Now you’re just helplessly denying. I just want to remind you that you’re free to change your opinion, no one will think less of you if you do. I’ve done it before, it can be pretty exciting to turn your world around and re-evaluate things every now and then.
I'm willing to change my opinion as soon as someone provides me some evidence that this was actually a coup, and not a riot that's being inflated to order to justify sweeping authoritarianism.
It’s possible you’re underestimating the sheer practical and symbolic significance of the building they broke into (and the people who work there). Which, actually, is kind of the whole problem. Can you provide an example of an evidence that would make this a coup for you?
In short, a coup is an organised action to seize power. For that, it's essential to have secured the support of at least part of the armed forces, and a plan to replace the top of the power hierarchy. Nothing like that was seen in the Capitol riots, which seemed disorganised and essentially demonstrative in nature. Once entering the building, the rioters proceeded taking selfies.
Some took selfies. Some proclaimed themselves in control of Congress. Some entered the Senate chamber with weapons and handcuffs.
The authors said a coup has 3 criteria.
> 3) Do the plotters use illegal and unconstitutional methods to seize executive power?
The authors said yes.
> 2) Is the target of the insurrection the chief executive of the government?
The authors said yes.
> 1) Are the perpetrators agents of the state, such as military officials or rogue governmental officials?
The authors said no because Trump can deny meaning to incite it. They're extremely charitable. And this isn't part of the common definition of a coup anyway.
> Do the plotters use illegal and unconstitutional methods to seize executive power?
I have no clue why the author checks this. The rioters entered a building (which is by the way the seat of the legislative power) and that's it. Even if they had killed everyone inside, that wouldn't have put them an inch closer to seizing the power, as the power is simply not there. Power is alliances and a chain of command, not being in a room with shiny big buttons.
I do agree that Trump's position is ambiguous: one cannot deny that he was probably hoping for more. In that case he would be the only one to have imagined a coup, as the rioters were just a few... impressionables.
> I have no clue why the author checks this. The rioters entered a building (which is by the way the seat of the legislative power) and that's it. Even if they had killed everyone inside, that wouldn't have put them an inch closer to seizing the power.
The fairly overt goal, articulated in only slightly elliptical language by the President in inciting the mob, was to cause, by intimidation, members of Congress to alter their behavior re: the count of electoral votes so that Trump would be declared the victor and thus retain executive power.
Oh well, for that he would have needed a mob of at least several millions. If that's what he really hoped for, he was off by at least four orders of magnitude.
"Stop the steal" groups have imagined a coup for weeks. More than a few people stormed the Capitol. All coups need impressionables.
The insurrectionists thought most voters and at least 150 members of Congress supported them. The commander in chief egged them on. Coups have succeeded with weaker allies.
Some insurrectionists thought they could pressure enough members of Congress to block certification and send the election to the House. Some wanted Trump to declare martial law. Some openly welcome civil war.
Congress has executive functions too. Like counting electoral votes.
>"Stop the steal" groups have imagined a coup for weeks.
Those groups have imagined a coup for years. These are the same people who were rumbling about a cold civil war turning hot any moment now during the Obama years, quoting the revolutionary language of the Founding Fathers and strongly implying that something must be done about the leftist menace when they thought the Tea Party would actually follow through.
That actually is a pretty good argument. I have indeed been playing fast and loose with the terminology; yes, it wasn’t a military coup, but it is still an unprecedented attack on the federal government, a riot.
