Regime Change: What Does It Take?

When you are an armed insurrectionist busily conspiring and insurrecting for regime change, you often ask yourself: what are the magic incantations that might work? What does it take for the old regime to just pick up sticks and head for the exits?

Because we armed insurrectionists really don't want any violence -- or even the mostly peaceful protest beloved of our lefty friends. No butcher's bill for us, please. 

I've already looked at the question of regime change in reviewing a piece by Malcolm Kyeyune on the current regime:

Every ruling class throughout history advances various claims about its own legitimacy, without which a stable political order is impossible. Legitimating claims can take many different forms and may change over time, but once they become exhausted or lose their credibility, that is pretty much it.

Interestingly, I've already written about Kyeyune, in "Two Strikes Against the Ruling Class -- in One Day."

So what does it take for a ruling class to lose legitimacy?

Lose a war? You know, I think this is probably rather important, especially because I think that defending the people against enemies, real and imaginary, is the one and only job of government. When there's a cock-up on the war-making front, I think that there is an unconscious feeling that the ruling class doesn't have a clue. And this feeling might even include women, who, as you well know, "expect to be protected."

Money Printer go Brrrrrrr? I wonder if this is a consequence rather than a leading indicator of ruling class exit. Because the two German hyperinflations occurred after defeat in war. On the other hand, there is Venezuela, where the Old Regime of Hugo Chávez is still in power under the expert guidance of President Maduro. Certainly, inflation is a sign of ruling-class incompetence. We know how to keep inflation in check. Because Science.

Economic Crisis? The classic case is the Great Depression that ended the 60-year domination of the Republican Party after the Civil War, and began the 70 year domination of the educated class through the Democratic Party. Obviously the Carter era "stagflation" was a real body blow to the "leave it to the experts" political formula of the New Deal. And the Great Recession and its slow recovery didn't do any good for the current ruling class. But, I suspect, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Crack-down on Opposition? When a ruling class is in the cat-bird seat the opposition is rather amusing, and the regime can afford to let it warble its ineffective tune. But when things are getting serious, then there is a tendency in all ruling classes to get the word out that the opposition is really a deadly threat to all good people. Of course we have seen this in black and white over the last year, as "everyone" agreed that the BLM/AntifFa riots were nothing-to-see-here, while the January 6 riots were an "armed insurrection."

Censorship? A confident ruling class sneers at censorship. It wants to know what the fools and knaves in the opposition are saying. It knows that it can haul out its tame journalists any time to laugh and sneer at the opposition's pathetic lies and utter detachment from reality. But when things are getting too close to the bone, then it is time to crack down on "disinformation." Because Science.

Ramming Stuff Through Congress? According to the Moynihan Rule, you don't want to pass major legislation with less than a 70-30 vote in the United States Senate. I think the idea is that political peace means consensus, where the opposition doesn't feel too threatened. But the current Democratic Congress that is more-or-less evenly divided between the parties is ramming controversial stuff, including major climate-change stuff, on simple majority votes. The implication is that if we don't pass this now we will never get to pass it. Which suggests that the ruling party is not long for this world.

Impeaching Presidents? It's telling that the impeachments of presidents generally resulted from a feeling of outrage against a president that the ruling class considers illegitimate. The first president impeached was Andrew Johnson, right after the Civil War for daring to fire his Secretary of War. Then Richard Nixon, regarded by all good liberals as illegitimate (my liberal boss had a $3 bill Nixon coffee mug). Then Donald Trump, regarded by all good liberals as a liar and a colluder with Russians. Bill Clinton? I'd say that was more: if you guys can impeach Nixon for practically nothing then we can impeach Bill Clinton for lying about "I did not have sex with that woman..."

Government of Old Men? What is it about the current era that we have aged presidents and leaders? Trump, 75; Biden, 78; Pelosi, 81; Schumer, 70. Is it a case of OK Boomer hanging on? Is it that the next generation just isn't up to snuff? Or has the current generation kept genuine challengers to their power under wraps? Or is it just that modern health care keeps older people more active and thus able to hang onto their power? Why would younger politicians not be able to challenge the existing generation?

I'm sure there is more, much more. But, I'd say, the portents and the runes and the joss sticks are not too favorable right now.