Assume the worst happens, and the US becomes more and more fascist. The judiciary is packed with radical partisans who endorse authoritarianism and assault civil rights. Gerrymandering means the gop has a lock on power unless they lose by 20 points. Voting rights are badly suppressed. Elections eventually are openly stolen and the federal judiciary rubber stamps it.
In the US, when the south engaged in state sponsored terrorism and authoritarianism against black people the federal government stepped in and (eventually) helped stop it.
So if the federal government goes authoritarian like the government in Poland or Hungary are doing, can the states and large cities put up meaningful resistance to it? Do they have any power to push back? Much of the US economy comes from large cities and blue states. Can they use that to resist?
Can they use their state courts to resist orders given by the federal courts or federal government?
In a country this large, I don’t see how states can’t have an impact. I also don’t see how the federal government could practically exert military will against every single blue area without consequence or resistance.
As I keep saying in these thought experiments, “America structured as it is now, except fascist dictatorship or what have you” is about as unlikely a concept as I can think of.
I disagree. Black people have been kept under slavery and Jim crow which were both very authoritarian. Authoritarianism is entirely possible here since we’ve done it to people we don’t like for hundreds of years.
But black people never had wealth, their own local and state governments, their own state courts or produced 60-80% of America’s gdp like urban areas and blue states do.
People still had hope of changing things basically within the system. If that hope goes away completely, I think the country will break up long before we have the 50 States of Trump.
Are there enough ready and willing troops to storm coastal California, NYC, L.A., Chicago, etc, basically at the same time? I have trouble imagining it.
Balkanization, absolutely I can imagine that. But “the country structured as it is now, except dictatorship”? Like I said above, I just don’t see it.
Are the governments of Poland and Hungary actually authoritarian, or are they merely right-wing and anti-immigration? I have heard a hell of a lot about the Russian government being authoritarian, especially as it pertains to Ukraine and Crimea. I have never heard that Poland and Hungary were authoritarian.
If it takes on a racial dynamic, blue voters would be at a disadvantage. Since minority voters are quite strongly majority liberal (90% for blacks, 60-80% for Hispanics, etc.) but white voters are hard to distinguish (could be leftish, could be righty), it would be easier for right-wingers to target left-wingers than vice versa.
Plenty of Democrats own guns (and such gun ownership would no doubt spike among liberals as things got worse,) but restrictions might be placed against minority Americans owning guns. Ironically, 2nd Amendment folks may be proven to be correct: You ***do ***indeed need guns to defend against a tyrannical government…but not in the way people thought.
As much as I criticize the whole dual federalism at times, this is what makes it more challenging (though not impossible) for a would-be dictator to consolidate power. All states have their own cultural and political identity. He can punish states if he and his allies desire but that could backfire; it could have the effect of unifying a state against him.
That brings me to the point about blue vs red states. Don’t assume that everyone in a “blue” state would join the revolution against him. Even in a state like New York, there would be a lot of Trump supporters in, say, upstate NY who would say “Fuck you” to a resistance movement. In Pennsylvania, pretty much anything between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia is “Pensa-Bama.”
Yeah, it’s more of an urban vs rural divide than a blue vs red state divide. Outside of a few new England states, most states are deeply red in white rural areas.
But blue states and urban areas are where most of the economic activity happens. Urban areas subsidize rural areas and blue states subsidize red states. I’m not sure if they could refuse to pay taxes as a form of protest. Or if they could tie the federal government up in state court for years and years.
Ideally it wouldn’t come to a military conflict. I’m more wondering about blue states and urban areas using their governments, state courts, economies, etc to resist. One example would be urban areas and blue states refusing to cooperate with the trump government regarding immigration. There wasn’t military conflict, just resistance.
As far as targeting people, around ~40% of white voters are democrats. Not quite fifty fifty but close. However in rural white areas around 65-80% of white voters are Republicans. However many people don’t even vote. In a rural area maybe out of 100 white people, around 50% are non voters, 35% republican and 15% democrats.
The federal government would prevail as ultimately, it has the biggest guns.
When the federal government wanted to integrate schools in the South and some Southern States didn’t, what happened? The federal government sent an Army division and federalized the State National Guard. It’s not like doing something like that would be beyond the GOP.
At that point, it might come down to military personnel choosing sides.
If cities and States governments refused to cooperate on tax raising or immigration, the federal government could still do its job, just not as efficiently and there’s little indication they care about efficient government in general.
But what happens when those states/big cities (which are the bulk of the population) stop sending money to Washington and they cannot pay their soldiers? Red states cannot support the military on their own (or, if they can, there is precious little for anything else).
In short, the country has collapsed into a civil war and I doubt anything good would come from that.
When you say “states/big cities”, do you mean the people/corporations paying federal taxes or the governments at the State and municipal levels? Does the NY State government itself send much money to the federal government? Even if the NYC mayor says “fuck the feds”, the federal government can still get its money from NYC taxpayers. Or maybe there’s some aspect of US government I’m not getting.
I think the only way to prevent some fascist federal government from taking over is if you could form a splinter group of enough military and police that would not side with some huge authoritarian government, and honestly I’m not sure enough would refuse to along with it.
If there’s an actual civil war using the assets and personnel of the US military today (as opposed to the 1860s), payroll won’t have time to be a major issue. Running out of missiles, aircraft and people will matter way before making payroll. Wars aren’t fought like in the 1860s anymore.
Money is mostly electronic these days; employers send electronic money to federal accounts; much of this activity is controlled by banks headquartered in New York City. With conflicting directives would these banks obey the New York Governor or the GOP-appointed SecTreas?
Control of financial networks might become important. The feds have the most powerful computer-hacking organizations in the Western Hemisphere, but there are plenty of talented anti-Trump hackers. Let’s hope there is already an underground organization aware of the danger and making plans to take control of key networks.
If financial networks are severed, there will be confusion about which dollars are “real.” Demand for printed banknotes might rise. At present banknotes are printed in Fort Worth, TX and Washington, DC.
Physical control of the City of Washington would become important. Although nominal headquarters of the GOP dictatorship, its population is the most anti-GOP of any territory. Perhaps that city is where armed fighting, if any, will be crucial.