No Revolution without Counter-Revolution

A Chronicle of Revolution (ACOR3)

Any revolution is a struggle between the ruling elites and counter-elites. Once counter-elites gain power and attempt to build a new social order, the ci-devant (meaning former, or “have-been”) elites¹ face a stark choice. They can accept defeat and acquiesce to downward social mobility, or they can turn into a sort of “counter-counter-elites” or, in more common terminology, counter-revolutionaries. Historical experience shows that there are always substantial segments of such erstwhile elites who chose to plot and fight.

The ruling elites’ struggle to suppress Trump has been going on for nine years, starting with the Trump-Russia investigation that was launched even before his first term began. The establishment managed to defeat him in 2020 and, after a scary moment in January 2021, they thought that he was done for good. His amazing comeback in 2024 shocked them. It is clear that they hadn’t expected it, and that there was no plan for this contingency.

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.)

So, how can the ci-devant elites accomplish the counter-revolution that they are calling for? Below is a list of ways that I can think of, based on historical precedents (please suggest in the comments additional ones if I missed anything).

Assassination. This is a traditional way of getting rid of an unwanted ruler, which has deep roots in our human evolution (see the discussion of controlling upstarts in my book Ultrasociety, for example). Closer to home, quite a number of American presidents didn’t survive to the end of their term. Many believe that Jack Kennedy was killed by his opponents within the American state. Trump, so far, has survived three assassination attempts. The first assassin came within a fraction of an inch of succeeding; the second one got close, but didn’t manage to discharge his weapon; and the third one was arrested before he got into the shooting range. But there is no guarantee that the fourth one wouldn’t be successful.

Impeachment. This is the legal way of removing an American president. As of the moment, it doesn’t look very probable, because the Republicans control both Houses, and Trump controls the Congressional Republicans. But keep in mind that the majority of Republican incumbents come from pre-Trump times. They were card-carrying members of the ruling class, and a revolutionary role must feel awkward for most of them. All it would take is persuading them that Trump is driving the country over the cliff, and they would support the idea of removing him.

The Trial of President Andrew Johnson in the US Senate. Source

One problem (from the point of view of the erstwhile ruling elites) with both assassination and impeachment routes is that that would not stop the revolution, because the throne would be inherited by J.D. Vance. Vance might be an even greater danger for the ci-devant aristocracy, because he is younger, more disciplined, and more driven by an anti-establishment ideology. I wrote about him in End Times as a person to watch, even before he successfully gained a Senate seat in 2022.

In his piece, which was included in the compilation of 15 NYT columnists on Trump’s first 100 days, Ezra Klein concurs. “The one moment that foretold all,” in his opinion, was when Trump selected Vance as his running mate. Trump was persuaded to choose him by “Don Jr., Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson, who reportedly told Trump that if he picked Rubio or Burgum he was likelier to be assassinated by MAGA’s enemies.”

But let’s return to the list.

Sectional Secession. This is how the American Civil War started. Today, the most likely regional focus for anti-Trump resistance is California. A secessional scenario could start as a refusal of the state to follow orders from Washington (for example, refusing to round up and deport illegal aliens). Next Trump sends federal police or troops to enforce his orders, while the state governor calls up the National Guard. Other states (Oregon, Washington) join the rebellion, and you get the idea.

A Color (Counter)Revolution. Trump’s abolishing USAID was the right power move, because it got rid of a nest of his political enemies. But there is a consequence that I haven’t seen anybody discuss. Suddenly, he turned a bunch of established elites into counter-elites. And many of those who worked for USAID or organizations it funded, are specialists in organizing color revolutions. What’s to prevent them turning their skills and experience against Trump? It would be relatively easy to mobilize tens, or even hundreds of thousands against him, especially because support for Trump is quite low in Washington D.C. In a way, this would be turning the tables, a kind of a counter-January 6, 2021. Storming the White House and deposing Trump, on the other hand, would be a much more difficult proposition.

A Coup. Unlike South America, the United States doesn’t have a history of coups d'état. But there is always the first time. I haven’t seen recent data on the degree of support for Trump amongst the military or the police, but my guess is that a military coup is very unlikely. An FBI-engineered coup is more possible (although still not very probable). There must be other Peter Strzoks in the FBI, although we don’t know about them because they are more intelligent and disciplined. Who knows what they are thinking and whether Kash Patel, a Trump loyalist, can control them.

The Inertial Scenario. This is simply continue with the “resistance movement”, obstruct Trump as much as possible (especially by means of the judicial system), undermine his ability to act by forcing him to sacrifice his loyalists, and chip away at his popular support (or hope that his policies will be so catastrophic that his support evaporates). Then whittle down Republicans in the mid-term elections, and finally defeat him (or his successor) in 2028. A lite version of a color revolution could be part of the mix. The main problem with this approach is that by 2028 it may be too late to save, or reconstruct the old regime.

For completeness, I add two more items to this list. One is suppression by external Great Powers (example: the Dutch Revolution of 1787). The second is restoration by an internal faction (example: Restoration of Charles II by General Monck). The probability of these last two is essentially zero, for obvious reasons. Not that others are particularly probable (1 percent? 5 percent? Who knows). The most likely scenario is the inertial one, at least as of the time of this writing.

I guess the most important take-home-message here is that once we get into crisis, there are many ways to exit from it, some more disastrous and others less so. Revolutions can succeed in a great variety of ways, and they can be defeated in equally great variety of ways.

1. “Ci-devant” is the French for “former” or “erstwhile”. This usage comes from the French Revolution when ci-devant nobility referred to nobles who lost their elite status as a result of the revolution. This term has become part of the English language, just as “elite” (originally élite).