December 31, 2020
Author: Chilton Williamson

As the presidential election of 2020 drew closer last summer many people, most notably  Michael Anton in The Stakes, predicted  that it would be the most crucial and consequential one in the history of the United States. The election has come and gone now, and we have the results–uncertain and ambiguous as many of them are—and a new President-elect preparing to haul  a new administration behind himself into power.   (That is the formal understanding of the coming event on January 20; the informal one is that a new administration cobbled together by swampsters is readying itself  to propel the ghostly likeness of a new chief of state into the Oval Office while supporting him firmly under both elbows.) My own prediction is that 2021, as the year in which the two political armies representing the two  Americas, each one starkly defined now and given substantial form, will almost certainly be more critical than its predecessor, as they meet—almost evenly divided and fired by mutual hatred– on the field of virtual battle in the second American Civil War; which, like the first one, will be equally a War Between the States.

We will all have a better idea next week—even perhaps, next Tuesday night, though fewer and fewer elections are decided quickly and cleanly in this country today—of just how bloody this political civil war is likely to be. Whichever party wins one, or both, of the Senate races in Georgia, it is a certainty that the results will further enflame American politics, not only in the coming year but into the political future as far as the eye can see—and perhaps further.

The elections in Georgia on January the fifth will be a reprise in miniature of the national elections last November. All the features that marked the second are present now in the first. The pollsters’ soundings, like those taken throughout most of 2020 by their leadsmen,  indicate two excruciatingly close races that will substantially determine the future of the Biden administration. They were grossly inaccurate in the former instance, and there is no reason to believe that they are any less so now. As in 2020, the media are committed to aiding and abetting the Democratic candidates, though it is unclear how effective they are at the game this time around. Again, the Democrats—the state and local politicians and the Democratic national party—come close to boasting of their ability to control and guide the electoral process by means of absentee and mail-in ballots and by “turning out the vote” according to a strategy invented by Stacy Abrams for the presidential race and formally approved by her sister the judge. While liberals are apparently not flocking like geese in November to vote for the Democrats, some of them are certainly doing just that (a felony offense, if they don’t intend to move there); while Democrats and liberals from around the country are contributing promiscuously to Warnock’s campaign, or Ossoff’s—or both–to assure two boughten political victories by citizens from out of state; foreigners, in fact. All of this guarantees that the results, whatever they are, will be contested by one party or another (or, given the circumstances, both of them) and that the poisonous atmosphere that has enfolded the national election and its aftermath will be further intensified, to the great detriment of Mr. Biden and his new government. The new year will absolutely not revert to “normal” American politics as Joe Biden sees them. Instead, it will witness a continuation of the ideological warfare that has dominated the past four years—but with the roles reversed, the previously top rail on the bottom and the bottom one on the top.  That is all.

Really it is time for the federal government and the governments of the fifty states to begin thinking about the previously unthinkable, which is how the increasingly disunited United States might be dissolved in a peaceful and constitutional manner. Liberal politicians and activists on the Northwest coast—including northern California—are talking about secession; further inland, conservative ones in the Mountain States have been discussing the business for decades. The Southern states, of course,  tried it once—and failed. One wonders whether Washington, D.C. made an ultimately fatal mistake by not letting them go when they wished to leave. It could be the Unionists might have saved themselves a lot of trouble, in the 1860s–and far beyond—by compelling them by force of arms to stay.