Mind you, this is just an academic exercise. It begs the question: If you were the President and didn’t want to stop being president—ever—could you? Could you circumvent the current laws and attitudes of the people, the legislature, and the military so that you would be, in essence, President for life, if not longer?
Of course, you would first have to be the President, which means you’d have to be insanely wealthy and have a lot of very powerful friends. Basically, you would have to be a megalomaniac to begin with, which means that ultimately what you’re after is power. The rest is not that hard to imagine. If someone seeks to be the most powerful person on the planet, why would he give it up? (No, that was no an unintentional use of the first person pronoun “he.”) We shouldn’t expect less than that he would do anything to hold on to it. Since when has swearing an oath that you won’t do anything nasty made any difference--especially among politicians?
The assumption is that the best way for a president to take over the country would be to make it look like a good idea. And the best place to start would probably be with fear. It would be necessary to scare the living Shinola out of the general population, the legislature, and if possible, the military—not just the foot soldier, but all the way up. What you want to do is make the people think that things could get worse. The more people have to lose, the more easily they’re manipulated. There are wolves at the door, and if the President goes, then the wolves will get in. The wolves could be anything: communists, terrorists, godless liberals…the list goes on.
It is the sworn duty of every elected official, especially the President, to do everything possible to prevent those evil forces from accomplishing their evil goal. If handing over power at the end of the appointed term would cause the evil-doers to be successful, then it would be in the best interest of the country—indeed, it would be the sworn Constitutional duty of the President—not to give up power. Isn’t logic fun?
Patriotism is always good. You must instill the idea that everything you’re doing is ultimately for the good of the country. Even if you do something boneheaded (or illegal), you can be forgiven, because ultimately you were doing it for the good of the country.
Now polarize your population: You’re either with us, or you’re against us. And if you’re against us, then you’re against the entire country. Dissent, then, is unpatriotic. Even questioning becomes unpatriotic. This is not a time for shades of gray. After all, that’s the sort of thing that gives the enemy the upper hand. We must deal in absolutes. Anything less will seem like indecision to the enemy; it will seem like we lack resolve.
Especially, neutralize organized dissention. There are two ways to do that (at least). One is to control the press. The other is to recognize those who are against you and keep tabs on them. In other words, get them before they get you.
Controlling the major media sources would be difficult. It would first require that most forms of press are held by a few controlling organizations, such as, say, half a dozen companies controlling all major television stations, movie studios, magazines, newspapers, and the Internet. You really wouldn’t want to see that happen. It would be helpful if those organizations were ideologically aligned with you to begin with (say, you were all conservative capitalists…). You can once again use polarization with the press. Claim bias against the “other side” be creating “another side.” Never mind that the truly biased press is your side, and the other side is what was once the legitimate press. Fair play in the media was an outdated concept anyway. It helps that most people don’t want to work that hard to get their information. Heck, most people are completely ignorant of what going on anyway, especially if it’s unpleasant. That’s called complacency. More on that later.
The smaller media outlets would be child’s play, so to speak. It wouldn’t be that difficult to pass a law that says, for national security, there can be no political dissention. Sure, it means giving up one of the most sacred of all Constitutional rights, the freedom of speech, but then, most people don’t use it anyway. Then the government could take over any media that objects. For that matter, they could silence any individual who objects. After all, we don’t want to aid and abet the enemy by letting them think that we’re not unified.
Keeping tabs on everybody is relatively easy. Only a very, very small percent of the population is completely off the grid. Everybody else can be tracked through their cell phones, their social security, their credit cards, their bank accounts, their cable TV, their everything…. It’s amazingly easy. Who cares if it’s legal? As long as it’s for the security of the country, no one will much mind the inconvenience. Besides, you can always say something like, “Only the guilty need worry.” And those who do object are not one of us. Hopefully the public would buy such nonsense. National IDs would be a nice touch.
And then, the government could always change the laws to disappear people. You know, simply label someone as, say, an enemy combatant. Then, by law, you could arrest them. Also, by law, and in the name of national security, you would never have to tell why they’ve gone, when they’re coming back (if ever), or even that they’re gone. By law you would be obligated to say nothing. That’s a law that should scare the living hell out of everybody. But then, luckily, there’s complacency.
Complacency is a lot like the Beatles. Certainly the Beatles had to be talented, and they had to have a vision, but it sure helped that they came along at the right time. Taking over the country would probably work best at a time when the voters are the most complacent. When the average Jose or Shaquita doesn’t even bother to vote. When most people generally ignore politics because, truly, what difference would it make anyway? But certainly, that would never happen.
Diversions are a must. The more things–either real or imagined–to catch the public’s attention, the better. Something that affects everybody, like the weather or gas prices or maybe a convenient war. Preferably something that increases the general fear level.
Shut down the boarders. Using federal troops would be ideal. Ostensibly, this is to keep people out, but ultimately it’s to keep them in. It would also help to distribute the military throughout the country. You don’t have to call out the military to put down civil unrest if the military is already there.
Now all that’s left is to have something big to happen at a crucial time, say, the day or week before an election. Here’s a thought: Wouldn’t it be convenient if terrorists were to blow up both candidates right before the election? Say, at a debate? Nobody’s going to want to go to the polls anyway if we’re under attack. If there are no elections, then there’s no change in the president. Not now...at least. After all, this is not a time for indecision. This is not a time for change. Maybe when the radiation levels fall off... Then, since it is a terrorist attack, it would be perfectly acceptable to shut down all transportation, including highways. National martial law. Suspend freedoms, and never give them back. Once everybody figures out what’s going on, it’s too late.
The government has already limited our ability to fight back, assuming that we would even want to. Sure, there are probably enough guns in the United States for everybody to have two or three each, but how many people have automatic weapons? Armored vehicles? Cruise missiles? Stealth bombers? Sure, there might be a few out there, but it’s not enough. Of course, using the military against our own people would probably not work if they (the soldiers) are thinking, intelligent, compassionate individuals who question the morality of their orders before carrying them out. But more importantly than limiting our ability, they (the government)—or maybe we—have limited our willingness to fight back. To even start the fight to begin with. It goes back to the whole idea of fear. As long as we have something to lose, most people will choose the safer route, which is to sit quietly and hope it doesn’t get any worse. Or at least hope it doesn’t happen to you.
The greatest thing the government would have in its favor would be that nobody wants to believe it. As long as people are willing to believe you won’t do something, then you can. If it can be done, odds are, eventually it will be done. Or maybe not. After all, we can trust our government...
The sad thing is, if such a thing were to happen, it would be such a waste of time. Such struggles, in the long run, will seem petty compared to such things as catastrophic climate change and devastating pandemics. But then, petty politics could be a well planned diversion to take our minds off the inevitable.
But such a thing would never happen. After all, this is just an academic exercise, or maybe the ranting of another paranoid blogger....
