26 votes

By 2025, American democracy could collapse, causing extreme domestic political instability, including widespread civil violence. By 2030, the country could be governed by a right-wing dictatorship.

34 comments

  1. [9]
    Gaywallet
    Link
    I find it interesting that every time I hear people talk about an impending civil war in the US they never seem to mention or consider the impact of capital. To be frank, I'm not sure anyone can...

    I find it interesting that every time I hear people talk about an impending civil war in the US they never seem to mention or consider the impact of capital. To be frank, I'm not sure anyone can accurately forecast or predict this - I do not believe in any other time in history have we had a country essentially ran by businesses. Even with parallels, we cannot compare to the absolutely monolithic size of some of these companies today. Some of these companies have more employees than many cities in the world. These companies even act and perform in a way that is similar to a government, with large branches devoted to influencing the politics in the countries they operate. A large share of the biggest companies in the world were formed by or have headquarters in the US. It would not be in the interest of any of these companies for a civil war to break out, especially when they employ people from all backgrounds and political ideology.

    If we truly were in a game of brinkmanship in which civil war was looming, what would the effect of these large companies be? We've seen how they respond to games with much smaller stakes - spending tens to hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying. Do we not expect them to be spending just as much money to prevent the US from going to war with itself? We all acknowledge that politics in the US is heavily influenced and in fact likely ran by money, yet many fail to consider what would happen if the big pockets funding politicians were scared of civil unrest. Would it even get that far? Much of the policy of the right wing is influenced by wealthy businessmen... do you not think they'd be watching the political scene and telling their party to pull back if there was a real threat to their investments and source of income? The lack of serious consideration of the sources of money in perhaps the most capitalistic country to have ever existed seems like quite the oversight to me.

    22 votes
    1. skybrian
      Link Parent
      I think you're overestimating the power of big business. Big companies do have lots of power, but it's often not the kind of power that would be useful in chaotic situations. They can't prevent a...

      I think you're overestimating the power of big business. Big companies do have lots of power, but it's often not the kind of power that would be useful in chaotic situations. They can't prevent a pandemic, or wildfires, or widespread shortages, or riots, or even shoplifting in San Francisco. When things get bad, often they can't even save themselves from going bankrupt.

      They may have private security, but in the US, this basically supplements police power with more eyes. If the police are overwhelmed, private security isn't going to do much. When there is a threat of riots, businesses board up their stores, but that's about it.

      They can contribute lots of money to campaigns, but that power is limited. Lots of money didn't help Bloomberg get the Democratic nomination or prevent Mitch McConnell from being reelected. Money can't convert a red state into a blue state or vice-versa. At best it might swing an election that's already close.

      They may own big media companies, but those companies still gave plenty of press coverage to Trump, because they couldn't help themselves. Journalists gave Trump huge amounts of negative press coverage, but that didn't do much.

      Tech companies may be big and have lots of political influence, but when enough people decided to hate them the politicians went along with the crowd. Money alone can't make an unpopular company be popular again.

      So the idea that corporations would prevent a civil war seems - vague? Has this happened before? How would they usefully spend money to do this?

      15 votes
    2. [4]
      moocow1452
      Link Parent
      The worst case scenario is that the true believers have enough of the chain of command to make our lives miserable, if not damming us all to 1000 years of darkness or whatever, but stable...

      Much of the policy of the right wing is influenced by wealthy businessmen... do you not think they'd be watching the political scene and telling their party to pull back if there was a real threat to their investments and source of income?

      The worst case scenario is that the true believers have enough of the chain of command to make our lives miserable, if not damming us all to 1000 years of darkness or whatever, but stable corporate autocracy via ratchet theory isn't a fantastic alternative to me, being neither an autocrat, a corporation, nor stable.

      8 votes
      1. [3]
        Gaywallet
        Link Parent
        How do you think this hypothetical situation would differ as compared to the current situation in the US? I find it interesting that you say 1000 years of darkness - what do you think that...

        How do you think this hypothetical situation would differ as compared to the current situation in the US? I find it interesting that you say 1000 years of darkness - what do you think that corporate autocracy can do that will allow them to stay in power for so long?

        5 votes
        1. [2]
          moocow1452
          Link Parent
          I'm hyperbolizing a bit with the thousand years of darkness, pulp fantasy consequence that many a dime store novel protagonist are trying to prevent, which probably tells you a lot about how I...

          I'm hyperbolizing a bit with the thousand years of darkness, pulp fantasy consequence that many a dime store novel protagonist are trying to prevent, which probably tells you a lot about how I feel about the situation. But at the same time, our capitalists aren't necessarily adverse to facism if it allows them to make capital, the alt right base is activated and a lot of them are getting into political positions that tolerate their bullshit if they can get the votes and the Republicans kinda got the taste for minority power grabs last go around, so I think some anxiety is justified. It won't come to guns, because we don't fight these sorts of wars with guns. It will be surveillance, social pressure, propaganda, and attrition.

          My hypothetical vision of the future is different from the present because it's the same but more, but also because I having a harder time seeing alternatives to this future compared to where I was pre-pandemic. Again, my bias, but if you're counting on wealth to keep the peace, wealth inequality is not the kind of peace I would like to keep.

          7 votes
          1. vord
            Link Parent
            And secret prisons for anyone not succumbing to those. Or maybe even not so secret. It's not difficult for bad actors to ruin someone's life.

            It will be surveillance, social pressure, propaganda, and attrition.

            And secret prisons for anyone not succumbing to those. Or maybe even not so secret. It's not difficult for bad actors to ruin someone's life.

            2 votes
    3. [3]
      ICN
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Eh, corporations are often pro-fascist. See the Business Plot Edit: Also, I think we have seen the like of modern businesses today. The East India Company was massive (quick glance at Wikipedia...

      Eh, corporations are often pro-fascist. See the Business Plot

      Edit: Also, I think we have seen the like of modern businesses today. The East India Company was massive (quick glance at Wikipedia says they accounted for half the world's trade at one point) and was effectively the government in places they colonized. Think there are other examples as well.

      8 votes
      1. [2]
        Gaywallet
        Link Parent
        I'm glad you point this out, I thought of this example and a few others - many of the historical examples aren't exactly a fair comparison with the companies of today. Historically speaking...

        The East India Company was massive (quick glance at Wikipedia says they accounted for half the world's trade at one point) and was effectively the government in places they colonized.

        I'm glad you point this out, I thought of this example and a few others - many of the historical examples aren't exactly a fair comparison with the companies of today. Historically speaking companies were owned and operated by the rich and those tied to the various monarchies around the world. I think it's fair to compare the history of this company and it's involvement within various governments, but I'm not a scholar and not really qualified to do this kind of analysis. Thanks for bringing it up, if you or anyone else have any other examples or good reading on this kind of interaction - in particular surrounding the before/after of a civil war or some other civil unrest, I would love to know.

        7 votes
        1. meff
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          The East India Company of the UK was mirrored by a collection of East India Companies present in other European monarchies. (This is distinct from the Japanese colonial process. Japan sought to...

          The East India Company of the UK was mirrored by a collection of East India Companies present in other European monarchies. (This is distinct from the Japanese colonial process. Japan sought to start their colonial project through the state similar to the Soviet Union.) A good parallel viz the corporation and the state here is that while the East India Company was originally owned by investors/shareholders, it was nationalized in the aftermath of the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 and during the ascent of post-Westphalian nationalism. One can see the tenuous prospective of something similar in the modern day.

          Of course there are a lot of differences between the political consensus of 1857 and that of 2022. One of the big differences is the change in the ideas of what a State should be. The Constitutional State of the US has historically been circumscribed by law which would prove an additional barrier to this sort of arrangement (where the legitimacy of an "ancestral" power such as the monarchy cannot be invoked, though there is some grossly limited legitimacy to gain by looking back into the seizing of corporations by the government during the Great Depression). Moreover these moves would be more difficult still given the idea of the State post-decolonialization and after the general consensus achieved by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

          Historically speaking companies were owned and operated by the rich and those tied to the various monarchies around the world.

          I'm not sure that claim can be confidently made. The modern idea of a "corporation" or "company" originates mostly in the West, but the accumulation and direction of capital through patron merchants was common throughout most world civilizations. In Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun talks about the division of labor as related to social cohesion and the ideas of accumulating and directing capital. Importing the concept of the trust (see: Waqf), Late Middle Ages and Early Renaissance Europe saw a great desire to both accumulate capital and to patronize great thinkers as a means to exert the influence of this accumulated capital (see the Republic of Venice and Black Death, COVID, and Why We Keep Telling the Myth of a Good Renaissance & Bad Middle Ages). The formation of the UK's East India Tea Company dented much of the belief in the dominant Mercantilist thought in Europe of the time and ushered in the start of early capitalism. The start of the industrial era in the US saw folks like Thomas Edison, George Westinghouse, and John D. Rockefeller who came from humble means. There's a lot more details of how Medieval Islamic economics and its attitudes toward both accumulation of capital and interest (see: Riba and the general ban on usury) ended up greatly influencing the economics of the early Renaissance, but that's a separate post in-and-of-itself. Suffice to say that it's far-fetched to say that most companies were started by the wealthy depending on your definition of "company" and how it relates to the state.

          Since the Islamic Middle Ages, post-Bretton Woods capitalism (e.g. the modern petrodollar consensus) is the most serious attempt to separate the capital accumulation energies of the state from those of groups of private individuals. It would be hard given this consensus for a corporation to involve itself politically in a high-profile issue in the West, but history is always being written.

          8 votes
  2. [8]
    spit-evil-olive-tips
    Link
    this is getting bookmarked in the same folder as Going Back to “Normal” After Fascism is the Biggest Mistake America Can Make as one of the most cogent things I've read for explaining the...

    I’m a scholar of violent conflict. For more than 40 years, I’ve studied and published on the causes of war, social breakdown, revolution, ethnic violence and genocide, and for nearly two decades I led a centre on peace and conflict studies at the University of Toronto.

    What seems to have pushed the United States to the brink of losing its democracy today is a multiplication effect between its underlying flaws and recent shifts in the society’s “material” characteristics. These shifts include stagnating middle-class incomes, chronic economic insecurity, and rising inequality as the country’s economy – transformed by technological change and globalization – has transitioned from muscle power, heavy industry, and manufacturing as the main sources of its wealth to idea power, information technology, symbolic production and finance.

    Two other material factors are key. The first is demographic: as immigration, aging, intermarriage and a decline in church-going have reduced the percentage of non-Hispanic white Christians in America, right-wing ideologues have inflamed fears that traditional U.S. culture is being erased and whites are being “replaced.” The second is pervasive elite selfishness: The wealthy and powerful in America are broadly unwilling to pay the taxes, invest in the public services, or create the avenues for vertical mobility that would lessen their country’s economic, educational, racial and geographic gaps. The more an under-resourced government can’t solve everyday problems, the more people give up on it, and the more they turn to their own resources and their narrow identity groups for safety.

    this is getting bookmarked in the same folder as Going Back to “Normal” After Fascism is the Biggest Mistake America Can Make as one of the most cogent things I've read for explaining the slowly-unfolding-yet-extremely-urgent political crisis the US is in.

    16 votes
    1. [7]
      nothis
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      It's bizarre how the Jan. 6 storming of the capitol was ultimately just one random event in the shit show that were the past 5 years. In any other country, I would register this as the start of a...

      The Trump cult presents itself as the only truly patriotic party able to defend U.S. values and history against traitorous Democrats beholden to cosmopolitan elites and minorities who neither understand nor support “true” American values. The Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. capitol must be understood in these terms. The people involved didn’t think they were attacking U.S. democracy – although they unquestionably were. Instead, they believed their “patriotic” actions were needed to save it.

      It's bizarre how the Jan. 6 storming of the capitol was ultimately just one random event in the shit show that were the past 5 years. In any other country, I would register this as the start of a civil war.

      Germany had a failed coup d'état in 1923, Hitler was arrested, there was an investigation everything. It didn't stop the movement. I know that I'm basically invoking Godwin's law but it seems so obviously appropriate, it's scary.

      EDIT: I read further, they totally get to Hitler as well so I guess it's not even armchair hyperbole.

      9 votes
      1. [6]
        skybrian
        Link Parent
        While I think it's true that most Trump supporters think of themselves as patriots, using the Capitol riots as an example here implies that most Trump supporters are similar to them. I don't think...

        While I think it's true that most Trump supporters think of themselves as patriots, using the Capitol riots as an example here implies that most Trump supporters are similar to them. I don't think that's true? We have one good reason to think they're different: they didn't go to Washington.

        1 vote
        1. [4]
          nothis
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          There's a reason a far-right anti-government militia calls itself "The Three Percenters". You don't need 100 million people marching to Washington, you only need a few thousand... and a loud...

          There's a reason a far-right anti-government militia calls itself "The Three Percenters". You don't need 100 million people marching to Washington, you only need a few thousand... and a loud majorityminority supporting them. I wouldn't know how to even do a representative survey of how many people sided with the rioters, I doubt most people would openly admit it (both to the press and to themselves). But this is a tip of one scary iceberg.

          11 votes
          1. psi
            Link Parent
            Right, this is what I was getting at with my reply. I'd bet only a small fraction of the right would answer a call to arms, but I'd also bet a sizable fraction would sit by idly while it happens....

            Right, this is what I was getting at with my reply. I'd bet only a small fraction of the right would answer a call to arms, but I'd also bet a sizable fraction would sit by idly while it happens.

            (Regardless, I don't think an armed coup is likely -- I'd instead expect a soft coup, where Republicans whittle away voting rights to such an extent that elections are preordained. With a right-wing legislature and a ring-wing judiciary, laws could be written/interpreted in whatever way favors them most.)

            7 votes
          2. [2]
            skybrian
            Link Parent
            Okay, it's a scary scenario, and it's plausible enough to make a movie out of. But the question is how realistic is it? Particularly since security in Washington would be better next time - are...

            Okay, it's a scary scenario, and it's plausible enough to make a movie out of. But the question is how realistic is it? Particularly since security in Washington would be better next time - are they going to make similar mistakes twice? Usually, the security forces in Washington can handle protesters.

            3 votes
            1. vord
              Link Parent
              There is a huge overlap in police, military, and right-wing politics. Current and former military members are more likely to be Republican. About 20% of the police force is military veterans...
              6 votes
        2. psi
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          I don't know if I'd go far enough to say that most Trump supporters are similar to the Capitol rioters, but I will venture that most Trump supporters are sympathetic to them. From their...

          I don't know if I'd go far enough to say that most Trump supporters are similar to the Capitol rioters, but I will venture that most Trump supporters are sympathetic to them. From their perspective, the election was "stolen" (for some definition of the word), and despite most of the protesters being "peaceful" (for some definition of the word), the only people who suffered consequences from Jan 6 were the rioters -- not the Democrats/Joe Biden (for "stealing" the election) nor any of the officials in the Trump administration for that matter (if the Trump administration truly incited an insurrection, shouldn't someone from that administration be in jail right now?). That leaves us in a fuzzy area where nobody was responsible for the insurrection except the people who happened to be in building, which obviously does not provide a nexus for the origin of Jan 6, and whose punishment will satisfy nobody. If you're already sympathetic to the right, it's easier to be sympathetic with a narrative that shifts the blame to the left. Tucker Carlson capitalized on this dissonance and released a "documentary" about Jan 6, which uses the event as proof of a "Deep State" conspiracy against conservatives.

          Now to be clear, I don't agree with this perspective. I lay the blame squarely on the Trump administration, who promoted the event, galvanized the attendees, slow-walked the response, and eventually tried to gaslight America about what happened. I also blame the attendees. The damage both of these groups did on our Democracy must be compared to that from slavery, the Civil War, or Jim Crow. But even I feel a wee bit of sympathy for the insurrectionists; it's clear that most have been drip-fed right-wind poison for years. Nobody woke up one day and decided to overthrow democracy; they had been led to believe that democracy had already been rendered moot by double voting or ballot stuffing or Italian space lasers or whatever, and they had been led to believe their protest was the only mechanism they had for making their voices heard.

          But unfortunately this delusion about the election is not limited to the insurrectionists; most Trump supporters also believe the election was stolen in some form or another. As their grievances have still not been settled, undoubtedly they remain upset. The real crime, from this perspective, is not the insurrection -- it's the cover up.

          7 votes
  3. [5]
    moocow1452
    Link
    On one hand, this are people who study this constructing a solid argument, and ending on the conclusion that Canada's government "should form a council to book a meeting to discuss options for...

    On one hand, this are people who study this constructing a solid argument, and ending on the conclusion that Canada's government "should form a council to book a meeting to discuss options for perspectives on what to do next" further feeds my nihilistic dread that liberalism is ill equipped for what's to come.

    But on the other hand, this is like a snack food intended for stress eating transposed onto an information diet. All these things are true and I'm sure everyone interviewed is well credentialed, but I'm getting a weird vibe that it's telling me what I want to hear. And maybe that's just they have to sell papers and "modern incarnation of journalism" or whatever. But it plays into my biases a little to hard for me to take this article at face value.

    12 votes
    1. [4]
      Gaywallet
      Link Parent
      I think what struck me most about the article was the distinct lack of any hard evidence. They drew parallels to another societal decline- one chosen perhaps because it represents a worst case...

      it plays into my biases a little to hard for me to take this article at face value.

      I think what struck me most about the article was the distinct lack of any hard evidence. They drew parallels to another societal decline- one chosen perhaps because it represents a worst case scenario for the world. However, the best they were able to muster is a list of five ways in which the two movements were similar. They talk about an increasing divide among the classes (and do provide a number here), but do not put that into any sort of context - how big is this divide compared to other historical events and has it grown faster or slower in the US than in other places? What of other measures - they talk about the two sides becoming polarized, but I don't see any figures.

      To be clear, I do think the US is on a decline and has been since the 70s, but that's more because we stopped taxing and started cutting. It's more the lack of investing in infrastructure and policies and programs that helped catapult us to world leaders that's problematic than the squabbling in politics. While the right wing have some absolutely terrible policy, socially speaking I think the most they'll try to do is remove federal protections for divisive issues for them like abortion and gay rights. If the pandemic is still going they'll stop any governmental intervention. They'll continue to roll back taxes and strip funding of governmental programs. In many states this is a moot point because the state already provides extra protections or their own state programs. The places it will hurt most are the states which don't have these rights - states which are solidly republican already. I just don't see how this turns into an outright civil war.

      17 votes
      1. vord
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        The article might not have gone into specifics, but there is a lot of data. One normalizing example across nations could be child poverty. The USA ranks near the bottom of the 34 richest...

        They talk about an increasing divide among the classes (and do provide a number here), but do not put that into any sort of context - how big is this divide compared to other historical events and has it grown faster or slower in the US than in other places? What of other measures - they talk about the two sides becoming polarized, but I don't see any figures.

        The article might not have gone into specifics, but there is a lot of data.

        One normalizing example across nations could be child poverty. The USA ranks near the bottom of the 34 richest countries, barely doing better than Bulgaria and Poland; with only Turkey, Romania, Mexico, and Israel doing worse.

        My source for that has a whole bunch of other data on "how bad" the class disparity is in the US. It's at worse-than-great-depression levels. And any parallels to the great depression should be worrisome, because economic instability and political instability go hand in hand. Vox has a nice discussion on how the income disparity compares with Europe.

        Some more data on inequality and imperialism, talking about WWI.

        The United Kingdom, Germany, and France not only exhibited extremely high wealth and income inequality before the war, but their inequality was at a historical peak never achieved before or after.

        The USA's wealth and income inequality is at record highs relative to those three.

        The fall of Rome has been linked substantially to inequality.

        Racial and religious intolerance fuels genocide. And the USA has plenty of that floating around as well.

        The polarization is happening, and you can see it happening. The right often sees these things and say "This is just fine." The liberal middle says "This is not ok, but with some small tweaks should be fine." And the left says "This is bad." As things get worse, the liberal middle dissolves.

        8 votes
      2. [2]
        cloud_loud
        Link Parent
        Oh man, I’ve been waiting for this type of comment. A down-to-earth response to this article. While we’re on the subject of biases, it’s important to remember that media outlets have a bias...

        Oh man, I’ve been waiting for this type of comment. A down-to-earth response to this article. While we’re on the subject of biases, it’s important to remember that media outlets have a bias towards sensationalism. Which is how we get headlines that tell us that the world is going to end in three years.

        Thank you for your reply.

        4 votes
        1. moocow1452
          Link Parent
          That's not to say it's sunshine and rainbows either. I can't speak for @Gaywallet, but the current situation of "we're going to stay together for the kids and the tax breaks" seems truer and more...

          That's not to say it's sunshine and rainbows either. I can't speak for @Gaywallet, but the current situation of "we're going to stay together for the kids and the tax breaks" seems truer and more preferable to out and out civil war, but not by much.

          7 votes
  4. [11]
    FirstTiger
    Link
    Truthfully... I'm not planning to be in the US in 2024 to find out if what this article predicts comes true. I am not hopeful about the 2024 elections, about how they will be conducted or about...

    Truthfully... I'm not planning to be in the US in 2024 to find out if what this article predicts comes true. I am not hopeful about the 2024 elections, about how they will be conducted or about how the results will be taken.

    My first plan was Canada, given it's relative closeness to American culture & likelihood my educational qualifications would be accepted there. But an unstable country would likely cause serious trouble for its neighbors... No matter how those neighbors conducted themselves around that country. Whether or not I end up residing there, I do hope for Canada's sake it prepares itself in an honest, frank way for likely a very different relationship with the US going forward.

    8 votes
    1. [2]
      Loire
      Link Parent
      There is no preparing for such an eventuality, at least not in two years time. Over two thirds of Canadian exports go to the United States. Over 97% of our oil is sold there. Canadian military...

      There is no preparing for such an eventuality, at least not in two years time. Over two thirds of Canadian exports go to the United States. Over 97% of our oil is sold there. Canadian military funding is about 3% what it is in the States. We have the planet's longest continuous border with them, most of it unprotected. We have no other allies that can help us. None of our other allies are even geographically close.

      Nothing can be done for us if American Democracy goes tits up.

      18 votes
      1. FirstTiger
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        I suspect you are right, at least in terms of exports. I am (somewhat) less inclined to agree regarding armed conflict. The American military requires every solider to formally swear to defend the...

        I suspect you are right, at least in terms of exports.

        I am (somewhat) less inclined to agree regarding armed conflict. The American military requires every solider to formally swear to defend the Constitution, not to obey the orders of a demagogue. I can think of several individuals I know who take that vow very seriously, to the point that they would willingly disobey orders if they thought it violated constitutional law, or came from a person who lacked the authority to issue the order. But if recent history is indicative, any institution can be weakened by repeated misinformation and assault... And the individuals I know may not be representative of the American military as a whole.

        I would hope that longstanding personal/cultural ties would further prevent military action against Canada too, but if the US military can be used to attack US citizens under the excuse of protecting federal property or to clear way for a photo op, then I regret to say I'm not sure Canadian citizens would have their rights respected in such a scenario.

        Two years may not be enough time to fully prepare, but some amount of planning for the worst is not nothing. It would involve a large shift in Canada's national priorities, but if the country's physical safety is at stake, then they will need to change.

        7 votes
    2. [8]
      babypuncher
      Link Parent
      The problem is that any country worth living in isn't going to be easy to immigrate to.

      The problem is that any country worth living in isn't going to be easy to immigrate to.

      2 votes
      1. [3]
        teaearlgraycold
        Link Parent
        I’ve looked into New Zealand. You’re right that it’s not easy. But it’s also not impossible if you’ve got a degree and experience in an in-demand field.

        I’ve looked into New Zealand. You’re right that it’s not easy. But it’s also not impossible if you’ve got a degree and experience in an in-demand field.

        4 votes
        1. [2]
          eladnarra
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          New Zealand (last I checked) does bar people predicted to have healthcare costs more than a certain amount over a certain time frame. Just FYI for any folks in a similar situation as me - and...

          New Zealand (last I checked) does bar people predicted to have healthcare costs more than a certain amount over a certain time frame. Just FYI for any folks in a similar situation as me - and unfortunately most countries have similar rules that will reject disabled folks even if their skills are in demand.

          Edit: More info here. There is a waiver, but it's a very long list of conditions apparently, based on not just cost but also "demand."

          7 votes
          1. teaearlgraycold
            Link Parent
            Interesting. Thankfully not an issue for me.

            Interesting. Thankfully not an issue for me.

            2 votes
      2. [3]
        petrichor
        Link Parent
        Immigrating to Canada is fairly easy, especially for United States citizens.

        Immigrating to Canada is fairly easy, especially for United States citizens.

        3 votes
        1. [2]
          rkcr
          Link Parent
          It is now, while the country is stable. Not when millions of people are refugees.

          It is now, while the country is stable. Not when millions of people are refugees.

          4 votes
      3. FirstTiger
        Link Parent
        Regrettably, staying in an destabilizing country would likely be harder than immigrating.

        Regrettably, staying in an destabilizing country would likely be harder than immigrating.

        1 vote