text: WEALTH: I sometimes hear that the United States is too wealthy and modern to have a civil war. Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina, hosted the Winter Olympics just four years before the Bosnian civil war started. According to the book, there’s a correlation between lower per capita income and political violence. England faced similar fiscal and social distress in the lead up to the English Civil War (1642-1651). Between 1500 and 1640, the population of England doubled. Over the same time, the population of landless peasants increased from 11% to 40%, representing a massive reduction in per capita wealth and income. The decline of the American empire this decade will lead to a declining standard of living for most Americans. This reduced per capita income could become a contributing factor to political violence, regardless of how wealthy and modern the United States is today. (You can watch my video on this here: https://youtu.be/krKdtpq8Bls)SOCIAL COHESION: From previous research, we know that a breakdown of social cohesion is a major contributor to political violence. This breakdown is not limited to Yugoslavia. Similar developments happened in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsis, and in Sudan, where Arab was pitted against African during their decades of internal conflict. Walter warns of the development of “superfactions,” which are political bodies and social groups based on ethnicity, religion, or some other unique defining factor. The development of superfactions drove conflict in the Philippines, where Moro Muslims and Filipino Catholics first armed in self-defense, and then violence against each other. Government-sponsored Catholic migration to Mindanao changed the social, cultural, and political landscape, sparking resentment and the violent Moro independence movement. This dynamic of displacement has also played out among Sunnis in Iraq, Tamils in Sri Lanka, Assamese in northern India, and other ethnic groups driven to violence. Today in New Delhi, India, neighborhoods are dividing by religion and ethnicity, separating Hindu from Muslim. I don’t think this is too dissimilar, generally, to the red/blue divide in the United States. It may not be happening at the neighborhood level (yet), but it’s happening at the state level.LOSS OF STATUS: Walter’s strongest point is that losing status – politically, economically, socially, etc. – is a driver of resentment and conflict. Not only did this happen to all the groups listed above, but it’s set to happen to white conservatives in the United States over the coming decades, a point which Walter expounds. As Donald Horowitz describes, “Numbers are an indicator of whose country it is.” Trajectory of a group’s political status is the largest determinant of violence and civil war, according to Walter. Groups who lose power are the most likely to turn to violence, as their influence in the political process wanes and they lose hope for the possibility of reform. This “status reversal” or “status downgrade” drives conflict. I’ve previously described attempts to expand the voting base, approve non-citizen voting, and granting amnesty or a pathway to citizenship as attempts to cement one-party rule. Adding 10-30 million citizens through legislation would not only flip some red states blue, but it would overturn the balance of power in the Senate and electoral college. It would, as many Democrats hope, build an unassailable advantage in elections that would absolutely lead to one-party rule. This is a scenario in which loss of status would lead to political violence: low intensity conflict or legitimate civil war. Yet many on the Left push for legislation that would inevitably lead to domestic conflict. Why?