Nixon apparently sounded out senior military officers in his last days in office on the possibility of them protecting him if he refused to step down in the event of impeachment, to the point of ringing the White House with tanks. However, he received no encouragement in that course of action, and didn’t try it because the military wouldn’t go for it, choosing instead to step down.
I’ll look for a cite.
How about the war in Iraq goes badly, some blame goes to the Dems/peaceniks from the Freedom Fries population with no proof to it, there’s another terrorist attack and more civil liberties are taken away to insure greater “security” and we have to invade another country (or two) because we are “certain” they harbor terrorists and anyone in disagreement is obviously a commy traitor (Dems) and that happens to be right around election time as the Dems are all but voted out of office by candidates who flaunt their support of Bush 100% of the time, and see where it goes from there?
Marine Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham tooka survey of 300 marines that included this question:
I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.
The outcome of the survey was as follows:
Strongly disagree 127 42.33%
Disagree 58 19.33%
Agree 56 18.67%
Strongly agree 23 07.67%
No opinion 36 12.00%
Total: 300 100.00%
The survey results indicated that 61.66% (42.33 + 19.33) said they would refuse to fire on U.S. citizens, whereas 26.34% (18.67 + 7.67) indicated they would fire.
http://vikingphoenix.com/books/thesis/q-46.htm#scenario
How about a serious terrorist attack on the mainland US one or two days before election day. State of emergency declared. Election day indefinitely postponed- at least until we win the “War on Terror”.
Well, I will admit that I think very poorly of President Bush, but let me state for the record that I do not believe that he plans a coup or anything of the kind. I have not the slightest evidence for any such thing.
However, Bush has already done several things that I never believed he would do. That doesn’t mean I think he will do something much more radical and extreme, like annul an election, but I want to keep an open mind and try to think more clearly on the issue.
**
You’re probably right. Then maybe the likeliest threat to democracy is from the left rather than the right? I see more people on the left disillusioned with democracy as practiced in America than I do on the right. I’m surprised one of them hasn’t already jumped in to claim that democracy has already been destroyed, that the corporations already control everything, that the 2000 election was predetermined by a shadowy conspiracy, yadda, yadda, yadda.
But the Democratic Party seems to be hemorrhaging that kind of leftist to the Green Party, so I can’t see any major risk to democracy from that direction. If the Green Party became a large enough force that the Democrats started adopting their ideas to lure people back, that might change, though. It’s very commonly thought that the Greens cost the Democratic party the presidency in 2000.
Re the other points under discussion here: I’d hesitate to regard the Constitutional Convention as a coup. I know they were just supposed to amend the Articles of Confederation, not start from scratch, but I when your “coup” has to be ratified by the elected legislature of each state, then it’s not much of a coup. Even if it was, at least it wasn’t a democracy-destroying coup, as some feared it would be.
I would point out that “ragtag collections” of irregulars have never won a campaign against well-trained regulars; maybe a battle here and there, but not a campaign. But they don’t always have to either, witness Vietnam and Afghanistan. They just have to make the regulars’ lives miserable enough that they pack up and go home on their own. Also, the government troops may join the other side, as vast numbers of Kuomintang troops did at the end of the Chinese Revolution.
The following is based upon my claim that we do indeed have a multi-party political system in the U.S.
The “multi-” in “multi-party” is of essence. I’ve known people who grew up in the Soviet bloc whose (not ‘whoms’) countries held democratic elections on a regular basis in which all citizens of voting age were “encouraged” to vote. On the ballot, each office would typically have only one candidate, and always only one party listed. And voila! a unanimous democratic vote for the incumbent party in power! What dictator? The people voted!!(Didn’t this just happen recently in Iraq?)
Closer to home, a relative of mine is a poll worker in another state. She’s witnessed seemingly minor incidents of chicanery at the precinct level that could certainly affect the tally coming from that precinct. Enough such incidents (conspiracy not implied) can affect larger elections, including the “chusing of electors”. At the local stake are all powerful precinct and county party chair positions. The duties of these two include staffing polling sites (i.e. finding trustworthy foxes for the hen house), maintaining voter rolls (including felons and the dead), setting local rules of candidacy, designing and approving ballots (Oh no! Not Florida again!), reporting votes to the state, and, more to the point, deciding which names (or questions) actually appear on a ballot. However, such “irregularities” would probably not lead to a national crisis of ballot sanitation, unless perhaps all elections are federalized (see the preceding paragraph for illustration).
Whether ‘multi-party’ exists or not is established where power or consent is actually granted: on the ballot on election day. The system we have, brilliant if you win, archaic if you lose, probably would not allow for the censure of multiple parties on the national scale to any significant degree. And, whether ‘democracy’ exists only depends upon whether the ruled have the right and opportunity to vote.
Redundancy repair: next to last line of first full paragraph should read “… for the incumbent party.”
sorry y’all.
It is a remote possibility, as it would require the concatenation of these following events, each of which by itself is highly improbable:
Judicial activism subverts the 14th amendment, giving legal personhood to corporations.
The establishment of a vast publicly subsidized arms industry with close ties to the military.
The purchase of major media outlets by some of these same defense contractors.
Corporations using their illegally obtained personhood, purchase large numbers of political candidates on both sides of the aisle, but giving preference to pro-business candidates. Thus a 2 party system is reduced to a one and a half party system, with one side favored and the other reduced to boot licking.
A fortunate son uses his dad’s big bag of CIA dirty trix to steal an election, just like they do down in Guatemala. The media cover it up.
Military/CIA uses established terrorist assets to attack the homeland, justifying erosion of civil liberties and massive military buildup. The media create a state of fear and ignorance.
The coup de gracias, a really nasty scary terrorist attack carried out by escaped hornets from a nest we smashed on purpose, just before an election, ices the cake. Say, around October, 2004 just for yuks, in memory of that other October Surprise that Dad cooked up.
Of course, it could never happen here.
I think the word you meant was “thrive”, not “survive”, and you can add Australia and New Zealand to that list.
Even if soldiers are willing to shoot individuals, would they be willing to call in air and artillery strikes on American cities full of mostly innocent civilians? There goes much of the advantage the military has over the militia.
Or how 'bout a serious terrorist attack on the US on election day. September 11, 2001 was primary election day in New York City. Because of the terror attacks, the elections that day were postponed, but only for two to three weeks. Once the immediate emergency response was dealt with, rescheduling the postponed primaries was a high priority of the New York City adminstration.
Another aspect of the US system that most people don’t realize is the power of the state governments. Although there is some slim possibility of a President attempting to take over the federal government apparatus, he would likely be opposed by almost all state and local government officials (not to mention congress and the judiciary). The states have the control of local police forces, as well as the National Guard.
If a President attempted to take over governmental control, he might well have some military and civilian officials support him, but the reaction of the bulk of the military and civilian government workforce would most likely highly mixed at best.
Billdo, that is why I think we are approaching a situation that will be a combination of US civil war/revolution and well as a global revolution/WWIII. In other words, all the shit is gonna hit the rotating ventilation device. The opening of the seventh seal.
“We’re not gonna survive unless we get a little crazy.”
Seal, “Crazy”
From E.S.:
“6. Military/CIA uses established terrorist assets to attack the homeland, justifying erosion of civil liberties and massive military buildup. The media create a state of fear and ignorance.”
As for military build up, the Constitution, to which the President and members of House, Senate, and Supreme Court are sworn to uphold, specifies that a common defense is one of the obligations of the government.
Justification for the erosion of civil liberties has also stemmed from back-bending efforts not have any person suffer any negative experience at any time. For example, one could reasonably well argue that cross burning is a form of free speech and a civil liberty (just like flag or bra burning), but has been made a (hate) crime, thus ‘eroding’ it from the small mound of civil liberties. Another: smoking had long been viewed as a civil liberty until the last 10 years or so when enough people who can’t stand it that others smoke (or the smell of the smoke itself) began to chisel away that liberty as well as the liberty of a private restaurant owner to decide for him/her self whether smoking is allowed in the restaurant. Not to mention the convenient dismissal of the 2nd and 10th amendments by persons allergic to the sight of guns or distressed when the federal government is not in complete control of every incident that pops upon the landscape.
I suppose with some imabination one can conclude that conservatives are angling for dictatorship in part by attacking civil liberties, but I’ll be damned if I can figure out how hand-wringing liberals (modern sense) escape a similar indictment.
As to media’s creation, a country of such putty heads that would be so easily duped en masse probably should be ruled by a dictator. Surely History’s dictators realized this and found (at least what they thought was) such a country in which to nest for a while.
friedo raises a valid point about the power of the state governments and their National Guard. Perhaps one danger sign to watch for is the sudden call-up of the National Guard into federal service within three months of an election, in an effort to deprive the states of that weapon.
Another thing that occurs to me, in keeping with Captain Amazing’s “loss of faith” point, is that there are other Republicans who want Bush’s job, just as there were other Democrats who wanted Clinton’s job. The ascension of a president to permanent dictatorship denies these party leaders a chance at that job, and gives them a major disincentive to support a coup, unless something has happened to cause those leaders to lose faith in the possibility of attaining the presidency by democratic means.