[Skybird]

Okay, so here is the full text translated via DeepL. Quality by DeepL is better anyway.



"There is no more listening, no more common ground, no more willingness to compromise"

The U.S. no longer has much to do with "United" states. Polarization has now gone so far that some are warning of civil war. How dangerous is the radicalization? Conversations with representatives of extremely opposing camps on the political spectrum.

American society is polarized and ready for violence. More than a quarter of the population believes it may soon be necessary to rise up armed against the government. About three-quarters of both Democrats and Republicans believe members of the other party are bullies who want to impose their views and spread disinformation. This was the result of a recently published survey by the University of Chicago. It is therefore not surprising that in the run-up to the November midterm elections, and even more so in view of the 2024 presidential elections, many experts and ordinary citizens in the USA are worried.

People increasingly define themselves by skin color and religion

Experts such as Barbara Walter ("How Civil Wars Start: And How to Stop Them") and Stephen Marche ("The Next Civil War") are pessimistic about extremism and armed conflict in the United States. Walter, who has spent years analyzing the emergence of civil wars around the world, considers one factor in particular to be central: the fact that citizens no longer rally around different political programs or ideologies, but around movements that define themselves by their identity.

She also observes this tendency in the U.S., where people increasingly no longer describe themselves as "left" or "right" but by skin color or religion. The political scientist considers white racists with their militias and Donald Trump, whom some consider to be the first explicitly "white" president, in distinction to his predecessor Barack Obama, to be particularly dangerous. This analysis is quite plausible when one thinks of civil wars in Africa, for example, where parties are often defined ethnically rather than politically and sometimes maintain an armed arm that stokes tensions between groups.

Conservatives and progressives rarely talk to each other anymore, and when they do, they avoid political issues. It is therefore worthwhile to talk not only about but also with people on the fringes of the political spectrum. In doing so, it becomes apparent that positions are often less radical than one might expect. Much is worth considering, and a critical discussion is certainly possible.

Against equal rights for women and abortion

This is evident, for example, in a conversation with attorney Kristen Ullman, president of the Eagle Forum. Its focus is the Christian family as the core of society. It sees itself as anti-feminist, opposing equal rights for women, same-sex marriage, abortion and sex education. From the point of view of its representatives, rape in marriage is not possible. The forum also advocates a dress code in schools: boys should wear pants, girls skirts.

Ullman complains that the U.S. has fallen away from its basic Christian-Jewish principles. These include, for example, denying today the differences between men and women and the different roles that result, he says. "A woman can carry children and breastfeed them." But as to the question of whether a woman must limit herself to being a mother and housewife, she denies it. "Let each family decide that for itself."

The lawyer is pleased with the Supreme Court's repeal of the nation's abortion law, which she sees as "democratizing" because decision-making power is being returned to the constituent states. She rejects the "my body - my choice" slogan: "It's a different body and a different life."

Eagle Forum opposes a Covid 19 vaccination mandate. "Isn't it contradictory," Ullman asks, "that leftists and feminists insist on bodily self-determination when it comes to abortion, but when it comes to vaccinations, recklessly surrender that autonomy?"

Rather surprisingly, Ullman does acknowledge that there is serious discrimination against African Americans in the United States. But, he says, it is wrong to claim that all whites are privileged. "Whites are neither better nor worse than blacks," she says.
In the debate over violence in political discourse, Ullman proves to be the opposite of a hothead. "Americans generally oppose war, even when they are unhappy with a government," she believes. "Although some talk of civil war, very few Americans are really willing to take up arms against their fellow citizens. They are looking for other means to bring about change. Freedom of speech and assembly are the weapons of choice in this culture war."

Guns as protection against civil war and tyranny

Gun lobbyist Luis Valdes, on the other hand, believes real guns are the best protection against civil war and tyranny. He is director of the Floridian chapter of Gun Owners of America, which opposes all gun control and is considered more radical than the better-known National Rifle Association (NRA).

"An armed society is a polite society," he says. "Criminals are intimidated. Law-abiding citizens must have the right to defend themselves." Unarmed people are slaves to the state, Valdes finds. The right to bear arms, enshrined in the constitution, is a fruit of the struggle for independence, he says, and is intended to prevent, not enable, armed conflict. Insurgents and enemies would be deterred. The fact that Switzerland is democratic and free and has been spared war has a lot to do with the arming of its citizens.

Valdes also points out a contradiction: "Cities like Washington or Chicago have restrictive gun laws and yet a high crime rate. Here in Miami, it's the opposite: ten percent of residents legally carry a gun, but there's little gun violence."

Rather surprisingly, based on his years of experience as a police officer, Valdes, like Ullman, is sympathetic to the Black Lives Matter movement. He acknowledges that there is police misconduct. The high crime rate in the U.S. also has a lot to do with mental illness and its stigmatization, Valdes believes. The relevant institutions are underfunded, he says, and the problem is delegated to the police, who are overburdened with it.

Socialist thinks Trump is merely a symptom

On this issue, the right-wing gun lobbyist is probably in agreement with many representatives of the completely opposite camp. The 37-year-old Dustin Spence, for example, belongs to the Chicago branch of Socialist Alternative, which was founded in 1986. The Trotskyists see themselves as a revolutionary party that does not believe capitalism can be reformed and fights for a "democratic, socialist economy."

For Spence, polarization is a reflection of economic drift. He interprets widespread crime as an expression of this tension. Like his political counterparts Ullman and Valdes, he perceives an alienation between the people and the elite. But unlike them, he says answers must be sought outside the established political system-socialism, for example.

There is dissatisfaction with the two-party system, which, with its polarization, makes constructive solutions difficult, Spence explains. But, like Ullman, he warns against dramatization: "Right now, people want to secure what they have above all else. They're defensive. There will be no revolution or civil war in the near future," the socialist is convinced.

Contrary to expectations, Spence doesn't linger long on Trump. The latter's demonization and omnipresence in the media bothers him: "It's personalization that distracts from the real issues." The Republicans have been moving more and more to the right for a long time; Trump is only a symptom. In general, he is remarkably unexcited. In storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the state showed a weakness in Spence's view, but not one that threatened its very existence. The far-right militias like the Proud Boys are small in number, he says.

Antifa sees danger in another Trump candidacy

Antifa, on the other hand, certainly believes that these militias have the potential for a coup. The storming of the Capitol showed that, says a representative of Rose City Antifa, the offshoot of the far-left movement in Portland, Oregon. He only wants to speak anonymously so that "neither right-wing extremists nor the state can target individual members of the group."

However, the man sees the immediate danger in Trump's involvement in the next presidential election. "If he wins, there would likely be a further radicalization of Republicans and more cavalier public activity by the far-right. If he loses, there would be underground 'vendettas' and an attempt at destabilization."


He already perceives fascist tendencies on the right fringe of the Republican Party: "Under Trump, there was hardly any fear of contact with right-wing radicals like the Proud Boys." Moreover, he says, many in the party pose as popular representatives of the "common man" on the one hand and cultivate an authoritarian cult of leadership on the other. Antifa in Portland, on the other hand, does not want to label groups like the Eagle Forum as far-right.

Identity politics is part of the problem

It is difficult to say how representative these four representatives are of radical groups in the United States. But it is noticeable that all of them strive to make a coherent argument and do not operate with identitarian resentment. One could well imagine that they would be able to talk to each other without going for each other's throats. That makes us rather optimistic. In the media, meanwhile, agitators from both sides of the political spectrum are overrepresented because they drive up the ratings - but that also deepens the polarization.

"We are in a culture war. But the idea that we're headed for a civil war seems hysterical to me," political economist Nicholas Eberstadt says. He has published several books on poverty, unemployment, the history of ideology and demography, and is a member of the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute in Washington. "This alarmism denigrates and demonizes political opponents. You fuel the very polarization you deplore."

There is undoubtedly a dangerous radicalization on both sides of the political spectrum, he says. People are living more and more in ideologically compartmentalized spaces, which is reinforced by social networks, he says. "You don't read at all anymore, or you only read what suits you." Eberstadt understands that some are looking to the next elections with concern. There could well be riots and violence, he says.

The researcher considers identity politics, both from the right and the left, to be a big problem. "It's no longer the what that matters, that is, the better argument, but the who." On this point, he agrees with Barbara Walter. "In Africa, people went from tribalism to state-building," he says. "We are going the opposite way: from open society to tribalism."

Eberstadt has the impression that people dramatize simple disagreements: "We can no longer deal with dissent in a calm and tolerant way, as is actually necessary in a democracy. There is no more listening, no more common ground, no more willingness to compromise. It's as if there were a right-wing and a left-wing language. We should try to be multilingual."