This study aims to investigate potential societal consequences of the ongoing western culture wars by looking at a crucial aspect of the concept, the usage of extreme elite rhetoric. Specifically, how does extreme elite rhetoric affect the likelihood of civil war? The theoretical argument is that extreme elite rhetoric increases the likelihood of civil war because of the negative impact it has on affective group polarization which, in turn, creates destructive group processes necessary for violence. In order to examine if this is the case, a small-N case comparison is conducted in which the cases of Ivory Coast and Zambia are compared. The findings indicate that the difference in political rhetoric, extreme rhetoric in Ivory Coast versus inclusive rhetoric in Zambia, was a contributing factor to the difference in outcome, civil war onset in Ivory Coast (2002) but not in Zambia. As shown, this appears to be because of the impact the different rhetoric had on affective group polarization; a sharp increase in Ivory Coast whereas it was largely mitigated in Zambia. Consequently, in line with the findings, the usage of extreme elite rhetoric, and thus culture wars may increase the likelihood of civil war.