It's like a French Revolution in reverse

[Swede]

It's like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy."


The Republicans have learnt how to stoke up resentment against the patronising liberal elite, all those do-gooders who assume they know what poor people ought to be thinking.

Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm

[MadHound]

1. Don't worry, we'll see that situation reversed once they figure this out

Then blood will run in the streets.

[OHdem10]

4. Yep! Slowly the fog is lifting for some---in time, no one has yet

imagined the anger.

All these states having to pacify them with these Conceal
and Carry (gun) Laws.

[virgogal]

7. Did you read the entire article? Being talked down to and patronized

and being told "We know best" has a lot to do with the way people are voting.

[MadHound]

11. Yes, I read the entire article

And I still maintain that once these people figure out how the right has duped them, there will be blood in the streets.

As far as talking down to and patronizing people, sorry but I think that arises from two things, the huge amount of prejudice that is and has traditionally been exhibited towards anything intellectual. Second, this prejudice has led people to discount anything spoken by somebody even remotely considered intellectual. This is, very simply, rank prejudice.

Let me ask you this, would you rather follow the advice of somebody like George Bush, a man perceived as not bright but having the common touch, or somebody like Krugman, an intellectual but lacking in the common touch? Me, I would take Krugman every time.

So what is your advice, that intellectuals dumb themselves down in order not to rile up the rest of the populace? Sorry, but that's asking the impossible.

The sad thing is that people need to get over this anti-intellectualism and realize that we're all, for the most part, wanting the best for the country, and that we all have something to contribute to it. Thus, let the intellectuals do what they do best, let everybody do what they do best.

[donheld]

21. The longer it takes to figure it out the more blood there's likely to be.

[jdp349]

2. that's a great way of putting it

It's absolutely amazing how the Republicans have managed to turn against the progressives, the ones that actually have their material interests in mind.

[Danger Mouse]

3. Never forget that the French Revolution in reality was a complete travesty.

Lest we forget, the French Revolution lead directly to the reign of terror, in which thousands of people were butchered indiscriminately by Robespierre and his cronies, who were no better than the king he had slaughtered.

[Demeter]

5. We've got a Reign of Terror Already Setup to Go Here

[Danger Mouse]

8. The French Revolution is a lesson on how revolutions can go horribly wrong..

...there is always a power vacuum after a revolution, and often the most ruthless and calculating bastard will be there to take charge. France was in terrible shape until Napoleon came along. Russia did okay under Lenin, but then got Stalin. We in the US were incredibly lucky to have wise men like Ben Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison at the forefront of the revolution.

[burning rain]

17. Despite its many faults, the French Revolution did something very important.

It rejected the principle that property is the holy of holies--a principle that our property-worshipping Founders, by contrast, made haste to affirm.

[Danger Mouse]

18. The founding fathers were themselves mostly wealthy landowners...

so no surprise there. Why were many of the Founders frightened by what happened in France? They realized that they themselves were the aristocracy in America.

[Mass]

6. Each time the people want to revolt against the ruling class, some people call that terror.

Had France not been attacked by the kings around them afraid to lose their power, who knows if the terror would have happened?

Strangely, nobody calls terror when the powers to be attack and kill workers in strike or protesting.

[Danger Mouse]

9. The people who seized power in france following the revolution were bloodthirsty lunatics.

Robespierre eventually had his own head chopped off once people realized what a nutcase he really was.
There was a similar terrified reaction in Europe to the Russian Revolution...the ruling class were terrified of Communism. They needn't have worried. Stalin ruled with more brutality than most kings could even have imagined.

[Mass]

12. Whatever!\nt

[Danger Mouse]

15. Look at revolutions in China, Russia, France, Cuba, etc...

unless the leaders of the rebels have the best interests of the people at heart, the revolution will not be good for the people. George Washington could have been king if he wanted...but he turned it down to become president, and peacefully gave up power after two terms, setting a precedent that all presidents up to FDR would follow.
We kind of lucked out in America. The danger of revolutions is that they often attract leaders who are very eloquent and charismatic, but also ruthless and power-hungry. Mobs of angry people are easy to manipulate if you are wicked and cunning enough. Look at what Hitler accomplished...his message was absolutely vile, but people gobbled it up, because he knew how to sell it to angry, frustrated people.

[Mixopterus]

22. Well, to be fair

The result of the French Revolution was ultimately a good one, and by most accounts an inevitability. You had a spoiled, irresponsible aristocracy on one hand that contributed squat to society, and on the other you had a increasingly centralized state that was starving for the resources to fuel itself, and being forced to get the resources from the lower classes as the ultra rich are exempt and the merchant class can find some ways to soften the blow. It was not a sustainable system and by the time the first, clumsy reforms began the inertia was already moving towards a full scale rejection of the entire system.

Same goes for Russia. There was a very uncomfortable (temporary) period in which lots and lots of people died, but as a people they are ultimately better off having rejected a rotten and backwards system in favor of something more secure and by all accounts rather competitive.

Cuba, same thing.

China, same thing again. I have a strong dislike of Chinese civilization as they have always been the antithesis of what a progressive stands for, but you must admit they have done considerably better for themselves after a revolution, despite the casualties, than they were under the Nationalists and most certainly better than a mess of squabbling warlord states.

In addition, our conflict with Britain was really a war of independence, not a revolution, hence the significant difference. We basically had our own aristocracy that wanted to run things and found a Enlightenment era justification for it, and so they broke away. It was by no means a rejection of an entrenched system, which means no period of destruction as the system is purged of the previous elements.

[JackRiddler]

28. Cuba? You're tipping your hand here.

Perhaps you would have preferred living in Guatemala or El Salvador the last 50 years? Apparently the majority of Cubans didn't want that, which is why they defended their revolution against the war unfortunately waged on it from our shores.

[proteus_lives]

19. It's amazing how many people forget the ugly little details.

Revolutions nearly always start devouring their own.

[Mixopterus]

23. The result afterwards

Is probably more important than the revolution itself, though. Most of the situations highlighted as being a "tragedy" greatly improved in the long term due to that same loss of life.

Human affairs are messy, and sometimes for great and necessary changes to occur lots of people have to die, whether they deserve it or not. It's shitty, but that's the truth.

[proteus_lives]

25. I agree. Sometimes it's sadly necessary.

But my point was that too often people get swept up by the idea/romance of a revolution with realizing the price they'll have to pay for change. (positive or negative) Especially today in the western world.

[Mixopterus]

26. Oh yeah

Most definitely.

[JackRiddler]

27. Oh goodie. Another fan of the Ancien Regime.

The French Revolution was inevitable because of the injustices of the royalists. France was bankrupt, the people were starving, and the Ancien Regime killed thousands when they protested - what do you think was going to happen? If you think hundreds of years of absolutism are going to go quietly, good luck. France was attacked from the first moment of the Revolution. How many thousands would have been executed if the restoration had happened in 1793? The Jacobins may not have been good people, but they turned around the war. More people were executed the year after they were deposed, yet they have been demonized worst of all in the establishment history, not because they were so vicious, but because they were vicious from the left.

[Mixopterus]

31. Indeed

Let's not forget the incredibly biased interpretation hailing from Great Britain during the revolution itself, which became the predominate narrative in the English speaking world. We also must remember that, ultimately, the winners of the Napoleonic Wars dictated the acceptable history for a very long time and tried their damndest to put the Enlightenment genie back in the bottle. The best way of doing such is painting any popular revolts with an Enlightenment foundation as innately barbaric. Of course when -your- guys kill X percentage of the population it's well and good, but should the tables turn the cry has historically always been "OH MY GOD! CLASS WARFARE!!!!".

Yeah, the French Revolution wasn't as simple as "These bad guys took control and did bad stuff". It's never that simple.

[malaise]

10. This is a great quote

"Obama's administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans' Depression, caused by the Bush administration's ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him."

[depakid]

13. And Frank continues:

As Mr Frank sees it, authenticity has replaced economics as the driving force of modern politics. The authentic politicians are the ones who sound like they are speaking from the gut, not the cerebral cortex. Of course, they might be faking it, but it is no joke to say that in contemporary politics, if you can fake sincerity, you have got it made.

And the ultimate sin in modern politics is appearing to take the voters for granted.

This is a culture war but it is not simply being driven by differences over abortion, or religion, or patriotism. And it is not simply Red states vs. Blue states any more. It is a war on the entire political culture, on the arrogance of politicians, on their slipperiness and lack of principle, on their endless deal making and compromises.

And when the politicians say to the people protesting: 'But we're doing this for you', that just makes it worse. In fact, that seems to be what makes them angriest of all.

[RainDog]

14. lol! it's true. and so sad. and costly for us all. n/t

[Gregorian]

16. And the catalyst is a push from the lying media.

Acting in the capacity of truth tellers, they lead the empty headed into the darkness.

[applegrove]

20. Bingo! You hit the nail on the head. A revolution in reverse.

[Mixopterus]

24. Reminds me of this:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/index.htm

[JackRiddler]

29. So who's our clownish Napoleon "III" - the 18th Brumaire is great reporting, by the way.

From memory: Men make their history, but not under circumstances of their choosing. The ghosts of the dead weigh like a nightmare on the minds of the living.

And of course, "Hegel said all history occurs twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce."

[Mixopterus]

32. Not sure

A more credible politician in the style of Glen Beck would fit the bill, particularly if they wrapped themselves up in the emerging right wing faux-populism.

[Betty Karlson]

30. French Revolution, in reverse?

More like, in repeat:

New financial élite hijacks popular resentment movement(s) to monopolise the power for themselves.