'Civil War 2' - The Idea That America Might Face Violent Upheaval Is Now a 50 Million Dollar Movie: Coming Your Way
Plus - You can now fight 'America's Next Civil War' in your own home with a Monopoly-style board game.
Should Liberty Be Worried?
(Adobe stock image - licensed to Mike Lee)
This week a major new film has opened in theaters across the United States. It is a war movie: Americans against Americans. The title is ‘Civil War.’ As audiences begin to watch, a huge question hangs in the air: will the horror of the movie act as a psychological vaccine against political violence, or fan extremist fantasies? This post is a heads up before the you-know-what hits the media fan- there could be a lot of noise about this one.
I also provide details of that board game about ‘America’s next civil war'.’
You can watch, listen and/or read my advance report on this phenomenon (video, audio and transcript).
As you may know, my ‘Big Conservations’ offer a deeper than usual look into important issues. In this edition, my in-depth interview is with Prof. Edward Castronova at Indiana University. He has clearly done a lot of research, and soul searching, into the direction our nation has been heading for several decades. He hopes he is wrong. No disrespect to his research skills, but so do I.
(While you are here, you take a take a quick glance at the archive. Most of the interviews remain relevant.)
(Editorial note: Arnold Schwarzenegger called anti-vaxxers ‘schmucks.’ He said that some complained about vaccines and masks disturbing their freedoms. He said “Screw your freedom, because with freedom comes responsibility and obligations…”
Listen to my report by clicking the link below (also, you can see the transcript at the end of this post)
Before you skip the share button, please consider helping me get my work in front of as many people as possible. It’s a great way to help build an audience. I’m trying very hard to provide some in-depth stories for smart and curious folks. I know there are a lot of you out there. I’m just starting out and, to be honest, my subscription base, which is currently Free, is (sorry, Larry David) pretty, pretty small. If you feel that authentic and in-depth reporting is worth supporting, a few shares, which do not commit you to anything, will help a lot . Thank you.
Mike’s Reporter’s Notebook: As we all know, the American Civil War was fought over the principle of slavery. In my own modern day experience with civil wars, and I am not the only experienced war correspondent, recent civil wars have been (1) Fought over control of land, human rights, and security (both economic and physical). Ukraine and Gaza apply; (2) The sides with the most military equipment and power are not necessary easy winners. Well organized guerrilla urban warfare can tie big powers into knots for years (In 1977 I went, within a few days, from the Lebanese civil War straight into Northern Island, where urban terror gave the IRA considerable advantages); (3) I’ve never known anyone who survived a civil war to tell me that it had been worth it. My overwhelming impression has been that those who fight a civil war, even if they ‘win,’ have suffered heavily, and wished it could have been avoided.
I worry that we Americans, as a whole, do not understand this. We have been fighting foreign wars, not at-home wars. (Yes, I recognize that our police often feel they are in a war zone. See my post on ‘American Police at a Crossroads)
We in the news media, for several reasons, have always pulled punches when it comes to showing you the real blood and guts of war. Who wants blood and guts at the dinner table when the evening news comes on?! Instead, we give you really cool graphics of rockets, fighter jets and smoke from explosions. Sometimes, we show some gunfire, embeds with military forces, damage to buildings, body bags and, of course, sad, weeping and angry relatives.
For anyone out there, whose idea of war is formed by TV news, or Hollywood movies, please know that it is horror. People often don’t just fall down dead, like in the movies. They can suffer for hours. In America, if crazies on any side of our divides start trouble, they need to know that that sort of thing is very hard to put back in the box. Our police and armed services might find they don’t have the numbers to keep the lid on. I’ll not go into detail in this post. Let’s see how the year progresses.
I wrote this report because some movie producers have placed a 50 million dollar bet that they they will make money off of a film that will either scare the living daylights out of people, or feed fantasies of settling things with guns. Either way, as my Russian colleagues used to say, “Money talks, BS walks.”
I want to extend a special thanks to Professor Edward Castronova, for sharing his time and insights, as well as arranging and sending me photos of his board game. I believe that those who use it are probably gamers who are more interested in board strategy and intellectual exercise, than partisan thinking. The game allows rebels to be either Left or Right.
I’ll try to find a happier topic for the next post.
(Research Sources are at the bottom of the post)
HERE IS THE TRANSCRIPT OF MY REPORT
Sound of Movie 0:00
19 states have succeeded the United States Army ramps up activity on White House issued warnings.
Mike Lee narration 0:05
This movie reportedly cost $50 million to make. It depicts a modern day civil war between the US government and coalition breakaway states called them the rebels, led by California and Texas. Yes, California and Texas, two highly unlikely allies fighting side by side with all the killing toys of modern warfare against the equally if not overpowering might of the evil empire in Washington. Both sides commit war crimes. How did this fictional Civil War to kick off? The President, whomever you may wish to relate him to, got too greedy, became a dictator, and started stealing from and suppressing the freedoms of states to run their own affairs. Here's director Alex Garland speaking after the film's premiere at South by Southwest,
Alex Garland, Film Director 1:01
There's a lot of things that are clearly answered. One is there is a fascist corrupt president who's smashing the Constitution attacking their own citizens. And and that is a very clear, answered statement. And if you want to think about why Texas and California might be allied, and putting aside the political differences, the answer would be implicit in that. So I think answers are there questions are raised answers are there, but you have to step to it and not expect to be spoon fed these things. (video edit)
I think that all of the topics in this film have been a part of a huge public debate for years and years and years. And the debates been growing and growing in volume and in awareness, but none of it is secret or unknown to almost anybody, you can't say everybody because that would be too big a generalization, but very, very broadly, I felt everybody understands these terms. And I at that point, I just felt compelled to write about it. If you cast your mind back to so I wrote this in June, four years ago, which was if you know, there's an election coming, we were just dealing with COVID. Same same conversation is now identical. So that's where it came from.
Mike Lee narration 2:27
So, in this fictional plot California and Texas with their two star flag, symbolizes Left and Right putting their differences aside, and working in unison for the higher purpose of saving democracy. With that premise, the producers might have been trying to avoid taking sides in the real American divisions we see and hear every day; Left versus Right, both convinced that the other is a threat to democracy. The director, even the alluded to these real divisions in America.
Alex Garland, Film Director
The warnings are all out there. Everybody is aware of the warnings on both sides, all sides of the political divide.
Mike Lee (continues narration)
I will do a follow up post in the near future on the critics reaction to the movie Civil War.
Sound of Movie 3:19
God bless America.
Mike Lee narration 3:22
In the meantime, here's another example of what appears to be growing interest at least among some Americans over the prospect of violence during this election year, an/ or in the wake of the election results.
It's a board game, not dissimilar in appearance to monopoly or other games you and your family might have at home. But this one is called 2040, an American insurgency; a quote, "simulation of America's next Civil War." It comes in a free Student Edition and a more complex version for sale. The basic findings of this design research is that a civil war in this country at this time would not be swift or tidy, it would be awful. A guerilla style conflict that lasts for decades. (End of quote from the games website.)
Here's a summary of the games fighting Civil War factions. Number one, the State: whoever's in charge will be trying to calm the whole country. Number two, the Rebels; they are, of course, trying to overthrow the State. They might be left wing or right wing. Vigilantes: they are pro government militias, but under little or no government control and go on a bloodthirsty rampage against the rebels. Number four: Organized Criminals: armed criminal gangs in America, already active high organized and often violent during robberies will harness the National Civil War chaos to operate with little police interference in an effort to gain more wealth and power.
The game’s designer is Edward Castronova, a professor of Media at Indiana University in Bloomington. He specializes in synthetic worlds and their economy, sometimes referred to as Virtual Economies.
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 5:15
The first impulse for the game was the chants of "lock her up." That came out of the Trump movement in 2016,regarding regarding Hillary Clinton. And you know, I've had a long history of interest in military and political simulations and, and the stories of, of how those, how those events happen. And one important marker of social breakdown is when political leaders start talking about arresting their opponents. Because if you think about the dynamic, Mike, if you and I are competing for something, and I start saying, I'm going to arrest you, and you start saying, you're going to arrest me, well, then the winner of this game is the person who arrests first. So it creates this, once you start hearing people saying they're not, they're, you know, basically willing to do almost anything to put their opponent away. That is a sign of a breakdown in the rules.
You know, I'm a, I'm a game designer, right? I like games. So, you know, imagine the game of Monopoly where you start to think that the other players, the other players are saying, "You know what, I'm sick of this, I'm just going to take money, I'm just going to take it out of the bank. And you'll have to stop me." Well, if one person's saying it, and then another, then you start saying, even though I'm not the kind of person who would break that rule, "I don't want to lose. So I'm gonna start doing it, too." So this change in our political rhetoric, or the strategy space, let's say, I really started to see in 2016- 2017.
And then the I mean, I there have been a number of incidents. I'm sure you're as familiar with them as I am. Like, I view the Kavanaugh hearings as an important breaking of rules more than the Supreme Court. Yeah, the Cavanaugh nomination hearings in the Senate for the Supreme Court. And, you know, we don't think it makes any sense that go into the weeds. But I've observed various things like that and said, It looks like both sides are starting to ignore the written rules. And then, of course, the future of things like, is actual fighting. And I don't like that. So I decided, I started to just play around with game pieces saying, what happens if this actually breaks out here.
Mike Lee 8:00
And as time went on, up until this year, you must have thought about other other signals, other indications, so feel free to talk about those?
Sound of Movie 8:11
Well, okay, so I actually think the very first step away from the rule of law, as I understood it, when I was growing up was in 2009, actually; the passage of this very, very large health care act that didn't follow approved procedure, but it was supposed to pass the Senate, and could not because of a special election in Massachusetts, which actually sent a Republican directly in opposition to the bill. And so it was passed through a budget resolution process. And I looked at that, and I said, Wow, and then there was the erosion of the North.
Mike Lee 8:58
And and by the way, just for the record, we're referring to what:
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 9:01
what what the ACA, right. The health care bill, what was now called Obamacare. Okay, so the normal process for any bill would be it has to pass the House with the majority and the Senate with a 60/40. Vote. Okay, for any kind of major bill. This is a massive bill. This wasn't just a little thing. And what happened then was the Senate was, well, the Senate was 6040 in favor of it. And then Ted Kennedy died, leaving open a seat in Massachusetts. And in Massachusetts, the election, the special election to replace him, was all about the ACA was all about Obamacare. And there was so much opposition to it, that they actually sent a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy, leaving the supporters of the bill in a pickle because Is there now only had 59/41 in the Senate, and ordinarily that that would have been the end. But because of, I guess, a quirk in the rules that they could exploit that it had passed the House, which meant, as I think is a budget bill, and so it could be handled by the Senate as a budget bill. And so in the budget reconciliation process, they handled it and that only requires a majority vote in the Senate.
Mike Lee 10:32
But if so, they go ahead, I'm sorry. Well, it's
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 10:35
just it's a to me, it was an indication of, you know, well, this thing is really, really huge. But we're going to, we're going to handle it differently from what it traditionally was.
Mike Lee 10:45
But on the surface, it sounds like politics may be a little unusual. But how did you see it fitting into the pattern of what you've come to see is precursors to possible Civil War?
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 10:59
So when people stop following the rules, that makes the other side, say, "wait a minute, you know, you kind of cheated that one in," and I get it, it's politics. And if it was an isolated incident, maybe it doesn't matter. So at this stage, looking beginning back to 2009, and up to the Trump campaign, throw Hillary in jail, etc.
Mike Lee 11:26
What beyond that, were you beginning to also see that was rattling around the back of your head? Hmm. This looks like possible trouble?
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 11:34
So the shenanigans with Merrick Garland's nomination, were perhaps the next step. So that's, that's a few years after 2009. So the Democrats had gotten rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. But then the Republicans abused that power in the Trump years to put, you know, pretty to put people on the Supreme Court that under the old process, never would have gotten there. Okay. So, so that that sort of started with the Merrick Garland nomination, being on the table. After it became apparent that the Senate was going to that, what was it, it was after Trump won the election, but hadn't taken office yet, I believe, and the Republican controlled Senate refused to move on Merrick Garland, until Trump was president. And then he appointed Neil Gorsuch and then Neil Gorsuch got in. So that kind of, to me again, you know, it. Yes, it looks like maneuvering, but I think there are a lot of Democrats today who say, that was an absolute cheat of the system not to have a vote on Merrick Garland.
Mike Lee 12:52
But did you see that as illegal or something beyond just shady politics?
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 12:58
The latter! Okay, I don't. I mean, when you're talking about a body of people who say we're gonna follow these rules, and then they don't follow those rules. It's not really, it's not illegal. But it is a sign that each side is sending to themselves to the others that, you know, maybe these rules don't really bind us anymore.
Mike Lee 13:21
Interesting developments that you're laying out. Continue by all means.
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 13:26
So alright, so then we get Trump and the claim that, you know, Hillary had broken Yeah. And then we moved into criminality, accusations of criminality. So there was the accusation against candidate Clinton that she had done something funky with her emails. Okay. You know, people make accusations. We have a court process, I suppose. But we really haven't heard too much, at least in my lifetime, that we've always heard candidates being called communists and Hitler and all these sorts of things. But really put put, put the candidate in jail when the election and put the candidate in jail, hadn't really heard that rhetoric at all.
And then I mentioned with Kavanagh, that, that there was there was some breaking in normal procedure, there are that outraged people, you know, there were people were very, very angry.
Um, I think I don't think that there's any merit to the idea that 2020 was a stolen election, you know, voting machines. I don't think there's any merit to that. But I think there is some merit to the idea that big technology and media and the Democratic Party worked hard together to shape the information space. I mean, I've just cite the the quashing of the Hunter Biden narrative and the widespread propagation of the Gretchen Whitmer narrative. So Gretchen Whitmer, we now found out that the plot was, let's say heavily infused with FBI. But it came out in October, you know, October surprise, that's normal, and then the election. So the Democrats October surprise was that the governor of Michigan that there was a plot to capture her and take her hostage. So and that received normal October surprise treatment. But the Hunter Biden laptop It was discovered was left at a repair shop and the FBI had it, and it analyzed it and determined that it was valid. And when the New York Post attempted to report what it knew about that situation, I personally was shocked to see it not appear in the times the post, CBS News, I was shocked to hear that a newspaper, The New York Post, was knocked off of Twitter until the election was over.
Those sorts of things were really shocking to me. And so I think, you know, if we were going to talk about was the 2020 election fair? Well, I don't remember any election that had that kind of, you know, heavy censorship on one side, or self censorship. Okay, so it's not like the government, but, you know, this, this kind of agreement among widely separated power centers, you know, technology, media, a party, and suddenly they're all seem to be acting in concert to silence, something that is of import to at least half the country. That turned out to be true. And then there's the CIA involvement, where we have this letter of 50 people saying, no, no, it's Russian disinformation. We now know that that was cooked up by people inside the government, you know, inside the CIA say, let's get a bunch of retired people together to say it was Russian information. Of course, it turns out it wasn't. But all the media said, Oh, you see, it's Russian disinformation. We don't have to pay any attention.
So I stepped back. And I look at that, because I've seen Republicans doing things and I see Democrats doing things. And this idea of dirty tricks and politics. Now, it seemed to me has sort of started to go to the next level.
Mike Lee 17:19
So something at that stage is incubating with you. You're not thinking civil war games at this point, I gather, but subsequent to the 2020 election, you started thinking about it. Tell me about that process?
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 17:33
Well, actually, I already started to work on the game a while after, after 2018. Yeah, it was it was ultimately it was what happened with Cavanaugh, and then this sense, people on both sides saying, This is hopeless. We can't reason with those other people. They're, they're crazy, like, both sides are saying this. They're, they're living in a bubble. They're indoctrinated. They're under the thumb of some cult, like, ideology.
So and then you'd see articles like, is there going to be a civil war in the United States. How are we going to come to a compromise? So that is what actually started the game. And it's just been these other events as they've been going along. And you see the tension rising, that make the game seem more relevant. And I'll just, many of you don't know that it takes a long time to publish a game. So I had the basic design done in 2018 2019. And it only came out last year 2023.
Mike Lee 18:36
And as it came out, I do really feel that the game reflects what we're seeing in this election year in terms of what could lead up to this theoretical Civil War to in America?
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 18:55
It's the curse of every dystopian thinker, to see that horrible future ratchet closer than he ever imagined. So I, I put the game in the year 2040. Thinking, if things continue like this, it'll get awful by 2040. A nd here in 2024, we're seeing, you know, you mentioned in your email, the kind of rhetoric coming out of Trump, you know, the bloodbath things like that. But at the same time, he's under indictment all over the country. You know, he just had a judgment go against him in a way that I think most legal experts say is unprecedented uncalled for.
And, and so there's plenty of ground for both sides to say the other side is is breaking the law on us. The other side is a real threat to democracy. Seeing this, this language was not going on in 2018 2019, not even so much in 2020. But now we have both sides saying not only that their opponent is some kind of criminal, let's say, or should be arrested, but is a is a dictator. On the way, both sides are saying that democracy itself is at stake. And if democracy itself is truly at stake, what would we not do as good Americans? We would do almost anything to save our democracy wouldn't, wouldn't we?
Mike Lee 20:31
Well, there are polls indicate state substantial number of, for example, Republicans, I can't recite the details, so forgive me for that. But a large number of people, and I forget what the party breakdown is, would say, have said, I favor I would support via violence in support of political idea. fewer of them said I would participate. But that in itself, that those those questions and the fact that they get a substantial response in that direction, must be worried about.
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 21:14
It, it certainly is. I'm also worried about the deployment of political violence on the left, of course, so there's a lot of damage and those riots in the 20s, in 2020. And we know, you know, they're repeated incidents of what we would call Antifa elements, taking to the streets, over various causes.
So I've just throughout this conversation, what I what I would always like to do is preserve my neutrality. Because as the designer, I don't really want to be seen as taking sides. So yes, you know, a lot of Republicans, a lot of conservatives are very angry, and some of them are saying, it is time to, you know, clean out the swamp. You know, we can't just I saw someone say, we can't vote our way out of this, right near that kind of rhetoric on the right. But on the left, you know, we hear things like, arrest all the anti-vaxxers and put them in camps. 'Fuck your freedoms," the famous statement by a former governor of California, imagine that fuck your freedoms. This is a major political actor. Well, if you're fucking my freedoms, I'm fucking yours first. Who's gonna do it first. And I apologize for that language. But it was not my choice of language. And it is a broadly, it's a widely widespread clip, as well, the media has not hesitated to say what this guy said. So I just want to keep it balanced. There's bad rhetoric on both sides.
Mike Lee 22:50
I understand. And I appreciate your your forensic presentation. And we can leave people to imagine what you're thinking, you know, when the doors closed, but that that notwithstanding, we have reached a point in 2024, when sizable people on both sides of the political divide, believe the other side is an existential threat, a serious threat to their freedom, freedom, and people have strong cases or strongly voiced cases on both sides of that issue. A movie is out, it's going to take that over the tipping point, and a fictional war called as you know, a 24. With massive weapons being used now. I've had considerable experience, being in civil wars. As a journalist, my first one was two years of being shot at in Lebanon, in the 70s. And the the constant thing that I remember, speaking to people on both sides are all three or four sides of that, that civil war, very nice people would take you out and feed you and so forth. But if they thought you were smuggling arms across their green line, shoot you. They all felt that they had been aggrieved, that the other side was a serious threat to their existence, and that they were civilized. And the other side is not in totally unreasonable, however, that that the the level of arms fed by other states made it possible for it to be a serious armed conflict. The idea in this movie coming up is that suddenly, suddenly, somehow both sides have all the modern weapons available to mankind. I don't know how realistic that is. But in an in a place like America, it seems to me more likely Then, if any, that if there are sporadic violence in the wake of the next year's election, as Trump seems to apply is possible, or and other people imply might be possible. Now on both sides, it's more than likely to involve NOT that kind of gruesome, gigantic military presence you see in the movie, but things like that are possible, it doesn't take much to make trouble. What do you how do you size that up?
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 25:33
I agree with you, I think first I'd like to say, I'd like to thank you for your service to humanity for putting your life in danger in these war zones, I extend that I work in it to all journalists, I extend it to all journalists, I work in a Media School. And journalists are unsung heroes. So that having been said, I, in making the game, I did a fairly careful study of the kinds of conflicts that it sounds like you have experience with. So I'm seeing them from 60,000 feet. And I agree with you that it tends to be a very dirty, ugly, sort of constant damage at a low level. In other words, you don't have like the American Civil War. The first one is, oh, there's gray over here, and there's blue over here. And we're going to march up in lines; or World War Two, where we have all that here's the Red Army in the Nazis in there.
No, it's ('Civil War 2') the war is everywhere. And nowhere. It's, it's at any moment, people know that there could be an explosion, or suddenly, a firefight would break out somewhere. So the design of the game is taken from simulations that have been coming out of the national security space in the defense space. So they've actually simulated numerous of these kinds of conflicts. So three type just
Mike Lee 26:59
sorry, just jump in before we get too far along that line. And first, let's tell folks, what kind of I mean, board games monopoly. So we're taking that idea? What is basically your game? How does it look like and and then we can talk about these these things?
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 27:20
Yeah, imagine a board game like Monopoly, except instead of having a track around the edge, the board is a map of the United States broken up into regions. And the players are able to put pieces in the regions. And the winner of the game is the player who controls the most population. So each region has like a little population score, which is like a victory points. And the player's goals are to control as much population as possible. And so the game process is I sit here, and I have some cards that let me do things, put new pieces down, move them attack, the opponent's pieces. And, and so my job is to try and move these pieces around in such a way that I cover as much of the population as I can. And what that means is, if I'm red, that means that more there's more population in red controlled areas than blue.
Mike Lee 28:20
So the red does not represent the right here?
Sound of Movie 28:23
No, so it does have red and blue. But the the convention in military simulation is for government forces to always be blue, or us to always be blue, and rebel forces and enemies to be read. And so that's the blue and red here.
Mike Lee 28:41
That's a military long established?
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 28:44
Yeah.And let me just explain briefly how that plays out. You can set up this game to reflect any kind of political situation you want, and offer the players two scenarios. One in which the government is is right wing, and there's an armed rebellion in cities. Okay. And in that case, the government's blue in the cities are all red. The other one would be a left wing government. So then that government would be blue. And then there's a revolution armed rebellion in the countryside,
Mike Lee 29:19
and your game allows for that switch.
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 29:22
Yeah, and numerous others. So if someone wants to play out, what would happen if Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin and Ohio, the Northwest Territories decided to secede? And then they would all be red would be blue. And how do we bring them back in so you could do almost anything? Let's let's change it.
Mike Lee 29:47
very interesting. Let's check that against a possibility in 2025. If you get very angry states, in red or blue or democrat or republican in some of the and can control their state legislatures and they want to do something like that. Is that possible? Can you see that in real terms?
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 30:09
I mean, the the history of saying the election, the presidential election was not legitimate, goes all the way back to the year 2000. I mean, if you look at every single election since then, but some people saying it's not legitimate, but what changed in 2020? Was the attempt to send false electors to Washington. So let's imagine false electors coming from somewhere. How does it become an armed conflict? I'm not so sure. Perhaps, I think it becomes armed conflict. If, if a state says we don't recognize the president, we will no longer follow this law, this law and this law, okay. And then you have a reason for outside authorities to send troops into the state to enforce the law.
Mike Lee 30:59
So maybe within that state or around the nation, people who agree with that particular state might gravitate toward it with ideas or taking extra legal action themselves.
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 31:13
Absolutely. If you'd like I could spin out another scenario that I wonder about and worry about. So let's say Donald Trump is convicted of something. And instead of reporting for his punishment, he goes to Montana, and says, "Come and get me." And he calls all of his friends to come out and surround him and say, "You're going to have to yo. I want you to stand there and make them fight through my people to get to me." And I wonder, what does the Secret Service do if the person they're protecting says, "these policemen coming to arrest me are enemies, they're threatening my life. You have to protect me from them."
Mike Lee 31:58
Does the Secret Service? Just Just take him back to the White House?
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 32:03
Yeah, right. I mean, but these are the sorts of little sparks.
And what my game says is that once some spark like that occurs, then we have right versus left people doing things all over. We have in suburban Phoenix; someone blows up the FBI building in, in downtown Indianapolis; someone destroys a church, or, you know. Perhaps not a church, but the other Republican Party headquarters is destroyed. Or someone, we already have a pattern in our country of attacking companies for their politics. So someone burns down at Hobby Lobby, or someone blows up a bomb at Disney. And I think it then it just escalates from there.
It's just everyone now has a reason to say that the other side is barbaric, and unreasonable. And therefore I must go out and just like what,
Mike Lee 33:05
but to be clear, your board game does not give an option that says Donald Trump does this or that it doesn't so much, say what the cause of the Civil War is. But once it starts, your game starts as it were. Yeah.
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 33:20
Because my point was to use mechanics that we know and believe will happen. So mechanics of social, political military interaction, and then demonstrate them to the player. So the player can say, 'Oh, my goodness, this would be horrible." It would be awful to put our country into this situation, something like what Lebanon experience, what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia, we do not we do not want this here. And then just by displaying the mechanics after this conflict starts, I hope is enough to sort of vaccinate people against any kind of military urge that they have.
Mike Lee 33:59
But that leads to the next question, I'm sure you're aware of the pros and cons that people might be expressing about this game. And, and or having this out there along with a movie that we we know about in an election year. What do you suppose your market audience is?
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 34:21
Um, for the most part, these type of games have a limited audience. They're limited to people who are very interested in complicated simulations. Okay. And so I don't think it's the sort of thing that will catch on like wildfire. The rulebook is something like 20 pages long with very fine print. So it's not the sort of thing that you just throw on the table on a Friday night and have the family sit around. I mean, you have to be a true war simulator simulation nerd, I think to really get into this game and play it now. I did make a high school version is much simpler. It's called All American abyss Student Edition, and that has gotten quite a few downloads, but I don't really know because it's free. I don't really know. I don't know if people are enjoying it or not, but it's a very, very simple attempt to deliver the same message.
Mike Lee 35:17
You mentioned your wish that you hope it is a vaccination against going into a situation like that, that people will stop and think about it people on all sides. That that is an argument that is made that people might see it as a wake up call and might make might help us keep from going too far. Others say it's a MAGA fantasy, you know, that? It's, it's or a Left wing extremists fantasy that it would say, 'Hey, this is cool.' You know, we're we may be onto something our whole prep culture and, and militarization. And maybe people are finding recognizing us as players in this potential situation. Where do you come down now?
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 36:06
Well, I hope I hope it's not the last, I hope, because I've had the experience of playing, for example, a game like this, that's about Vietnam. And I DON'T know anyone who's walked away from playing that game saying, 'Wow, I wish we'd gotten ourselves deeper into that, that that was a conflict that it was just valuable to all sides. And we should have really leaned into it.' I've never met anyone who's had that reaction to actually playing through Vietnam. And believe me, there are games about it that are very accurate and do a really good job. So I still have like the artists, hubris of saying, no, no, no, players won't react that way. But of course, they could. They could.
But, you know, art is a statement about a view of life. And so even it's up like it would if someone said, 'Oh, this horribly irresponsible.' To do this, I think the movie is actually more irresponsible than a game because it people like to watch soldiers doing things and, and, you know, destruction, they like to watch those kinds of visuals. Believe me, people playing my game are not going to sit there saying, 'Wow, this is just so much fun. And so I'll argue in favor of that.'
But generally, I'll argue in favor of art, that, that artists really should have the freedom to make whatever they make and expose it to the public. And if an artist feels something strongly, he should speak.
Mike Lee 37:42
Well, clearly, you've watched and feel there's a strong pattern moving in a an alarming direction. What's your hunch? As to what you and I might be talking about this time next year?
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 37:59
Well, I'll be I'll be frank, I don't think Trump is going to get into office. I don't think the powers that be will allow it, based on what I've seen in terms of their willingness to do almost anything to stop him in 2020. I just my gut, again, we're talking about gut here. But I think so many, intelligent, important, powerful people believe that Donald Trump is an existential threat to this country, that they will do anything by hook or by crook to prevent him from taking office.
Okay. So, but what will be the consequences of that? So it, you know, depending on how this all plays out, it could be done in a way that really puts the pickup truck folks on the streets. So there's that. If he does manage to become president, I think our cities will burn, I think there will be massive riots against him again, because of the the power, the wealth, the intellect of the people who think he's an existential threat. I think, you know, I think the way to play Trump, I think we've all made a mistake. I think if everyone celebrated him and treated him, like the God Emperor that he wants to be in 2017, he would have been eating out of our hands. Because that's what he wants, you know, I don't think he wants to, but But if, if there's, you know, rioting in the streets, I can't say that he wouldn't, you know, send in the National Guard and who knows where it goes from there. Okay. So I guess my hunch is split.
But my my guess is that something will happen. I'm not sure either Biden or Trump will make it to the election.
Mike Lee 39:53
Neither one of them will make it to the election?
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 39:55
Yeah, I don't think many Democrats are super excited about the Biden presidency. For reasons there's no point in us getting into, but I think I think all of America would be happier with Newsom versus DeSantis than what we have now. And there's a lot of time left. Okay.
So I think we're in a very dangerous moment, any number of these things could go south. Let's not forget World War One. Let's not forget that that was an international incident that seemed to be under control being handled well as late as July 20, or 21st. And by August 6, they were in the field shooting at one another. So depending on how the various actors in this situation, depending on their choices, things could be done that turn up the temperature too high. And I hope not, I pray not, but we're, I think we're at risk.
Mike Lee 40:59
Edward, thank you very much for a very disturbing series of thoughts.
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 41:05
I apologize. Thank you.
Mike Lee 41:10
I hope no, nothing personal but let's hope your game never is played for real.
Prof. Edward Castronova, Game Designer 41:15
I agree. Thank you very much. I agree completely.
RESEARCH SOURCES
SouthXSouthWest website. https://www.sxsw.com/
A24 Film website. https://a24films.com/films
wiki - Alex Garland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Garland
Prof. Edward Castronova. https://mediaschool.indiana.edu/people/profile.html?p=castro
Board Game 2040: An American Insurgency. https://www.compassgames.com/product/2040-an-american-insurgency/?sfw=pass1712639536