As we find to the conclusion of this thought experiment about a civil war between progressive and traditionalist elements in the United States and its possible resolution through a logistical strategy of starving the vulnerable cities that serve as progressive bastions into submission, I feel it necessary to point it out that this is by no means a dream scenario but rather a worst-case nightmare scenario based on generations of low-intensity conflict and the increasing unwillingness on the part of America’s progressives to accept any adverse results in their desire to present an inevitable march to the decadent ideal world of leftists. Despite the fact that I have spent much of my life in both rural areas as well as urban and suburban ones, I must honestly admit that I would not fit in particularly well with either side–no matter who wins this culture war, I do not see much glory or victory in it for myself personally. That said, let us examine what the consequences of a victory on the part of rural/traditionalist elements would be in such a conflict.
Among the more obvious effects would be the need for heavy reconstruction. Even though the adoption of a logistical strategy would be less destructive than beating cities like New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC, Chicago, Detroit, Birmingham, Atlanta, Austin, Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Portland, and Seattle (to name a few) into submission through starvation, a successful logistical strategy would likely involve the destruction of roads, bridges, aqueducts, power lines, railroads, ports, and airports. Many metropolitan areas depend on extensive extraction of water and food and power resources from a large area, and the destruction of those vulnerable connections in order to defeat an urban-based insurgency would leave a lot of damage. Given that the infrastructure of the United States is already on shaky grounds , it is clear that the successful end of any conflict would require costly and extensive reconstruction to make cities inhabitable again, as the resource base of many areas would require cities to be vastly smaller in size than they now are.
Of course, a successful logistical strategy would likely involve a lot of deaths. The hostility between urban progressive elites and those they deem as uneducated rednecks is great, and if it should get to the point where conflict is seen as desirable, there will likely be many deaths on the part of unsuccessful urban-based insurgents. The destruction of the rebellious South in the Civil War cost somewhere between five hundred thousand and a million deaths in a population one tenth our current one, and it is likely that major cities could easily lose populations in the millions as they are starved into submission. This is likely to have a few effects. For one, the concentration of deaths in urban areas is likely to shift the political balance in the nation and within states overall, as there would be possible constitutional amendments that would force the apportionment of state legislatures by area and not by population that would make cities permanently subject to rural majorities and cut off public sources of revenue for corrupt and decadent culture that would leave cultures to follow either commercial or folk paths that could be sustained without taxpayer largess. The establishment of a new order and the desire to remove the possibility of threats from urban progressives in the future would lead to drastic changes in the relationship between city and country, and between culture and the general public as a whole.
Among the possible results could be a drastic shift in the relationship of institutions and the public at large. A great deal of our current trouble results from the concentration of power in institutions and areas. As progressives enjoy central control, there has in recent decades been a concentration of power in state and federal governments based out of capital cities and in large institutions and businesses that similarly use command and control hierarchy-based controls. Such hierarchies are likely to fall under a great degree of criticism as a result of a successful anti-Progressive cultural war, and there will at least be a push for a time to decentralize power and disperse it to make it less of a threat to ordinary people. The fact that many large companies are likely to be based in large cities that suffer a great deal means that corporate as well as progressive elements are likely to be losers as a result of the defeat of rebellious urban areas. Any social contract that results from such a conflict will likely require the breakdown of large institutions and the dispersal of their powers to more local levels that are harder to consolidate and control by any progressive elements that remain. The decline in trust likely to be seen in such times will make it vital for diverse rural elements to develop a consensus about how the country is to be run, for it is the breakdown of consensus-based norms of political and social practice that have brought us to the place where such a horrible conflict can be conceived as possible. Given that it would be necessary for us to both repent to God above and apologize and seek reconciliation with others for us to avoid national calamity, even if this particular disaster does not befall our nation, it is difficult to be sanguine about our long-term fate in the absence of widespread repentance from our wicked ways.
 See, for example: