I can understand how a non-American could get the idea that America is on the brink of civil war, especially somebody like you who associates with a lot of right-wingers here at the HabitableZone. Loud shrieking that any criticism of America is "anti-American" and "hatred of America", labelling any dissent as "treason"...yes, that's the language of civil war.

But that's just how they are; that inflammatory rhetoric has become a deeply ingrained, knee-jerk, habit, one that began to solidify back in the era you remember, the 60s.

There are a lot of surface similarities today to the climate of 1968. We were as deeply divided then as now. But the situations are not as alike as they may seem, if you look beneath the surface. Two main points:

In 1968 the divisions were strongly along lines of age. It was a "youth rebellion", and so the dissidents tended toward adolescent modes of expression and behavior. They simply embraced America's polar opposite, revolutionary Marxism, to deliberately offend and repudiate their elders (society as a symbol of parents; classic adolescent rebellion).

Today the dissent is spread much more evenly across the spectrum of age. You can find young conservatives and old liberals passionately defending each side. It's true that antiwar protests still have a preponderance of young faces, but I think in part that's because political protest (or "political theatre", if you will) by the young is now a part of America's history, and for many young people participating in protests and demonstrations is something of a rite of passage. So the young choose to march, while their elders write editorials and run political campaigns...and try to persuade through blogs and BBSes. I would describe dissent today as both more tempered by mature judgment, and more solid because it's not as subject to the short attention span and impulsiveness of youth.

The second main difference is that in the 1960s America was threatened only by the somewhat abstract menace of the Soviet Union and International Communism. Life was easier, and the bonds of patriotism were somewhat weaker. I remember that there was noticeably more genuine anti-Americanism in the rhetoric then.

In contrast, today of course America has been directly attacked by terrorists. September 11th injected a massive dose of patriotism into American society. The roots of domestic dissent today have almost no hint of anti-Americanism (despite the Right's knee-jerk rhetoric). People today are powerfully motivated by the images of 9/11 to want America to find the best way to be safe and secure, to do the right thing, and to somehow return things to the way they were. The thing that's hard for people to express is that the attacks damaged not only our sense of physical security, but shook our longstanding assumption of moral superiority. It's somewhat difficult for Americans to grasp that anyone could hate us so much, when we think of ourselves as the world's best friend, and we're trying to integrate this new reality into our psychology.

So, today's bitter dissent is as much about the soul of America as it is about its life. We're all fighting over what's best for America; but unlike 1968, it's not a matter of for or against America.

I think you needn't be too worried that America will erupt into genuine civil war any time soon. We're arguing bitterly over which way to go and how to get there, but I think we all still want to go together.