The Next Civil War: Dispatches from the American Future

by Stephen Marche

“Should be required reading for anyone interested in preserving our 246-year experiment in self-government.” — The New York Times Book Review * “Well researched and eloquently presented.” — The Atlantic * “Delivers Cormac McCarthy-worthy drama; while the nonfictional asides imbue that drama with the authority of documentary.” — The New York Times Book Review

A celebrated journalist takes a fiercely divided America and imagines five chilling scenarios that lead to its collapse, based on in-depth interviews with experts of all kinds.

The United States is coming to an end. The only question is how.

On a small two-lane bridge in a rural county that loathes the federal government, the US Army uses lethal force to end a standoff with hard-right anti-government patriots. Inside an ordinary diner, a disaffected young man with a handgun takes aim at the American president stepping in for an impromptu photo-op, and a bullet splits the hyper-partisan country into violently opposed mourners and revelers. In New York City, a Category 2 hurricane plunges entire neighborhoods underwater and creates millions of refugees overnight—a blow that comes on the heels of a financial crash and years of catastrophic droughts—and tips America over the edge into ruin.

These nightmarish scenarios are just three of the five possibilities most likely to spark devastating chaos in the United States that are brought to life in The Next Civil War , a chilling and deeply researched work of speculative nonfiction. Drawing upon sophisticated predictive models and nearly two hundred interviews with experts—civil war scholars, military leaders, law enforcement officials, secret service agents, agricultural specialists, environmentalists, war historians, and political scientists—journalist Stephen Marche predicts the terrifying future collapse that so many of us do not want to see unfolding in front of our eyes. Marche has spoken with soldiers and counterinsurgency experts about what it would take to control the population of the United States, and the battle plans for the next civil war have already been drawn up. Not by novelists, but by colonels.

No matter your political leaning, most of us can sense that America is barreling toward catastrophe—of one kind or another. Relevant and revelatory, The Next Civil War plainly breaks down the looming threats to America and is a must-read for anyone concerned about the future of its people, its land, and its government.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Audiobook, War, Political Science, American History

252 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 4, 2022

About the author

Stephen Marche is the author of The Unmade Bed (2016), The Hunger of the Wolf (2015), Love and the Mess We’re In (2013), How Shakespeare Changed Everything (2012), Shining at the Bottom of the Sea (2007) and Raymond and Hannah (2005). He's written for nearly every newspaper and magazine you can name.

Reviews

[Ron S · Rating 5 out of 5]

The most horrifying book I've read since I can't remember when. The brilliance here is how speculation is backed up with current and recent events to show how little imagination is actually required for the nightmarish situations portrayed. This book is enough to turn you into a prepper and bug out to some isolated safe place. Unfortunately, thanks to climate change and social unrest, safe places are becoming nothing more than a fantasy. While this book is speculative, a fantasy it is not.

[Eric · Rating 1 out of 5]

It reads like a collection of cheesy Hollywood movie plots based off the most sensationalist news articles of the past several years, presented without footnotes and devoid of any nuance. The writer, while decrying polarization, is himself bafflingly partisan. For instance, after claiming the Right are a danger to democracy, he uses their chant of “Not my president!” after Biden’s election as an example of them not accepting democracy. But that rallying cry came from the LEFT after Trump’s election. Furthermore, he uses the Capitol riots as an example of escalating violence, but doesn’t acknowledge any of the violence and damage caused by BLM rioting (perpetrated mostly by middle-class white kids taking advantage of the turmoil). He claims the right sees America’s institutions as illegitimate, while he himself is parroting the far-left cliche that America’s system of government is irredeemable and archaic.

(I’m not saying right wing extremism isn’t worrisome. It definitely is. But it’s exaggerated and caricatured in this book to the point one can’t help but laugh. And the fact he completely ignores extremism on the left makes it resemble Rachel Maddow’s daydream.)

I’ve been very interested in our increasing polarization for over a decade, and have read almost every book on the subject. This is the worst one I’ve EVER read. Usually authors who study polarization tend to look at things from a neutral lens, which typically leads them to show the nuances of our fraught culture with a cool head. This author is almost gleefully throwing matches on the kindling while pretending to warn of an impending fire. It’s alarmist to a cartoonish degree, using clickbait rhetoric that is more likely to create a self-fulfilling prophecy than reduce tensions.

[Ray · Rating 4 out of 5]

Seems appropriate to be writing this review on one of the worst Independence Days in recent memory…

What a horrifying book. Though titled The Next Civil War, it’s not exactly about civil war but rather about the inevitable fall of America. Multiple dispatch scenarios are laid out, thoroughly researched and written in a readable novelistic style, detailing plausible ways the country is about to implode.

Probably alarmist, and also probably accurate. The author being Canadian, it is written with the outsider’s point of view which makes it quite objective. Politically speaking, there is more blame to go around for the right-wing’s current tendencies towards violence and incoherent misinformation now tearing apart the nation’s social fabric. Some reviewers don’t like his taking sides, but the facts are facts.

Major causes include income inequality and climate change, and there seem to be no solutions. Irreconcilable partisan lines, racial animus, and illegetimate outdated electoral systems. Violent outbreaks will be one thing, but the coming economic collapse exacerbating everything else is going truly upend the relatively stable upward mobility we've enjoyed in the last century.

Oh well. Nothing lasts forever and it was fun for a while. Of course, nobody can truly know the future for sure. But we should be honest about what a deep hole we are, in if there’s any hope to get out of this growing mess. Unfortunately, such honesty does not seem to be in the cards at this time.

[Tifany · Rating 2 out of 5]

Writing a negative review of this book exposes the critic to the appearance that she is a right wing - or as Marche calls it hard right - proponent. However in my case the review is driven by - nay compelled by - the need to impugn the sloppy writing, the obfuscating genre and the overall suspect research.

The blurb on the book jacket promises “a chilling and deeply researched work of speculative non-fiction.” The book is neither chilling nor deeply researched. It lacks the very coherence Marche seeks in American politics and contains 7 pages of sources at the very end with no conventional footnotes or end notes. Hardly evidence of deep research.

An academic from my own alma mater - Marche had my expectations high but summarily reminded me that academic advancement which I once considered and sought was more tenable if one is a fine old Ontario family than a true scholar. As the spouse of the former editor-in-chief of Toronto Life Marche seems to have benefited more from connections than actual writing skill, talent or academic rigour.

This book is neither fish nor fowl.

2 stars is generous.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thought provoking work. The US has already become a failed democracy. It might be time to make radical changes before political instability becomes permanent. American experts who have studied failed societies are now seeing the same signs at home. I would have thought that such a book to be improbable 15 years ago but unfortunately it is now relevant.

A book that challenges many myths about the US. The country is facing a perfect storm: climate change, political ineptitude, a culture of violence, an extreme wealth gap, white supremacy. All these factors and relevant facts are discussed by the author and come to life by the usage of scenarios. The author demonstrates how US society has lost its ability to cope with reality.

The country was built on a notion of freedom which applied to all with the exception of slaves which were not human beings but were an an economic commodity; for 250 years that founding principle has poisoned the evolution of US society. Because of that historical bias the US has never been a true functioning democracy where all citizens share equal rights.

Americans are facing multiple failures because their system of government can no longer cope with managing the challenges that they are facing. Many of these challenges are through their own doing and because there are no longer sufficiently shared values and a common culture to put in place acceptable and efficient solutions. Citizens have lost the belief in their own society and its institutions. The myths of a more perfect union and the checks and balances of the Constitution have prevented american society from evolving. The electoral system and processes are no longer of an efficient democratic model; the republican party has succeeded in imposing minority rule which prevents representative government from working. Citizens no longer believe in their institutions and a strong minority is ready to impose its will by using violence.

Having made the case for an inability to build solutions within the actual framework the author suggests adapting the Union to fit shared social and cultural values by rebuilding the nation. Such an eventuality is also under consideration by many scholars and think tanks of allies of the USA, they are actively looking at what if scenarios. Of course the same applies to opponents of the USA, the aggressive stance adopted by China and Russia is in direct relationship with their perception of american instability.

[Will Blasingame · Rating 1 out of 5]

If you’re gonna advertise “well researched” then actually give some solid data.

[Joe Buck · Rating 1 out of 5]

The political equivalent of Jim Bakker's armageddon slop buckets or the Left Behind novels or the "end is nigh" doomsayers.

With this book, Canadian romance author and propagandist Stephen Marche follows in the grand intellectual tradition of the Boogaloo Boys and Marjorie Taylor-Greene, his concern-trolling barely concealing his hard-on at the prospect of an American civil war.

And what skin does he have in the game should the boogaloo an American civil war break out?

How much money has this professional talking head made by pushing civil war via books, speaking arrangements, etc. etc. etc.?

Consider the source, consider his motive(s), consider any risk or lack thereof, and you'll figure it out from there.

Hysteria pimping and fear mongering from the safety of an ivory tower is nothing new... Neither is churning out intellectually and morally bankrupt, sensationalist agitprop from the sidelines... Nor is the notion of an out-of-touch "intellectual elite" pitting the proles against each other via media-assisted psychological conditioning and irresponsible rhetoric.

After all, it's us proles who always end up fighting their wars, innit?

When yellow journalism and purple prose meet, you're left with a big brown mess.

[Brian Griffith · Rating 2 out of 5]

Marche aims to give it to Americans straight, shooting from the hip with fluid command of the lingos spouted by various types of hate-mongering fanatics. Sometimes you can’t tell if he’s giving his own predictions of inevitable doom, or if he’s just mimicking the way radicals talk. But anyway, he gives numerous explanations of why failure is inevitable:

“The Democrats represent a multicultural country grounded in liberal democracy. The Republicans represent a white country grounded in the sanctity of property. America cannot operate as both at once.”

“Inequality has no solution.”

“You cannot punish people out of hating you. The military is an instrument of punishment. It’s very function makes it useless.”

“The American government, in order to survive, will have to suspend the most sacred icon of the American government, the Bill of Rights. So right from the beginning, as an inevitable element of this kind of war, a massive portion of the US populace, nearly half, would consider the actions of the US government un-American. And they wouldn’t be wrong.”

“No policy solutions, not even the most extreme, would prevent what I have described here.”

In the last chapter Marche discusses possibilities for a peaceful breakup of the USA. He claims to hope for the best. But after declaring civil war for most of the book, his good wishes sound like disclaimers.

[Anatolikon · Rating 2 out of 5]

A weak take on fault lines in American society that Marche thinks could lead to major unrest or internal armed conflict. Marche claims his status as a non-American puts him sufficiently outside of the bubble that he can discuss this at a distance but that is far from the case - every one of these issues is as focused around partisan politics to the point where it would have made no difference if an American had written this book. I'm not convinced - I don't actually see how the era of American hyperpartisanship and paralysis ends because those the moneyed elites who run the current system benefit too much from the focus of hate always being focused on the other party rather than those who actually reap the profits of a broken America.

On what the future might bring to America, read something else, maybe Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism.

[Paul Weiss · Rating 4 out of 5]

“The unimaginable does not mean the unpredictable. The collapse will arrive sooner and more suddenly than anybody expects, but it won’t come as a surprise.”

On the front cover, the New York Times Book Review opined, “Should be required reading for anyone interested in preserving our 246-year experiment in self-government.” With all due respect to a brilliant cadre of reviewers whose work I have devoured countless times in my reading life, I disagree. THE NEXT CIVIL WAR is a speculative future history that simply posits possible triggers for the demise and dissolution of a country whose death, as far as the author is concerned (and I wholeheartedly agree), is a done deal, a fait accompli, and an unavoidable reality.

The only question that remains as yet unanswered is the degree of death, violence, and possible destruction that will be associated with the inevitable creation of new countries, new governments, new national identities, and new constitutions.

I’m forced to acknowledge that my 5-star rating for what I call a prescient, foreboding, and deeply distressing presentation of possible scenarios may well reflect a confirmation bias toward my own long and deeply held opinions. That said, I will add that I also concur with Marche’s open question to today’s Americans: When do you say to yourselves and to the world,

“ ‘Okay, this is no longer a country. We’re all just pretending it’s the same thing.’ … With or without a civil war, Americans are going to face an existential question: Are they the same country anymore? Or are they just pretending?”

I also agree with one of Marche’s other conclusions:

“One possible conclusion is violence. The other is civilized separation. At this point, disunion is among the best-case scenarios for the United States.”

Marche makes it abundantly clear. Where the USA is headed is not clear and there are but a handful of stops before the train reaches the end of the line. The status quo is not one of the available stops.

Paul Weiss

[J TC · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stephen March - A Próxima Guerra Civil
Comecei a leitura de “A Próxima Guerra Civil” de Stephen Marche com o maior interesse e expectativas. Já há alguns anos tinha lido a novela distópica de Cormac McCarthy, “A Estrada”, leitura que na altura me tinha deixado intrigado. Todo o enredo se passa, tal como o nome indica, ao longo de uma estrada. É uma viagem com uma origem enigmática e um destino ainda mais incerto. Tudo se passa num cenário pós apocalítico, em que o pós é descrito mas em que o leitor fica eternamente suspenso sobre as causas da catástrofe, o por que perdeu a sociedade toda a malha civilizacional tal como a conhecemos. A paisagem descrita como “negra” remete-nos para a devastação de um inverno vulcânico?; nuclear?; impacto de um asteroide?, verdadeiramente não temos como saber, mas também não é importante, o que se releva desse livro são as dificuldades desse mundo.
Mais recentemente li de Don Delillo "O Silêncio", uma novela publicada em 2020 e que aborda a forma como uma comunidade restrita, num apartamento de NY lidam com um evento cuja origem desconhecem mas que resultou numa súbita desativação de toda a tecnologia em que a vida moderna se fundamenta.
De comum este dois livros é a fragilidade da nossa organização civilizacional. Uma organização complexa, mas que por ser complexa lhe retira resiliência e a expõe susceptibilidades capazes de levar ao seu colapso.
Mais recentemente, há poucos dias, vi o filme de Alex Garland, Guerra Civil de 2024, já agora com uma representação impressionante de Wagner Moura, uma história em que se mostra o caminho de uma sociedade, a dos EUA, em ruptura rumo à sua destruição. Saí da sala de cinema e fui procurar “A próxima Guerra Civil” de Stephen Marche.
Como é bom de ver as expectativas eram altas, e não foram defraudadas. Contudo o livro aponta, intencionalmente, suponho eu, para a eventualidade de uma guerra civil, quando na realidade apenas dois cenários têm esse desfecho como possível. Dito isto, parece-me mais adequado tê-lo como um livro sobre a desconstrução dos Estados Unidos e sobre o estado e futuro dessa “desunião”.
O livro assenta em cinco cenários e em quatro deles o autor ficciona uma história que nos transporta para o objectivo disruptivo a que se propôs. Contudo, e enquanto elabora essa história ficcionada vai-nos dando elementos e dados que nos transportam para uma realidade que por não ficcionada coloca a história bem para além de credível. Para muitos destes cenários a realidade já ultrapassou de tal forma a ficção que só por acaso ou por bondade teleológica as realidade ainda não se assumiu como catastrófica. Vivemos, melhor, vivem em particular os americanos, num mundo complexo cujas saídas não podemos eleger uma e tomá-la como garantida.
No primeiro cenário o autor transporta-nos para uma ponte, uma das muitas que a crónica ausência de manutenção coloca em perigo, e que por risco de colapso é interditada ao transito. De imediato as forças locais e antigovernamentais fazem-se ouvir e “bandos” de contestatários da mais variada proveniência juntam-se em torno de um “Sheriff” que simboliza a contestação, um movimento de nós contra os outros, de republicanos versus democratas, um resultado de um sistema político bipartidário, de supremacistas brancos versus todos os outros, de cristãos maioritariamente evangélicos, de adeptos das mais aberrantes teorias da conspiração, de anti-liberais, de terraplanistas, de criacionistas, enfim, uma “salada russa” que em comum têm serem brancos, supremacistas e odiarem o governo, qualquer forma de governo. Esta América é bem caracterizada pelo autor que aponta para as causas históricas que a levaram para este beco sem saída, causas que se instalaram na fundação, se agravaram durante a guerra civil, que nunca ficaram resolvidas na reconciliação, e que agora se manifestam num processo eleitoral confuso e que do sistema dos 3/5 evoluiu para uma fórmula eleitoral que não garante cada um valha um voto. Uma América onde o neoliberalismo e os consulados de Clinton, Bush e Obama ressurgiram em força e de onde emergiu uma nação fraturada e ferida de morte. É uma América de uns contra os outros, uma américa onde Trump habilidosamente vingou ao instigar essa dicotomia, colocando-se habilidosamente do lado dos antigovernamentais enquanto ele era governo. Fez a quadratura do círculo, uma figura geométrica só possível num mundo populista e distópico. Uma América que já não é uma nação multicultural, mas antes uma paleta de nacionalismos inconciliáveis.
Esta América de populismos múltiplos, fraturada pelo meio, é a América onde existem mais armas que população (390 de armas / 340 milhões de habitantes), onde 40% da população tem pelo menos uma arma no domicílio. É a América onde o uso de arma é defendido pela constituição, 2ª emenda, e uma América onde metade da população defende com a vida esse direito. É uma nação feita por milícias com uma constituição adequada à perpetuação dessas milícias. É muito combustível e qualquer evento pode ser a ignição suficiente.
Nesta América fraturada e dividida foi para mim surpresa o papel do Sheriff. Habituado que estava a ver o papel deste nos filmes como alguém responsável pela ordem local, mas também alguém avesso à intervenção federal. Achava eu que esta resistência era apenas uma questão de “egos” explorada cinematograficamente. Estava enganado. Em muitos locais essa figura representa a resistência das populações à ordem federal, e em muitos outros pode mesmo ser o líder, tal como nos é apresentado na figura de Richard Mack e na da presente ficção. Na evolução da história ficcionada o exercito é chamado a intervir para por fim a rebelião e terminar com a sublevação. Só que no processo tem de calibrar o músculo a aplicar uma vez que qualquer atitude em excesso pode incendiar uma nação cindida ao meio.
Esta é efectivamente a história onde o risco de uma guerra civil é mais aparente, nas restantes são mais situações que tendem a acentuar a divisão já existente e por isso elementos de desunião.
A segunda história conta-nos a história de um assassino, um assassino estocástico, num país onde o histórico dos assassinatos presidenciais nos diz que é de 1 em cada 11 eleitos enquanto a mortalidade em combate é de 82 por 100.000.
Na história ficcionada após o assassinato presidencial a América fica divida com muitos a condenarem o crime mas muitos outros a elevarem o assassino à condição de herói. Diz-nos o autor que na revolta do Capitólio de Janeiro de 2021, uma sublevação com 5 mortes e 141 feridos, teve no rescaldo um apoio de 45% junto das hostes republicanas, enquanto 60 e 70% dos republicanos acham ainda que os resultados eleitorais de 2021 foram fraudulentos. Curiosamente nº muito semelhante entre os democratas atribuiu a vitória de Trump à interferência russa.
Nos restantes capítulos os cenários são propostos por condições disruptivas como alterações climáticas, subida dos níveis das águas, tempestades, pandemias, catástrofes, tudo situações de desordem generalizada com múltiplos focos de violência e por isso incontrolável.
Em todo o texto o que mais me desagradou foi a alusão feita pelo autor às consequências que a pandemia do Covid de 2019 teve sobre o mundo e em particular sobre a sociedade americana. Nesta última foi notória a ausência de uma estratégia nacional e a forma como a autonomia dos estados influenciou a resposta epidemiológica. Pura e simplesmente não se conseguia compreender um racional de estados em que respirar em público era crime com outros ali logo ao lado onde a exposição chegava a ter aspectos provocatórios. Se o autor se tivesse limitado a apontar essas inconsistências teria todo o meu apoio quanto mais não seja pelo ridículo com que a situação se revestiu. Ter um presidente que “recomendava” a ingestão de lexia enquanto o seu conselheiro para os assuntos médicos, Anthony Fauci espalhava o pânico foi uma peculiaridade de então. Agora quando afirma que “a estratégia dos suecos face à pandemia foi displicente e que pagaram caro pelas más decisões com uma mortalidade desmesurada, é desconhecer a realidade. A verdade é que os suecos (e basta consultar o site do EuroMOMO para se perceber que os suecos foram enquanto povo o que o mais ponderado e acertado ao ter implementado medidas de confinamento minimalistas, ter deixado o vírus circular e assim diminuir a sua morbilidade e por tal ter uma mortalidade muito abaixo da média dos outros países. É ignorância do autor, mas uma ignorância que me faz desconfiar da veracidade de outros factores e números que avança e que serem de temas que não domino poderem de alguma forma estar enviesados para alinharem com a narrativa que defende. Fica-me essa dúvida!
O último capítulo é talvez o mais importante. Neste o autor aponta as causas pelas quais a “União” parece aos dias de hoje uma miríade inatingível e uma utopia, uma quimera.
A desunião proposta não é fácil e tem aspectos curiosos. Ao contrario de outras geografias onde a secessão é ponderada, Ontário, Escócia, Catalunha, há efectivamente nacionalidades distintas que justificam a sessação. No caso americano a sessação é curiosa porque quem quer sair fá-lo por se sentir a expressão correta do “americanismo” expresso pelos fundadores na constituição. É mais um querer expulsar os outros porque traíram o ideal americano. Os secessionistas julgam-se os detentores da pureza da construção de uma américa que foi pensadas para acomodar as diferenças mas que hoje já não as consegue acomodar. Desde o modelo constitucional, às instituições, ao modelo eleitoral, à representatividade dos eleitos, são todas sequelas legadas pelos pais fundadores que em vez de suportarem as diferenças ao não fazerem um esforço para as esgrimir acabam por as reforçar. E é assim que a questão colonial, a racial, o conservadorismo, a liberdade, o igualitarismo, a imigração, o modelo capitalista liberal e neoliberal, a família, a justiça, as desigualdades, a forma como lidam com um passado de uma nação construída em fundações de liberdade e igualdade teve em si desde o inicio tanta desigualdade e iniquidade. E a lista não fica por aqui. Questões sociais dependentes da função do estado e da sociedade, nomeadamente aos apoios sociais, educacionais e de saúde, deixam a sociedade americana irremediavelmente fraturada e com tendência para se assumir que as diferenças estão de tal forma marcadas que a separação dos estados será inevitável. Esta é uma forte possibilidade, e talvez a melhor saída segundo Stephen March.
Dizer que a sessação não é constitucional não é narrativa que possa sossegar os espíritos. As questões de geografia são políticas antes de serem legais. Mas mesmo que isso possa acontecer daí resultariam inúmeros problemas, legais, comerciais, económicos, sociais, de dimensão, etc, cuja resolução será porventura o grande entrave a uma decisão desse tipo.
“A Próxima Guerra Civil” de Stephen March é eventualmente um bom texto para quem se quiser iniciar ao estudo de uma América dividida e de que forma as causas para esta divisão nos conduzem às incertezas do mundo de hoje.

[Dale · Rating 2 out of 5]

Why two stars and not just one? Because the first scenario laid out by the author is interesting and that is where it stops. The author should have considered an editor with some military experience to prevent mistakes in articulating military profiles and implementation. The idea that the military would consult the COIN manual FM 3-24 to quell a rebellion is so wrong. The title of the book is the next civil war, not the deep state implementation plan for counter-insurgency against American citizens. Pretty sure that is not what the US military is here for and the idea we would conduct COIN like in Iraq and Afghanistan in Texas or California is just hyperbolic to the extreme. The author started an interesting discussion and then took it off the rails.

[Courtney · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this at the suggestion of a friend. Political horror fiction is not my thing, so neither is political horror non-fiction. Still, the scenarios were interesting and related to things I am paranoid about and can't quite convince other people that they should pay attention to.

The topic of ghost guns and gun control has bothered me for a long time so I'm glad that was covered. It's a good example of where I don't think the left takes the reality of now and the near future seriously enough.

Overall I enjoyed the book and would recommend it to people interested in political science and especially local politics.

[Anne Meyer · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is essentially a piece of fiction with a few bits of cherry picked facts here and there.

[Mal Warwick · Rating 5 out of 5]

The United States is coming to an end. The question is how. Every government, every business, every person alive will be affected by the answer.” Thus opens Canadian journalist Stephen Marche’s deeply disturbing assessment of America’s prospects in the third decade of the 21st century. In five “dispatches” or scenarios, he spells out in chilling detail the various ways in which the country’s disunity might lead to a new American civil war. “Before the first civil war,” Marche notes, “nobody saw the catastrophe coming, but the moment it started, it was inevitable.” He believes we will, sooner or later but probably sooner, arrive at a similar point.

As Marche observes midway through the book, “every society in human history with levels of inequality like those in the United States today has descended into war, revolution, or plague. No exceptions. There are precisely zero historical precedents that don’t end in destruction.”

FIVE SCENARIOS FOR THE COLLAPSE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
Marche’s five scenarios range from armed insurrection to the assassination of the president to the secession of regions or major states such as Texas or California. However, one stands out. “Armed conflict with the federal government is one of the most popular fantasies in the United States today.” And while “sometimes the would-be warriors know they’re pretending,” many don’t—and it’s difficult not to take them seriously. The Swiss-based Small Arms Survey reports that U.S. civilians alone account for 393 million (about 46 percent) of the worldwide total of civilian held firearms. And, as Marche notes, “the hard right in the United States is in possession of any and all weaponry between the pistol and low-level nuclear bombs.” You read that right: nuclear bombs.

THE FIVE MAJOR TAKEAWAYS
Marche makes the case with chilling effectiveness that the United States is already on the verge of civil war. He cites the findings of scholarly studies and public opinion polls that go beyond the statistics of partisan gridlock. For example, he notes what so-called “conservative” media fail to acknowledge: that the overwhelming majority of terrorist incidents have nothing whatsoever to do with foreigners. They’re actions of the hard right. And, as we are all intensely aware, “There are fifty-seven times as many school shootings in the United States as the rest of the industrialized world combined.” But all these studies and the endless statistics are merely numbing. The meat of Marche’s thesis emerges from the scenarios he paints. Five principal takeaways stand out for me.

THE US MILITARY WILL BE INEFFECTUAL AGAINST AN INSURGENCY
“For fifty years the US military has been defined by its ineffectiveness against insurgencies in foreign countries,” March asserts. “Why would they do any better at home?” In fact, he insists, they would be exceedingly unlikely to do so. Because any new American civil war, he believes, would bear no resemblance to the set-piece scenes of the two world wars or Korea. The fighting would be isolated and sporadic, with insurgents popping up from time to time at vulnerable spots all across the country and melting back into the civilian population once their aims are achieved.

Furthermore, “lone-wolf terrorism” seems certain to arise as well in any future civil war. And all the insurrectionists would benefit from a reality unknown to the Viet Cong or the Taliban or ISIS: the protections of the First Amendment. In Dispatch One, Marche shows the Justice Department refusing to suspend the right of free speech, thus crippling any effort to arrest the leaders of a large-scale insurrectionist encampment in the West.

POLICE AND MILITARY UNITS MAY SIDE WITH THE INSURRECTIONISTS
“The Military Times reported in a 2019 poll of 1,630 active-duty soldiers that 36 percent of active troops have seen evidence of ‘white supremacist and racist ideologies in the military,’ a significant increase since 2018, when the number was 22 percent.” And it’s no surprise that a poll of law enforcement officers nationwide would likely reveal a similar picture. This reality will not shock anyone who has followed the news in recent years. But the right-wing penetration of the armed forces, both military and civilian, may have progressed far beyond what is generally known or what the numbers convey. Unsurprisingly, the result is likely to be that in any standoff with gun-toting insurrectionists, government authorities may not be able to count on the men and women under their command to follow orders.

DISSOLVING THE UNION IS THE LEAST VIOLENT PATH TO A SOLUTION
Secession movements are underway in states all across America. But the most advanced by far is the one in Texas. “If Texas were a country,” Marche writes, “it would have a GDP of $1.59 trillion, tenth in the world, slightly below Brazil and slightly ahead of Canada. . .California is even larger. With a GDP of $2.88 trillion, it recently passed the UK to become the fifth-largest economy in the world. It would rank thirty-sixth in population, with the world’s largest technology and entertainment sectors.” So, it’s no surprise that secessionist entrepreneurs are active in both states. However, what seems even more likely than the separation of individual states, even these two, is a split of the country along regional lines.

For example, Marche notes, “The economy of the states between Pennsylvania and Maine is the size of Japan’s”—the world’s third largest. The problem, though, is that since the Civil War, secession has been categorically ruled out. Even though a separation along geographical lines might represent the least-violent resolution of today’s intractable political division, it would face what could be insurmountable legal and political obstacles. And, I might add, even if it somehow came about, the economic and political complications that would arise from a separation would dwarf those that have come to light in the UK with Brexit.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND PANDEMICS ARE “THREAT MULTIPLIERS”
Today, as we live through what we hope are the final months of the COVID-19 pandemic, we see on a daily basis that the isolation and the restrictions imposed on us for the sake of public health have stirred up fury among millions of Americans. A future pandemic—and we must be realistic to expect one sooner or later—might provoke an even greater backlash, especially if the pathogen proves to be more lethal than COVID-19. But an even greater “threat multiplier” (to use the term from military jargon) could well be another extreme weather event, such as Hurricane Katrina or the hypothetical future hurricane and rising seas that destroy New York in one of Marche’s scenarios. With millions of climate refugees crowding into towns and cities in the nation’s heartland, it would be naive to think that violent conflict wouldn’t be the order of the day.

THE ROOTS OF THE PROBLEM ARE STRUCTURAL
Marche finds the root of today’s partisan gridlock, and the seeds for a new American civil war, in the United States Constitution. “The US system is an archaic mode of government,” he writes, “totally unsuited to the realities of the twenty-first century. It needs reforms to its foundational systems, not just new faces.” He specifically points to two structural problems: the Electoral College and the legal fiction that the states are all equal regardless of population.

The former allows a candidate to be elected President of the United States without achieving a majority of the votes, as has happened five times in US history and twice in the 21st century (George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016). The latter dictates that the smaller, predominantly rural states have a chokehold on legislative decision-making. In fact, the 33 smallest states comprising just over 30 percent of the population command two-thirds (66%) of the seats in the United States Senate.

But there is another deep-seated structural problem in the American political system: states’ rights. In the 18th century, it was inevitable that this antiquated concept would become baked into the Constitution. After all, the original thirteen colonies had been settled at different times and for different reasons. For example, religious dissenters established Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island while Georgia, originally envisioned as a penal colony, was effectively a military outpost against incursions from Spaniards to the south. Naturally, then, the Constitution drafted in 1787 could not have been ratified without a provision to protect the “sovereignty” of the thirteen states. And we’ve been living with that misguided decision ever since.

A PESSIMISTIC CONCLUSION. IS IT REALISTIC?
“One way or another, the United States is coming to an end. The divisions have become intractable. The political parties are irreconcilable. The capacity for government to make policy is diminishing. . . One possible conclusion is violence. The other is civilized separation. At this point, disunion is among the best-case scenarios for the United States.”

Surely, many readers, perhaps most, will dismiss this assessment as alarmist and unconvincing. I’m not so sure. While I do think Marche may venture into unknown territory at times—for example, in his discussion of secession—it’s difficult not to see in the tragic events of January 6, 2021, the harbinger of something much worse. Is a new American civil war now about to erupt? Or, perhaps just as bad in the long term, continuing signs of disunity as more and more states defy federal laws, low-level violence continues to spread, and Congress proves incapable or unwilling to do anything in response? The signs on the road ahead are not encouraging.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Stephen Marche (1976-) has been writing full-time since 2007, when he left a post teaching Renaissance drama at the City University of New York. (He holds a PhD in modern English drama from the same university.) But, despite the many years he lived in the United States, Marche is Canadian and an alumnus of the University of King’s College. He has written two novels, three books of nonfiction, and numerous essays and articles for major publications. Marche now lives in Toronto.

[Bill Zawrotny · Rating 1 out of 5]

Let's start with the positive: the author is spot on that our country has reached (or arguably exceeded) the breaking point. The author is also correct that it us probably not fixable.

Now for the negative: because the author comes at this entire topic from a radical, left-wing perspective, all of the country's problems are caused by the right. All of them. From white supremacy to "second amendment absolutism" to inequality to angry young men lashing out...all of it falls on the shoulders of conservatives. BLM is only discussed in a favorable light (conveniently ignoring their violent destruction throughout the country), antifa is barely acknowledged, Obama was the country's last greatest hope, etc. I was going to start listing all of the ludicrous twisted "facts" that the author tries to use to support his agenda, but it's all the usual stuff.

So, ironically, a book that ventures to talk about the end of America and who's to blame that could have given a balanced third-party viewpoint (the author is Canadian, thus not polluted by patriotism or love of America and what it truly stands for) instead just contributes to the divisiveness.

Don't waste your time with this one.

[Robert McTague · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well-researched, and (mostly) sound logic. I would quibble with some of the points in its military analysis (it was my career for a quarter of a decade) but overall it's remarkably accurate--factually AND tonally. I've followed a lot of these subjects for years myself, so most of it's not surprising...even so, it's a wallop to the gut to read. Do so with a sober, cogent mindset. My one (real) minus--it makes pointed criticisms about the outdated quality of the Constitution, but doesn't substantively speak as to what those aspects are--the term "outdated," on its own, doesn't really tell me much. That would be a useful addendum.

[Joe · Rating 1 out of 5]

Failed to inform or entertain. One guys ideas combined with a number of incomplete short stories.

There were brief moments of good content but overall the book was underwhelming both as a work of nonfiction and as a work of fiction. The nonfiction portions were akin to under researched punditry and the fiction portions just really weren’t at all substantial in length, character, or plot.

[GT · Rating 1 out of 5]

Allow me to preface my statements here by saying that I have not actually finished this work. I've just finished reading the first scenario... And found myself with more than enough criticisms of this author and his analysis in mind to proceed with a review regardless. I'm honestly not sure if I'll even finish the book.

Marche begins by introducing himself as Canadian, and claiming that this fact uniquely qualifies him as an "impartial observer" of American political events. On the face of things, this assertion toes the line between dubious, and outrightly ridiculous. The political divide currently splitting the United States - between the "soft" and (allegedly) "benevolent" authoritarian technocratic impulses of our globalist elite classes, and the more "traditional" populist folk nationalism of the largely nativist heartland - actually tends to be fairly universal to the modern Western World. Canada, contrary to being some alien outsider, is probably closer to the United States in this regard than any other nation in the Anglosphere, let alone the Western World as a whole. The Canadian viewpoint tends to be the most prone to bias regarding American affairs for that exact reason. What's more, for a supposedly "impartial" observer, Marche seems to revel in parroting the kind of Left Wing establishment talking points one might find on CNN, or between the pages of the New York Times, more or less exclusively when making his arguments.

Make no mistake. Marche is a Leftist partisan. While I will give him credit for at least trying to sympathize with the other side of the aisle in this book, he still demonstrates consistent ideological blind spots. Those blind spots are large enough that one could probably drive a Canadian trucker's rig through them.

The first scenario he lays out in this book demonstrates that fact quite aptly.

[SPOILERS]----------------------------------

The setting: At some point in the very near future, the US Department of Transportation closes a bridge in a rural part of the US. The local population objects to this, so their Sheriff unilaterally re-opens the bridge in defiance of the Federal Government. This Sheriff then becomes a polarizing internet celebrity following a "folksy" media interview, and the site becomes a rallying point for Right-of-center protest groups and militias with a bone to pick with government. Some are well and truly extreme, most are not. After some escalating rhetoric, and scuffles with counter-protestors, the Army is eventually called in, and after a standoff, massacres the militias in a surprise attack. They arrest the Sheriff, and he is ultimately thrown into a supermax prison alongside the Unabomber.

"This has happened before!" Marche declares, referring to an obscure incident from the 1990s.

The problem: Ummm... Yeah. Not quite. The media frenzy is imminently plausible, but the ultimate outcome Marche describes is rather far fetched, and supremely irrational. The stand-off in the 1990s ended with the Federal Government conceding the point to the local Sheriff, because trading blows over some rickety old bridge in the middle of nowhere ultimately wasn't worth the effort. Why would this be any different?

Marche acts like the Fed, regardless of the party in power, would have no choice but to respond to this situation with "the nuclear option" by sending in masses of armed troops just on general principle. This is nonsense. Negotiation and de-escalation would almost certainly be the first response. Hell! If someone like Trump were in office, he might even hold a rally at the bridge alongside the protestors!

For that matter, if the situation were truly as polarizing as Marche claims, it would most likely come to a head with clashes between militia members and groups like ANTIFA long before the Army could ever become involved. Yet... ANTIFA involvement isn't even mentioned as being a possibility (instead, Marche invents some sort of half-baked 'freedom rider' movement, which makes no sense, as the bridge is being kept open by the protestors, not closed).

Insult to Injury: To re-iterate, Marche basically describes the US Army blatantly murdering hundreds, if not thousands, of US citizens involved in the act of peaceful protest, in a very, very public display of cold blooded aggression and knee-jerk authoritarianism. They do this for? No readily justifiable reason other than that the Federal Government found the rhetoric and optics surrounding the militias' rallies to be annoying. Marche makes vague allusions to this further polarizing the existing ideological divide in the country, and maybe even inspiring an "insurgent" mindset in other Rightist militia groups. But then... The story just stops. He unceremoniously moves on to the next scenario.

Excuse me. What? The entire premise of this book is the promise of "civil war," and the "end of the United States." All Marche delivered here was a beefed up fantasy version of the Bundy stand-off, or a sequel to Waco, ending with government monstrously abusing its powers, and Americans being a bit crankier with one another than usual in response. And it just *stops* afterwards?

The Governor of the state in question (whom had explicitly refused to either engage the militias or request federal support against them) doesn't condemn or attempt to sue the Federal Government over the massacre? There aren't massive protests? Military resignations? Calls for the President's impeachment? Retaliatory attacks and bombings from Rightist militias?

Give us *something*, for God's sakes!

Ultimately, the book is simply a disappointment. It fails at being impartial. It falls at being plausible. It fails to even deliver on the foundational premise that would actually justify the price of purchase!

I'd recommend saving your money and reading something else.

Addendum: ----------------------------------

I actually did wind up finishing the book. I found nothing to change my original recommendation.

The remaining scenarios - including one very odd turn where the story suddenly becomes a watered down version of "The Day After Tomorrow" for about 70 pages - range between mildly engaging and "meh." Discussion of actual "civil war" and a potential "end of the United States" begins roughly around pages 250-300, and is about par for the course for the rest.

The "broad strokes" seem imminently plausible, but Marche repeats so many tired MSM clichés in the process that it undermines his own credibility. e.g. The tired old canard of "Red States taking more in Federal Aid than they pay in taxes" meaning that they will face sure economic collapse, for example. Nevermind, of course, the fact that this is largely due to the welfare systems the Fed forces them to finance, nor how absurdly dependent states like California are on the rest of the Union for everything from food and water, to electrical power, to financial bailouts for their hideously over-bloated public sectors.

Again... The whole thing is ultimately rather pedantic and blasé at best.

[Alex Gruenenfelder · Rating 2 out of 5]

In this disturbing piece of speculative fiction, a Canadian author takes an outsider's lens to what the facts have to say about the violent future America may face. It is one of the most apocalyptic books you can read without picking up a prepper manual, and yet still seems to spend time lecturing with the elitist tone of your uncle who believes UFOs are real. While I did not enjoy my time with this book, however, it makes a pressing case.

To the author, "Trump is, at most, a symptom." Our nation is in a crisis, and our well-intentioned policies may not be able to help. The author appears critical of many basic ideas in the United States, believing that American ideals of democracy and liberty cannot handle crisis. Conservatives will find themselves incensed by his attacks on freedom, while liberals will flare up at his claim that gun control is realistically impossible now; both sides would likely be offended by comparing Black Lives Matter and Richard Spencer.

Despite this, the research is important to take into account. The author's apocalyptic view of an America torn into civil war — with mass secession, restrictions on free speech, and a suspension of the Bill of Rights — may not connect to readers, but the fear of a civil war definitely does. It's such a complex topic that the author seems to argue with his own points at times, based on which study or expert he's using, but we need to keep all of the data in mind. We are at a turning point in this country, and we must be prepared.

The author puts forward a book that describes the collapse of America as inevitable and horrible, yet also believes that Americans and the world at large need it to survive. It is a call to action, urging people to actually fight for a better future: one of less inequality, one that fights against prejudice, and one that is more equal. Even if most of the book makes you forget it, this book is — at its core — the story of someone who loves America and his research into our fears of what could happen to it.

This is not the first book I've read on secession, and it likely won't be the last. With the events of January 6th more than a year ago, and the latest Texas GOP platform in the past few days, it's a topic many are interested in. We should be concerned about it, but descriptions of civil war and division as inevitable are dangerous: they don't just describe, but encourage, apocalyptic thinking. Remember that this book is a piece of overly-confident speculative fiction and to take its writings with a grain of salt. Remember: We can save this nation, but we must act now.

[Ian]

1 ⭐️ Who knew the next American Civil War would be so boring?

Marche has created another one of these political novels with delusions of grandeur, the other recent example I've read being Anne Jacobson's "Nuclear War: A Scenario". In each case the author writes a fictional account of future events and then pads it with voluminous data dumps that purport to back up and justify their vision.
What you actually get is a bad novel.

March contends that the U.S. is irrevocably divided and is in a de facto civil war already. He then creates a series of fictional events he pompously labels as "dispatches", leading to the nation's break-up.

The book is chock full of Marche's amateur political and social analysis, illustrated by selective books, articles and some random polling. He equates extremist, fringe elements like militias and white nationalists ( to whom he awards the oxymoronic title "anti-government patriots") with mainstream political movements. It just doesn't hold up, imo.

Like Jacobson, Marche never names any of his characters, just gives them descriptors, like "The Sherriff," "The General", "The Assassin," "The Producer."
He actually tries to flesh out his characters, somewhat, but then has them involved in unbelievable events.

For example, where any state government would allow some random Sherriff to declare independence and to create a bloodbath; where some cellar dwelling millennial who has supposedly never fired a gun could assassinate the U.S. President in a random Jamba Juice. Or where Texas and California inevitably secede.

Ironically, I found it to be a hopeful book. He just could not convince me that things are as bad as he makes out.

[Bonnie · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars

I didn’t agree with everything in this book, but it was certainly thought-provoking. Presents the decline of the United States of America not as “this could happen if the U.S. doesn’t change course” but as “the historical end of this republic is underway.” The Canadian writer presents five scenarios that could lead to the breakup of the United States, written as “Dispatches from the American Future, plus nonfiction bits about how it came to this: 

-Standoff between Army and right-wing militias over a decaying bridge
-Assassination of president
-Climate change problems such as hurricane water rushing over New York City’s seawall with refugees and New Yorkers moving to Iowa
-Dirty bomb going off in Washington, DC
-Secession of states like Texas or a “divorce” resulting in four smaller countries: Cascadia (California, Oregon, Washington), the Republic of Texas, and two more rump USAs: one South + Prairie states, one New England + Midwest.

My favorite parts were the story about the sheriff and general standing off at the bridge, and taking down Confederate statues such as Silent Sam at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

If I could change a few things:
1) Make it more clear which sections are speculative fiction, and which are already true. Sometimes I could not tell if sentences were from the POV of the dispatch writer in the future, or Stephen Marche’s own actual opinion (“Since Bush vs. Gore in 2000, everyone recognizes that the Supreme Court no longer represents the transcendent interests of national purpose. It’s merely a collection of partisan hacks, like any other branch of the US government.”).
2) Expand all dispatches into better stories with more detail, such as the first one about the bridge or the third one about the storm surge flooding New York.
3) Continue the dispatches into civil war and shooting, or change the book title to just Dispatches from an American Future — there was very little about actual civil war!

The book came to my attention when I read these articles in January, 2022:
How Ivy League Elites Turned Against Democracy - The Atlantic
Stephen Marche
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arc...

Trump’s Pride Goeth Before Our Fall - New York Times
Frank Bruni
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/op...

[James (JD) Dittes · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have long enjoyed Marche's essays in Esquire and the New York Times Magazine, so when I saw that he was taking on America's near future, I couldn't resist. I'm glad I did.

Marche isn't writing science fiction here. I would describe it more as 'reported probability.'

Each of his five scenarios--a rural showdown between the Army and local militia, a political assassination, the destruction of a major port city through climate change or plague, among others--contains a relative dearth of plot, but a hefty amount of reporting to make the scenario seem clear.

Marche hasn't dreamed up these scenarios. He has discussed them with others in the know--military brass, scholars. Reading this as the Covid pandemic stubbornly pushes itself into 2022, and as the one-year anniversity of the January 6 Riot passes with one party stubbornly refusing to hold itself accountable, the scenarios look all to real.

An interesting element of Marche's analysis is his outsider status. He is a Canadian who has lived and reported from America for many years. His skepticism is balanced with his admiration for the United States. Still, from where I read in the reddest of red states--in a district whose Congressman probably would have joined in the riot had he not been inside the Capitol on January 6, seeking unconstitutional measures to abort a certified election--I see a brighter way than what I read here.

Two facts that Marche cites give me hope. First is the densification of American life. Rural countries are emptying out as exurbs and cities fill. While holes in the Constitution have been exploited by Fascists recently to maintain power for a short time longer and stack the courts with reactionaries, the balances in the system will eventually balance out. Votes are still made by people, and western states that have turned from red to blue in recent years have done so because of burgeoning metropolises and exhausted, depopulated rural areas.

The second is the issue of demographics. White Americans are declining, not only in economic status, but also in population. Covid is accelerating this process, thanks to anti-vaxxers, but birth rates play a part. There has been a spurt of white violence in response, as Marche notes, but I don't think this is a threat to the country as a whole as much as it is to the institutions of white surpremacy, such as the Church and the Republi-fascist party.

Marche's book is a good start. It raises issues of which we should be aware. But I don't think it is prophetic.

Special thanks to NetGalley for providing me with an advanced copy of the book in return for this honest review.

[Colin · Rating 1 out of 5]

Impossible to review this without coming off as somebody who just didn't like Marche's politics, but this really is a perfect example of modern liberalism recognizing a diseased society limping through an inevitable decline, but finding itself complete feckless to do anything about it.

His broad assertions are correct, I feel; these scenarios, to varying degrees, are increasingly likely within the polarized American body politic. I think he's correct in figuring that any war would look much less like the Civil War of old and much more like increasing incidents of stochastic terrorism.

Despite being largely right about the outcomes, or perhaps because of it, the book's lack of conviction towards any kind of solution is utterly embarrassing. Marche is so desperate to cling to his centrist credentials that he continually equates the right and left, as if both have similar goals. He refuses to acknowledge that there are solutions for many of these problems (climate change, imbalances in representation, inequality); they're not palatable for him, so he discards them and treats these events as an inevitability, rather than a consequence of inaction. He doesn't speak about the kind of bold investments that must be made to combat climate change, or the need to tax billionaires into oblivion to combat inequality (he claims communism only achieved the elimination of wealth, as if that's a bad thing), or how American desperation is driven in part by everything from low wages to expensive healthcare to a future of decline.

This is modern liberalism, in all its glory; priming us to accept a worse future because they aren't willing to commit to a better one. Parenti's Blackshirts and Reds couldn't have painted a better picture.

[V · Rating 2 out of 5]

The only new fact I learned was that 1 in 11 American presidents are assassinated, which frankly is a shocking statistic.

The book is structured as a series of scenarios that kick off the next Civil War in the States. None of these are too shocking or unpredictable. There is no real hope or suggestions for how to avoid a future conflict - the author believes the next Civil War is a foregone conclusion, and maybe he's right.

I suppose that's what I signed up for, but I didn't really enjoy reading it.

[Craig DiLouie · Rating 5 out of 5]

In THE NEXT CIVIL WAR: DISPATCHES FROM THE AMERICAN FUTURE, Canadian novelist and essayist Stephen Marche examines America’s crumbling political foundations and imagines a series of scenarios that could spark a civil war. As with DON’T LOOK UP, many reviewers tut-tutted about its tone and nitpicked its plausibility. Personally, I thought it was frank, honest, and accurate in its analysis of why America appears caught in a fantasy and unable to solve its problems. It did miss one important element, however, in my view, which I’ll explain in a bit.

First, let me describe the book. Marche evaluates several fictional near-future scenarios that could start a civil war. He regards a civil war as likely occurring everywhere, a war largely fought between rural and urban, which is entirely plausible. In THE NEXT CIVIL WAR, we have a standoff between the Army and a coalition of hard-right militias at a bridge, the assassination of an unpopular president, climate change producing mass migrations from coastal regions, a dirty bomb blowing up in Washington, DC, and outright secession and breakup of the union. Each scenario providing a potential flashpoint that could lead to war is loaded with background information for context.

This background info is the real education in the book, information I’d consider essential reading for Americans wondering why the country seemed stuck in a hostile malaise even before the pandemic made everything ten times worse. How elimination of earmarks (pork spending) eliminated the only basis of compromise in the two-party system, resulting in hyper partisanship. How the electoral college, the Senate, and gerrymandering warps democracy such that it can scarcely be called democracy (62% of senators represent 1/4 of the population, while 6 senators represent another 1/4, Democratic presidential candidates regularly win the popular vote but lose elections, etc.). How gridlock means America is becoming incapable of enacting major policies and confronting the greatest threats to its existence, which are income inequality and climate change, and how this fuels the rise of the imperial presidency, as the executive branch claims more and more powers simply to get something done. How Congress can’t even properly investigate an assault on itself by violent protesters seeking to overturn a democratic election result, with one of its major parties (the GOP, obviously) essentially having a political and a militant wing that are starting to work together. How social media manufactures and refines rage, helping to fuel a right wing terrorist movement. How hyper partisanship means everything becomes politicized along tribal lines, from Trump’s big lie about the election being stolen to whether people should take the basic self-preservation steps of wearing masks and getting vaccinated during a pandemic. The story of the woman literally drowning in her own COVID snot and fighting nurses trying to intubate her in the belief COVID is a government hoax, based on “doing her own research” on YouTube, is pretty much a defining image of these strange times we live in.

As for the scenarios that Marche presents as trigger points, they seem fair enough as major stresses on the system. What I think the book is missing is a major Constitutional issue that literally breaks the country. Marche logically concludes a match and kindling are what makes fire, but bringing the US to a literal state of civil war would require a healthy dose of gasoline, to extend the metaphor. Secession would do it, or an attempted or successful hard coup. In my novel OUR WAR, the civil war starts almost by accident, as far-right groups take over government buildings across the country as an armed protest over an impeached president that snowballs into something much bigger. Far more likely as a result of the depicted scenarios in Marche’s book would be civil strife, terrorism, government impotence and de-legitimization, and continuing decline. Civil war is very unlikely when it’s so much easier to simply take over the government through elections and rewriting election laws, and then stack the courts with friendly partisan hacks as we’re seeing with today’s Supreme Court.

In its conclusion, Marche nails the idea that America is itself an idea, a dream that creates a nation from what is really just another of history’s multi-ethnic empires. Political tribalism has destroyed this idea, or rather created parallel ideas, parallel Americas with different interpretations of government, history, and even basic reality. He wonders if the only solution is a divorce, where different regions of the country can be freed of each other to pursue their own dreams.

Overall, THE NEXT CIVIL WAR is a powerful if unhappy read. Even if you don’t agree the country is headed to civil war, the way Marche depicts the fault lines in American stability is compelling, provocative, and eye-opening.

[H James · Rating 2 out of 5]

The readers naturally drawn to a political‐forecast book like The Next Civil War are likely to be frustrated by Mr. Marche’s failure to drill down far enough to find new insights. This catch‐all covers enough topics—rogue militias, flood protection, presidential security, wars of public opinion, and on and on—that few readers won’t find something unfamiliar, but it’ll likely be too little to justify the investment in time.

Readers are likely to be equally frustrated by the book’s cowardly conclusion. The first four chapters are spent arguing that a collapse of the U.S. is inevitable and that the best we can do is get serious about building mechanisms by which it might dissolve as peacefully and non‐destructively as possible. The last chapter is spent looking at a few precedents for and difficulties inherent in dissolution (while saying very little about what a robust approach might actually look like). The conclusion then undermines any sense of urgency with some happy words about how good it is that the U.S. exists and how Mr Marche, kindly Canadian, hopes it won’t need to end after all—pretty much the same mindset that all the preceding pages attribute to the wearing of rose‐colored glasses.

[Chuck · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book had so much promise but did not deliver. The title was better than the contents. It was a horribly biased , anti- Republican woke screed. I should have known after seeing the author on Canadian state run tv and him having written for the NY Times and the Atlantic.
The author presents a few scenarios for civil war but does not expand much on any of them rather than to generally lay blame with white rubes and the alt-right in most cases. He quotes places such as Southern Poverty Law Center as a typical authority for example. He buys into the 1619 narrative and assures us any violence will come from the right while antifa and blm are forces for good.
Steer clear unless you are a Brandon fan.

[Lynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hopefully it won’t come to fruition but the author points out that there are people who actually want this to happen.

[Vance Christiaanse · Rating 5 out of 5]

A quick but sobering read. Might it actually be better for everyone if the US just went ahead and split into multiple separate countries? Is some kind of split inevitable no matter what? (Or is the US to be the first country in history to last forever?) Marche points out that the US was founded on a significant contradiction, slavery vs. freedom, and this fundamental tension is unique. It makes us (1) inherently crazy and (2) inherently vulnerable to collapse. The big lesson for me is that many people in the US don't -want- a pluralistic society or even a democracy.