Empire, by Orson Scott Card
Tor Books, 2006
352 pages
Amazon.com link
Spoiler warning: This article discusses plot details about Orson Scott Card’s novel Empire. If you intend to read the book and don’t wish to know too much about what happens, you may wish to skip this article.
What will spark the next American civil war? That was the question posed to science fiction writer Orson Scott Card by Donald Mustard of Chair Entertainment. Chair wanted to develop a game based around an American civil war, and asked Card to figure out how that war might happen. Card gave it a shot. The result was Empire, a thriller novel published in 2006.
The Blue and the Red
Card looked at America. He found no divisions that have “the geographic clarity of the Mason-Dixon line.” But civil wars need no boundaries. The greatest division in America today is liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican, blue states vs. red states. That’s the conflict that flares into a shooting war in Empire.
But, as Card knows, blue states aren’t really blue and red states aren’t really red. The divide only grows distinct when we compare urban centers to the rural areas. Urban blue, rural red. With this kind of geographical dispersal throughout the United States, a shooting war isn’t likely to happen spontaneously. No, it requires a conspiracy.
The Conspiracy
Here’s how it happens in Empire. A liberal billionaire (think George Soros) secretly finances a private military. He bides his time, waiting to overthrow the US government. Meanwhile, a disaffected Army general plans his own right-wing coup. When unknown terrorists assassinate the President and Vice-President, the general seizes the opportunity; but his move is premature and the coup fails. In response, the liberal militia invades and occupies New York City, declares the US government to be illegitimate, and claims to be the only true government of the people. To avoid civilian casualties, the new US President (formerly Speaker of the House, as per the rules of succession) opts not to send the US military into New York City. The nation endures a tense standoff between the revolutionary forces and the US government; every day that the standoff continues, more liberal states and cities pass resolutions recognizing the rebellion as the legitimate government of the US.
Could it really happen?
Card’s basic premise is that the left-right divide in America is sufficient to lead to civil war. But is this realistic? I think not. Even Card recognizes that the average American isn’t radical enough to wish his political enemies dead. Most Republican don’t think that Democrats are evil, and vice versa. That plays out in Empire. The only significant violence is caused by the private militia that invades New York City. There is no massive violence and bloodshed between Americans. The rest of the nation sits around waiting to see what happens; a few city councils and state governments pass resolutions, but nobody takes up arms. Republicans don’t murder their Democratic neighbors. Liberals don’t lynch conservatives. In the end, after the rebellion collapses, the Republicans and Democrats even get together and–in a show of bipartisanship–nominate the same man for President.
Neither left nor right
If the left-right divide is the biggest problem in America today, the nation is strong. Is there anything that could flare into civil war in America? I can’t think of anything. Do you have any ideas?
The prospect of a civil war is becoming less likely because of federal preparation for martial law - REX84, internment camps, disarming the populace, etc. The government tested some of these measures after Katrina when they sent the National Guard into New Orleans - not to help those who chose to stay behind and protect their property - but to disarm them, effectively preventing them from protecting their property. The same thing happened here in Kansas when the town of Greensburg was destroyed by a tornado. The authorities quickly rushed in and confiscated all arms. Many of the more expensive firearms were never recovered by their owners.
The trend towards tighter gun control along with the demonizing of militias and “fringe” groups have assisted in preparing people for accepting public disarmament. Nobody wants to be in the same category as a “right-wing nut” so people are very squeamish about taking up arms for any cause - legitimate or not.
Another trend is the militarization of local police forces, which have become an arm of the federal authorities - working more and more in tandem with FBI and DHS. The terrorism money has made its way to local police departments all across the nation. They are getting riot gear, M-16s and the like. Even when the sheriff’s office went in and kidnapped all those Mormon kids in Texas, they went in with a tank Branch Davidian style and were decked out in full military gear.
I wouldn’t say there is really an evil conspiracy as such, but these facts can be put together to demonstrate that the foundations are being laid for some man (or group of men) to use the government for some very nefarious ends.
I am still very conflicted about what my role as a Christian should be if such a thing were to happen. I see three options:
- run
- surrender
- fight
I have no idea which one is acceptable/biblical nor do I know “how bad it should get” before this decision needs to be made.
ChrisA. I think your case is overstated. In a complete natural disaster breakdown situation it is very very hard to tell the wolves from the sheep. Have you ever helped in a natural disaster? Trust me, it’s just complete chaos. It is probably better to err on the side of caution. What if you let someone with no proof of ownership (this is a natural disaster remember) keep a weapon who then went on to loot and kill people? On the other hand what if you confiscate a weapon from a person who was later killed by looters. This is a situation where you just can’t win, only try to do what seems best at the time. However, there is simply no excuse whatsoever for not properly keeping track of and returning privately owned legally registered weapons.
Colin. There have been men looking to use the government in america for nefarious ends since the founding of the jamestown colony. Examples abound. Things never change, the only question is the level of success.
It would be very difficult to imagine the basis for an american civil war even with a conspiracy. There really aren’t any large blocks of disenfranchised geographically separated citizens to form the usual elements of a civil war. The only possibility I see would be a complete collapse of the financial system to the point people were actually starving. Even then it would be more anarchy than civil war. A very remote scenario.
bob,
My point is simply that those mechanisms which have historically brought about civil unrest/violence/war are now abundant in the legal framework of this country.
“ChrisA. I think your case is overstated. In a complete natural disaster breakdown situation it is very very hard to tell the wolves from the sheep. Have you ever helped in a natural disaster? Trust me, it’s just complete chaos. It is probably better to err on the side of caution. What if you let someone with no proof of ownership (this is a natural disaster remember) keep a weapon who then went on to loot and kill people? On the other hand what if you confiscate a weapon from a person who was later killed by looters. This is a situation where you just can’t win, only try to do what seems best at the time. However, there is simply no excuse whatsoever for not properly keeping track of and returning privately owned legally registered weapons.”
The government has absolutely no business stealing peoples’ guns, whether temporarily or permanently. We are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty and we are supposed to have the right to bear arms in this country. So if I am guarding my house it is presumed that I am a potential criminal and therefore my firearms need to be confiscated? Come on. I’m playing the unAmerican card on that one.
“What if you let someone with no proof of ownership…. …keeping track of and returning privately owned legally registered weapons.”
I’m not sure about Louisiana or Kansas, but guns in Texas do not need to be registered. It’s not even possible to register them. There is no such thing as proof of ownership of a firearm any more than there is proof of ownership of a garden rake. From what the internet tells me, Kansas and Louisiana don’t have registration either.
I’m not convinced that there was widespread confiscation of weapons, though. Most of the wild and crazy stories about Katrina turned out to be just stories.
ChrisA you are stretching what I said pretty far into the twilight zone. I wasn’t referring to homeowners on their property. And, I don’t really believe the national guard was going up to people guarding their houses and taking their guns. Any gun’s that were confiscated for whatever reason would have had serial #’s. At the very least some kind of inventory records were kept. If you have ever served then you know that absolutely nothing in any military unit happens without paperwork. I am however, very willing to believe that some people might not have gotten their guns back because the paperwork got snafu’d.
By your innocent until proven guilt scenario then curfews, martial law declarations, and almost any other actions to bring about order are also illegal. At what point in your textbook civics lesson do you suggest that the civil rights of armed groups wandering around the streets for no apparent good reason in the middle of a disaster be curtailed?
Hi Colin. What mechanisms do you see that are enabling for a civil war? This is an interesting thought, could you elaborate? In case it wasn’t clear my last paragraph was in response to the original columns any ideas statement, not your post.
The mechanisms I see for enabling “civil unrest/violence/war” are things like martial law provisions, increasing police powers, privacy invasions, disarmament, military expansion, militarism, nationalism, etc… These powers, though dormant or not fully exploited, are perfectly legal means for a person(s) who is particularly greedy/power-hungry to create a society full of social unrest and violence. Obviously we aren’t talking formal war here - but really “civil war” as such is really never the case.
“ChrisA you are stretching what I said pretty far into the twilight zone. I wasn’t referring to homeowners on their property. And, I don’t really believe the national guard was going up to people guarding their houses and taking their guns. Any gun’s that were confiscated for whatever reason would have had serial #’s…At what point in your textbook civics lesson do you suggest that the civil rights of armed groups wandering around the streets for no apparent good reason in the middle of a disaster be curtailed?”
Maybe I wasn’t clear in my original post. During Katrina the National Guard went to the homes of the people who chose to stay behind and specifically asked whether they had any firearms. Those who did were ordered to give up their weapons. It is a fact. I saw the news footage of it happening. These people were not wandering around in the streets, they were in fact protecting their property from looters.
Here is an article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09storm.html?pagewanted=print
If you wanted to I’m sure you could find the news footage too.
The problem with the confiscation of arms, the ridiculous security measures at airports and the like is that it makes citizens the enemy. Whether the reason is a natural disaster or “terror”, civil liberties are incrementally being eroded. Authorities are inching closer and closer to scenarios that involve a precedent of authoritarian intrusion. It works like this: Problem-Reaction-Solution. The reaction and solution are becoming ever more extreme in light of governmental scare-mongering. That is why the presumption of innocence is being neglected.
I fully agree about systemic and incremental loss of rights. The loss of civil rights in america in the last 40 years is unbelievable. The worst part is most were taken away under reagan and bush II, conservative republican presidents that i voted for. for shame. I believe it was ben franklin who said “those who give up liberty for security with have neither”.
“A” precedent of authoritarian intrusion? Authoritarian intrusion has been used many times in american history. Sometimes shamefully so. This is nothing new. What is new is the degree and pervasiveness of intrusion into every aspect of privacy brought about the the technical means to do so.
However, to equate systemic erosion of rights with efforts to control a deadly situation in a major disaster (not just katrina) is at best disingenuous. Which, if you read my post carefully is my entire point. It’s apples and oranges. Large numbers of people after katrina were in real and imminent danger. The city was a wreck. There was e coli in the water system, people actually died of cholera. It’s certainly easy to monday morning quarterback decisions made in the heat of the moment. Try getting in with the bodies, dirt, and blood some time and see how easy the decision making is.
There will always be plausible sounding reasons for those in power to try to gain more power and control. That being said, natural disasters are transient by definition and almost never lend themselves to the self serving underhanded chicanery types of changes to the legal structure like the patriot act.
This is the point where we diverge. It is not apples and oranges in a society that is (supposedly) based on law. Law is predecated on precident. The govenrment taking power in the heat of the moment to do good things, efficient things or otherwise benefitial things might accomplish much, but that structure that is created is a time bomb of power waiting for someone to use it illegitimately (even on a slippery slope).
I’m not questioning the execution, or even concerned about it. I question the very fact that government is taking action. No short-term benefit is worth exchanging liberty in the long-term. Eventually, the karma of these things comes back around.
“Law is predecated on precident.”
This was partially my point. Article 1, Section 9 states, “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”. This is the legal framework for the declaration of martial law. Martial law has been declared as far back as the war of 1812. The military has been used in civil actions as far back as the whiskey rebellion in 1791. There was nothing new going on during katrina (or other disasters).Tthe legal precedents, your ticking time bomb, are almost as old as the republic. www.usconstitution.net has some interesting reading on constitutional issues like this.
Whether these legal precedents have been used wisely and/or benevolently in all cases is another issue altogether. I stand by apples and oranges. There are actions justified in a true life threating emergency that should in no way shape or form be tolerated in any other situation.
“in a society that is (supposedly) based on law”
“I question the very fact that government is taking action”
Any enforcement of or for that matter existence of the law is, in fact, the government taking action. I am very curious where you draw the line. If you were being beaten to death by a gang of thugs would you object to the police (government) taking action. If not, then assuming that a valid legal precedent exists for actions taken during katrina, what is the difference other than scale?
Um, correct me if I’m wrong, but Katrina was neither a rebellion nor an invasion–unless we’re waging a War on Weather now.
I am willing to admit that my “precedent of authoritarian intrusion” comment may not have been exactly accurate. My point is that the suspension of civil liberties is indeed connected to disasters both man-made and natural because they provide an opportunity for the power-hungry. Is there really a serious doubt in anyone’s mind that the same people who used 9/11 to usurp greater power would think twice about flexing their muscles during a natural disaster? It seems to me that’s about all they did. Haven’t they proven that to us? I say this sometimes sarcastically, but 9/11 changed everything. Every disaster that has happened and will happen after that event cannot be separated from the paranoid authoritarian philosophy that has entered American consciousness since that time.
Yes, martial law was declared during Katrina, and perhaps rightly so. And yes, that being the case, rights could have legally been suspended. But I still do not see how the public good was served by taking away the guns of law-abiding citizens protecting their property. Its not like they were in a position to stage some sort of uprising. So it was not a requirement of public safety at all, and therefore such action was a violation of the spirit of the law.
Yep, I agree that the potential for abuse exists in any such situations and clearly stated that it has shamefully happened in the past. You claimed that the guard marched into homes and grabbed guns, I can’t find this substantiated. As a matter a fact you claimed that the federal government specifically sent in the guard to disarm homeowners. I thought and still think that this was at best insulting to thousands of hard working guardsmen. All the articles and news stories I have seen (and my original comments) deal with disarming looters. If someone actually went into homes to take guns then it was wrong and outside the scope of the emergency declaration (La has no martial law statute). Forced evacuations from a city with a contaminated water supply, waist deep in sewage filled watter was, in my opinion, justified.
9/11 was the greatest authoritarian power grab in history. It was never an emergency after the first 72 hours, just a clean up. The bush administration shamelessly and ruthlessly used the emotional impact of this event to implement the greatest dismantling of civil rights this country has ever seen.
Yes Jew, it was neither, but this is how the article has been used and the supreme court has backed it up more than once.
“You claimed that the guard marched into homes and grabbed guns, I can’t find this substantiated. As a matter a fact you claimed that the federal government specifically sent in the guard to disarm homeowners. I thought and still think that this was at best insulting to thousands of hard working guardsmen.”
Consider it substantiated…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sm5PC7z79-8
I stand corrected. That was well outside of the scope of the emergency declaration. Looking much deeper it seems New Orleans Police Superintendent P. Edwin Compass III made the confiscation order. This is interesting on two points. He had no legal authority whatsoever to do this, it would have had to been authorized by the emergency declaration. More importantly the guard (or anyone else not NOPD) was not subject his illegal orders, only the authority of the governor.
Anyway, this is a long way from your original post stating the the federal government rushed the guard into New Orleans just to test their ability to confiscate private weapons, which is the part that I was disputing in the first place. Actually Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1385: The Posse Comitatus Act of June 18, 1878 specifically forbids the use of the national guard for domestic law enforcement when in federal service. The guard may only be used for law enforcement when under the control of a state governor. This brings up the question of how this will work with the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 H.R. 5122 (another bush power grab) which now authorizes the president to take control of a state guard during service within in a state. The supreme court will be sorting this one out.
I am far from an apologist for government actions. I fully agree with you that governments in america at all levels have way overstepped their constitutional bounds both on a social level (since the implementation of the new deal in the 30’s) and on an authoritarian level (since the “red scare” in the 50’s). I am probably one of the most vociferous critics of the bush administration on the second point. However to give the devil his due, I just don’t see some grand sinister intergovernmental intent in this case.
Well, I too stand corrected. I must have assumed the Guard was sent in by order of the federal government, as it appears that definitely was not the case.
And to your point, I too would not characterize this as “some grand sinister intergovernmental intent”. In other words it is not as if one branch of government is planning these things with other branches as such. It is more accurately the result of a mentality that seeks opportunity for greater control because of fear. This is where 9/11 comes back into the picture. It was the stimulus for all sorts of things, some were conspired - others were not. Conspiracy is not always necessary when institutions become corrupt. When they are an expression of their corruption, they achieve the goals established by corrupt ideas. That is why I am not willing to give government the benefit of the doubt on basically anything. I think that is quite possibly what we have with the whole Abu Ghraib thing. There is a trickle-down effect of corrupt ideas that most likely originated with people inside the Bush administration.
As far as Posse Comitatus goes, I’m not sure where that stands at this point. As I’m sure you are, there have been some significant changes to the act in recent years. There were changes made in 2006 that have supposedly been reversed as of earlier this year. But what would have made people think it could have been changed in the first place? The answer: 9/11. And I think we can both agree that this is why we have the John Warner Defense Authorization Act - something I was previously unaware of, by the way.