Is it a coup?
Alarmist language doesn't work
A few weeks ago, we published an episode entitled Constitutional Crisis?. DOGE had been let loose on our federal government, resulting in obliterated departments, scores of firings, and frozen funding. A flurry of lawsuits were filed to stop this fundamental reordering of our federal bureaucracy, and we asked, "What if Donald Trump ignores the courts? Are we in a constitutional crisis?"
We weren't the only ones.
'Constitutional Crisis' Is an Understatement (The Atlantic)
Trump talks of a third term amid growing concerns about a constitutional crisis (Politico)
Is the US government facing a constitutional crisis? (USA Today)
We ultimately concluded that we were not in a constitutional crisis. Donald Trump had not yet defied the court. Should he do so, a crisis will arise when our system seems unable to resolve the conflict.
We have a democratically elected president who continues to shred norms and exert power.
We have a democratically elected president who continues to shred norms and exert power. Still, we have not encountered an impasse between the branches. We have certainly not attempted to solve it.
Now, a new question is presenting itself.
Progressive Democrats accuse Trump and Musk of 'a plutocratic coup' (The Guardian)
Elon Musk tightens grip on gov't, sparking 'coup' accusations (Al Jazeera)
'The telltale signs of a coup': Musk's power grab draws outraged backlash (MSNBC)
Is it a coup? By definition, a coup is a "sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government"
Let’s work backward.
Donald Trump is the government. A majority of Americans elected him, and his party won the majority in both houses of Congress. He cannot seize power from himself.
Most reasonable people can agree that he is expanding executive power. Some of these expansive actions have been sudden, and some will most definitely turn out to be unlawful, but they have not been violent.
January 6 was a coup, an ultimately unsuccessful one, but a coup. I took the violence on January 6 seriously and am still horrified that so many did not see a coup attempt as disqualifying. Trump attempted to use violence, but he failed. He was returned to power by convincing a majority of Americans he deserved it, not by taking it violently.
Beyond January 6, we must remember that other countries have experienced successful coups. They often involve guns, people die, and, when it's over, someone else is in charge.
On July 26, 2023, the Nigerian presidential guard deposed President Bazoum, and a military junta took power. That's a coup. The same happened in Mali in 2021 and in Burkina Faso in 2022. The military juntas in all three countries still hold power.
Coups are real, and they are dangerous. Millions of people worldwide have suffered the consequences, and thousands continue to fight back. We do them a disservice when we inaccurately invoke what they've been through to escalate our argument.
Because that's what this is: an argument. If there were a genuine constitutional crisis, it wouldn't be solved through an editorial. If there was a coup, a podcast shouldn't be the first place you turn.
The argument itself is valid.
The argument itself is valid. People are concerned about expanding executive power, and they should be.
People are freaked out by an unelected billionaire running amok through our federal workforce, and they are right to oppose Musk and his minions.
People are scared by the dramatic changes in leadership at the Pentagon, and articulating why is the work of democracy.
And, if using apocalyptic language advanced that argument, then calling it a coup would be justifiable. But we know that alarmist language doesn't actually alarm people. For example, studies have shown that when it comes to climate change, dramatic warnings about the consequences of global warming - even if they were accurate - are more likely to lead to cynicism and a decreased belief in climate change.
Ring the Alarm is a bop, but it is not an effective strategy.
How many iterations of this approach are we going to try?
We've attempted to warn that Trump is "racist and sexist" for a decade. We've tried "fascist" for years. It's February, and we've already run through a constitutional crisis and coup.
We even tried “attempted coup” accurately after January 6, but it wasn't enough. People still voted for him based on a complex mix of personal motivations and political beliefs. That's the debate we should be having. We should try to engage people, not scare them, even in a sincere attempt to articulate our own fears.
Spicy Pantsuit Politics
As we’re finding our footing in this new administration, we took some time to discuss the weirdness of some of the headlines this week.
Good Morning News Brief
We are committed to keeping up with the headlines in an engaging, grounded, and sustainable way. Our Good Morning News Brief hosted by Sarah Monday through Thursday here on Substack is part of how we do that. Be sure to check it out here.
Something Nice to Take You Into the Weekend
Sarah and Beth talked about whimsical habits outside of politics today. We wanted to share the inspiration for our conversation and hear how you bring whimsy into your days.
What We're Reading This Week
Sarah: America's Military Supremacy is in Jeopardy (The Economist)
Beth:
The Age of Addiction: How Bad Habits Became Big Business by David Courtwright
The New Control Society: Why Everything Feels So Mid (The New Atlantis)
The Teen Disengagement Crisis (The Atlantic)
Alise: Fairy Tale by Stephen King
Maggie: The Anti-Social Century (The Atlantic)
Copyright (C) 2024 Pantsuit Politics. All rights reserved.
Well, I suppose we can concede that doesn’t meet all the elements of the definition given. Therefore, sure, not a coup.
I am not here to encourage the use of the term coup in our rhetoric. But I have lived through two violent military coups. I have seen bombs being dropped over my city near my house by the insurrectionists inside the military. I was in Caracas, my hometown, and Hugo Chavez was the failed leader of those two. He went to jail, then pardoned by the next legitimate president, and finally ran a very successful political campaign and was elected president democratically in clean elections by a true landslide (we don’t have electoral college, it’s a direct democracy, popular vote rules).
Why does that matter? Because I feel like I am seeing a remake of that movie but now in English and with a few details changed. So this might not be called a coup. Neither was what took Chavez to the presidency, but this is what happened:
Hugo Chávez and Donald Trump, despite their ideological differences, shared key actions that undermined democratic institutions and concentrated power:
• Purging Government Institutions: Both fired public employees en masse, replacing them with loyalists.
• Politicizing the Judiciary: They appointed judges who favored their political agendas.
• Weakening Legislative Oversight: They pressured lawmakers to comply and dismissed institutional checks on power.
• Targeting Political Opponents: Both used legal and administrative measures to silence critics.
• Attacking the Press: They labeled independent media as enemies to discredit opposing voices.
• Undermining Law Enforcement: They cast intelligence and law enforcement agencies as threats to their rule.
• Challenging Elections: Both questioned unfavorable election results and pushed fraud claims.
• Promoting Nationalist Agendas: They embraced protectionism and blamed foreign actors for domestic issues.
• Encouraging a Cult of Personality: Both positioned themselves as the sole solution to their nation’s problems.
So, call it what you will. But I’ve seen this movie before and it doesn’t have a happy ending. Of course, Venezuela was institutionally weaker. But what I remember well is what many, including me, used to say al the time as things happened. First, “Venezuela is not Cuba. That can’t happen here”. Second, “I don’t believe so, I am pretty sure it won’t happen that way.” Boy was I wrong.
Just because a plurality (not a majority) voted for him, it doesn’t mean that whatever he does has democratic legitimacy. It’s still a coup and a constitutional crisis when he exceeds his power so egregiously, openly and brazenly.
I keep repeating this, but having an insurrectionist in office despite explicit language in the constitution forbidding this means we were already in a crisis. We have been since he took emoluments and got away with it. The crisis began when flagrant violations of the constitution occurred and everyone acted like the solution was normal electioneering. The signal was clear: the constitution is actually meaningless if a critical mass of the public decides they don’t like it and people in power find enforcement too uncomfortable.
As the weeks and months drag on, we’ll find out which other parts of our constitution and body of law are meaningless. The crisis is ongoing.
I see nothing wrong with calling this a crisis or a coup, because that’s what it is. But I take your point: that can’t be ALL that we do. And maybe one day, as we rebuild from the ashes, we’ll even figure out a way to have a political system whose rules are actually enforceable even when people in power don’t want to face consequences for breaking them.