I agree with that. A bottom-up revolution is impossible.
What is possible, however, is a Constitutional crisis arising from a state seceding or something like the 2000 election escalating (imagine if Gore had refused to concede and a significant number of people in power in Washington refused to acknowledge the Supreme Court decision). If you got two opposing factions among those in power, you could have states, cities, military units, etc., choosing sides, and it could tear the country apart pretty quickly.
Do I think that’s likely? No. But it’s far from implausible right now.
No state is going to secede. That is quite near to implausible right now.
How many times in the ~ 250 year history of this country has a sitting president refused to accept a SCOTUS decision? (Who cares whether or not Gore concedes. All that matters is that the sitting president accepts the decision.) That tells you how implausible it is.
Not really sure that actually counts, but lets say it does. So, we see that we have had 1 instance in almost 250 years as a nation, and never again since 1837 (almost 180 years). I’m not too worried about it happening again in my lifetime.
Sure, that would be a concern if it happened. Since it doesn’t, it isn’t much of a concern.
[QUOTE=Aeschines]
So would you say that, if we polled people right now, they’d say things are fine?
[/QUOTE]
I would say that if we polled people, they would say that they weren’t contemplating revolution, wouldn’t support a revolution, and don’t think anyone else is dumb enough to try a revolution.
Like I said, it’s only this left-wing gasbag who is talking about revolution. Nobody sensible is seriously proposing that it is in any sense a real danger.
There was a romantic time when countries around the world were trying to learn from the USA so that they could (at least partly) replicate its democratic, economic, social, political, technological or cultural success. But the American Dream no longer appeals to an international audience the way it used to and there are more and more voices that wonder what the USA could learn from other countries to address their own situations. The American system’s inability to satisfactorily address multiple recurring problems gives the impression of a deadlock, which seems impossible to tackle by those who propose a mere change. Hence the dream of revolution.
The world and the USA are now waking to a new reality, where ideals or revolutions can only inspire a handful of dreamers and the brutal battle for power has lost its grandeur and dignity on all fronts. Is it a new “mal du siecle”? The Dark Ages of democracy? I don’t know, but in terms of wealth distribution the USA is no longer radically different from Russia, China, India, Brazil, etc. which baffles, angers and alienates both Americans and non-Americans. Non-Americans who wished to be as free or wealthy as the Americans 50 years ago are dreaming of developing their own nuclear weapons today.
Yes, when Conservatives dilate upon our “freedom,” I wonder versus what country? Compared to the worst, absolutely, we’re much better off. But compared to your typical developed country, we are not particularly freer or better off. I lived in Japan. There are certainly big pros and cons to each country, but in Japan I never lamented the crushing lack of freedom or abundance. Where Japan fails, it’s typically for the same reasons that the US fails: a lack of vision and an inability to get up off its ass.
In the US, if we could simply tap our collective strengths better, we could give everyone a fantastic life. I look at what we were able to do 1941-45, when our technology was a lot worse. The amount we produced for WWII is staggering, and that was done with a large chunk of the male population off fighting. If we could channel somehow a fraction of even that national capacity and effort today, there is nothing we couldn’t do.
I know a lot of mini rues who’d disagree with at statement as well.
I also know plenty of Muslims who’d question his claims about “European societies” as well, though it’s difficult to say for sure since he doesn’t name them.
That would be Sam Stone.
Incidentally Chris Hedges has does some decent war reporting: this is his most famous work.
But pivoting from, “Revolution is imminent” to “What? You say there are no problems then?” is silly. Or at least reflects a naive view of political revolution, something which occurs rarely in a democratic context. Admittedly, that pivot has been around for as long as there have been lazy predictions of imminent revolution.
To be fair, Sanders isn’t an utter jackass: for example he isn’t predicting imminent revolution. But yeah, Sanders would be more popular if those two or three notches to the right of the perpetual pseudo-revolutionaries had maybe twenty times the voting base.
That’s not my intention. I see the Conservatives here dismissing everything Hedges says by simply refuting his assertion that some type of uprising is imminent. I happen to agree with him, but I would say that discontent is widespread and deep now. Things are different than in 1999. Significantly.
