(American Civil) War and Cultural Identification

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Warning: I use terms like Liberal and Conservative in here, and don't give a fuck about "escaping dominant paradigms."

Lately I've been interested in the Antebellum and Civil War periods in American history and how it has given rise to modern American society, so I've done a lot of actual reading (usually I just gain my understanding of history through a mystical blend of intuition and assumption). My initial theory was that through the political and social events, actions, and reactions in the past 150 years, the two major political parties have switched sides but left the fundamental chasms that separated the US during the 1860s intact. Turns out this is a somewhat simplistic view of what has actually happened.

My current theory is that people ('in general' maybe, but primarily Americans for my present purpose) tend to identify with War better than with anything else. Maybe it is because America has a short history so we don't have eons of backhistory to draw on for our cultural identity, or maybe it's because for the most part Americans have very little direct experience with War so we are able to romanticize it more than we should. Either way we tend to define our history as periods between wars, identify subcultures in our country in terms of who they were and what they accomplished during a war (as I did in my original theory), and draw our nationalist pride from the country's record in fighting various wars more than from any other source.

Because Americans are both detached from actual war and enamored with it as a romantic notion of Good vs. Evil, it seems that we have a collective drive to create war whenever we are feeling insecure about something, as a way to make ourselves feel better about it. It's easy to blame greedy corporate interests and politicians for prodding people along a path to war, for resources or to expand the authority of government, but maybe that kind of behavior is only possible because the People ourselves go through periods where we crave war, and will latch on to and support a war effort in large numbers.

The current political discussion over domestic politics is one example I'd cite. Over the past three or four years, the Conservatives have led increasingly hostile campaigns against Liberals, and framed their arguments in language eerily similar to calls for Southern secession from the Union 150 years ago. My initial reaction was to assume that these people are simply outgrowths of the same group who led the Confederacy, but although they share many structural similarities (affinity for aristocracy, a dash of racism and xenophobia, and a love of rural/agrarian life) I now think they just use this language because it has a cultural resonance that is directly identified with war, being "the underdog," and (among their target audience) "fighting for liberty." And they are leading the US on a path, at least a path of words, that is alarmingly reminiscent of the road to Civil War.

What are the chances of America actually going to war with itself again? Probably extremely small, at least in an official "Civil War" sense. I expect that at some point violence against Liberals will spur a similar violent movement among Liberals (once the Liberals find their balls, anyway), and both sides will probably be quelled by the Federal government either through plain old law enforcement or maybe military action in isolated incidents if it gets bad enough. I don't think anybody's threats of secession are serious, since the current analogue of the "Confederate" mentality is less of a geographical phenomenon than an ideological one, with its supporters scattered around the country (concentrated in some areas but probably not concentrated enough for secession).

Without a realistic, geographically viable option for Civil War, though, the internal strife in the US could instead lead to a permanent gridlock of government at all levels and an increased risk of citizen-on-citizen violence in the future. In another era, Johnny Reb lived south of Mason-Dixon, and you sent an army to kick his ass. Today, he could live across the street from you, stockpiling guns and for all you know, holding Klan meetings in his basement. Obviously, no current American conflict in the world is culturally significant enough to stave off this march to social upheaval in the US. But it's clear that in any case the only thing that keeps America from existing in a permanent state of civil cold-war is the series of large military actions and external threats we have had to face as a unified country since the Civil War.

As the debates continue in our governments over social issues and budget problems, and as pundits whip people into a frenzy against one another, is America's position as the world's sole superpower helpful or harmful to our identity as a single, unified nation?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Just posting to say this has bothered me enough to give it some serious thought, but it needs to stew a while before I can formulate a response.