,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
There are dozens of excellent civil war scholars whose entire job consists of calculating the likelihood of various civil war-related outcomes, and this story cites historians of a single civil war that took place 150 years ago. Seriously?
This is the kind of bullshit that makes people dismiss political science, except in this case, the journalist didn't bother to consult a single political scientist. If you exclude secessionist conflicts, the likelihood of a civil war in a rich democracy is basically nil.
So from where do these "experts" (they are experts, but not in the area they're being asked to make a prediction) derive their probability of a US civil war? From a sample of one that they studied? And from their non-existent experience with quantitative methods?
You know the kind of countries that have a ~35% probability of a (non-secessionist) civil war in the next 15 years? Poor, semi-authoritarian post-colonial states with mountainous terrain, plenty of lootable resources, a history of recent civil war, and a violent neighborhood.
The US doesn't have any of those traits. Political differences, even large ones, aren't enough. Despite the delusions of the NRA crowd, few Americans would take up arms against their gov't because A) they'd certainly lose and B) they would be giving up a life of comfort to do so.
A rebel force couldn't count on significant foreign support (Canada and Mexico aren't stupid and oceans stop the rest). Democracy means even those angriest at the gov't can wait 4 years for the next one. Some lone wolf idiots might "rebel", but an organized rebellion? No chance.
There's a bigger point here about most journalists lacking poli sci training, and therefore not knowing which questions to ask nor whom to ask them. Journalists would do well to develop contacts who can answer those 2 questions, rather than using the contacts as the interviewees.
