Excerpt

Paul Kahn and Tim Luke base their claim that the United States is involved in a civil war on the implacability of the political differences between left and right that prevent any reconciliation. Arguing that the differences go beyond policy choices to questions of identity that are not subject to the compromises of party politics, they interpret recent examples of violence such as the January 6 Capitol riots as the rule rather than the exception. Yet in indicating that we are in an indefinite state of exception, they obscure the moment of decision that is part of the exception. Kahn notes that war is the opposite of the sovereign ability to decide. But a state of indecision is not in fact a state of war. It is just a lack of clear sovereignty that can last indefinitely until a sovereign emerges who is able to establish a decision. The state of war only results when two competing sovereigns emerge and both attempt to decide on a state of exception, that is to say, both are able to mobilize people to kill and die to establish their understanding of their identity.¹ The United States is still very far away from this scenario. As Mark G. E. Kelly notes, the institutions of the United States are still functioning properly, and even if there is rhetoric on both sides that rejects election results, the outcomes of elections have been honored in practice and the mechanisms of government continue to function without problem. There is no immediate paralysis that would indicate a state of indecision, and there is not even the prospect of competing sovereigns who would both declare states of exception to begin a war.