There is nothing new about people’s dissatisfaction with government. It is almost as old as civilization itself. Throughout the world’s history, a form of the term ‘revolution’ has seeped into almost all societies of most every nation. Revolution is a natural result of the people’s dissatisfaction with their living conditions and the prospects of their future. Even if the angst that produces a society’s revolt does not quite reach the level of revolution, the words uprising, riot, or strike, often come in to play.
To one degree of severity or another, these are all simply the governed demonstrating their dissatisfaction with the ruling class. It is natural. But today in America, the word “revolution” has seen a revival of sorts. For the political right the word is one with positive connotations that represents the desire to bring about a shift in the current policy direction that the government taking us in. For those on the political left, the word revolution has negative connotations. It means a retreat from the policies that they prefer. But political savvy has the left taking things a step further.
Liberals are trying to do all they can to take the right’s use of the word “revolution” out of context and portray conservative’s desire for political revolution as one of physically violent change. Any honest observer and sincere activist understands, and deep down, knows, that such an interpretation is at the very least disingenuous and ultimately a blatant lie.
This is coming from someone who is a Republican dissatisfied with the leadership of his own Party and who joined in protest with those who call themselves part of the Tea Party movement. Having on several occasions, joined with crowds of Tea Party patriots in Washington ranging from as many as nearly a million to as few as 10,000, I can honestly tell you that participants in these events were among the most civil, thoughtful and nonviolent citizens our nation has to offer. I have never before been in the midst of hundreds of thousands of strangers who could allow a woman to leave her purse lying on a lawn, unmolested by the endless array of perfect strangers who gathered together in one place from all corners of the nation. These are people who understand and value honesty and civility. Integrity means something to them and they respect the rights of others as well as be among the first to lend a helping hand to those in need.
Recent reports studying the makeup of those who are part of the Tea Party movement, indicate that, contrary to liberal descriptions, they are better educated and have median to above average incomes. This is a stark contrast from the poor, uneducated, redneck, hicks that liberals and their media outlets make tea partiers out to be.
But the liberal mischaracterizations go well beyond that. They have joined together in an attempt to dismiss these people as irrational right wingers, hell bent on toppling government by any means possible. Democrats have taken it upon themselves to incorporate any violence against government into the roots of Tea Party or conservative activity. Nothing can be further from the truth but this does not stop the liberal propaganda mill from rolling out its attempt to discount the undeniable dissatisfaction that a large portion of our society has with the liberal led government of Democrats Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and President Obama.
Ironically, this politically motivated liberal description of the current right of center movement taking root in our nation is one that the left itself needs to answer to far more than the conservative entities that they accuse of violence.
A look at recent American history from the sixties to the eighties and even the current decade, is strewn with predominantly liberal based acts of political violence. From university riots and campus sit-ins to violence coordinated and sponsored by groups like the Black Panthers to the FALN, the Weather Underground, along with the antics of liberal affiliates like Code Pink, PETA, the Animal Liberation Front, and the hippy fests of liberals and anarchists who riot in any and every city where a G-8 summit is held, radical liberal elements have been the preeminent purveyors of widespread acts of violence in the name of political activity that our nation has known over the last 50 years.
More recently, there have been well documented cases of liberal leaning union thugs who have staged and even started violence at Tea Party events. In one case a teacher was found using Board of Education computers to send out messages urging fellow liberals to infiltrate Tea Party gatherings and produce inflammatory sights and sounds. And just a few days ago, in Louisiana, Allee Bautsch, chief campaign fundraiser for Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and her boyfriend Joe Brown were brutally beaten after leaving a fundraising event for the Governor in New Orleans French Quarter. Police confirm nothing as of yet, but while Alle lies in the hospital with a leg that has been broken in 5 places, there are reports that the couple were targeted because of their conservative political affiliation. One report even claims that the couple was attacked after the youths involved yelled “Let’s get them, they have Palin pins on”.
From bombings and riots to kidnappings and assassination plots, liberal radicals have written the book on political violence.
Of course, a fair observation would be that none of these ad hoc entities are representative of the Democrat Party or the liberal political ideology. They are just the acts of violent fiends with no decency, respect or understanding of how civil discourse need not involve hate and violence. It could just possibly be that the reprehensible responsibility for violence in the name of politics is seen as actually being carried out by radical elements that may align themselves to an ideology but that no ideology legitimately aligns itself with. That logic would eliminate the ludicrous attempts at discounting the validity of either sides beliefs because of the out of bounds behgavior of a few.
Which brings us back to the propaganda of today.
Democrats from Nancy Pelosi, Bawney Fwanks, Harry Reid, Charlie Rangle and the countless others who are playing this blame game and trying to write off a movement that is so angry that they are striving for peaceful revolution, would be wise to not be so quick to dismiss and belittle the Tea Party movement.
The mere fact that enough angry voters have brought the thought of political revolution in America to the forefront is a cause for serious consideration.
For as much as the left despised all eight years of George Bush’s presidency, the concept of revolution was never part of the national debate. Change, yes, buy revolution no. Why is that?
First of all, despite all the noise from riotous anti-Bush protestors who largely demonstrated against the issues of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, their numbers were not as great as those dissatisfied by the intended permanent transformation of American domestic policy that the electorate is presented with by the Obama Administration.
The domestic policy direction of President Obama is such a drastic departure from previously held interpretations of the American Constitution that tens of millions of Americans have begun to feel that the constitutional foundation of government is being undermined. Nothing makes people strive to keep something more than when they are confronted with losing it and such is the case with the Constitution of these United States under the current Administration.
From the sleights of hand in the legislative process and the countless appointments of unelected and unaccountable czars and the federal governments control and ownership of General Motors, takeover of healthcare and socialist designs on control of vast aspects of the American economy, to a White House that once asked citizens to report opinions that opposed President Obama to email@example.com, Americans have seen shades of freedoms lost.
The changes and proposed changes of President Obama and his liberal-Democrat Party are so extreme that millions of once inattentive Americans have been shaken to the point of seeing an America that is quite different from the one that the U.S. Constitution intended and are accustomed to. It has forced many to stop taking things for granted. Even the U.S. Constitution.
Part of the existing problem is not change itself but rather the type, number and extent of change that this Administration is attempting to deliver. Many have come to believe that Democrats are doing exactly what White House chief of staff Rham Emanuel once described as the Democrat’s desire to never miss an opportunity to take advantage of a crisis. They view such things as the passage of “urgent” legislation that have not been read as examples of that philosophy and they do not trust these actions.
Combine that and the continued lack of employment and economic growth, with a perceived arrogance of what is often described as the liberal elite who feel they know what is best for the people, despite what the people want, and you have a lack of faith in our leaders and a lack of trust in the direction they are taking us in.
Such a lack of confidence is not new but the seemingly endless amount of drastic reforms to every aspect of traditional life in America has created such a profoundly dramatic lack of faith and confidence that now, more than ever, the word “revolution” is becoming increasingly popular in the lexicon of contemporary American politics. And the popularity of the word’s use can not be credited to Republicans. The G.O.P. has lost too much trust to be the inspiration behind the average citizens to desire for political revolution.
The credit, or blame for all the talk of revolution falls solely upon the liberals in control and President Obama.
And they would be wise to not dismiss those who they inspired to peacefully revolt, as violent and dangerous radicals without merit. That type of disrespect and insincerity will only strengthen the opposition to the change President Obama seeks to institute.