I am haunted sometimes by the fate of the Spanish republic. Democracies are mortal. Could it happen here? Suppose, in 2004, that the Democratic candidate wins, and Bush, like the Spanish Nationalist government in 1933, doesn’t want to step down. Could he annul the results and make himself dictator?
I’m not intending to debate whether Bush would actually try to do such a thing (no American candidate has ever tried that, so far as I know), but whether he could succeed if he did try.
He would have an advantage in that the officer corps of the U.S, military services are all heavily Republican. But they are also sworn to uphold the Constitution, and they appear to take that seriously. There was never even a hint of a coup when Clinton took office, despite the partisan differences between him and the officers. What would it take to get the military to support a coup, as it did in Spain?
The federal civil service, by contrast, is heavily Democratic. Does that make a Republican coup impossible?
One thing Bush can do, we now know: he can arrest anyone he wants to on charges that he is a terrorist, and hold him indefinitely without charge. This power could be used against the opposing candidate.
I’m thinking in terms of Republicans just because Bush is in power right now. I don’t think a Democratic coup is even remotely possible in 2004, against a sitting Republican administration. But you’re all welcome to paint pictures of a Democratic coup in 2008, if you consider that more likely or feasible.
The essential of what I want to get at is, what still protects democracy? What is the barrier we must guard at all costs to keep from becoming another Franquista Spain?
To destroy multi-party democracy in the US (e.g., coup), it would take some true extremist getting elected President. If Pat Buchanon were to be elected, for instance, I’d say that a coup would be likely.
Well, we’re not very much like Republican Spain. The Spanish Republic was 5 years old when the Civil War started. A number of important groups, like the military and Church were opposed to republicanism and democracy, and the Republicans were a coalition of liberals, communists, and anarchists, all of whom had drastically different goals and couldn’t agree on anything, while the country was in the middle of a worldwide economic depression, most of the people living in poverty, and large numbers dying of either starvation or easily preventable diseases, while the Republic seemed either unwilling or unable to do anything about it.
I think it would take the development of a two-party system, and the complicity of the media to ensure that any given viewpoint on any given issue is assigned to one or the other party, without consideration of anyone who might not concur with all the planks in a party’s platform.
It’s hard to imagine any situation in which an administration could get away with suspending elections. We had national elections during the Civil War, including candidates who ran on a platform of abandoning the war and recognizing the Confederacy. Elections have been an integral part of our national self image since the founding of the nation.
I didn’t mean to suggest that America’s present situation is much like Spain’s. I guess the fact that America has been a democracy so long is some protection. OTOH, the Roman Republic fell even after being established for even longer than America’s. Yes, I know, the Roman Republic was only partly a democracy; that’s the thing about history, there are no exact parallels, but we have to learn from it anyway.
I guess any coup is ultimately a test of who will follow whom. If Lieberman wins in November '04 and Bush turns to Tom Ridge ands says, “Arrest Lieberman. I have conclusive proof that he’s been in communication with al-Qaeda, unfortunately it’s too secret to show you,” and Ridge answers, “Go to hell, sir,” then the coup fails and Bush goes to prison. If Ridge says, “Yes, sir,” and so does the guy below him and the guy below him, then Lieberman goes to jail in an undisclosed location. If Bush then tells the Army to disperse protesters and they join the protesters instead, Bush goes to prison again. If the Army fires on the crowd, we probably have destroyed multi-party* democracy. (The Army hasn’t fired on the American people since the 19th century, I think, but the National Guard opened fire on Americans at Kent State once).
Well, but in order for Bush to give the order to Ridge and Ridge to give the order to someone, and so on, all of these people will have had to have lost faith in the government and the democratic process. The Republic fell because everyone lost faith in it, and everyone lost faith in it because it stopped working. It was too inflexible to deal with the state’s rapid expansion in size, and any attempt to reform it to deal with that was blocked by people with power who were afraid of change.
Generally, a government doesn’t experience a substantial violent change, be it a revolution or coup, as long as it works and people are reasonably content.
Well, another way to destroy multi-party democracy in America, besides an extremist being elected during a time when the people aren’t content, is if somehow almost everyone decided to have the same political view, and one party consistentity was elected to a vast majority of the postions. Of course, the chances of everybody in America agreeing with each other is close to nill, probably lower than the chances of a tyrant getting elected to power.
How about outlawing firearms? I believe that this was one of the reasons for the right to bear arms: If a majority of people want someone as a leader, then provided they are all armed equally as their opponents they should be able to make it that way.
Taking the weapons away from the “masses” is the first step in enslaving them. This is one of the main reasons I am against the radical versions of gun control. (another being the “criminals don’t follow the law anyway” argument)
However, you could say that democracy is teetering because of the different levels of weaponry the average Republican has compaired to the average Democrat. Fortunately, even someone in the losing party is almost certainly going to oppose a coup; it is against the entire idea of our government.
Although I do support the right to bear arms, democracy does survive in several states with disarmed populations, i.e. Britain, Japan and Sweden. The right to bear arms is a bit of an insurance policy against a coup, but disarming the population doesn’t necessarily lead directly to the abolition of democracy.
I know, the OP will claim that his is a purely hypothetical question, but it isn’t.
To all Bush-haters: relax! The WORST case scenario is that someone else will be President on January 20, 2009. Only one U.S. President has ever been in a position to make himself king or dictator for life, and that was George Washington. There’s absolutely NO chance of a “Seven Days in May” military takeover, and there’s NO chance of a Babylon 5-style President Clark declaring an emergency and becoming an absolute dictator.
Actually, it almost did happen, back in the late 1700’s. The original Confederation was completely failing before the actual U.S. Constitution was adopted. Try reading “A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution” by Carol Berkin. Interestingly, the Constitution was written mostly by men who trusted no one, which is why they put in so many checks and balances, and made it difficult to change many things, just so that a group could not easily overturn the status quo. An excellent read that puts a lot of things into perspective, including the notion that the “founding fathers” were a group of demigods.
Ask the American governor of Vietnam. Or the Russian governor of Afganistan. Or the British governor of the American colonies.
Oh wait, you can’t…
Define the term “defeat”. It is not necessary for the people to kill the entire army, or to take and hold all the land. It is only necessary to convince the other side that it is not “worth it” to continue the fight.
The adoption of the Constitution was actually something of a coup itself, though a bloodless one. The Congress convened to revise the Articles of Confederation, not throw them out and create something new, but some of our founding fathers were already planning on using the convention to create a new government.
Badtz Maru – Precisely. Most people have no idea that this is the case. When I was in school (back when dinosaurs ruled the earth) they would teach about the glorious revolution, 1776, then mention in passing that there was a Confederation but it wasn’t working out too well so this bunch of genius-level heroes got together and fixed it so now we have the Constitution. Wasn’t until much later I read the actual story, which is far more interesting and, incidentally, gives one a much greater appreciation for how fortunate we are that these good but nonetheless flawed people put the thing together. As I recall, every single one of them disliked something in it, but eventually all the states accepted it anyway because if was better than sinking into anarchy or, worse, the clutches of another European country again. Real history is fascinating!
If they know what they’re doing, the farmers and real estate agents can be bloody dangerous.regardless, in America, do you think Marines are going to shoot at them?
What?! Didn’t you knwo they actually were Demigods? Washington was at Divine Rank 1 at least, while Jefferson and Hamilton and Madison had Divine Rank 0. All of them were somewhere around Class level 35 characters.