Rejoinder

Considering the events of January 6th, I could, of course, edit my previous post, ‘What Shall We call It?’. I might for instance, remove the first declarative sentence, “There was no coup”, but I will let it stand: as of December 13th. 2020, that statement was demonstrably true. I am saved some prognostic embarrassment by the fact that most of the U.S. media have now settled on calling the extraordinary events of that infamous day at the Capitol an insurrection rather than a coup. While there is little to choose between the meaning of the two words, insurrection alone demands no modifier to reflect its results.

A reasonable interpretation of the events might classify them as an ‘attempted’ coup; Trump called his supporters to arms and urged them to prevent Vice President Pence from certifying Biden’s victory on the grounds that the election had been stolen from him. Notwithstanding the failure of the mob to achieve their goals, Trump and his supporters have continued to press their case. To date, they have not succeeded in overturning the will of the American people, to the extent that that is reflected in the federal election process, and Biden retains the presidency of the United States. As of this moment, we are obliged to use the modifiers ‘failed’ or ‘attempted’ when referring to the events as a coup. Insurrection, however, as in uprising, is a complete act in and of itself and retains its relevance independent of its wider ramifications or results. My takeaway – as a solipsistic blogger – is that the title of my piece now has an unintended prescience, and that these semantically punctilious paragraphs are sufficient rejoinder to its opening salvo.