A Coup is Only a Coup if it is a Coup

Screaming “coup” doesn’t make it so, though it might help someone perform one in the future. These disproportionate reactions, even from ordinarily reasonable folks, will not help stop the real or imagined problems of the new American administration.

I don’t always keep up with the latest memo, but “coup” seems to be the word of the week this week, as “fascist” was last week. The only problem is, there is no coup to be seen.

The furor hit a new height with the administration’s upending of USAID, the massive foreign aid and influence agency. Few, outside of Washington, D.C., love America’s foreign aid system as it exists right now. Plenty of us like its humanitarian focused aspects, but USAID has clearly been a politically motivated agency and one where if there are controversial social stances, it favors the progressive, Democratic viewpoint.

But, let’s say USAID was an organization formed by only the most saintly members of humanity and never spent a single dollar on corrupt projects. Shutting it down is still not a coup.

Why?

Because a coup d’état is the ouster of the existing government. It is not when the head of a branch of government decides to reorganize the branch under his or her oversight. Some of us voted for him, some us did not, but President Trump is the legitimate head of the Executive Branch.

I already hear the protest: “But, Elon Musk is the one performing the coup! We didn’t elect him!”

Fair enough, none of us did, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren reminded us. But we never elect any administration’s bureaucrats. We elect a president and he appoints various positions to oversee the Executive Branch’s bureaucracy.

There is an irony to shouting that an advisor of the duly elected president is performing a coup for advising the president and fulfilling his orders. We’ve turned things upside down: those in agencies like USAID who were hunkering down to resist the president were far closer to performing a coup for trying to resist the only two people in their branch of government who are elected by the people.

Will I like the outcome of agencies like USAID being disbanded? I’m not yet sure. Andrea S. James writes a cogent argument for the “zero based budgeting” model Elon Musk is attempting at the behest of President Trump.

Musk’s approach does seem familiar to anyone who has watched him bring the impossible to life with Tesla and SpaceX. As James notes, Musk has repeatedly proven his critics wrong. I remember admiring what his unorthodox approach at Tesla while others were doing a deathwatch for it.

Tesla is now worth five times more than Toyota.

Seeing the President work with Musk to bring a Silicon Valley startup approach to a government only 22% of Americans view favorably fills me with cautious optimism. I can imagine the dust settling to reveal a leaner government focused on foreign aid most Americans can get behind, rather than bizarre, divisive ideological initiatives.

My optimism is cautious; maybe good foreign aid (or domestic programs) will become collateral damage. Maybe Musk can’t pull off a SpaceX or Tesla yet again.

We will see. But, “I don’t like it” and “coup” are not synonymous.

Will the Trump administration perform a coup d’état someday? I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet. What I can say is inaccurately shouting “coup” when there isn’t one is the opposite of what you want to do if you fear a future coup. A lot of folks really need to read the Boy Who Cried Wolf again.

Last week’s word — fascism — has been misused just as much and does the same disservice to us.

America is not a fascist (much less Nazi) regime. Yes, we see those headlines and Tweets saying the White House has all but placed swastika flags on order. My question is, what is the basis for those claims?

Start with the venue where many of these attacks are published: X. What kind of weird, fascist regime has the Dear Leader’s closest, most powerful ally (and alleged coup initiator) run a platform that freely airs grievances against said leader?

Like “coup,” “fascism” right now seems to be defined as “policy I don’t like.” A fascist isn’t just “a blustery leader who leans sorta-kinda to the Right” any more than a communist is “anyone who likes universal healthcare.” Maybe, just maybe if we read the definition of fascism, we find it is something a bit more specific.

First, it is populist. Is President Trump a populist? Unquestionably, yes, but so too are his most vocal opponents, such as Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Populism can be fascist, but that’s like saying a runny nose can mean your brain fluid is leaking. It can happen, but it isn’t the first explanation you should consider.

Second, Fascism focuses on the corporate national good over the individual good. Is President Trump promoting putting some alleged common “national good” before the individual? No, actually, that’s what the other guys do when they argue, for example, that Catholic ministries should be forced to perform abortions against individual conscience. President Trump isn’t a libertarian, but he advocates for more individual liberties than his opponents do.

Third, Fascism is authoritarian. Is Trump an autocratic? In speech, yes, but not so much in practice. Trump loves to talk a tough game, but generally is open to reasonable negotiation. Trump is taking a blowtorch to executive branch bureaucracy, but shaking up the branch of government one has been elected to lead is different than being “authoritarian.”

During the first Trump administration, many predicted Trump would rule as a fascist and never leave the White House. Despite his shameful refusal to admit defeat in 2020, guess what? He left the White House on January 20, 2021 ahead of schedule.

Both Trump Administrations have spoken tough, but repeatedly (properly) bowed to the courts’ decisions as the Executive Branch ought. Has it always been willingly and with a smile? No, but it isn’t as if Democratic Presidents react differently. (Nor that Democrats always accept the results of elections.)

One key sign of authoritarianism is suppression of free speech. But while Democrats cry foul at Trump’s FCC chair questioning government funding of public broadcasting — since when is government funded speech where we turn for “free speech”? — the Biden Administration ran into legal problems for actually suppressing free, private speech.

More keeps emerging about the former administration’s censorship efforts and Biden himself mourned the tide turning against his speech restriction efforts during his farewell address. I actually agree with President Biden’s viewpoint on matters such as COVID vaccines, but it does not change the fact that it was he, not Trump, who pushed the authoritarian view on speech.

Someday, there may be a coup. Someday, there may be a fascist leader. But for all of our sakes, should such horrible things happen, let’s not bend the words to refer to what the Trump Administration is doing now.

When the wolf does come, I don’t want the villagers to ignore our legitimate cries.