Peter Turchin doesn’t really believe in grass-roots popular movements. Behind any apparent popular movement, he sees a “counter elite” competing for dominance over the current elite. In the present moment, this means the Trump movement vs. what I would call the center-right consensus of the last three decades or so.
The initial state of shock is now transforming into a more active phase, judging by a surge of recent mainstream media editorials and statements by various establishment figures who call for “mobilization,” “mass protest,” “national civic uprising,” and “revolution” (in my terms, counter-revolution). In a recent post on Racket News, Are We in a “Soft” Civil War?, Matt Taibbi provides an impressive sample of such calls to action. (In my view, we’ve been in a soft, that is, relatively non-violent, civil war since 2016. Now it is a revolution.) …
He then goes through the different ways the revolution could proceed: (1) assassination, (2) impeachment, (3) “sectional secession” – the example given is California refusing to follow federal orders, Trump sending in troops, and the governor mobilizing national guard, (4) a “color revolution” – the example given is CIA operatives Trump has fired organizing an apparent grass-roots movement, (5) military coup, (6) “the inertial scenario” which basically means Democrats trying to resist through traditional legislative and election politics, (7) “suppression by external Great Powers”, and (8) restoration by an internal faction (King Obama! okay, that is my example). He says #6 looks most likely but is not likely to be successful.
One can imagine combinations of these. If shadowy forces are plotting under #4, an apparent grass-roots movement can be combined with a not entirely free and fair election (hello, Ukraine and many other countries where the CIA has mucked about). You can imagine a not entirely free and fair election where the military steps in supposedly on the side of the constitution and announces resumption of the normal constitutional process in a year or two, which may or may not happen (hello, Thailand and many other countries).
Turchin says #7 is unlikely, but I wonder. No country is going to mount a full frontal military assault on the United States, I don’t think. But our federal government is deeply dysfunctional and incompetent, and while we may be able to bump along during relatively normal times we will not be able to respond competently to an unexpected emergency. If I were a competent enemy of the United States, I would mount a cyberattack or terrorist attack of some sort, cover my tracks, and frame some obvious public enemy (like Iran or China) for the crime. With an incompetent response, it might not take much to trigger a meltdown of systems like the financial system, power grid, food distribution system, etc. Even without a malign actor out there, it is doubtful our country could handle something like a major earthquake.
To be clear, I am hoping against hope that my country can muddle through the next 3-4 years without a major crisis it can’t handle.