Read on Twitter
My take on the "is it a coup" debate: Respectfully, coup studies are a little trapped in the field's Cold War-era origins. Its definitions no longer fit the world we live in, which is why an event that fits any colloquial understanding of a coup might not technically qualify.
Coup studies grew up at a time when the prevailing dynamic was civilian-military breakdowns, true for most of the Cold War. But the nature of authoritarianization has changed and today looks much more like ... well, like the USA this week.
Civilian authoritarianization — elected strongmen who topple institutions from within, often by provoking decentralized violence like in DC — has been one of the most impt global trends of the last 30 years. "Tanks in the streets" is outmoded, as are definitions that look for it.
I mention all this because if you're a regular person trying to figure out how to think about yesterday's events — and why the coup experts are insisting it isn't one — it might help to know that there is some history to that odd-seeming classification.
The folks who study coups, in my experience, have enormously important insights to share on events like this week’s. But that is unfortunately getting drowned out by a rigid definitional call that, respectfully, is not really illuminating anything for anyone.
