The still-unanswered question is, How much of what happened was part of a greater plan? Answering that would require knowing Wrightman’s—and Hunter’s—motivations. Was this simply a power grab or did they honestly believe these steps were necessary to save the country? I am reminded of the astute explanation given by an American officer in Vietnam after the bombing of the village of Bến Tre during the Tet Offensive: “In order to save the village it became necessary to destroy it.”

I’ve never told this story, but after my participation in the release of the Detroit Massacre video, I received a phone call from a source high up in the administration. It was meant to be a warning to ease up my criticism of the administration. “You may not think so, but we’re saving this country,” this source told me. “Look at the polls, people love the president.” When I questioned that, this person continued, “People want order and we’re giving it to them. Let me ask you, you think the former Yugos wouldn’t give anything to have Tito back? Ask the Iraqis what they’d give to have things the way they were when Saddam was in charge. Those people would kill…” That source caught him- or herself, but insisted, “We’re doing what has to be done to keep this country together.”

Maybe it doesn’t matter if this was part of some greater plan or simply a response to opportunity. Maybe it isn’t necessary to answer that question. We’re here now. Whatever their motivations, Wrightman and Hunter could not have accomplished any of it without a willing collaborator, the American people. The American people allowed this to happen. No one can dispute that.

For the American people, the problem with saving democracy was that it simply was not particularly entertaining; it wasn’t nearly as exciting as Call of Duty VIII, as intriguing as The Voice, or as suspenseful as 24. Maybe if some entrepreneur had packed it into a video game, say The Last Flagman: Showdown for Freedom or a multipart saga that Netflix could produce, it might have attracted sufficient attention. But that didn’t happen.

Americans had more important concerns than worrying about politics. Too many people were struggling to pay the rent or to buy a third TV and a thinner cell phone to pay attention to all that bickering. A 2017 Freedom Forum Institute poll found that almost 40 percent of Americans couldn’t name a single right protected by the First Amendment; so protecting, among other things, the freedom to criticize the government ranked well below “visiting Disneyland and meeting Mickey” on many Americans’ bucket list.

While millions of Americans did try to make a stand against looming tyranny, the majority believed that they were gaining vital protection in exchange for rights they barely used. It was a trade they were willing to make. As Wrightman explained in his second State of the Union address, “My greatest obligation as your president, as is guaranteed to every American by the Declaration of Independence, is to protect your unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If it should become necessary to temporarily suspend lesser rights to protect more precious rights, I give you my solemn word, for the benefit of future generations of Americans, we will do exactly that.”