This morning commenter Frank posted several paragraphs from an article by Michael Anton. The article is from last winter, so it's behind events. Nevertheless, it raises matters of concern for many:
The election and its aftermath.
One of those concerns for many is the fear that Blue America could rise up and subjugate Red America. In that context Anton quotes Christopher Caldwell, writing in The New Republic (of all places). Caldwell likens our current crisis to the unification movements of the 19th century in Germany, Italy, and--yes--the United States.
The comparison within the context of the 19th century is interesting--but not truly parallel, as far as the United States is concerned. I believe the analogy is even further afield when applied to 21st century America. Germany and Italy in the 19th century were cultural spheres that had a sense of true belonging together, but were politically disunited due to outside forces (as well, admittedly, by internal forces). The United States, by contrast, subsisted as a constitutional republic subject to centrifugal forces. The challenge in America was to resist the forces of disunion--although the result was a greater degree of unity than the federal republic envisioned by the founders.
In 21st century America there is a very real cultural divide, as well as religious and ethnic division. This mirrors to some extent the situations in Germany and Italy. However, I would argue that Blue America itself lacks the degree of unity needed to impose its vision of hegemonic unity. The Dem coalition is far more deeply fractured than is Red America--it is, to borrow Steve Sailer's apt phrase, truly a "coalition of the fringes". This contrasts with Germany and Italy. In Germany the Prussian unifying juggernaut was quite homogeneous, as was the House of Savoy in Italy.
Again by contrast, Blue America would, in my opinion, be far more likely to attempt to secede from the rest of America than to aggressively seek to subjugate it. Tucker Carlson has said that the Left has captured all the drones and tanks without a fight. We understand what he's saying, but that's not really the case. The trained warriors in the military are a relatively small and elite group. They are, by and large, not woke. The wokesters have taken over the higher, politicized ranks, and the administrative posts. You would not want to back them if push came to shove against the trained warriors, who would not be in the least inclined to subjugate Red American on behalf of Blue America.
At any rate, here is Anton, basically as quoted by Frank:
[i]n the 1860s, three major Western countries—Germany, Italy, and the United States—each fought similar wars of national unification, in which the more dynamic part of the country subjugated the more bucolic (or backward) part. In our time, Democrats are the party of relatively greater technological and demographic dynamism, Republicans the party of relatively less.
I share Anton's skepticism, as well as his misgivings about cultural trends in Middle America. There's no doubt about the Left's drive to take over the military--follow the link below for an overview of what's going on. If that drive should remain in place for long enough, the result will not be a woke and highly efficient fighting force. Rather, it will be a military riven by conflict, lack of discipline, and rank criminality. The competent will have left and will not be inclined to support the organization they will feel has betrayed them and their country against the parts of the country that they feel most akin to. To the contrary, they will offer a core of leadership and competence to Red America.
However, none of that is to suggest that we can rest easy. Follow this link for an overview of what the Left is attempting: