Alejandro looked over his knees. “Carlito said there is a war in America.”“A war?”
“A civil war.”
“There is no war, Alejandro, in America.”
“When grandfather helped found the DGI, in Havana, were the Americans at war with the Russians?”
“That was the ‘cold war’.”
Alejandro nodded, his hands coming up to grip his knees. “A cold civil war.”
You may recognize the quote from William Gibson's Spook Country. That notion of a Cold Civil War (henceforth, the CCW) in America percolated in a few lower-profile blogs, then broke out more widely in October, 2007 with high visibility articles from the left and the right.
While looking to see how one of those early posts could predate Spook Country's publication in August, 2007, I found that Gibson had sampled out that very passage on the net in January, 2006. Interesting in itself, but the search also turned up an even earlier, but quite precise formulation of the meme, this in October, 2005:
"While neocons and liberals, or however one categorizes one at this stage, argue over wagging dogs and other fine assortments of beasts and monsters, and while the debate over the merits of real politick vs. salvation politics rages on, there are parts of the world that are going to hell in a hand-basket, reflecting the new cold war climate created by this internal debate. It looks as if America is having a nice cold civil war by proxy over its own identity and future."
That's not Gibson, that's an exiled Syrian blogger reflecting on what ails his homeland. Sometimes the distant observer sees most clearly.
Last holiday season, I, Joe Katzman, Marc "Armed Liberal" Danziger and our spouses were quaffing some (damn fine!) wine at Joe's abode in the Santa Cruz Mountains, when the guys' conversation came around to the CCW. We wondered if it was just a great meme for selling books and drawing links and clicks on the net, or had the makings of something more serious. I suggested a poll, and of course they said 'go for it'. But I found none of the free or reasonably priced online options would do what I wanted. Then. But recently Google has built a nice forms interface to their Docs spreadsheet that's close enough, so here we go.
First some meta-comments on the CCW and the survey's intent.
What would a Cold Civil War look like? By definition, it wouldn't be like 1861, or the Beirut Green Line. Any actual violence is low-key or proxied, or it's not a CCW. It might look like lawfare. It might look like de jure political speech codes, or making political differences into crimes. It might be represented by a willingness to abrogate or twist the rule of law or the Constitution. It could be found in political speech keyed to defeat and humiliate, rather than engage and persuade.
It's easy to point and say "That's exactly what's going on!", and that has certainly been done in the comments here, from both sides. Before equating those accusations to a CCW, it's worth a couple of reflections. The first is the nature of the medium we're using. The Internet has eliminated the chokepoint that formerly kept fringe views out of the main stream media and therefore out of common view and discourse. Many Americans formerly went through life blissfully unaware of Trotskyites, LaRouchies, Paulistas, and all the rest, but not any more. Anyone politically engaged is going to see it all, out to the far fringes of the political galaxy. As well, those of us relative old timers on the Net have been long aware that the medium tends to flaming, and tend to discount heated writings accordingly. Hostile speech from a few percent of the most rabid on either side does not necessarily make a CCW. But, it could reflect a deeper rift in the polity.
Second, consider American history. Anyone who thinks rank political invective started with the net, or in 2000 or 2001, should spend an afternoon in an archive of 19th century American newspapers. Back when the ante to start a paper was a lot lower, every decent sized town had its party organs for the Democrats and the Republicans (or the Whigs). The distinction between news and comment was as blurry then as it's become again, and some of those editorialists would have little to learn from the commenters at LGF or DKos. And this when writing about people they might see on the street the next day, not while hiding behind a distant pseudonym. The Republic survived those virulent tirades. But one thread of them led directly to the bloodiest war in our history, hundreds of thousands of Blue and Gray dead.
How to tell the difference? This survey embodies one hypothesis. Just as opponents in violent warfare are objectified and depersonalized, one might expect to find the same distancing, in a lower key, were we headed for a CCW. We should see a shredding of civil society, a general pulling apart of inter-personal networks along factional lines, moving from more expendable relationships to deeper life choices and moves that push the edge of ethics and legality. Having made the far side of the severed relationship into Other, we can then get on to the next stage. The questions in this survey are therefore posed in a negative sense, of connections broken. (Assuming this were generally happening, it might then be interesting to find whether new connections are being formed, congealing into true factional networks, but that's a different survey.)
A few caveats about the survey...
- Though the Google forms interface does a nice job of dumping survey answers into a spreadsheet, it was apparently designed for doing small customer and employee surveys and lacks some of the polling niceties like instant results feedback and graphs. Sorry about that, but I'll try to post running statistics in the comments as frequently as I can manage.
- I am not a trained poll or survey designer, and that may show. I do have a graduate background in statistics, and the dusty textbooks to prove it. I'm going to try to gather enough responses to have a chance at statistical significance for a few correlations among answers. If you're into that sort of thing, the experimental design should be obvious when you take the survey. Once I have that number, I will cut off inputs to avoid maintenance issues and any late ballot box stuffing.
- The survey is intended for American citizens and residents. For those watching from afar, please relax and observe the natives' behavior, rather than jumping into participant mode.
- The survey is uncontrolled. The responders will be self-selected, and are anonymous. Both introduce the possibility of bias, either in the sample or deliberate. There is also no control period to test against, to see if things are better or worse than the 90s, for instance.
Without further ado, please take the:
Cold Civil War Survey
(It should take less than 5 minutes.)
Update: We need Democrats! They are under-represented right now.
Update: I'm periodically posting running averages in the comments. Please take the survey before you peek!
If you want good data, the 9/11 question is probably counterproductive.
Furthermore, "But one thread of them led directly to the bloodiest war in our history, hundreds of thousands of Blue and Gray dead." is very dumb thing to say.
But then, maybe I just staged an ambush or something by saying that? These war metaphors sure are fun.
Interesting poll questions--it takes well under 5 minutes to complete.
Contra talboito, asking about 9/11 seems fine. Not everyone views it in the same light ( <- understatement ). In line with talboito's second remark, I'd join in questioning whether "one thread [of virulent tirades]" is what led the Republic into the Civil War... there were a couple of issues at stake. It's easy to imagine alternate histories in which the crises of 1860/61 played out without Fort Sumter being fired upon. But hard to build a convincing case that a non-violent resolution would likely have led to a better society (better societies). (Though few widows and orphans would have seen it that way.)
...again...
Contra talboito, asking about 9/11 seems fine. Not everyone views it in the same light (understatement). In line with talboito's second remark, I'd join in questioning whether "one thread [of virulent tirades]" is what led the Republic into the Civil War... there were a couple of issues at stake. It's easy to imagine alternate histories in which the crises of 1860/61 played out without Fort Sumter being fired upon. But hard to build a convincing case that a non-violent resolution would likely have led to a better society (better societies). (Though few widows and orphans would have seen it that way.)
Have to admire Gibson, he sees cultural trends before society is even aware of the way it is being transformed. If the man picks up on something in the public consciousness, we would all do well to treat it seriously. He already nailed ad fatigue, viral marketing, and the inevitable corporatization and astroturfing of word-of-mouth campaigns in Pattern Recognition...
(In my mind the biggest prediction of his cyberpunk novels was not the way people would interact with the "consensual hallucination" of the Net. Instead, it was the ubiquitous use of performance boosting and recreational drugs, leading to widespread elective surgery for utilitarian body modification/grafts.)
I believe you can do graphs from the spreadsheet.
The cold Civil War has been going on since the end of the Civil War and this is what it looks like:
1. Reconstruction
2. The Indian Wars
3. Jim Crow Era
4. Civil Rights Era (Second American Revolution)
5. Regan Re-alignment
I would think we are presently in the midst of another Phase change.
Kevin Phillips in the Cousin's War traces its roots to the the English Civil Wars and makes an excellent case that those wars our Revolution and Civil War are part and parcel of one ongoing conflict. It is an excellent book, excellently researched and an excellent political history of the United States.
I wish I had coined the phrase 'cold civil war' because it so precisely encapsulates and crytalizing my fears and thinking. But alas, it takes a true genious to come up with such clear and pithy phrases, and I'm not worthy.
I've been very much afraid of a hot civil war breaking out in American since the Seattle WTO riots in 1999. I feel we narrowly dodged one in 2000 when Gore gracefully (finally) conceded. Had Gore instead refused to concede and publically claimed to have been the rightful POTUS and declared the Bush administration illegitimate, I believe we'd be shooting at each other today.
Certainly it would be hard to find a few million Americans that would have supported Gore's decision to do so and who in fact regret even today that he did not take such a foreceful stand. Likewise, its not hard to find a few 10's of millions of Americans that believe Bush in some fashion made or allowed 9/11 to happen(!) in order to cement his position as absolute tyrant(!!) and who refuse to be swayed from these opinions regardless of the evidence presented.
The fact of the matter is that not only do I agree that a cold civil war is going on between the two dominate cultures in America today and has been going on since at least the 60's and probably the 30's, but that such a civil war is only going to take a spark to turn it into a hot civil war. There are people on both sides of the aisle that seem to be secretly longing for an excuse to take up arms, and are seemingly hoping that such a war breaks out so they can finally shed the mantle of civility and act on the full passion or thier beliefs and anger.
#6 from celebrim at 5:09 pm on Apr 21, 2008
The history of the country is that of impending Civil War. This is not a value judgment, it is a fact. The whole period leading up to the Civil War was an era of compromise after compromise to head off that conflict.
The post Civil War Era lead to massive concentrations of wealth and the importation of labor, that had the country at odds until the Depression. (Not entirely unlike the situation now, only we do not import workers, for the most part but export jobs.)
The Civil Rights Era produced King (Thank God)who was able to get us through a time that by all rights should have produced massive amounts of violence, not to say it didn't produce plenty, by channeling a righteous anger into non violence.
It is a very contentious system we have produced, but it seems to work. I don't think that we are in a particularly dangerous time domestically. My feelings are that Obama will probably win the election, the pendulum will swing the other way for a while, which in the long run is what the 2 party system is set up to do.
As far as this being a decisive election, well, they say that about every election. In my time we have had a failed Haberdasher, A General, A Philanderer, A Crook, The Anti-Christ, A Non-Entity, A Peanut Farmer, an Actor, a Spook, another Philanderer and another Non-Entity serving as President and the Republic has survived.
As far as the WTO demonstrations in Seattle were concerned, I think you are being a little over-wrought. Compared to the Civil Rights Era, the Anti War movement in the '60s and the Riots after the King assassination, this is a walk in the park. There are no well organized mass demonstrations nation wide, nor are their any domestic groups involved in bombings on the scale that their were in the 60's and 70's
Shortly before the Civil War, Ulysses S. Grant got a letter from an aunt, representing the Grants' southern relatives, who advised him that unless the Grants repudiated Lincoln and his gang of Black Republicans ("Black Republicans" being the "Neo-Cons" of 1860) they would no longer be considered part of the family - quote, "the bonds of consanguinity would forever be severed."
Grant was not even a Republican at the time. His father and brothers had become Republicans - Grant's father was a life-long political activist who had gone the whole gamut from Jacksonian Democrat to Henry Clay Whig to Republican. But U.S. Grant had remained a Democrat, mostly out of indifference. But the letter made him a little mad, and he showed it to a lot of friends as an example of how "those people down there" think. Soon afterwards he got a new commission in the Army.
I doubt whether any of us, on either side, have many stories like that to tell. We're better and worse than people were in 1860: Better in that we're not as quick to shoot each other over disagreements; worse in that we're fundamentally less serious than they were. Our talk is much cheaper.
Truthfully, we don't love this country as much as Grant did, or as much as Lee loved Virginia. It's impossible; we've been too spoiled by its success. All of us, left and right, no exceptions - down to the last poor slob who clings to his cable television, air conditioning, and overabundance of fatty foods.
celebrim invites an old joke here:
Well, one side would be shooting. The other side would be rethinking their previous stance on gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment. And after the dust settled they'd probably get all bitter and start clinging to guns.
This line of thought reminds me a lot of an older blog entry on Text to display "Gramscian Damage" , striking at the time for it's almost McCarthyist preposition that US Leftist (and more broadly, transnational progressivists) were essentially unwitting propagators of memes designed in some KGB neurolinguistic warfare lab? Paranoia like that is far too delicious not to share! Anyhow, it may nevertheless be informative.
yeesh. Pardon the html/typos.
I've decided to put running results in the comments rather than the body of the post, since it's got less chance of creating bias.
First off, we need more Democrats! They are way under-sampled, so round some up and send them over here if you would.
I'm abbreviating the questions, since you all took the survey before reading this. Right? Percentages may not sum to 100% due to roundoff and non-answers.
As of noon, PST 4/21:
N=72
Cancellations? Yes: 58% No: 42%
Stop donate? Yes: 25% No: 74%
Company boycott? Yes: 42% No: 58%
City boycott? Yes: 11% No 89%
Virtual dropout? Yes: 49% No: 51%
Drop friend? Yes: 21% No: 79%
No speak Neighbor? Yes: 3% No: 97%
Family member? Yes: 1% No: 99%
Employment? Yes: 1% No: 99%
Moved? Yes: 11% No: 88%
Break up? Yes: 4% No: 96%
Party? Rep: 51% Dem: 10% Neither: 39%
9/11? War: 88% Distraction: 8% Inside: 1%
2000? Correct: 54% Stolen: 6% Mess: 40%
We need a bigger sample before trying any correlations. This should provide some fodder for discussion. Meanwhile, send your friends.
Well before Gibson, Orson Scott Card, a Science Fiction writer who hews to the right of the political spectrum. wrote a novel called "Empire" that was published in November 2006, about how tensions between Red and Blue states could erupt into full-blown civil war.
I read 'Empire' a while back. Card describes a hot civil war. Whatever political impact it might have had was diminished when I read it was a commissioned piece to provide a back story for a video game. It didn't help the plot, either, which was seriously strained and not very plausible.
I saw the analogy between current polarization and the period leading up to the civil war first in Poole et. al's 1997 book on the statistics of congressional voting over time. Amazing book. They have another later book, more focused on the polarization question, good too. These books are factual, not metaphor :)
An unstated detail, is that the collaborator in the formation of the DGI was KGB General Simenov, who was the one who encouraged the late Phillip Agee's defection to the other side. Gibson's latest still trades on a little too much unearned paranoia; a possible product of his inability to predict this future. Neuromancer, being a techno-noir adaptation on Escape from NY; with Case/Armitage
serving as the Plissken standby.
The Gilded Age parallel seem apt, although with the caveat much like
Mark Twain's completing the novel of the name, around the time of the Panic. Whether we're in 1873 or 1893 is an open question, one hopes the former; for what it's worth. Back then, the US forces were in the midst of a longtime
occupation of a hostile region; which many considered more costly than it was worth. The recession of that era, allowed the
'redeployists' of that era to eventually prevail by the time of the 1876 election. Exotic third party candidates were the flavor of the time; typically with Populists like Weaver and Watson.
Labor strife of a particularly violent strife, typified by the
Molly Maguires and Pinkerton were
the order of the day. Than again we may just be in the early 1900s
with Obama and McCain, filling the shoes of Bryan and Roosevelt/Taft.
It was really interesting to see where the two posts today would end up. REALLY!
"Was It The Writing Or The Reading?" takes us down the rabbit hole of just this subject. Are we in the throws of a Cold Civil War (CCW)? I think the answer is yes if and only if we are also allowed to posit the existence of a Hot Cultural War (HCW). I think one begets the other and vice versa.
CCW < = > HCW (For those familiar with logic symbols)
So what is the source of the HCW? I believe it is the following (choose one):
ACLU fulfilling communist agenda By Devvy Kidd @ WorldNetDaily
OR
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
I know that it is now considered passe to hold these kinds of views. You know, just so provincial. Right Mrs. Obama? But who is to say that this kind of culture war has not been waged? Go read the points made by Cleon Skousen at rense. You cannot say that many of those goals have not been achieved. The best example I can come up with is Aliza Shvarts Need I say more? I could not ask for a more timely example.
I followed the links posted by Armed Liberal for Was It The Writing Or The Reading? I went down that rabbit hole into the fetid fever swamp. WHEW! And EWW! But, I guess that is to be expected from a conservative, right? And the comments with AL's post!Just WOW!
Now, it is late and I am tired. I had a full day. I think there is a lot to be said around this subject. But it will have to wait for another day.
Robohobo,
I looked at the two links in #17, but they are largely unevaluable. As predictions made in the 1960s about the 40-years-hence future, they haven't aged too well.
Certainly there have been and continue to be Conspiracies that operate against values that most readers of this site hold to. The problem is that it's easy to speculate about conspiracies, but often difficult to distinguish real ones from plausible chimeras. Telling real and potent conspiracies from real but ineffective ones--harder still. So the standard of evidence ought to be pretty high.
On the other hand, a glance at this year's political issues reminds us that plenty of our fellow citizens are passionate and honest in their beliefs, although regrettably their priorities are wrongly ordered. Others share our goals, but advocate ineffective or counterproductive strategies to achieve them.
Which brings us full circle to the question of what sort of cold civil war we might be experiencing.
Tim: I have to wonder whether the rather civil audience of the Winds of Change would be the last to know there was a CCW afoot. Not that the Koskids or Freepers would be particularly insightful. Who is the ideal audience for this survey?
I also have to wonder if the audience would have voted similarly before 2000. How many of those who cancelled subscriptions or boycotted companies in the last eight years, did so in the previous eight?
Second, consider American history.
It appears to me that the closest example to a CCW was around the time of the 1800 election. Demonization of political opponents. Fear of military rule and revolutionary radicals. The Undeclared War with France and the threat of war with Britain. Anti-immigration backlash and restraints on political speech.
Followed by the Era of Good Feelings . . .
Update on results as of morning coffee time, PST. Usual disclaimer on rounding of numbers, non-answers, etc:
N=114
Cancellations? Yes: 57% No: 43%
Stop donate? Yes: 25% No: 75%
Company boycott? Yes: 47% No: 53%
City boycott? Yes: 11% No 89%
Virtual dropout? Yes: 47% No: 53%
Drop friend? Yes: 18% No: 82%
No speak Neighbor? Yes: 4% No: 95%
Family member? Yes: 4% No: 96%
Employment? Yes: 4% No: 96%
Moved? Yes: 10% No: 89%
Break up? Yes: 3% No: 97%
Party? Rep: 42% Dem: 20% Neither: 38%
9/11? War: 79% Distraction: 16% Inside: 1%
2000? Correct: 46% Stolen: 11% Mess: 43%
The plea for Democrats helped bring up their proportion, but we still need some more. Send your friends/enemies, depending.
Adding a higher proportion of Ds didn't change the 'actions' proportions very much, but did shift the other attitude indicator questions. Here's a quicky crosstab of party with those two questions:
Rep: N=48
9/11: War: 96% Distraction: 4% Inside: 0%
2000: Correct: 67% Stolen: 2% Mess: 31%
Neither: N=43
9/11: War: 77% Distraction: 19% Inside: 2%
2000: Correct: 44% Stolen: 5% Mess: 51%
Dem: N=23
9/11: War: 48% Distraction: 35% Inside: 0% (N/A: 17%)
2000: Correct: 4% Stolen: 42% Mess: 50%
I haven't done significance tests, but there are obvious - and not unexpected - patterns, and enough info to do the tests if you care to. Discuss amongst yourselves...
PD: I considered asking 'what did you do in the 90s?' questions, but it would a) make the survey too long, and b) I'm not sure I trust people's (selective) memories that far back.
Ideal audience? Probably not one that's biased by a particular site, or even by active participation online. That's not within my reach, so...
The interesting thing about 1800 is that it was really the 'second election' under the party system, the one that determines whether power once transferred will be transferred back. (I'm counting Washington as pre-party, and an acclamation choice anyway.) It was acrimonious, but the popular and electoral result were clear cut, modulo the famous Jefferson/Burr snafu. But legitimacy is at issue in the CCW, so that is one parallel.
Bill Bishop's The Big Sort, reviewed in today's Wall Street Journal, seems relevant.
"As Americans have moved over the past three decades," Mr. Bishop proclaims, "they have clustered in communities of sameness, among people with similar ways of life, beliefs and in the end, politics."
The arc of history will be complete when Scots-Irish President John McCain implements his plan for U.S.-Mexican unification (don't get hopping mad at me or Senator McCain -- stay with me on this and imbibe the 500-year-old historical irony). It took Nixon to go to China? Maybe it will take a McCain to heal the rift when Hank divorced Spanish Kathy.
#24 from Paul Milenkovic at 10:34 pm on Apr 22, 2008
Would it then follow that the country would continue to follow the trajectory of being "No Country for Old Men"?
[Duplicate post removed --NM]
She at least managed to leave that union with her head still attached.
I don't know what this mean WRT your analogy though.
:-p
To #18 from AMac:
Neither is a conspiracy theory.
As an aside, McCarthy was a drunk and a bigot, but that does not mean that he was wrong. He saw a 'Commie under every bed'. He was proved correct that many parts of the government had been infiltrated.
Now, Skousen held that there were Communists in the US plotting and working to undermine the country. There were and perhaps are (HCW). I believe that the current Democrat party has been coopted by the Transnational Progressives (read Communists) whether they know it or not. I think the Soros' of the world are fully and openly complicit. Hey, guys, my Dad was one of the Communists as I have mentioned before.
Here are the goals, selectively I admit, to bolster my thesis. Most are completed.
Aliza Shvarts - Need I say more?
bq. 24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
bq. 25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
bq. 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
bq. 27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
bq. 28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
bq. 29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
bq. 30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
bq. 31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
US history is not even taught in the schools anymore in a decent way. My youngest just graduated HS last year, I know.
bq. 32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
Nationalized healthcare anyone?
San Angelo Texas anyone?
bq. 39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
bq. 40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
Code Pink in Berkeley? Just one example.
I know, this reeks of conspiracy theory. But the goals espoused above have been pretty much done. And what we see is a breakdown of our culture, what is left of it and what is not discredited.
We cannot let our kids roam the streets anymore.
Most movies are junk. Over-sexualized junk at that.
And then there is this:
Just Dial 911? The Myth of Police Protection
Our police cannot even protect us anymore and do not have to according to some recent court decisions. Don't be lazy, Google it.
That is my basis for the Hot Cultural War. (HCW) I think that AL's CCW is a subset of it.
Update on results as of second morning coffee time, PST. Usual disclaimer on rounding of numbers, non-answers, etc:
N=140
Cancellations? Yes: 57% No: 43%
Stop donate? Yes: 26% No: 74%
Company boycott? Yes: 50% No: 50%
City boycott? Yes: 13% No 87%
Virtual dropout? Yes: 46% No: 54%
Drop friend? Yes: 17% No: 81%
No speak Neighbor? Yes: 4% No: 96%
Family member? Yes: 4% No: 96%
Employment? Yes: 4% No: 96%
Moved? Yes: 9% No: 89%
Break up? Yes: 4% No: 96%
Party? Rep: 39% Dem: 19% Neither: 41%
9/11? War: 82% Distraction: 14% Inside: 1%
2000? Correct: 48% Stolen: 11% Mess: 41%
The last 24 hours had a higher proportion of Independents come by, but that didn't have much effect on the running averages. Responses are tapering off, but I'll let this run until the weekend when I'll have the time to grind numbers in more detail.
Re Timothy's #23 above: For me the biggest surprise so far is the number who say they've moved in the last eight years primarily due to political issues. 9-10% may not seem like a lot, but it's over twice the number that have stopped talking with a neighbor, which seems like a lot lighter decision than pulling up stakes. Hmmm....
Tim, consider the possibility that speaking to neighbors (particularly about fractious topics) might be quite uncommon in the first place; if so, stopping-speaking might be more likely in the "friend" category than for "neighbor", and so on.
Regarding moving for political reasons, Americans are highly mobile in general, every 7 years on average, i.e. you could expect one move per American since 2000. The difference may be that when the time came to move, the political orientation of communities became more of an issue than previously in the choice of destination, and that left a strong mark in memory. You'd have to ask of everyone whether they moved period, and control for moving statistics in the previous decade.
NM and Fazal both have good points about overall likelihood of the behaviors. For that matter, the fraction of respondents who have the necessary authority to hire or not hire, one of the other questions, may be quite small.
However, I wasn't really trying to control in this fashion. Instead I wanted to get a range of network-affecting actions that had a range of likely emotion weight, from trivial to life-changing. Judging from the results (to be posted shortly) that was achieved.
I Fazal is right on with respect to political environment having moved up the priority list when judging the location for moves that might have occurred anyway. My suspicion is that if I had worded that one differently - "...was a factor" rather than "primarily due" - the fraction might have shifted. The really interesting question, though, is whether that behavior continues: Have we already sorted out the zealots, and it fades, or does that sorting in turn lead to more politically charged locales, triggering off further relocations.