Bullshit

*Now* Is It a Coup?

JACOB ROSENBERG

In early November, at the start of the bullshit lawsuits and the “stop the steal” chants, I began wondering: Is this a coup? Donald Trump’s fight to overturn the election may have been sloppy and fatuous and entirely self-interested, but why should we think an American-style coup—or self-coup—would be anything but? Why wouldn’t it start as a joke and end in disaster? And in any case coups aren’t as exotic as we might want to believe. From even the most basic knowledge of the history of my home state of North Carolina, I knew coups had happened here, only to be purposely wiped from the historical record.

So I put the question to a variety of thoughtful historians, scholars, and writers, as well as some people who have launched a few coups of their own (like Henry Kissinger and Oliver North): Does Trump’s challenge of the election result constitute a coup? The responses varied. You can read them all here. 

As insurrectionists took to Capitol Hill this morning, I began emailing everyone again to ask the same question. Is this a coup? As I get responses, I will post them below.

Stephen Kinzer, a former New York Times bureau chief and author of Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, who in November said it was not yet a coup but we could be seeing “preparations for” one.

My friends in other countries have repeatedly assured me that there can never be a coup in the United States because there is no American Embassy here.

Naunihal Singh, author of Seizing Power: The Strategic Logic of Military Coups, who sent the following (which he also tweeted):

Some thoughts on what we are seeing, why it is not a coup, what sort of bad thing it is, and what might make it a coup attempt.

First, yes we have been seeing an effort by Trump to remain in power, using various means. And yes, what we saw today was Trump supporters using force to disrupt a democratic transition. But think about what we didn’t see – he didn’t use any of the security forces, just rabble.

In the call to the GA Sec of State, he tried to convince and cajole the other man to “find” votes, but he didn’t use state power to force him to do so. Today we see citizens who support Trump engage in illegal activities to try to keep him in power, but no state security forces.

Why am I hung up on this distinction? Because (a) he is operating as the head of a movement rather than the head of state and (b) these gambits are still very weak and easy to defeat. The GA call was leaked. Police forces can deal with this rabble. A coup would be different.

I mean, heck, police forces have dispersed far larger groups of protesters all over America. They have used far more force against peaceful protesters. Or people not engaged in criminal activity. And they have enough force to deal with this crowd. As does the national guard.

Earlier reports that the DoD may have refused a request for support did worry me. Not because DC needs the National Guard to deal with these guys, but because we do not want the military to do anything that tacitly supports this mob.

In fact, that is one way we might see a coup/autogolpe. If there was mass protest in support of Trump (armed or unarmed) and the military refused to stop the protestors as they took over and seized power. This is what many revolutions look like. The Arab Spring worked this way.

But there will be no Trump Spring or Trump Revolution with an accompanying coup where the uniformed military determines who will be in power by refusing to stop mass action. We are nowhere near that. And there are plenty of tools to deal with the current scenario.

The police can deal with this small group of violent individuals. They can also deal with their ringleaders. And we can respond politically (and legally) to punish those who were responsible for the situation. Even where there is no legal penalty, there should be a social one.

We should focus on the threat, the actors who are engaging in violence, their organizers, their moral supporters, their inspiration, and deal with each one accordingly.

What is this? It looks like sedition to me, although I am not a lawyer. Treat it as such.

And added in his message:

The gist of it is that it is not a coup because he is not using the state’s authority, he’s using his position as a leader of a movement. The latter is a much weaker position from which to attempt to remain in power / seize power. The different diagnosis suggests a different method for addressing the problem.