Would Americans ever support a coup? 40 percent now say yes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/06/us-coup-republican-support/


Would Americans ever support a coup? 40 percent now say yes.

That percentage jumped significantly since 2017 and includes more than half the Republicans we surveyed.

Analysis by Noam Lupu, Luke Plutowski and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister

January 6, 2022 at 7:45 a.m. EST


Supporters of President Donald Trump take over balconies and inauguration scaffolding at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)

Recently, for the first time, the United States was added to a list of “backsliding democracies,” by the Stockholm-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Other similar organizations have also reported that the United States’ democratic institutions have eroded.

Former president Donald Trump’s effort to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, a campaign that culminated in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol one year ago, looms large in these assessments. Many — including top military officers — feared a coup on U.S. soil. Some experts consider the insurrection itself to have been an attempted coup. Since then, some Trump allies, including former national security adviser Michael Flynn, have openly embraced the idea of a military takeover, and high-profile political observers now argue that U.S. democracy is deep into a constitutional crisis and that the “next coup has already begun.”

Would Americans accept a forceful takeover of the state? Our research provides some troubling answers.

'MAGA' voters are angry at efforts to build a full, equal, multiethnic U.S. democracy

Peaceful transfers of power and trust in elections lie at the heart of democracy

A basic tenet of functioning democracies is that those who lose an election accept defeat. Election losers are willing to play by the rules if they believe they can win the next time around. The key to a strong democracy, wrote political scientist Adam Przeworski, is a form of “institutionalized uncertainty” — as long as we cannot know who will win the next election, both sides have good reasons to preserve the system that allows them to compete.

All this also rests on the premise that elections are fair and that both sides see them as legitimate. Political scientist Pippa Norris has found that when the public loses its faith in elections, citizens stop voting, turning instead to protesting and other forms of expression, and increasingly embrace other ways to change the political regime.

This seems to be happening in the United States.

Americans’ support for coups has increased sharply

For over two decades, our research team, LAPOP Lab at Vanderbilt University, has been studying democratic attitudes and values across the Americas, using nationally representative surveys that we field every other year. The U.S. survey uses online interviews with Web-based national samples of 1,500 respondents.

Since 2010, the survey has asked a question that reads, “Some people say that under some circumstances it would be justified for the military of this country to take power by a coup d’etat (military coup). In your opinion would a military coup be justified when there is a lot of corruption?” Respondents could answer either “yes, it would be justified” or “no, it would not be justified.”

For a number of years, a sizable minority of Americans, just over 1 in 4, said yes, a military coup would be justifiable. That figure cut across party lines, with both Democrats and Republicans expressing slightly more support than independents. It seemed surprisingly high for a country with a well-established tradition of civilian rule, but further testing revealed that respondents fully understood what a military takeover of the state would mean.

Still, several facts provided reassurance. For one, the U.S. rate in 2017 (the last year the question was asked before 2021) was one of the lowest out of all the countries in the Americas; in six countries, including Canada, more than 2 in 5 said a coup could be justifiable. And the share of Americans who said they could tolerate a coup appeared to be declining.

History tells us there are four key threats to U.S. democracy

Our newly-released 2021 survey found something different.

The share of Americans willing to tolerate a coup increased from 28 percent in 2017 to 40 percent in 2021. That’s a 43 percent increase, and the highest rate we’ve seen in the United States since we began asking the question more than a decade ago. It’s also one of the largest increases we’ve seen in this measure across the Americas. Compared to other countries we study, the U.S. now ranks near the middle on this measure, just higher than Brazil and Mexico — countries with relatively recent histories of authoritarian rule.

Americans’ tolerance for coups has reached its highest level as polarization increases. Source: AmericasBarometer. Analysis by the authors.

Anti-democratic attitudes and trust in elections are now deeply divided by party

Another particularly striking finding from our 2021 study is that tolerance for coups has become quite different by party. In each of four previous rounds of our survey, the share of Democrats and the share of Republicans who believed a military coup could be justified differed by less than 10 percentage points. In 2017, the gap was only two percentage points, with 31 percent of Republicans and 29 percent of Democrats agreeing. That division widened considerably in 2021. Now, 54 percent of Republicans express tolerance toward a military takeover of the state, compared to just 31 percent of Democrats.

Another of our survey questions, asking respondents if they “trust elections in this country,” also documents a growing gulf between parties. Those who identify with the party of the sitting president typically trust elections slightly more, but this round, that gap widened considerably. In 2021, 79 percent of Democrats reported that they trust elections while just 27 percent of Republicans did. That’s a gulf of 52 percentage points — a dramatic difference from the 14 percentage points just two years ago, in 2019, when 40 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of Republicans said they trusted elections.

The partisan gap in trust in elections widened considerably in 2021. Source: AmericasBarometer. Analysis by the authors.

What makes a coup possible?

Recent coups in Sudan, Mali and Myanmar have made headlines, as have stories about democratic erosion in countries like Brazil, India, Nicaragua, and elsewhere. Democracies backslide when institutions and norms degrade and those who anticipate being on the losing side of elections subvert electoral processes and democracy itself.

Our data reveal that Americans are increasingly tolerant of such antidemocratic moves, and this tolerance is concentrated among the most recent electoral losers, Republicans. Although democratic institutions were able to ensure a peaceful transfer of power in 2021, our findings suggest that — among the mass public — American democracy may not be as resilient as many had previously thought.

Don’t miss any of TMC’s smart analysis! Sign up for our newsletter.

Noam Lupu (@NoamLupu) is associate professor of political science and associate director of LAPOP Lab at Vanderbilt University.

Luke Plutowski is senior statistician at LAPOP Lab at Vanderbilt University.

Elizabeth J. Zechmeister (@ejzech) is Cornelius Vanderbilt Professor of Political Science and director of LAPOP Lab at Vanderbilt University.

Milley’s actions were attempted military coup against Trump: Goodwin By Michael Goodwin September 18, 2021 8:19pm Updated

Michael Goodwin

Milley’s actions were attempted military coup against Trump: Goodwin

In the continuing war for the truth, the good guys went to battle with a lone pea shooter against miscreants that have a military. To be precise, it is the military of the United States of America.

Its leader is the latest to have been exposed trying to delegitimize Donald Trump’s presidency. 

First, it was the FBI, the CIA, the media, academia and others who crossed the line into political activism, and now we have clear evidence that the top man in the Pentagon also succumbed to the siren song of power. It turns out that the nation’s most admired public institution is led by some people with very dirty hands.

The reprehensible actions of Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, take the cake for audacity and arrogance.

Milley admitted that, late in Trump’s term, he made the calls reported in a forthcoming book, which included a promise to his Chinese counterpart that he would alert China to any planned attack by America. His argument that the calls were “routine” and done to “reassure both allies and adversaries in this case in order to ensure strategic stability” underscores his serious misconduct. 

Those decisions and actions are above his pay grade, but Milley never told his superiors what he was doing. But he did reportedly tell his top staff that only he could give final approval for a nuclear strike. A separate report says he warned aides of trouble from Trump supporters, declaring that “we’re the guys with the guns.”

Notably, not a single military officer blew the whistle. 

In plain English, this was an attempted coup. Milley, in a fit of pique over the president’s conduct after the election, reversed the chain of command. No longer would a duly elected civilian be on top. 

A general trusted with awesome responsibility went rogue, usurping the president’s power and making himself commander in chief.

Milley’s actions are the latest manifestation of a sickness that led the leaders of many important institutions to turn their hatred for Trump into a license to break restraints, standards and even laws. 

The first aim was to block him from being president and then sabotage his administration with anonymous leaks of classified information and false charges. Milley went the logical next step in trying to seize the power to declare war. 

The pattern is unlike anything seen in modern times and perhaps ever in American history.

Milley claimed that he promised his counterpart in China's military that he would alert China on any potential attacks from the United States.
Milley claimed that he promised his counterpart in China’s military that he would alert China on any potential attacks from the United States.
AP Photo/Kevin Wolf

That was the view of William Barr, Trump’s second attorney general, who launched a Department of Justice probe into the spying against Trump during the 2016 campaign and the subsequent undermining of his White House.

That probe is headed by John Durham, whom Barr named a special counsel, meaning he would outlive the administration. That has happened, though the results so far are puny given the scope of the scandal and the number of top officials implicated. 

In more than two years, Durham has filed charges against just two people. Both have been important, but no clear legal connection has been established to the larger plot, especially the effort to use the secretive FISA court and other agencies to tip the election to Hillary Clinton. 

Last week illustrated the enormous mismatch between Durham’s plodding probe and the unchecked willfulness of the other side, as exemplified by Milley. 

The special counsel charged Democratic-connected lawyer Michael Sussmann of lying to the FBI when he tried to steer the agency toward what he claimed was cyber-evidence of ties between a Russian bank and the Trump campaign. Asked who his client was, Sussmann allegedly said he didn’t have one, when in fact his law firm, Perkins Coie, was working for Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee. 

Lawyer Michael Sussmann was indicted by Special Counsel John Durham's probe.
Lawyer Michael Sussmann was indicted by Special Counsel John Durham’s probe.
Perkins Coie

Sussmann’s “tip” soon became news among pliant media eager to help Clinton, and she herself touted the supposed connection to the Russian bank. In the end, there was no there there, but the hit on Trump was typical of 2016.

The fraudulent Christopher Steele dossier also was funded by Clinton through Perkins Coie and given to the FBI to try to make a Russian-collusion angle stick. It was and still is the dirtiest dirty trick in modern politics. 

Similarly, the charge against Sussmann shows he was floating another Russian angle to the FBI. There was zero truth in either case. 

Sussmann denies the charge, but the indictment says he billed the Clinton campaign for his repeated efforts to promote the Russian bank scam, so a trial would be informative.

Earlier, Durham had charged former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who pleaded guilty to lying on a surveillance-warrant application during the bid to spy on Carter Page, a Trump associate. Clinesmith’s punishment was just one year of probation.

While the media mostly relegates Durham’s cases to sideshows, Milley is being treated as a hero by many on the left. Predictably, Joe Biden expressed confidence in him despite his dance with treason.

And why not? Milley’s defenders, including Biden, were all for blocking Trump or driving him from office, by hook or crook. Recall that Biden took part in an infamous White House meeting in January of 2017 where the FBI spying probe was discussed. 

The taint was so obvious that Susan Rice wrote a notorious memo two weeks later, on the day Trump was inaugurated, claiming Barack Obama had insisted the probe of Trump be done “by the book.” 

If that were true, the last-minute memo to the file wouldn’t have been needed.

Not incidentally, Rice now serves as Biden’s top domestic adviser.

As we have known for some time, the plot to paint Trump as a Russian agent began when it appeared he was a good bet to get the GOP nomination. It involved the White House, major elements of the Department of Justice and intelligence agencies in a coordinated effort with Clinton’s campaign. 

It’s not quite true that all those involved got away with it. FBI Director James Comey was fired by Trump, and his crew of dirty cops, including Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, was forced out in disgrace. 

Yet not a single one of the scores of people unmasked in the corrupt effort received a punishment commensurate with their abuse of power and the weaponizing of federal agencies for partisan purposes. In fact, some were actually rewarded, with the odious Comey getting a fat book deal and teaching gigs at prestigious colleges.

No doubt that record has Milley savoring his prospects. It certainly won’t hurt that he previously aligned himself with the far left by supporting the teaching of critical race theory at West Point, telling Congress: “I want to understand white rage. And I’m white.”

As for the unending disaster in Afghanistan, including the drone strike that killed 10 innocent civilians, including seven children, Milley hasn’t had much to say. 

That won’t hurt him. By resisting Trump and giving credence to anti-white racism, he’s already checked the required progressive boxes.

And isn’t that what matters most?

Lettera aperta al signor Luigi di Maio, deputato del Popolo Italiano

ZZZ, 04.07.2020 C.A. deputato Luigi di Maio sia nella sua funzione di deputato sia nella sua funzione di ministro degli esteri ...