT THAT YOU'RE QUITE
RIGHT, HE'S BEEN A POPULAR
TWO-TERM GOVERNOR.
WE'RE DOWN TO OUR LAST FEW
MINUTES.
STEPHEN, I GUESS I SHOULD GIVE
IT TO YOU TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE
OF -- OKAY, YOU'VE PUT THE
THESIS OUT THERE.
DO YOU THINK ANYTHING CAN BE
DONE SHORT OF THIS DIVORCE,
WHICH I SUSPECT YOU ALL AGREE IS
PROBABLY NOT IN THE CARDS.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT CAN BE
DONE TO AVERT THE NEXT CIVIL
WAR?

Text reads, Come Together, Right Now.

Stephen says, OH, YOU KNOW, JUST
TO BE CLEAR, LIKE THE MODELS
HERE SHOW THAT THE CHANCES OF A
CIVIL WAR IN THE UNITED STATES
ARE ABOUT 70%.
NOTHING IS INEVITABLE.
I THINK IT'S ALSO WORTH POINTING
OUT THAT AMERICA REALLY IS THE
GREAT COUNTRY OF REINVENTION,
IT'S THE GREAT COUNTRY OF
POLITICAL REINVENTION, IT'S THE
GREAT COUNTRY OF PERSONAL
REINVENTION.
IF ANYONE CAN REINVENT THEIR
POLITICS, IT'S THE AMERICANS.
YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THE CREATIVE
CAPACITY TO DO THAT IN A WAY
THAT NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE
WORLD DOES.
BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS
THAT THE IDEA THAT THIS IS ALL
GOING TO WORK OUT, THAT IT'S
GOING TO BE LIKE THE '60s
HAPPEN AND THEN IT'S LAVA LAMPS
AND THE REST OF IT, LIKE DISCO
AND SO ON, LIKE THE '70s
HAPPEN AND WE ALL KIND OF FORGET
ABOUT IT.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
THIS IS GOING ONE WAY AND IT IS
REALLY A CASE OF REINVENTION OR
FALL.
THOSE ARE THE CHOICES.
AND THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE
FACING AMERICA ARE THE LARGEST
POLITICAL QUESTIONS.
THEY ARE NOT, YOU KNOW, WHO WILL
GET ELECTED IN 2024, WHO WILL
GET ELECTED IN 2028, WHO IS
GOING TO BE ON -- THE QUESTIONS
THAT FACE IT ARE: WILL VIOLENCE
WIN?
CAN IT SURVIVE AS A
MULTICULTURAL DEMOCRACY AND
REMAIN WHOLE?
CAN IT UPDATE A SYSTEM THAT'S IN
COLLAPSE, WHICH PREVENTS FIXING
THE SYSTEM AS IT COLLAPSES?
YOU KNOW, THESE ARE ENORMOUS
QUESTIONS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S ANYONE
THAT CAN DO IT, IT'S THE
AMERICANS.

Steve says, IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO
CAN DO IT, IT'S THE AMERICANS
ALTHOUGH I HASTEN TO ADD ROBIN
WILLIAMS LINE ABOUT -- AS A
CANADIAN DO YOU SOMEDAYS FEEL
LIKE LIVING IN AN APARTMENT OVER
A METH LAB?

Stephen says, YEAH WELL, I MEAN
IT IS SORT OF LIKE WATCHING YOUR
BIG BROTHER GO ON A METH BINGE.
IT'S HORRIBLE, LIKE IT'S A
HORRIBLE THING TO WATCH.
BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE ANY
PLACE TO LECTURE SINCE OUR
COUNTRY NEARLY BROKE UP TWICE IN
MY LIFETIME AND WE IMPOSE
MARTIAL LAW IN LIVING MEMORY.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE I FEEL SUPERIOR
IN ANY WAY, IT'S JUST, YOU
YOU KNOW -- AND OBVIOUSLY WHEN
AMERICA COUGHS, WE CATCH A COLD.

Steve says, WHO WAS IT WHO FIRST
SAID THAT?
IT WAS THE CURRENT PRIME
MINISTERS FATHER I THINK WHO
ONCE SAID THAT, RIGHT?

Stephen says, YEAH, HE SAID THAT
LIVING NEXT TO AMERICA WAS LIKE
SLEEPING NEXT TO AN ELEPHANT.
BUT I PREFER NORTHROP FRYE, HE
SAID A CANADIAN IS AN AMERICAN
WHO REJECTS THE REVOLUTION.
WHICH I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT IS A
VERY NICE WAY OF PUTTING IT.

Text reads, Produced by: Harrison Lowman @harrisonlowman

Steve says, THAT'S A NICE WAY OF
PUTTING IT, INDEED.
I WANT TO THANK
STEPHEN MARCHE, THE AUTHOR OF
"THE NEXT CIVIL WAR: DISPATCHES
FROM THE AMERICAN FUTURE" FOR
COMING ONTO OUR PROGRAM TODAY.
AND OUR THREE OTHER GUESTS FROM
THE AMERICAN CAPITAL WHO
COMMENTED ON HIS BOOK: JULIE
WRONSKI, THE PROFESSOR OF
POLITICAL SCIENCE SPECIALIZING
IN POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY IN
AMERICAN POLITICS AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI; NATE
HOCHMAN, THE ISI FELLOW AT THE
NATIONAL REVIEW, THE NOVAK
FELLOW AT THE FUND FOR AMERICAN
STUDIES; AND DYLAN MATTHEWS, THE
SENIOR CORRESPONDENT FOR VOX.
GREAT TO HAVE ALL OF YOU ON TVO
TONIGHT.
THANKS, AND -- LET'S HOPE THERE'S
NO CIVIL WAR.
CAN I SAY THAT?
AM I ALLOWED TO BE EDITORIAL AND
SAY THAT?
LET'S HOPE THERE'S NO CIVIL WAR.

Dylan says, AGREED.

Steve says, THANKS, EVERYBODY.

Watch: Is the U.S. on the Verge of Civil War?