Re: <nettime> why is it so quiet (in the US)

[tbyfield <tbyfield@panix.com>]

If there will be no coup, Steven, that's because there already was one. 
But let me explain.

Debates about a "coup" in the US are useless, because they're bogged 
down in endless anticipatory "post hoc ergo propter hoc" arguments 
("after this therefore because of this," just before *this* happens) and 
coupsplaining ("it's not *really* a coup* because" yadda yadda).

If our litmus test for a coup is tanks in the streets, you're right, 
there wasn't and won't be one. But that's mostly Hollywood stuff anyway: 
in times and places where coups have undeniably taken place, there 
weren't enough tanks or troops to occupy all those countless streets. 
The vast majority of those streets were empty, not an obvious sign of 
force anywhere, and yet coups happened. How? Because a coup is less the 
show of force than the doubt, helplessness, capitulation, and 
adaptation. In the US, we've spent the last 3–4 years doing that. If 
tanks magically appeared tomorrow, few would be surprised, lots of 
people would mutter about "2020" and "the new normal," and everyone 
would know how to walk / ride / drive past with their jaws clenched 
tight and their eyes averted. That part is done.

But I'm not arguing that a coup is just a state of mind or some other 
irrefutable bullshit, though. I'm saying bluntly that, objectively, 
there already has been a coup.

No serious person doubts that Trump would stage a coup if he could, or 
that the GOP would go along with it if they could. No serious person 
doubts that he's taken concrete steps on a dozen fronts to pull it off, 
or that he continues to try. And no serious person doubts that it was 
unclear how federal court would resolve election-related cases. Yet a 
huge number of the very same people would also argue that what's 
happened isn't a coup because it was badly conceived, poorly executed, 
and failing. But if that's our standard for acknowledging the reality of 
something, then Trump wasn't president and didn't have policies. What 
he's done very definitely was a coup: a stupid, flawed, failed coup, but 
a coup nonetheless.

But, ultimately, denials that what's happened isn't a coup become 
clearest in one area in particular. Trump's attacks on the USPS came 
very close to winning him the election. If it weren't for sustained 
public and political pressure, huge numbers of mail-in ballots wouldn't 
have been delivered on time and wouldn't have been counted — and 
there's a few key states would have ended up in Trump's column. And, in 
a softer but equally decisive way, I think, the post–Election Day 
narrative would have been *very* different: it wasn't just the final 
tabulation, it was the erosion, dat after day, of Trump's supposed leads 
that killed his claims. We owe an immense debt to all the people and 
forces who mounted those challenges, and Emmet G. Sullivan, the DC 
Circuit Court judge who issues the decisive ruling and imposed deadlines 
down to the *hour* on the USPS leadership, is a legit national hero.

So: there was a couple *and also* the victory of more or less normal, 
continuous operations of government over Trump's attempt means there 
wasn't one. Resolving that by saying, "well, there was one but it 
failed" isn't very satisfying to my ear. The solution is to set aside 
silly cinematic assumptions that a coup is necessarily a clearly defined 
thing, that it does or doesn't exist, that did or didn't happen.

Cheers,
Ted

On 13 Nov 2020, at 16:52, Kurtz, Steven wrote:

> From my perspective there is very little to worry about regarding the 
> election. There will be no coup, and the electoral college vote will 
> not be stolen. All the generals who can speak out (because they are 
> retired) have done so, and do not support Trump, nor do they see him 
> as the election winner. Trump has not replaced anyone yet with 
> operational command.
>
> The electorate sent to congress has to reflect the popular vote. Each 
> state has a law that enforces this. Police, judges (at all levels), 
> electorate members, a majority of congress, and state legislators 
> would all have to agree to break these laws to make this theft 
> possible. Perhaps either of these theft strategies are possible, but 
> they are adjacent to impossible.
>
> When understanding Trump, the best way is to go directly to the lowest 
> common denominator. Trump is not a complex, reflective man. What does 
> he like to do?
>
> 1.	Loot and grift. If he were to concede the tap of funds flowing into 
> legally challenge the election would stop. He has no intention of 
> cutting this revenue source, since half goes to lawyers and half to 
> his campaign.
> 2.	Display his power. His favorite way of doing this is to make other 
> powerful people say things in public that they know are not true. An 
> Orwellian autocratic favorite to be sure. He also likes to remind his 
> party that his base will follow every order.  This is how he plans to 
> stay a power player in the Republican party. I think a line will drawn 
> at coup time. Thus far no post-election acts of violence from either 
> side have been reported.
> 3.	Take revenge. That is part of the reason for the recent firings. He 
> will put the knife to as many people as he can before leaving. He will 
> also give pardons to people that he believes will make his enemies 
> upset. (On the small up side, this may include a pardon for Snowden to 
> get back at his “deep state” enemies. Trump has said this out 
> loud.) He will also collect as much dirt as he can to release against 
> his enemies (another reason for the recent firings).
> 4.	Undermine democratic institutions. His favorite is elections. He 
> cried voter fraud even when he won in 2016 and has pursued this lie 
> ever since, so its no surprise he is doing it when he has lost. He 
> also does it by putting unqualified hacks into office and removing the 
> competent. The former is another nother reason for the recent firings. 
> This tendency is in part residue of Bannon’s accelerationist agenda.
>
> Will we see Trump run again in 2024? Yes, if he is not in jail. He has 
> to escape prosecutors in NY state and in Manhattan first. Then, for 
> four years he will have to resist selling state secrets. A series of 
> actions that could make him the richest man in the world. I don’t 
> know if he can resist that, and I am sure he is not smart enough to 
> get away with it.
 <...>
#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: