I'm sort of interested in "Civil War", but I'm a lot more interested in the idea of nonviolent revolution in the USA; that is, a discontinuous change in the rules of government based on popular demonstrations.
I think there are some real logjams in our federal and state systems, including gerrymandering, campaign finance, the filibuster, the size and composition of the Supreme Court, the fixed size of the House of Representatives, and the consequent disproportionate representation of small states on the Electoral College. We have the tools to correct them, but there are feedback loops that make it hard to do so.
@tuban_muzuru I disagree. Growing the House stopped in the 1920s. The filibuster has existed since the 1830s or so. There are just a lot of ossifying effects coming together all at once.
Nonviolent revolutions have happened all over the world in the last 50 years; from the Philippines in the 80s to Eastern Europe, the colour revolutions, the Arab Spring. The Fifth Republic in the 1950s in France. They don't always work and they don't always stay nonviolent, but they're usually a lot different than an armed uprising.
Anyway, I think it would make a really interesting movie to imagine what a nonviolent revolution in the United States would be like. It would probably be a lot more hopeful than what "Civil War" is like, as I understand it.
Nonviolent revolutions often happen because entrenched powers cling to unfair structural advantages instead of capitulating to reforms. I think the filibuster would be a great example to use of a fictional nonviolent revolution. Like, very popular or necessary legislation is held up by a filibuster. The Senate refuses to eliminate it, and that catalyzes a new discontinuous Constitutional Convention.
Often in nonviolent revolutions some existing structures are used to give legitimacy to the proceedings. State or Federal legislatures or courts could support a new Constitution. Or even previously ignored structures, like big city governments or ballot initiatives.
The fact that we've all lived through a more violent version of this scenario, with January 6, makes it hard to feel like it would be a positive film. It could be, though. These kinds of events are destabilizing and scary, but often also exhilarating and empowering.
This kind of happened with the original Constitutional Convention in 1787. They didn't actually have a mandate to make a new Constitution. They were supposed to revise the old Articles of Confederation. Instead, they started over from scratch, and then made up a new mechanism for ratification that routed around the old federal and state governments. It was a pretty slick move.
@evan I wouldn't equate this with an attempted coup with the stated goal of installing an authoritarian leader despite the evidence that the claims they used to justify said coup were completely unfounded.
Add comment