Today marks the day that Barack Hussein Obama takes the Oath of Office and will take his place as the 44th President of the United States, a country that, for all of its current problems, is the most powerful and richest nation on Earth. Despite their being massive security preparations, what’s fascinating is that the primary security concern for the event is a lone actor or small group of people bent on assassination.

What is not a concern is any idea that the Republican Party, or conservatives in general, will take up arms and try to take the Presidency for themselves.
This fact is something that we take for granted to such a degree that the very idea of it sounds silly. Yet it’s something that, in the grand scope of history, is actually pretty rare. Especially when you consider that for nations as powerful as the United States is today, assassination and civil wars for power (as opposed to our own civil war, which was a battle over secession, not power).
Great Britain and other monarchial nations were riven with wars and intrigues over succession whenever a new king died. For a time in the Middle Ages, there were two different men who claimed to be the Pope. The Roman Empire was full of assassination and wars for the throne. All throughout history, the road to power was always paved with blood.
The United States has been spared this. Yes, Presidents have been assassinated, but not by their rivals. There have been no wars for the White House. Even when the emotional rhetoric surrounding an election is heated and emotional, as it was in 2000, the transition to the Presidency remains smooth and banal.
This is in no small part due to the wisdom of the Constitutional Convention in crafting a system of institutions that was designed to endure such things. Even though the Presidency has become increasingly powerful over the years, the fact remains that the separation of powers remains a very strong force in Federal governance. This fact means that assuming the Presidency by force simply isn’t a viable option.
Consider, too, that the network of state and local governments play into the separation of powers as well. Someone who tried to take the Presidency by force would have to contend with rebellion not only within the Federal government, but also from the various state governments, as well.
Still, strong institutions can limit the temptations of power, but they’re not dispositive. The Roman and Byzantine Empires survived the wars for Empire, but the institutions lived on. The Catholic Church managed to get back to having just one Pope. I’m not certain that Chinese bureaucrats were even aware who the Emperor was over several centuries. History is replete with examples supporting the idea that well-built government institutions can survive violent changes in leadership.
So what makes the United States so different?
Part of the difference is that in addition to simply crafting a lasting system of Democratic Institutions, our Founding Fathers also bestowed upon the United States both a common ideology and a common mythos. The common ideology of the United States of America is found, of course, in these words in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
These words are quoted, time and time again, and yet they endure. They form such a strong core of our national identity as a people that when Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke out for racial equality, they didn’t have to preach violence and revolution. They simply reminded Americans of their common ideology by invoking the Declaration.
The ideas of voting, democracy, and the “consent of the governed” are so ingrained in American culture that it’s very unlikely that anyone could seize the reins of government by force in this country.
That’s why there are no armies garrisoning Washington, D.C. today, and why nobody’s worried about a bloody battle between McCain’s forces and Obama’s. That’s why the transition between Bush and Obama has gone smoothly and without a hitch. That’s why, on this Inauguration Day, Americans will barely notice how unique this event is in the annals of history–how privileged they are to live in a country where the transition between leaders is peaceful.
After all, to Americans, having a peaceful change of power is the self-evident way to do it.

While domestic violence is relatively kept as compared to the tragedies in Zimbabwe and Kenya recently (apart from staffers trashing the White House to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars in 2000 and the mass of executive orders given at the 11th hour), US foreign policy during transition has a tradition of being very bloody. This commonly used tactic has been investigated by a number of scholars as a tool not of the outgoing president, but their party to try and influence public opinion for the next midterm and general elections. It seems to have worked too. As Karl Rove mentioned in a WSJ article recently, there have only been two presidents in the 20th Century who have gained seats in both Congressional Houses: FDR and GWB. Election and inauguration are the end points in a war, but meerly battlegrounds in an ongoing struggle for power.
Think of Eisenhower in Cuba and Vietnam, Johnson in Laos, Bush 41 in Somalia, Clinton and Al Qaeda, and now Bush 43 in Afghanistan. All of these conflicts defined their successors terms. American transitional violence isn’t fought in America, but around the world.