Thursday, July 21, 2005
Revolutionary Democrats
Revolutions and rebellions aren't unusual. In fact, one amazing thing about the US is that we haven't had one since 1861. (Can you think of a country besides the US and England that has had the same form of government since the US Constitution was ratified in 1787?)
Successful political revolution isn't easy. A group of people have to get together and be willing to "hang together or hang separately" in order to defeat the existing government. Since no single group usually has enough power, revolutions are typically conducted by coalitions of the unhappy, the disenfranchised, the extreme, and the violent.
What then happens when revolutions are successful is that these coalitions fall apart, and begin fighting among themselves, splintering into a violent chaos.
France in 1789 is the classic example. The royalty was seen as the root of all evil, and the nobility, merchants, and peasants all rose up against it. Once King Louis XVI was beheaded, though--what then? Might made right, and the Reign of Terror ensued, leading to a national paranoia and the murder of thousands of innocent people. It wasn't until Napoleon Bonaparte came along and established military order that things quieted down internally--and mainly he pushed the violence outside of France's borders.
The Democratic Party, with its revolutionary rhetoric and impulses, has undergone the internal splintering--but without winning first.
They're fracturing into several elements: traditional intellectual liberals, radicals, conservative Democrats (there are some)...and those who've become so disgusted with the whole mess that they're leaving. Instead of uniting their efforts they're scattering them, and the results are predictable.
Now, if only the Republicans would realize this, and run the Senate like the majority they are, and start enacting legislation to support their voters, instead of pandering to groups who'll never vote Republican...
But that's a topic for another post.
Successful political revolution isn't easy. A group of people have to get together and be willing to "hang together or hang separately" in order to defeat the existing government. Since no single group usually has enough power, revolutions are typically conducted by coalitions of the unhappy, the disenfranchised, the extreme, and the violent.
What then happens when revolutions are successful is that these coalitions fall apart, and begin fighting among themselves, splintering into a violent chaos.
France in 1789 is the classic example. The royalty was seen as the root of all evil, and the nobility, merchants, and peasants all rose up against it. Once King Louis XVI was beheaded, though--what then? Might made right, and the Reign of Terror ensued, leading to a national paranoia and the murder of thousands of innocent people. It wasn't until Napoleon Bonaparte came along and established military order that things quieted down internally--and mainly he pushed the violence outside of France's borders.
The Democratic Party, with its revolutionary rhetoric and impulses, has undergone the internal splintering--but without winning first.
They're fracturing into several elements: traditional intellectual liberals, radicals, conservative Democrats (there are some)...and those who've become so disgusted with the whole mess that they're leaving. Instead of uniting their efforts they're scattering them, and the results are predictable.
Now, if only the Republicans would realize this, and run the Senate like the majority they are, and start enacting legislation to support their voters, instead of pandering to groups who'll never vote Republican...
But that's a topic for another post.
