Maintenance or Revolution?

**The following is response to a FB post made by a friend:

___, I’ve appreciated your posts on FB and have wanted to chime in on the conversations about the campaigns, but I really don’t want to get into scraps with the likes of ___, who rails against a polarized nation and then goes to show why it’s so polarized. A one-issue voter is a failed voter, one who doesn’t/won’t understand that governance is complex. The Tea Partiers in Congress are a good example of what happens — and doesn’t happen — when these narrow thinkers get power. Worrying about unborn, non-viable “babies” is an effective distraction/excuse for not dealing with the general realities of life. Some of these realities concern actually born babies — most of whom are black or brown, poor and extra susceptible to poisoning — who have to suffer the consequences of such blinkered thinking, 

There is an important distinction between the two Democratic candidates. As Robert Reich has said:

I’ve known Hillary Clinton since she was 19 years old, and have nothing but respect for her. In my view, she’s the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have.

But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he’s leading a political movement for change.

I just turned 75. I will feel no effects from the outcome of this election. My Social Security will continue. So will my Medicare. I live in a comfortable home with all the gadgets and amenities I could desire (thanks Apple discount). I even live now in a Red State but don’t expect to be persecuted much for being a Liberal/Progressive. Rednecks tend to leave old farts alone. 

BUT, my kids and grandkids and people of your generation will have to live with the consequences of this election for a long time. And those consequences could be quite severe, — sometimes I think even apocalyptic: voting rights curtailed, police violence unrestrained, mass incarcerations, more medical bankruptcies, and other kinds of right-wing destructive lunacy rampant.

Despite being actuarially insulated from its consequences, I’m really concerned about how this election goes. It’s different from elections of recent times, even 2008’s watershed. That moment gave the first hint of the stakes on today’s table. Obama’s election wasn’t just about a black man being elected president. It was an indication that the public wants to be involved in the political process. Another word for that is “revolution.” 

With all the trumpeting of personalities in the campaigns, the media is missing the point — maybe not missing it but attempting to distract from it: the choice is between maintenance and revolution. If a Democrat is elected the people either will get more power or they will stay unempowered. If a Republican, it’ll be the end of democracy, religious fanaticism will lead to the western version of sharia law, segregation, inequality and poverty will increase, and we’ll probably invade somewhere and lose.

I’m often tempted by Hillary’s “competence” and political savvy. She may maintain Obama’s management of government, but that would not be an entirely good thing. Obama has disappointed progressives by being a left-centrist. I understand that political realities may dictate that, and one person can hardly do what has needed to be done since the 2000 election debacle. No, it wouldn’t be as bad as a Republican victory in November. But that isn’t the only choice this season. Hillary would be maintenance. Bernie would be revolution.

No, Bernie can’t do it all by himself. But as a seasoned member of Congress he certainly knows the ropes when it comes to bipartisanship — after all, he’s had to work with both parties most of his career! But just as Obama’s inexperience was mitigated by his choice of advisors and Cabinet, so Sanders will lead in concert with like-minded people. And let’s not forget the importance of Supreme Court posts that will likely be filled during the next president’s term. A Democrat will help steer the court leftward, whereas a Republican will steer it toward more Citizens United, etc.

So, this year I will “waste” my vote on the prospect of revolution. I will vote for Bernie in the Primary and the Democrat in November. 

I’m heartened by your activism and hope you will increase and extend it.

Guns & Revolution

** The NRA and its apologists claim that the Second Amendment has to do with citizens having weapons to fight an oppressive government. But look at what is happening in the Middle East these days. The rebellions aren't armed conflicts - well, the rebels aren't armed anyway.

In order for citizen uprisings to have a chance at armed conflict they have to be as well equipped as the governments they are trying to combat. But this is never the case. Governments always have more and better guns, more and better-trained troops, better intelligence, etc. Even with a roomful of assault rifles, Mr. Joe Rebel will be no match against even one military tank, much less against one accompanied by a platoon of soldiers, helicopters, satellite communications and observations systems and the whole panoply of stuff we have empowered the government to own and operate on our behalf. After all, we want the most and the best armaments. So if, as Second Amendment evangelists claim, the Constitution allows the citizenry, as individuals, to be armed, it has set them up to be losers in any encounter with the government in power.

That's not the kind of thinking that imbues most of the rest of the constitution. Instead, if the Second Amendment is about local militias, as it clearly states, then it would seem to be providing for states, as governing entities, to defend themselves against small uprisings - maybe by people like today's gun hoarders. It's about states, not individuals. Individuals may be allowed to be armed, but to protect themselves against other individuals, not massed attacks such as would be part of a government's oppression.

In the Middle East, Tunisia and Egypt and Yemen so far, it is not "Second Amendment Remedies" that are working. It's the UNarmed populace taking to the streets, with the aid of the social media.

Face it, people want guns because they're afraid of other people with guns - but only a few people, not whole armies. Their Constitutional arguments don't really address this basic fear.

Naomi Wolf's "Handbook for American Revolutionaries"

The coup has begun. Are we ready to fight back?



The book: Give Me Liberty. Get it!