With the federal bureaucracy and the much of the media in seeming revolt against and working actively to thwart or nullify the outcome of a Presidential election, it is worth looking at what tends to cause political revolutions. Political revolutions/Secession (or civil war outbreaks) occur under many circumstances. They may be peaceful, such as the fall of the Iron Curtain in Europe in 1989. Or they may be violent, such as the revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power in Cuba. Likewise, a divorce of a country may be peaceful, such as when Czechoslovakia peacefully broke up into two countries (The Czech Republic and Slovakia). Or it can be violent, such as the break-up of the former Yugoslavia.

But one factor that must be present anywhere for a revolution to occur is that the political legitimacy of the government (and its institutions) must be called into question and denied by a significant fraction of the population. Often, governmental legitimacy (generally accepted right to make the rules that govern society) is taken for granted. In fact, governments that lose legitimacy and are toppled often don’t seem to realize that they are losing legitimacy right up until the moment that the mob storms the palace. In the late 1980’s, everyone assumed that the Soviet Union would be a permanent fixture on the geopolitical landscape, and yet in the space of 1 congressional election cycle, it was gone. Political legitimacy can be easy to take for granted. But once it is gone, there is almost no way to get it back.

So, what causes a government to lose legitimacy? Ultimately, it occurs when the government fails to perform on some basic function of the implied social contract. Although revolutions may claim that they are “fighting for freedom” against an illegitimate government, governments that are dictatorial can be quiet stable and legitimate despite their lack of freedom. People might go out into the street yelling about freedom of the press, but the press might not have been free for 50 years. The people didn’t just wake up one day and realize, “Dang, the press really isn’t free. We ought to do something about this”. No, the government was considered legitimate even though it squelched press freedom, because it had an implicit agreement with the population that allowed it to do so. In other words, we get to control the press, as long as we also do X. It is when it fails to do X (or X, Y, and Z) that it loses legitimacy and then faces the prospect of being overthrown by the population.

So the question is whether the U.S. government losing legitimacy. By this I don’t mean specifically the Democrat or Republican Parties. I mean is the EPA, the IRS, the VA, the Treasury, etc; the organizations that make up the government and are staffed by the same people no matter whether the R’s or the D’s are in power.

I think the answer is absolutely yes. The election of Donald Trump itself is an indication of a massive loss government legitimacy. People like Donald Trump don’t get elected (or even run competitively in a losing effort) in countries with high levels of institutional legitimacy and trust. (Note that we are seeing a crisis of legitimacy across the Western world with the current President of France not belonging to either of the major parties, Brexit, the fact that the next Prime Minister of Italy might end up being a comedian, etc.). So what is it in America that has caused the government to lose legitimacy? I believe that there are several factors.

1.)    Lack of border security.

One of Donald Trump’s campaign promises was to “build a wall”. Border security has been an issue in the United States for at least 20 years at some level. Controlling borders and protecting the population from outside threats is the first source of legitimacy of any government, whether familial, tribal, monarchical, feudal, fascistic, communistic, oligarchy, democratic or any other form of government that one might dream up. Governments were first formed as a method to better provide protection to the members, citizens, subjects, etc. But for the last 20 years (at least) the U.S. government hasn’t really seemed too interested in controlling the border. It has treated those who want the border controlled as a nuisance, or as a bad, horrible people for wanting that. Concerns over illegal immigration (or illegal immigrant crime) have been scoffed at, dismissed, ignored, or condemned, by people who likely aren’t personally impacted by the costs. And note that it isn’t that these people are demanding new laws; they are demanding that existing laws be enforced.

This policy of non-enforcement isn’t cost free. People who are here illegally end up in waiting rooms in hospitals. They end up in schools. They end up competing for jobs. And they end up committing crimes. While there is nothing inherently wrong with the first 3 on that list; things which don’t make the illegal immigrant a bad person, citizens do bear the cost of this through higher taxes, longer waiting times to see a doctor, and in some cases having to accept a lower wage and some economic insecurity, and in some cases being the victims of a crime; all things that the law says that they shouldn’t have to. Given that the government doesn’t seem willing to stand up for these citizen’s, it loses legitimacy.

2.)    De-industrialization of America.

Over the last 50 years, many parts of America have seen jobs shipped off-shore and nothing comparable has taken their place. This has in part been caused by free-trade agreements as well as increased environmental regulation. And note that the trends in these area is towards freer trade and more environmental regulation. This is not to argue for or against the overall desirability of such things; it is only to say that while support for free trade and environmental regulation might make people in Silicon Valley and Berkeley, California feel good about themselves, the costs of these policies are economic disruption and downward mobility in the lives of other people.

3.)    Lack of visible government spending & anti-tax sentiment.

Although taxes are not popular with anyone, history has shown that people are willing to pay taxes if they see some benefit to it. And by “see some benefit” I don’t mean intellectually knowing that government spends on the military, schools, roads, welfare, Social Security, etc., I mean that they see some benefit in their day to day lives.  For large areas of the country, they don’t see any benefit. While there are reasons for this, the primary one being a Supreme Court ruling in the 1960’s stripped rural areas of their political power, the fact is that government spending has largely ignored rural and small town America for nearly half a century. So the sense is that the government taxes me and I see no benefit is very real.

4.)    Government malfeasance with no real consequences.

The IRS denying the rights of conservative Tea Party groups to participate in the political process with nobody being held responsible. The VA delaying services to veterans, lying about it, falsifying records, and nobody being held responsible. A judge overturning an executive order of a President, while implying that the same order would acceptable coming from another President. These and other situation contribute to the sense that government doesn’t function, that some people are above the law, and that rules are not applied equally.

Perfect justice doesn’t exist in this world, and countries can go on and be stable in the presence of some injustice as long as they are doing other things correctly. For example, the Chinese Communist government has essentially made the deal that it can have the monopoly on power and use political repression as long as it delivers economic growth and prosperity. So far, it has worked out.

However, in the case of the U.S., the list of grievances above are hitting a lot of the same people. These people are being taxed while seeing little benefit, their views and ability to participate in the political process are illegally squelched and nobody is held accountable, their government won’t enforce laws that protect them from foreigners and won’t initiate laws to try and protect their jobs. In short, the law, in many ways, simply won’t protect them. They can participate in elections, get laws that they want passed, they can get their man elected, but still watch the permanent government try and thwart him in pursuing an agenda that will make their lives better. In short, you and people like you have no right to government, even when you win elections. This is behavior that delegitimizes a government.

While such a government can remain somewhat stable and broadly legitimate when it treats say, 10% of its population like this (think the Coptic Christians in Egypt), it cannot remain stable when it treats 40% of its population this way. And it REALLY can’t remain stable when that 40% is armed. People pay taxes and follow rules, even those that are to their disadvantage, because they see the people and the processes that make and enforce the rules as legitimate. If a large fraction of America ceases to see the government as legitimate, they will cease following rules that don’t benefit them and there is not enough enforcement to make them comply (think speed limits).

The government has been behaving in ways that destroy its legitimacy for some time now. Without a radical change in how it operates, the types of conditions that lead to revolution or secession will become more and more acute.