Coupless in America

The coup in Thailand got me thinking about the absence of coups in the USA. The ousted Thai Prime Minister is a rich man who engaged in shady business dealings, plays up to the peasants for their votes, is very unpopular in the big cities, is tough on Muslims who take up arms, suppresses dissenting opinions, consolidates his power in spite of the Constitution and claims electoral victories in flawed elections. In fact, he seems a lot like George W. Bush.

Thailand, though its people are quite laid back, has had 18 coups since becoming a constitutional monarchy in 1932. The US is a nation of feisty people, but we have never had a coup. Why is that?

I remember a card game from the 1960s called “Coup d’Etat”. The name was French and literally meant “blow to the State”. Coups are inside jobs, pulled off by an element of the power structure turning on its superiors. This is different than a revolution, which comes from the ground up and is accomplished by segments of the general public either actively participating or passively condoning it. Coups are also different from secession movements, when a geographic part of a nation tries to withdraw and form its own new nation.

America was founded by a revolution in the late 18th Century, when “power to the people” became in philosophical fashion. Revolutions soon fell out of fashion, until Communism brought them back in Russia in 1917. After WWII, many former colonies revolted against their imperial overseers, in different ways and with various results. Some diverse examples include India led by the non-violent example of Ghandi, Algeria using insurgent style tactics against the French, the Vietnamese defeating the French in outright war, and numerous sub-Saharan African nations unfortunately having their revolutions appropriated by the cold war powers. Closer to home, Castro’s small band easily took power in Cuba, while the people passively agreed.

The attempt of the American Southern States to secede was defeated militarily. The military occupation of the South following the defeat was a flawed one and both sides used the disputed Presidential election of 1876 as a way to negotiate its end. Northern Republicans were given the election and the South was freed from the occupation. Arguably, the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, which fell only one vote short of throwing him out of office, was a sort of constitutional coup attempt by the Congress, as was the only other such trial, that of Bill Clinton. But both those unsuccessful impeachments were for political, not constitutional purposes, Johnson was attacked to undermine the occupation of the South, and Clinton to foster an image of Republicans as morally pure and Democrats as lecherous.

Right or wrong, Americans blamed the Great Depression on Hoover and the Republicans. Nobody with any power had an answer, so a coup would never have been given a thought. Times eventually got bad enough for revolutionary feelings, but by then Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal had been chosen in the landslides of 1932 and 1936, and with the buildup for War, our government had weathered the storm.

In the last half of the 20th century, America experienced some significant and somewhat revolutionary changes, with minimal violence. Desegregation, civil rights, improvements for women and environmental protections are notable areas where gains were made. The push for all these worthwhile changes came from interested citizen groups.

In the 1970s, Nixon and Watergate sorely tested our Constitution, which proudly emerged in control. There was no question that Nixon had been fairly elected twice, but his Constitutional trespasses resulted in a bipartisan initiation of the impeachment process for the only legitimate time in our history. The Supreme Court properly became involved as referee between Congress and the President, and when they ruled Congress was right, Nixon resigned, averting the need for the impeachment to proceed. Nixon likely would have been convicted, and if he had refused to honor the conviction and relinquish power, a coup could have been necessary. I think Nixon would have complied with the impeachment conviction, but what about a “stay the course” man like George W. Bush? I definitely believe, if he were ever impeached and convicted, Bush would risk tearing our nation apart rather than surrender the office.

Our 2000 Presidential election was never properly decided. Our Presidential elections are not national; each State is in charge of its own balloting, subject to US Constitutional protections. What happened in Florida was a travesty. Jeb Bush purposely disenfranchised black voters with unfair roll purges. But what happened in the Supreme Court of the United States was the greatest travesty. Constitutional law experts were surprised that the Federal Courts got involved and the 5 most conservative Justices of the US Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount, effectively usurping the power of the Supreme Court of Florida to determine how a Florida election should be held. Three of the five in the ruling majority for stopping the recount had conflicts of interest that should have led them not to participate in hearing the case, but the entire Court should have let the recount continue and let Florida Court decide the matter, ultimately subject to possible Constitutional review from the US Supreme Court.

The decision of the five Justices handing the Presidency to George W. Bush is so flawed in its reasoning that the majority specifically said the ruling should not be considered a legal precedent for any purpose whatsoever. They simply said the Florida recount process varied so much from County to County that it should not be allowed to continue and the Florida Court should not be allowed any opportunity to work out a Constitutionally acceptable recount method because there was not sufficient time before the Florida electors were to be safely designated [this provides another strong argument for the elimination of the Electoral College]. The flawed interim status with Bush in the lead, the Court ruled, should become the final score. Justice Stevens wrote an excellent dissenting opinion explaining why the Court should not have interfered. Justice Ginsburg in her dissent pointed out that the recount did not need to be finalized by December 12 as the majority said, but only needed to be done by the January 6 final deadline.

If there ever was a time for an American coup, it might have when the US Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Bush versus Gore and issued an order stopping the Florida recount. A coup could have been limited to defying that Court order to allow the recount to continue and allow the Florida Supreme Court to rule on the outcome of the election in Florida. But who would have led the coup? Not mild mannered Al Gore. Not our military leaders, whom we have wisely kept out of political power, at least until after they retire. The prime candidate for the coup would have been Bill Clinton, who could have used his Presidential office to order the Florida recount to proceed as the Florida Supreme Court intended.

In this “coup de Supreme Court” scenario, once the ballots had been correctly counted in the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court could then have either declined to hear the matter further or issued its own opinion of the validity of the recount, for further consideration by the Florida Court. If the Florida Court supervised recount found Bush the winner, there would be no further crisis. But if they found for Gore, there would have been two Florida electoral slates presented to Congress, the one based on the US Supreme Court stopping the recount and handing the election to Bush, and the one based on the Florida Court supervised recount. Congress would then have had to choose. Even if Congress decided for Bush, which could have been quite likely, that would be their constitutional prerogative, so though I would disagree, I would respect it. I have no respect for the way the US Supreme Court stopped the recount and named Bush the President.