The Specter of a Liberal Coup

[Cassandra]

The US liberals and leftists are living in fear of a fascist coup by the Republican Party. I believe this is highly unlikely. The Republican coalition lacks the will and the means to effect the suspension of the US Constitution. Due to a variety of structural factors, I believe that the Democratic Party is far more likely to attempt to illegally seize control of the Federal government. I ask that you hear me out before auto-hate replying.

I want to begin this essay by clarifying that I do not intend to make any value judgments. Liberals can marshal convincing arguments that the system of government laid out by the United States constitution is not in fact a real democracy; that the maintenance of a democratic form of government in the post-Civil War era requires political factions to respect certain norms; and that the Republican Party’s flaunting of etiquette in the 21st century constitutes a kind of soft coup. Be that as it may, my sole interest is analyzing power As It Exists.

---

With the current array of forces, Republicans already have everything they could possibly want out of government. They have permanent control, in the near-term of two of the three branches of government. They have a stranglehold on the Supreme Court; six of its nine members were appointed by Republicans and can be expected to preserve their majority for decades due to the lifetime tenure of justices.

Republicans also command the US Congress. The rural nature of their coalition means they will always have a majority of small states, thereby giving them a natural advantage in the senate. That same factor allows Republicans to control more state houses; therefore, they have an out-sized influence in drawing the congressional districts in which US House members stand for election. Republicans have also shown a willingness to violate etiquette to wield power in a way that Democrats are clearly allergic to.

Therefore, Democrats find themselves locked out of both the judiciary and the legislative bodies. In the Obama days, this coalescing reality was papered over by the theory that Republican dominance was purely the consequence of anti-Democratic aspects of the United States constitution. Changing demographics, the story went, would eventually tilt the balance of power in the Democrats’ favor. In the meantime, the Obama coalition would ensure Democratic control of the presidency in near-perpetuity.

As we all know, the Obama coalition did not hold. Trump won in 2016 and nearly won reelection, in part due to widening his appeal to key hispanic ethnicities. And he almost pulled off that win in the midst of a global pandemic, widespread economic dislocation, and massive social unrest. To top it off, Trump’s Grover Cleveland-style return in 2024 seems just about baked into the cake, as Democrats stare down a midterm red wave.

What do Republicans stand to gain from an illegal seizure of power? With control of the judicial branch, they are free to legislate from the bench. With the maintenance of a permanent, powerful minority in Congress, they can eternally frustrate the Democratic Party agenda. And when they hit a trifecta, they can pass all the tax cuts that they want. And really, that is all the Republican Party as an institution wants to do.

Yes, I know, January Sixth. I can hear you screaming that date at me already: “January Sixth! January Sixth!” I assure you, I have not forgotten. But really, doesn’t that riot just prove my point? At a point of crisis, the military, the intelligence services, every real reservoir of power you could list stood behind the President-Elect and his Democratic Party. No horde of frustrated, suburban managers, salesmen, and retirees can stand against the might of the State, no matter how many small arms they might have stockpiled. Insurrecto-conservativism has no pull, and exists only in the minds of delusional Trump supporters, psychotic grifters, and scared liberals.

Be that as it may, why would I say that Democrats are more likely to launch a coup? After all, weren’t they the law-abiding side on January Sixth? Indeed, yes they were. To be clear, I don’t think liberals’ faith in the constitution has eroded to such a degree that a coup would be remotely possible if (when?) Biden loses in two years. But mark my words, that faith is eroding. For the first time since I-don’t-know-when, liberals are beginning to think extra-legally.

The fallout from the leaked Roe v. Wade decision provides a good test case. Once abortion is no longer a right protected by federal case law, a dual system of red and blue states will very quickly develop. The criminalization of abortion in Republican territory will test the commitment of liberals to their free choice ideals. As much as I like to rag on liberals, and as much as I despise the cynicism of their political leadership, I do believe the vast majority of liberal minded people are liberal idealists. Therefore, I expect them to rise to the occasion, by which I mean break the law.

Abortion activists will erect a network to help women in Republican states get abortions. This will certainly involve operating PO boxes in red states that receive illegal abortion pills. These operations will no doubt add a mystique to idealistic rebellion while further dissolving liberal faith in the natural supremacy of the constitution. I highlight this case because I think it demonstrates an important trend to emerge this decade. Democrats will have to learn to circumvent the law, in at least part of the country, in order to protect their principals and constituents. 

To put a finer point on it, Democrats have a growing material interest in seizing power illegally. This interest flows directly from the Republican Party locking up control of the legislative and judicial branches, thereby making Democracy an unlikely path for liberals to hold power. Republicans were able to accomplish this within the constitutional system for two reasons. Simply put, their coalition is geographically dispersed, and their leadership is willing to flaunt the norms which held the system together before the 21st century. Republicans have dug their own graves; Democrats may soon grow enough of a spine to shove them in and bury them alive.

---

The road map to how the Democratic Party might carry out such a coup was laid out in the many op-eds describing how Trump might seize power in 2020. Such an attempt would only be possible in a close loss where just several thousand votes in a few key swing states make up the margin of victory. The Democratic Party would simply need to sow doubt in the integrity of the electoral process, something that the liberal (i.e. mainstream) media will have no trouble with, especially in states with Republican governors (regardless of their actual conduct). Throw in some messaging about how the electoral college is undemocratic anyway, and that the Democratic candidate won the “real” (e.g. popular) vote anyway, and they would have all the cover they needed to try something before January 20th.

I have no doubt that Democratic lawyers will be able to cook up some legal justification for the coup, just as fringe Republican lawyers did in 2020. Whether that justification persuades anyone who did not vote for the Democratic candidate is besides the point; all they need is cover. “Cover for what?” you might ask. Well, cover to convince the military to not support the opposition. The military, after all, is the key institution in any coup. Not the courts. Not the legislature. The men with guns, and jets, and aircraft carriers.

Here, we must examine the military’s institutional incentives, ideological leanings, and demographic composition. The military’s mission is to defend the United States. Underlying that mission is the imperative to maintain (or if you’re a cynic like me, expand) its capacity to make war. A quick review of the Democratic Party’s relationship to the military-industrial complex should not phase the military in the slightest. While Democrats have always harbored doves in their coalition, the party as a whole has been a steadfast friend of the US military, never hesitating to raise its budgets into perpetuity.

On the ideological front, it must be noted that the military’s officer corp is of the same stock as the core of the Democratic base: college graduates. West Point, Annapolis, etc. all churn out citizen-soldiers whose outlook can only be described as of a kind with the “professional-managerial class” that contemporary Marxists love to debate the existence of. Of course, not all officers fit this mold, and there are significant difference across branches (the Air Force and Marine Corps tend to be more conservative, the Army and Navy more liberal).

Demographically, the military is less white than the national average. Therefore it follows that the Democratic Party has a demographic edge, particularly among enlisted men and women. Again, this varies across branches with the Air Force and Marine Corps far whiter than the Army and Navy. Combining the demographic makeup of enlisted men and women with the education and incentives of their officer corps suggests that the Army and Navy, at the very least, would be likely to prefer the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, should the outcome of a presidential election be disputed.

The Air Force and Marine Corps may natural lean more Republican, but out-manned and out-gunned as they are by the rest of the military, it is difficult to see those branches signing up for a shooting war with their bigger brothers. If such a disputed election were to result in a civil war, it is much easier to imagine the two sides of such a conflict being an intact state versus an insurgency based in the hinterlands, comparable to the Syrian Civil War.

In this analogy, mutinous conservative officers hailing predominantly from the Marines and Air Force lead whatever fragments of their commands are willing to follow them into rebellion, following the model of the Free Syrian Army. Unlike the Free Syrian Army, these red rebels would lack air support from a friendly nation (like the United States and Turkey have given to various rebel factions over the past decade), and would quickly be broken and scattered into a terrorist network unable to hold territory.

All of that is to say that, in a disputed election where the Democrats have covered their bases (constructed a passable faux-legal justification and whipped up sufficient public support), I do not see the military as an institution standing in their way. The brass have to much to lose, and to little to gain, by lifting a finger to help the Republicans “save the constitution” in such a scenario. I think there is a general understanding, open among liberals while suppressed to the subconscious by conservatives, that the constitution is fundamentally broken in the hyper-partisan 21st century.

---

I think the implications of a liberal coup are quite interesting and would be worth exploring in depth, but I think that is enough of a wall of text for now. I’d also welcome the opportunity for anyone who read through that to poke some holes, less I try to build on a fatally shaky foundation. To clarify one more time, I don’t think coups are good. I also don’t think the way the Republican party has been behaving is good. I didn’t write all that to talk about what is good or what is bad. What I want to know is this: where are we, and where are we headed? Let me know your thoughts.

[Cassandra]

I think we're too worked up over the "coup" language.

That's on me, got to get my impulse to provoke under control lol

For a liberal coup to happen, the Democrats are going to need an opening to seize power from a disastrous Republican administration that makes Trump’s look like an age of Camelot. Given our politics resembles a mix of Egypt and Brazil, that requires a first overthrow first, like with the Morsi government/Operation Coupwash Carwash.

I seriously doubt it man, if we get to that stage I don’t see us getting over that cleanly and not already being in a state of civil war.

I agree, it would take an even worse Republican administration to set the stage. I just think things are trending in that direction. I don't think this scenario is possible in this decade, but I could see it playing out in the 2030s under the right circumstances.

First, I would disagree with the premise that a Liberal coup is more likely than a Conservative one.

Because their politics depend upon a postitive-feedback cycle of extremism and projection as a means of compensating for the inability to govern, the State can never fully enable conservative  desires (which are ultimately un-achieveable in any case).While Republicans will continue to pervert the State to their own ends, they will always see it at an obstacle until it is utterly broken and destroyed, by which point a "coup" against it would be effectively irrelevant, and we're into the territory of 'revolution'.

The left, meanwhile, are far more internally divided, and have a leadership that is largely willing to accept playing designated loser in a faux-democracy as long as their own interests are left alone. It's hard to imagine a scenario where Democratic leadership thinks it has more to gain than lose with a coup. (Again, we're in 'revolution' territory by the time that happens.)

First off, I want to say I appreciate the in-depth response.

My read of the contemporary conservative movement is that their aims are perfectly achievable within the constitutional system. I say "the constitutional system" and not "a democracy" advisedly. The US constitution is designed to enable a minority party to rule. The Republicans have figured that out, and are using that structure to their advantage. Why would they jettison the legitimacy afforded by the constitutional shroud? Why would they risk incurring mass psychic damage by rejecting such a key symbol of American patriotism? They control a clear majority of state governments. Any changes that conservatives may desire to shore up their power, as the extremism cycle you point out continues to roll over all opposition, can be accomplished via constitutional amendment.

Democrats have no avenue to alter the structure of government constitutionally. The geographic dispersal and demographic nature of their coalition leaves them at a systemic disadvantage within the constitutional structure. Yes, you're right, the current Democratic leadership are born losers who might as well be controlled opposition. They are also ancient. Ancient. A decade from now, there will be a whole new crop of younger people in leadership, people more attuned to the proclivities of activist social media currents. They should be able to view the system with clear eyes. And, in a moment crisis, they may yet feel compelled to act.

Setting aside my disagreement with the more likely perpetrators of a near-term coup, here are my through on your scenario itself:
 
I think you're right that a troubled election could easily and successfully be  portrayed as illegitimate on the left. I do not believe, however, that messaging would be coming from the party, nor from any remotely establishment candidate.

The lawyers involved would be a large and free-wheeling mix of volunteers, non-profits, and academics. The "case for illegitimacy" would  have a thousand roots across the web, organized via a handful of hubs, and finally result in a general consensus where many of its particpats and supports still disagree about details, but all support the central thesis: Donald Trump is not truly President. Or, as I myself have said many times over the last six years, that Donald Trump is in constant and flagrant violation of his Oath of Office.

But while that could justify a lot, it doesn't give you a coup. No amount of angry leftists, online or in the street, is going to directly produce a coup. Let's look at a couple coup mechansms:


-snip-

Thanks for breaking these scenarios down. We have points of agreement and areas of disagreement; I'm not going to try and mine all of that right now. One note though, I don't think this possibility I've titled a "liberal coup" is on the table this decade. I don't think Trump is the guy they would try to overthrow. Let me instead present an alternative scenario for discussion purposes:

The year is 2032. The Republican presidential candidate appears to have won a narrow election, though several states that together make up the margin of victory in the electoral college are likely to need recounts. This Republican candidate is a Peter Thiel backed "neo-reactionary" who campaigned openly on the benefits of "caesarism." Though he has made no definitive statements to this effect, he has hinted on the campaign trail that he would seek to side-step Congress entirely and rule by executive order from the White House. The Democratic Party watches on in horror as a man they consider an existential threat to democracy in the United States dons the title of "President Elect." Deep in the bowels of iceberg-shaped buildings in the DC metro area, three-letter-agency directors whisper conspiratorially with military brass. On K-street, consultants and lobbyists receive their marching across encrypted calls placed from the wealthiest zip codes of the Bay and Tri-State Area. Something is afoot.

I think more likely than a "liberal coup" is a Chile-style scenario of conservative overreach leading to popular street protests that force some sort of constitutional reset.

That's the kind of dream I would love to believe in, but at this point I have zero faith in the political efficacy of the American Street. We have had massive waves of protests and rioting in this country, dating back to the sixties, and I struggle to think of a moment the constitutional order ever looked to be seriously challenged. The scale of violent disruption that would be required here is difficult to imagine, and trying to imagine it anyway just makes me think such a scenario would feed into a civil war.

As for OP, I guess this is a remote possibility, but it's not like Democrats are in danger of being locked out of power. Demographics and culture are still going their way despite Trump's fluke 2016 electoral win, and Republicans don't even have a beginning of a response for the mounting crises of climate change and automation. Trump's unique ability to expand the coalition and the Status Quo Joe wing's fading grip on power are the only things keeping the GOP out of the wilderness. The most daring they would get is packing the court if it frustrates them too much or nullifying federal law, and that's pretty legal.

That's fair. I suppose an under-girding assumption of mine is that at present the Republican Party is the only party that is interested in wielding power. I expect them to continue to game the system, like they have for a while now, to entrench their minoritarian rule. I am skeptical that the voting public will respond to material issues as such; the dislocation caused by climate change and automation seem likely to be interpreted through a cultural lens. And by the time the Democratic party rises from its stupor, it may well seem too late to the new crop of leadership to fight back through constitutional means.

I'm more worried about liberals using existing Bush Era powers to crack down on anyone they declare "extremists"- watch them blame muh both sides when some Nazi does a truck bombing or something. See the military declaring a purge of "extremists"- rather than white supremacists or pro-Trump insurrectionists- after the Storming of the Capitol.

Amen brother. Never forget, scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.