Revolutionary Change without The (R)

[MineralMan]

{What follows is my opinion, and nothing more. Thanks.}

Once upon a time, there was the American Revolution. There was the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution, and others, as well. In each case, there was something in common: The revolutions did what successful revolutions do - they changed the system of government in the nation where they happened. They didn't change a law or two. They changed the very foundations of how those nations were governed.

That's what revolutions do. That's what revolutions are for.

Here in the United States of America, our revolution produced a new system of government. 230+ years later, that system of government is still in place and operating. Designed into that system was a means to change things. That design dropped the (R) from Revolution and left us with Evolution as the means of change.

And change there has been. When the Constitution was written, women couldn't vote and this country had slavery as part of its makeup. Our Senators were chosen by the legislatures of the various states. Through the process of evolutionary change, we ended slavery, changed our Senatorial election system, and eventually instituted universal suffrage. None of those changes came easily, and none happened nearly as quickly as they should have. Still, they happened. Even today, the changes in slavery and universal suffrage are still not complete.

Today, there is a lot of discontent with the state of the United States of America. As in other periods, economic problems abound. We also still have many people who are left out of many parts of America's system. There is discord and partisanship to be found everywhere. This is, pretty much, our normal state. All of those troubling things have maintained throughout our history as a nation.

So, what do we do? Do we call for a Revolution? I don't think so. Remember, Revolutions are for changing systems of government, not for changing how a government deals with particular problems. No, I don't think a Revolution is in the works. I don't believe there is anywhere near enough support for such a thing, and a Revolution can't happen without wide-spread support, since a revolution must involve warfare.

The Founders, in creating our system of government, following the American Revolution, designed the Constitution with change in mind. Evolutionary change. Evolutionary, to prevent the need for Revolutionary change. We have changed many things, using that system, which empowers the people to make changes, if they have the will and numbers to do so. Only, though, if that will and those numbers are present will the changes occur.

We're a troublesome nation. We don't agree on many things. Our population is often divided almost in half on many issues. So it is in 2010. So it has been throughout our history. It's very difficult to make substantial changes and, when those changes happen, changes are almost always made in incremental ways. That's built into the system. It's very, very difficult to make dramatic changes in a single pass. Almost impossible.

So, I want changes. I want more equity. I want an end to long-standing injustices. I want many changes. I know, from reading this forum that virtually everyone here wants most of the same changes. We all know what they are. I know how we can get those changes, too. They will come in the same way changes in how our country works have come throughout its short history.

The changes we all want will happen in an evolutionary way, not in a Revolution. If we want the changes, we're going to have to convince enough people that they're needed, and get those people to the polls to elect legislators who will work to implement them. There is no other way to make this happen. No other way. Some changes have recently begun. We now have a framework that can produce real healthcare for the population eventually. It's far from done, but it's begun. Our GLBT citizens can marry in several states. Soon, there will be more. Soon, they'll be serving in our military on the same terms as everyone else. There are many other things that are on the verge of changing. We can appoint judges who share our philosophy. If we lose our majority, though, that will stop.

Many things will stop, and evolution will be reversed, if we do not continue to work together toward the changes we seek. If we allow reactionary philosophy to retake power, all the evolutionary changes will be reversed. We cannot allow that to happen, and we have the means to prevent it.

I'm sure this post will meet with much disagreement and with some agreement. That's fine with me. It's just my opinion, and I have no expectation that my opinion will be shared by everyone. It's the beginning of a discussion, I hope. We'll see. It's worth thinking about, in my opinion.

[Raoul]

1. How freaking niave!

Convince people and make them change their minds? How can you do that when 95% of the freaking populace have no minds to begin with. Those other revolutions you cited were successful no matter how the pundits try to spin them and that's the ONLY way people can take power away from the greedy few. History my friend. Go back and study it again.

[MineralMan]

2. If you truly believe that 95% of the population have no minds,

then our system cannot succeed, and could not have succeeded in the first place. The only government systems that can govern a nation where 95% of the population have no minds are dictatorships or monarchies. Which of those would you prefer?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. At the risk of getting you banned...

...my very conservative fiance says that is why he is proud of his time in the army: he wasn't defending policies X or Y, he was defending the process by which those policies are peaceably settled and the right to appeal to our friends and family for what we believe is best.

And at the risk of me getting banned: I'm proud of him for believing that.

I also believe you responded to Raoul correctly. If we can't win by appeal we either uphold the system thgat allows us to appeal or we try to exchange it for a system where we govern by what we want even if it is against the will of the people. In short: we would be dictating.

I could never support a dictatorship (and neither would my fiance).

[MineralMan]

15. That's why I served in the military, too. I still believe that.

I was, indeed, trying to show Raoul that his opinion of the electorate means that only a monarchy or dictatorship could govern such an electorate. That is not the case, of course, so I believe his assessment is incorrect.

I can't think of a reason anything I have written would get you or me banned. You don't get banned here for supporting the democratic republic system of government. You may get reviled by some, but never banned for that support.

[Fumesucker]

3. Over half the American people don't believe in evolution..

Expecting them to evolve their thinking is a bit optimistic. :evilgrin:

On a more serious note, our government is in thrall to the big money interests to a greater extent I think than ever before, I really don't see how this can change short of a political tsunami that will be nearly revolutionary if it doesn't come all the way up the definition of full revolution.

I also think that the health insurance "reform" that was passed was designed specifically to forestall true health care reform which would have at least included a public option.

[MineralMan]

4. But, you think that there is enough support for the "tsunami?"

I don't know, but I think that's even more far-fetched than what I said. It takes a huge amount of will and popular support for any such event to occur. I don't see that level of support for that kind of change anywhere on the horizon.

If you do, then perhaps you're correct. I just can't see it.

[Fumesucker]

5. Not until the cable TV gets shut off..

There's a reason the Roman politicians provided bread and circuses, keep the people from starving and keep them entertained and they will overlook much.

I see it in my own family, most of them are hypnotized by the TV and actively avoid any knowledge of politics, indeed they will get upset if I try to discuss current events with them, so much so that I've long since given up on the effort.

There's really only one person I have IRL with whom I can discuss politics and current events, the rest just do.not.want.to.know..

[MineralMan]

6. As I said. There isn't the support needed for what you propose.

I can't see it at all. So, what would be required to effect this tsunami? What form of government would be in place after it?

Questions like that are why I'm a realist. I can envision a socialistic system of government that would provide all of the things I wish were in place. I cannot, however, see a path to it in this country. I've been trying to see a path to it since I was 20 years old. 45 years later, and the path still is nowhere in sight.

I have to work with what is possible. It took me into my 40s to finally figure that out. Changes are possible, but history demonstrates that changes are almost always very slow to happen, failing that revolutionary battle that isn't really something that can happen here and now.

Is my idealism gone? Yes, it is. I don't see a path to any form of it, and I don't just mean in my own lifetime. I don't think it is possible in a country that has a population of 350+ million. So, I'm not on that track any more. I'm on a track to implement as much as is possible, working within the system that exists.

That's where I am. You may be in a different place. If you can see the path, your vision is better than mine, I guess.

[Fumesucker]

8. I wasn't proposing anything..

Just stating what I thought was necessary.

I don't think it's going to happen either, the big money will continue to control the politicians and the government for their own benefit.

There's a Frank Zappa quote I think is apropos: "The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."

[MineralMan]

14. OK. I may have lost my idealism over the years, but it's been

replaced with realism or pragmatism...not pessimism. I won't do pessimism. It's just not me. If I can't have immediate change, I'll work for slow change. I know that can work. It's worked before, and I've been part of it. So, that's what I'll continue to do, for however many more years I have.

[VMI Dem]

7. We need a leader that supports gay civil rights. It is not an issue for the states to decide.

[MineralMan]

11. We need a bunch of leaders who support that.

One isn't enough. President Obama isn't an opponent of GLBT rights. He is a proponent of civil unions, rather that marriage. I think that's short-sighted, but it's not opposition to the concept of equality in relationships and legal equality. Some states are going to do one. Some will do the other. Some will fight any option to the bitter end. If it's going to be a state issue, then that's too bad. That's certainly not what I want. My suspicion is that he's had advice that the current SCOTUS will toss any Congressional attempt to make marriage a federal issue. I suspect that advice is correct. Thus, it stays a state issue, if that's the case.

He's not an opponent of ending DADT. It's not a primary priority for him, but it is going to happen, because its time has come...past time, in fact. He's not going to fight it. In fact, he's made many statements in support of ending DADT. Is he pushing for it? No, and that's too bad, but he's not fighting it. I do know that he wants it to end via legislative action, not through executive action. I believe that's based on legal issues. I'm pretty certain that if he believed that simply ending it through an executive order would stand up in the SCOTUS, he'd do that. I suspect that the advice he's getting is that it would not stand up in the current SCOTUS.

There are Constitutional limits to what a President can successfully pull off. We need a new SCOTUS.

[VMI Dem]

13. Civil unions is separate but equal. People who supported that for African Americans were racists.

Support from the top for gay civil rights would go a long way.

[MineralMan]

16. I don't disagree with you. I support absolute marriage equality.

I support a lot of things. I don't expect to get some of them in the form I think they should be. That doesn't diminish my support.

[RainDog]

10. Evolution is also punctuated equilibrium

sometimes the gene pool becomes so concentrated with certain traits that a mutation that might take thousands of years to create drastic differences causes changes across an entire community because of an alteration in an environment.

In political terms, to extend this as an analogy - the concentration of wealth and power in the gilded age created a cess pool of poverty as those with access to power rigged the game by insider trading and tax laws that were only for their benefit.

They created a toxic environment in the United States that led to a cataclysmic financial crisis.

The lives of so many Americans were put at risk by this concentration of wealth among a very few - this concentration threatened the very foundations of democracy.

FDR acted as a mutation in the incestuous gene pool of the wealthy and privileged.

He introduced changes in laws that made it harder for the wealthy to game the system. He created jobs programs to repair the infrastructure of the U.S. - sort of like calling forth white blood cells to battle the cancer of fascism at a time when the wealthy supported this system of oppression.

Sometimes leaders have to recognize and respond to a crisis. They have to use their positions of power to create coalitions that will overcome the illness of an economic ideology that puts greed before the well-being of fellow citizens.

This is what saved America from fascism - and went on to create the most vibrant and innovative middle class in the world for decades - until the continued degradation of the Vietnam War.

[MineralMan]

12. That's a good point, and one of the possibilities.

Perhaps we're just about at one of those points. I'd sure hate to see that point pass, if that's the case. I can see the possibility of just that happening, and I sure don't want that.

We have a system that is specifically designed to keep absolute power out of the hands of any of the three branches of government. That often slows things down. It has done so in the past. It's doing so now.

The solution, of course, is to get two branches working at achieving the same goals. That, I believe, we can do, and it's the reason for my post today. Right now, we're reasonably close, but not there. We could be there by the end of the 2012 elections, but not unless we prevent a fall-back and get, perhaps, a little more control of Congress.

2010 is not the turning point, but it has the potential to be a turning back. I'd hate to see that happen. That's why I'm posting. That's why I'm out knocking on doors in a district I don't even live in. I'm going to try as best I can to continue the shift. I hope we all succeed to preventing a shift back to the right. That's not a desirable outcome.

[RainDog]

17. the problem is the power an extra-constitutional power has in the U.S.

that power is in the corporations - and the laws that have been passed that give them citizenship status, unlimited electoral influence, and the capacity to write laws themselves - as demonstrated when Cheney was creating Energy Policy for this nation - without any input from informed citizen groups like The Sierra Club.

The judiciary in this nation now allows abuse of the people and the constitution on a regular basis.

The legislative branch refuses to vote for laws that the majority of the population favors because it values the contribution of corporate money and a well-heeled future working for one of the same over its responsibly to the American people.

The executive branch codifies abuses of power and violations of civil rights and international treaties in ways that degrade this nation and make its claims to be a nation of laws, not men, a sham.

If this body politic cannot heal itself, then it will die and take all of us with it. I hope it doesn't come to that. When the person running for the Democratic Senate seat in the state where I reside does not even uphold the platform of the Democratic Party - I have to wonder how it is possible for the body politic to heal itself.

I wish I could be more optimistic but the last decade has nearly removed my capacity for hope of a better world through our political processes.

[MineralMan]

18. That corporate power is another of the things that needs changing.

That's going to be a really tough one, and isn't going to happen unless we focus really hard on it. The only mechanism to get rid of that power is the same mechanism that put it in place. There is no other way to do it. So, our work is cut out for us. New SCOTUS. New people in Congress. New people in the Executive branch, too. This will be a long slog.

[TheKentuckian]

19. Systems break down and accumulate entropy as they persist

Our system not only deals with these natural pitfalls but has been significantly captured by forces for the purpose of their own enrichment making positive evolution all but impossible.

We are devolving as a nation not advancing. Politicians like Obama and Reid could be elected for 10,000 years and not lead to even where we were 20 years ago and in the glow of the Reagan Revulsion but rather to further destruction.

There is no hope within this system. It has been hijacked for nefarious purposes and the strengths of it that allowed for the evolutionary growth and change are being scrubbed and our fundamental freedoms are being end arounded, ignored, and consistent effort is made to delete them.

Our government and electoral process is breaking down not evolving at all.

Come on man we don't even control the vote count and elections are stolen. Popular will is routinely blown off.

You cannot talk about the system and ignore the powerful interests that have managed to capture it every which way to Sunday and you cannot forget that this country and it's system are still pretty new in broad context. Two hundred and forty years or so is an experimental run on a system of government.

I'd say the evidence is the system is not sustainable and Revolution (bloody or otherwise) is absolutely necessary or what we have will continue to devolve into something authoritarian, usurious, and principally fascist in nature.

The influence of money has become terribly toxic and democracy is increasingly an illusion. The vestiges of democracy and self determination we see are essentially crowd control systems.

This is our time, we are responsible for what we pass on and it is our duty to take advantage of it to make excuses for kicking the can out of religious like and rigid faith in a particular system or sheer cowardice.

You've been around long enough to observe a death spiral rather than growth and development
Economic injustice is increasing, civil liberties are eroding, the safety net cut, opportunity diminishes.

I believed as you did for many years but that belief is an illusion and proves more so by the day. No matter what we do, the same people run this country into the ground.

Also, I'd add we've seen horrible and fairly rapid revolutionary change, Reagan cannot be explained any other way nor really can Bush who quickly changed long established and bipartisan foreign policy and broad destruction of civil liberties that just 15 years ago would literally be seen as unAmerican.

No, things can and do change rapidly and pretending otherwise is most often an effort to blunt real revolutionary sentiment to protect the status quo rather than to explain it.