In Part 1 I laid out the argument for thinking that Trump and many of his supporters would welcome an opportunity to use the military and/or domestic police forces, together with supportive white militias, to impose martial law or force an armed confrontation with their opponents. In Part 2 I consider how this might happen.
Key Findings
The most direct opportunity will come with the November election. A close election, whichever side wins, provides opportunities for Trump to instigate violent confrontations and call on militias and security forces.
A clearcut victory for Vice-President Biden would make violence and instability less likely, but not impossible. If Trump sees his prospects for victory declining, he could try to manufacture a domestic crisis before November as a vehicle to increase his popularity, or postpone the election.
The lack of a widely-accepted and impartial arbiter for election disputes increases the chances of violence and political instability. The response of the military could end up being decisive.
Scenarios
Big Biden Win. The best case for American political stability is an overwhelming win for Joe Biden. If the popular vote and electoral college numbers are so lopsided that even Fox News is forced to admit defeat, it will be difficult for Trump loyalists to mobilize and take to the streets. Not impossible—it is almost certain that Trump will try to make a case for voter fraud or some other rationale for losing. But it will be difficult to gain traction if the electoral result is not close.
Trump could try to resist the results on substantive rather than procedural grounds by claiming that his defeat paves the way for “socialism” or some other catastrophe. Having Biden as the candidate, however, makes this tactic more difficult.
- It is hard to make the centrist Biden the poster child for a radical Left-Wing takeover.
- Trump’s attacks are likely to focus more on Biden’s choice for Vice-President, especially if she is a progressive and/or a woman of color.
A big win for Trump appears highly unlikely. His popularity has been declining as a result of his mishandling of COVID-19 and his incoherent response to the killing of George Floyd. The fear of losing power, however, could make him prone to try and force some kind of confrontation with perceived opponents before the election to cement his reputation as a law and order leader, or to create conditions to postpone the election or justify restrictions on how it is held.
A Close Biden Win. A Biden win where the electoral college numbers are close will produce a spike in political tensions that is almost certain to include violence. Such a result is certain to be disputed by the Trump campaign. Narrow Trump losses in some of the “battleground states,” particularly those with Democratic governors like Wisconsin and Michigan, would make room for a narrative of fraud and manipulation.
- Trump is already laying the grounds for a claim that widespread mail-in voting is the cause of his defeat,despite no evidence that mail-in voting leads to fraud or advantages Democrats.
- The Republican Party and associated private groups are putting together a coordinated effort to aggressively monitor polling sites as a way to intimidate voters and lay the grounds to claim widespread voter fraud, according to the New York Times.
A path to declaring a state of emergency or martial law would open up if Trump refuses to concede, opponents take to the streets in large numbers and there are confrontations and violence. It is easy to see a strategy of encouraging armed militias to oppose protestors, sow violence and disorder, and using that as a pretext to refuse to recognize the election results and/or declare a state of emergency.
A Close Trump Win. A narrow Trump win in the electoral college, similar to 2016, would also set the stage for political and social instability. Such a victory, especially if Trump again loses the popular vote by a wide margin, would likely be seen as illegitimate by many Americans. Democrats would blame voter intimidation and external intervention by foreign actors, such as Russia, who attempted in 2016 to intervene on Trump’s behalf and seem poised to do the same again.
A large number, perhaps a majority, of Americans would see four more years of President Trump as an existential threat to our democratic system and to specific vital interests. Political norms—the independence of the judiciary and the FBI, free and fair elections, an independent press—and policy priorities—women’s rights, minority rights, healthcare, global warming and the environment, America’s standing in the world, the treatment of immigrants, economic equity and well-being—would be threatened. The corruption and dismantling of the federal government, already well underway in the past four years, would likely become irreversible.
In this scenario it would be a mistake to assume the reaction would be peaceful or adhere to traditional norms. We could expect massive demonstrations—the 2017 Woman’s March on steroids—against a continuation of the Trump Administration. Some state or city governments could become loci for opposition and resistance to Washington, and the country could threaten to divide between red and blue states.
Trump retains the largely unqualified support of a hardcore of committed partisans, Fox News and other media outlets, and most nationally elected Republicans. Trump and these backers would be inclined to welcome the opportunity to create a climate of fear that would make it easy to paint opponents as radicals and justify strengthening executive power.
An important variable affecting the intensity of the response could be election results in the Senate. If Democrats win both Houses of the legislature, they might accept this as a sufficient check on the President, with the possibility of successful impeachment as their ace in the hole. This result, however, could lead quickly to instability.
- The national government could expect policy gridlock for the foreseeable future, with no progress on key issues, and near-constant attempts to block Administration appointments and investigate White House decisions.
- Democrats would at some point almost certainly restart impeachment proceedings, a recipe for further confrontations and a plausible impetus for a desperate White House to find an excuse to mobilize supporters and impose a state of emergency.
Lack of Legitimate Arbiter. A grave danger is that with a contested election there may be no institution that would be accepted by the majority of Americans to adjudicate the results. It would be easy for both sides to cast doubt on state election systems, demand recounts, and challenge results in court. Competing claims will confuse many Americans and make it easy to default to partisan preferences.
- Trump has spent considerable time and energy saying vote by mail is illegitimate and establishing the grounds for rejecting election results.
- Liberal opponents have zeroed in on voter suppression, as well as biased electoral commissions, gerrymandering, foreign interference, and failure to plan for election safety under pandemic conditions.
The federal judiciary is not likely to be viewed as impartial. The Administration and the Republican majority Senate have over the past three years prioritized appointing loyalist judges throughout the federal judiciary. Attorney General William Barr has consistently supported unrestricted Presidential authority and can be expected to enthusiastically back the White House in any legal challenges to unfavorable election results.
Democrats have a much more negative view of today’s Supreme Court than Republicans, and may not accept its rulings on charged issues of party politics. The current 5-4 conservative majority is the result of Senate Majority Leader McConnell’s 2016 decision to prevent Obama from appointing a replacement for Antonin Scalia.
- Democrats believe a conservative majority Court intervened questionably on the side of Republicans in 2000. They are unlikely to accept a similar ruling again.
- Rulings by this court in favor of Biden would have considerable weight with both sides because it would be seen as going against the Court’s ideological bias. Rulings for Trump, however, would likely be rejected by Democrats and liberals as further evidence that the Court is not impartial.
Military Response Crucial. In the US, as in many cases of internal conflict and instability around the globe, the response of the military could be decisive. From the start of his term, Trump went out of his way to portray himself as a supporter of the military. He appointed serving and retired military officers to key positions—Secretary of Defense, National Security Advisor, and Chief of Staff. He advocated large increases in the military budget, and lavished praise on people in uniform. It is plausible to assume that this was designed to win the military to his side in the event of a political crisis.
How effective this has been is unclear. Trump has blasted senior military leadership (in 2017 he called the Joint Chiefs of Staff “dopes and babies”) and interfered with decisions normally seen as the prerogative of the services; his ignorance of national security issues, and his disrespect for former Senator and military hero John McCain, have cut into his support. Senior (mostly retired) military officers have recently taken Trump to task publicly over the use of the military against domestic protestors, and more generally over his leadership style and foreign policy choices. Polling in the military suggests that half of the men and women in the ranks now disapprove of Trump; officers are even more critical.
Nevertheless the military is predisposed to obey a sitting President and is extremely reluctant to be seen as taking political sides. It is unclear how military leaders would react if ordered to impose martial law or stop violent protests under conditions of uncertainty and competing appeals from elected officials.
No Plan, But a Consistent Aim. There is no evidence of a careful plan to seize power or postpone the November elections. As with many Trump goals, we see inclinations and leanings, along with acts and tweets designed to “test the waters” and judge how the country might react. Trump has, however, consistently expressed strong admiration for authoritarian methods of rule and tough leaders, and frustration with every aspect of the American constitutional system that restricts the President’s autonomy and freedom of action.
The run-up to the election could be particularly dangerous if Trump continues to lose ground. Psychologists, biographers, and people who have worked closely with Trump have described a personality that is extremely narcissistic: sensitive to slights, eager to avoid any perception of weakness, highly self-absorbed, and prone to lash out or act impulsively when under stress.
The prospect of losing would bring out the worst aspects of this narcissistic psychology. Trump has gone to great lengths to claim popular support, such as his false assertions about the size of his inauguration crowd and the reasons he lost the popular vote in 2016. If Trump sees a majority of the population turning against him, there is no limit to what he might say or do to show strength and shore up his self-image.