There have been some ongoing discussions about this election leading to possible revolution. Either from the Trump supporters on his loss, citing election fraud et al, or else from Democrats if Harris loses and Trump begins instituting a fascist state. I think some perspective about a revolution and what it would take is in order.
First, let me start with some terms. As I see it, there are four different categories that can be discussed. The terms I use may not be how they are used in most circumstances, but I need labels, so I picked these.
-
Protests: This category is meant to apply to widespread non-violent actions taken to obstruct the government actions and register protest with the administration. I’m not saying that Protests would remain non-violent. Any widespread protests driven by an angry response are bound to lead to some people taking more aggressive means like throwing projectiles or arming themselves with clubs to resist authority. There is also, regrettably, a certain faction of people that see protests and see civil unrest and decide to take selfish action to get something for themselves, i.e. looting. This seems unavoidable. I still consider these “peaceful” means to contrast with an armed revolution.
-
Insurrection: This is meant to apply to armed resistance from the populace in large numbers, leading to large armed battles. This could include battles between civilian groups as well as battles against authorities, or even battles with some police/national guard units against the nominal authority.
-
Civil War: This term is chosen to reflect the situation where State or local governments get into the action of choosing sides. Just like the original Civil War, this would be Blue States versus Red States for the most part, with purple states getting a real mess. This kind of revolution is distinct from action starting at the civilian level. It is political power structures leading the fight.
-
A Coup. Either a faction of internal government actors or else a faction of the military moving to replace the elected President and anyone else necessary to effect the change.
Now that we have some terms, let us begin to understand what a revolution actually is. I’m talking about the kind of action that would lead to a radical change. Either restoration of Constitutional authority, or a rewriting of the Constitution, or even the breakup of the U.S. as a single entity. Because as I see it, any action to the level of replacing the winner of the election is a break with the Constitution. If Trump is the motivation, he likely has broken the Constitution in order to incite the kind of action I mean. If Harris is the winner, a January 6 style mob is sufficient only if they succeed in altering the outcome of the certification.
Now you can argue with the premises I’ve set. I choose these guides to help frame the conversation to explain what level of involvement it would take from the populace to actually change things.
Okay, so in all three cases, what it would take to make a change is a large segment of the population sufficiently motivated to give up their nominal security and risk being the recipient of violence or death. How large?
Let’s look at a couple of recent examples to build a point of reference.
For Protest, look at the George Floyd and Black Lives Matter movements. There we had large numbers of people sufficiently motivated to turn out across the country, to risk violence against themselves, in order to affect change. What change was ultimately accomplished? We did see some efforts at police reform, some minor law changes. But the biggest takeaway was a failed slogan of “Defund the Police” that had the effect of harming the movement and making politicians who took steps at improvement look soft on crime. We saw nothing at the scale to replace a President or overthrow the federal government leadership and accomplish a coup.
Is there a scale of Protest that might lead to the kind of change desired, without being armed conflict? If Trump is President and institutes fascism and a turn toward authoritarianism, then I don’t think even sit-ins at every government building in the country would turn the tide. He would activate the National Guard and send troops to bash heads, and then we would either lose or move to type 2 or 3. If Harris is President, a dedicated mob assault on the Capitol this time would face a much better prepared force with National Guard in place. They wouldn’t be able to affect the certification without active inside involvement (i.e. a martyr in the Rotunda) or an extreme truck bomb. And that’s not likely either.
What about gun-wielding MAGAs marching through the streets and being loud? It either fades over time - lots of time, but time - or turns into 2 or 3.
Let’s talk Insurrection. I included the Jan. 6 events above rather than here because I wish to distinguish between a large protest growing unruly and a dedicated preplanned effort to take violent action. Now I know the event on Jan. 6 did have a faction with planned efforts. They were a small subset of the whole crowd, and primarily used the angry protestors as their chief tool to achieve their aims. They could have used firearms and explosives - they almost did. They could have had a much larger section of the crowd participating with the firearms and explosives. That’s what I mean by Insurrection in my terms.
To me, an Insurrection in this use would not even be against the certification. It would be likely after swearing in, and would be active in most if not all states. The point is that the country is in strife and very divided, and the anger level from both parties is growing. Insurrection would likely be neighbors or neighborhoods against each other. Large groups marching on federal facilities, taking on government agencies, even threats and violence against government officials.
What kind of scale would have to be involved? A militia group of a couple hundred attacking one governor’s mansion wouldn’t make changes. Some assassinations would be guerrilla action, but would just get the authorities after the perpetrators. Even a thousand people in each state marching on their capitol would just get the national guard deployed.
How many people using guns and how would they use them that would lead to the kind of effect to make the scale of change we’re discussing? Widespread and likely getting police and national guard units on each side.
That leads to category 3, Civil War. This is where state actors start the confrontation. It would likely start with legal notices to not recognize the election, to ignore orders they don’t condone. It would lead to a power struggle between governments. That kind of action would be a Constitutional Crisis just like the first Civil War. I can’t see that getting resolved by Congress or the Supreme Court. If we’ve gone that far, the President would either have to negotiate some surrender of their plans, or would have to call out the military to enforce their power. Either way, the Constitution is shredded. What happened after that would be entirely dependent on how things went down.
Now in a Civil War situation, we would undoubtedly see civilians in each state opposing their own government and their fellow citizens. So the insurrection type violence would be occurring. My point is that the State Actors leading the charge is a different event than the populace uprising against each other.
What about a Coup? While technically that would only take a small core to initiate, for them to actually take control and hold it would take a fairly large segment of the government or military or both. Because if, say, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and Matt Gaetz smuggled a gun and shot Harris and Walz, it would turn things over to the Speaker and just get them arrested or killed. It would NOT trigger an uprising that would hold power transition. The Constitution wouldn’t be broken by that.
So for a Coup to be effective, it would almost certainly become a case 2 or case 3.
What would any of these scenarios take? LOTS of people being really pissed off, or feeling directly threatened such that they can’t keep their heads down. Not thousands, millions. It would also take monied interests getting involved. They would be choosing sides to protect their interests. The economy would tank, banking would be in chaos, and access to necessities like food and water would become a crisis.
That’s how I see it. I would welcome scrutiny that shows where I’m wrong. I would welcome alternatives to resolve the issues. Because when we get to this level, the U.S. is screwed, us citizens are screwed, and whoever makes it through the other side will have a drastically changed world landscape.