We all watch with horror and revulsion as the Orange Jesus verbally attacks and insults officials and participants in the legal system: Attorneys-General; federal and state judges as well as their families and their staffs; and federal and state prosecutors.  Prosecutors have provided evidence that such attacks and insults result in verbal and telephone attacks against those targets of Trumpian ire, sent by individuals who often make implicit and sometimes explicit threats, and who dox (publish personal information about) their targets.

The damage done by Trump’s attacks goes far beyond the individual court cases to which he objects.  The attacks foment distrust in the legal system in general, and the rule of law in particular.  A reliance on the rule of law is an essential element of a functioning democracy.  The courts must be the sole arbiter of the rights and wrongs of civil and criminal disputes.  Without law and court societal rules, there is societal chaos.

As well, Trump’s attacks on the electoral system are intended to diminish its legitimacy.  To the extent those attacks are successful, elected governments lose the consent of the governed, which is another pillar of democracy.  Lack of consent by the governed invites opposition to the actions and rules of the state.

Those two elements of distrust provide fertile ground for groups like the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys and the Three Percenters.  They also stimulate conspiracy engines like Q-Anon.  In a country where citizens bear arms, it will take little to spark violence.   In the last three years, there have been more than 600 hundred mass shootings (4+ killed/injured) a year, although most shootings were not politically inspired.  The US was fortunate that those attending the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol were not carrying firearms or explosives – although some were stockpiled nearby.

Consider the possibility of incidents of violence following a future disputed election outcome.  Consider the prospect of violence against the court system if those accused of violence are put on trial. Consider the possibility of large scale public support for those acts of violence.  These possibilities are not far-fetched.

No war is like its predecessor.  World War One had little resemblance to the US Civil War.  World War Two had little resemblance to World War One.  The Korean War had little resemblance to World War Two.  The Vietnam War had little resemblance to the Korean War.  Every war is unique in its horror.  The same is probable for civil war in the United States.  If it happens, it may not involve armies, but perhaps guerilla attacks and terrorist actions.

We know some things about the policy positions of those who dispute the rule of law and the legitimacy of elections: camps for illegals, freedom for the insurrectionists, etc.  How many people support these policies and the autocratic powers required to achieve them?   How many people care?

Faced with guerilla attacks and mini-insurrections, will Americans support the restrictions on civil liberties required to respond effectively?  Although Lincoln found it necessary to suspend habeas corpus in circumstances more dire, nonetheless today significant political and moral imperatives could justify similar restrictions.  What price civil order?

Who would win?  Would the union survive?  Would it survive in its current form?  These are not unreasonable questions.