The Coming Instability

And Why We Know It's Coming

When I warned in How Civil Wars Start (2022) that the United States was at growing risk of civil war, many people dismissed it as alarmist. Ross Douthat in the New York Times told readers to calm down about the idea of war. Back then, the idea that America could descend into widespread political violence seemed unthinkable.

Not anymore.

Today I get emails every day asking: Where does America stand now? Where are we headed? I wish I had good news. I don’t.

I don’t want to be the professor of doom. I’m actually a naturally sunny person. If I had known my life’s work would be consumed by something as dark as political violence, I would have chosen to study something healing, like birds or trees or octopi. But here I am, and people keep asking.

So here’s what I see, based on decades of research. You’re not going to like it.

The Conditions for Violence

We know the factors that make civil war more likely. They’ve been studied in hundreds of countries. The U.S. has them all:

1. A weak, rapidly declining democracy. Stable democracies almost never collapse into violence. Neither do hardened autocracies. The danger zone is the unstable middle between them - what political scientists call anocracy. That’s where America is now. (Next week’s post will be about how we got here.)

2. Political parties divided along identity lines. Violence is much more likely when political parties in anocracies divide along racial, ethnic, or religious lines. At that point, politics stops being about competing policies and becomes a battle over the racial and religious identity of the country and who will ultimately dominate. In America today, the best predictor of party affiliation is not ideology, but race and religion.

3. Unfettered access to weapons. Americans own more guns per capita than any other country on earth. And research has shown that gun deaths are higher where guns are more available.

4. Leaders who tolerate or encourage violence. Research across hundreds of cases shows that when elites normalize political bloodshed rather than condemn it, violence rises. Elite cues matter. If leaders signal that violence is acceptable, their supporters are far more likely to see it as justified.

Where We Stand Today

Since I wrote the book, America’s democracy has eroded further. Experts agree we are now firmly in that middle zone and sliding deeper. The reason is simple: Democrats lack the votes to pass reforms that could strengthen democracy, and Republicans have no incentive to change a system that benefits them.

The racial and religious divides are widening. Trump’s immigration policies are almost certainly alienating non-White voters. And we are already seeing a reversal of the Latino and Black shifts toward Republicans in 2024.

Gun reform remains paralyzed even though nearly 90% of Americans support universal background checks.

And Republican leaders, including the President, have responded to violence not with restraint but with incendiary rhetoric. After Kirk’s murder, Trump vowed to “beat the hell out of” the left. Steve Bannon called him a “casualty of war.” When leaders frame politics as a fight for survival, citizens are more willing to condone and use violence.

The Triggers

Political violence often spikes around elections, especially in winner-take-all systems like ours. Two pathways are most common:

1. The loser refuses to accept defeat. We saw this in 2020, when Trump primed his supporters to distrust the election, then urged them to “fight like hell.” The result was January 6.

2. The incumbent manufactures a crisis. Leaders anticipating defeat sometimes spark or exploit violence to justify emergency powers and consolidate control.

· In 1999, Vladimir Putin used a new war in Chechnya to rally Russians, boosting his popularity and securing the presidency.

· In 2016, after a failed coup, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan declared sweeping emergency powers, jailed opponents, and rewrote the constitution.

· In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly escalated conflicts in Gaza at moments of political vulnerability, using war to mute domestic opposition and strengthen his hold on power.

Citizens who feel insecure and under threat will often rally behind their leaders, even when those leaders created the crisis.

Trump could pursue both paths before 2028. He could once again refuse to leave the White House in 2028 and encourage his supporters to rise up to prevent his exit. He could also easily manufacture a crisis in early 2028. Here are just a few possibilities: escalate a confrontation with Mexico under the guise of fighting cartels, provoke a clash with China over Taiwan, inflame domestic unrest through crackdowns on immigrants or protesters in cities.

Trump was clear in 2024 that if he won re-election, he wouldn’t leave the White House again. Historically, the most common way autocrats avoid elections that could remove them is by using violence. It’s difficult to imagine Trump choosing a different path.

The Hard Truth

I think America is entering a 10-20 year period of sustained instability and violence. That’s because even if Trump exits the stage (which is a big if), the conditions that fuel violence are unlikely to change anytime soon. I know this is a dark forecast, but it’s a necessary one.

Do I wish we were talking about birds or trees or octopi? YES. But we can’t.

If we’re not honest with ourselves, we won’t prepare. We won’t act. And when citizens stay passive or silent, things don’t get better, they get worse.

Americans are, by nature, unusually optimistic. That’s a strength. But it also makes us easy marks for leaders who promise greatness but then slowly tear the country apart. What we need now is not calm, but action. Because a wannabe strongman doesn’t stand a chance against 340 million Americans who finally decide they’ve had enough.