When Abraham Lincoln famously said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” he was of course referring to the issue of slavery. Whether a human being could be considered property of another, was an issue so contentious, Lincoln believed the federal government ought to uphold the dignity of every person, even if it meant going to war. Now there were a multitude of reasons for the Civil War, slavery being a key one. But overall there was a recognition on both sides that there are limits to tolerating different moral outlooks, albeit within a federal system that allows for such differences.

Unlike during the Civil War, there is no equivalent of slavery as a single, irreconcilably obnoxious institution today. Instead, what is tearing America apart is a difference of world views. Amongst voters, more than 40% support a man who holds the norms of a functioning liberal democracy in complete contempt. Trump wants to use libel laws to silence the press, who he deems  “enemies of the people.” He wants to bring back torture worse than waterboarding, because he believes some people deserve to be tortured. His criticism of the judiciary is so disproportionate, even his own appointee, Neil Gorsuch, felt the need to speak out. In short, what Trump and his supporters want is a de facto revolution. They reject constitutional principles of limited government and due process, however fervently they claim otherwise. Instead, they would empower President Trump to do as he pleased, disregarding all opposition as illegitimate. No longer are political adversaries people with mere difference of opinion, they are unpatriotic, evil people who ought to be totally sidelined.

So when non-Trump America is faced with such uncompromising vitriol, it’s inevitable that their response will be ugly. A good example is liberals’ response to Milo Yiannopoulos, a pro-Trump campaigner, who spends his days writing inflammatory articles for Breitbart, or picking on people he deems to be ‘social justice warriors’. When Milo went on liberal comedian Bill Maher’s show, fellow guest Larry Wilmore completely lost his temper, and exploded in a fit of rage. Whether it was Milo or Larry Wilmore who was in the right is beside the point. The world views of the Trumpists and progressives are so far apart, they are incapable of having a civil dialogue. Though there may be exceptions, this is generally the rule.

Of course, many academics (including some of my lecturers) would challenge the notion that the decline of American civility is due to increased ideological polarisation on the basis that polarisation is largely a myth. They point out that most Americans identify as moderates. Ideological congruence is rare, and disproportionately found amongst elites. They are joined by naive socialists like Bernie Sanders, who believe most people share his vision for a Nordic-style welfare state on American soil, and thus only vote for self-interested billionaires like Trump because the Democrats didn’t promise enough government spending.

Both the hopeful academics and the democratic socialists are wrong. The former fail to consider that more informed voters vote more regularly, and the more informed tend to be more polarised. Even if most voters are centrist, they certainly aren’t putting pressure on their representatives to behave accordingly. Amongst Democrats, most want the party to be more progressive, even if they voted for Clinton. In particular, most of the energy and dynamism was behind the Sanders campaign, as could be seen at his rallies, which drew thousands of people each. Similarly, the Trump campaign generated far more enthusiasm than the campaigns of relative centrists like Jeb Bush or John Kasich. Even if the median voter is in the centre, there clearly aren’t very many median voters who engage in political activism or vote in primaries.

Sanders and his supporters are equally deluded. Granted, many Trump voters were hopelessly misinformed, but not as misinformed as to vote for a man who wants to dramatically cut the taxes of the wealthy, on the basis that the Democrats didn’t want to raise taxes on the wealthy by enough. The reason why Clinton lost wasn’t because she wasn’t socialist enough, but because she was seen as too corrupt and out of touch by the American working class; it was a question of character, not policy. During the primary season, both Sanders and Trump drew large crowds, and many pundits believed both crowds wanted the same thing. This false equivalence turned out to be inaccurate: Trump supporters liked the fact that Trump embodied traditional American capitalism, Sanders supporters liked Sanders’ holistic rejection of America’s current economic model, even in a society where ‘socialism’ is still associated with the ‘Godless Communism’ of the USSR.  Now Sanders is entitled to his views, provided he has the intellectual honesty to admit they are well outside the mainstream. He should stop pretending he speaks from some silent majority and come clean. Nordic-style socialism would be almost as radical a departure from America’s traditions as the authoritarianism Trump and his followers espouse.

So since American civility will continue to be at rock-bottom levels for the foreseeable future, America may have to learn from Lincoln as to what ought to be done. If a house divided against itself cannot stand, the house must be rebuilt, or else it will collapse. There are a few solutions I consider to be worthy of Lincoln’s radicalism:

1. Radical devolution. The Federal Government would cease to have such a broad policy coverage. Federal welfare programs, intervention in healthcare, and social security systems would be abolished. It would then be up to individual states to finance and administer them. So Vermont could become the North American Denmark, and Alabama would be an Evangelical version of Poland. Only defence, the US dollar, the federal justice system, immigration and a few other minor functions would remain in federal hands. This would allow democratic socialists to make real progress in achieving their goals, without having to pretend a majority of the country supports them. Equally, fiscal conservatives would be held directly responsible were they to take away people’s healthcare coverage, and couldn’t blame their opponents. The only trouble would be the abandonment of vulnerable minorities, such as the large black population living in the Deep South- who would have to suffer the consequences of Republican policies, without ever being able to outvote the white, conservative majority.
2. The break up of the Union. Its clear the Union isn’t working, so its reasonable to question its existence. There are two ways this could work. There could be a straightforward partition into two states: one with the liberal Northeast and West Coast, the other with the former Confederacy and most of the Midwest. The problem with this is that bits of each country may be cut off from one another. So instead, there could be multiple countries with greater geographical coherence. New England would be a viable independent state. California could certainly do it on its own. In this scenario, the Federal Government would be a bit like the EU- there to maintain free trade, freedom of goods, services and possibly people, as well as perhaps a common currency. But ultimate sovereignty would like in the hands of the new countries. The problem here would be the immediate economic shock of losing the Union. Unlike option 1, new constitutions would have to be written. But like option 1, there’s still the problem of permanent, vulnerable minorities.
3. A new political party system, enabled by proportional representation. This option is based on the reasonable belief that America has been failed not only by its two parties, but by the two party system, which fails to represent the vast array of different beliefs a country of 318 million people has. Under a proportional representation system, no party would have a majority, so policies would be the result of coalition building, just like in most of the rest of the developed world. This ought to appeal to progressives, who constantly talk about the Nordic welfare state, while ignoring its pluralistic, consensus-based political culture. It would also end the Republican party’s divisions between the Trumpists, the Christian social conservatives, the economic liberals (Chamber of Commerce, Wall St Journal), and the moderates. Voters would be given a greater choice at the ballot box. Having said that, the current system of single-member districts would have to change, and there is no consensus on what the alternative would be.

Overall, its clear America is in dire straights. The coarseness of the dialogue in political discourse nowadays is shameful. Its caused by fundamental ideational divisions within the American polity, that cannot be resolved within the system as we know it. While I’m aware of the many flaws in the three solutions, I hope this post promotes radical thinking.

Next Monday, something non-political.