Revolution

A blog I read spent some time cursing the structure of the Senate's population blind system of two votes per state as part of an analysis of Brown's recent win in Massachusetts. It seems that Brown, as with Obama, has stimulated analysis of "revolution." Destruction, revamping the world in your own image or overturning the status quo does not, of course, qualify as revolution. Revolution, as "radical", implies an attack on the roots of the society with the implication of reseeding the society with new material and, therefore, new roots. The reseeding is the hard part and must reflect the revolution's genetic material: The new society must have the infrastructure to grow into its new ideals. The French Revolution's ideals were not well formed but they certainly had animosity towards an identifiable group and did the destruction part of revolution very well. I think Obama--and the blogger mentioned above--have identified the aims of their revolution but are unclear on the means and completely blank on the infrastructure they need to create. The ideals must primarily create the structure, not destroy it.
In 1945, the Japanese surrendered and Vietnam guerrillas rushed into the void in a matter of days. They chased the Japanese and Vichy French out and occupied Hanoi under a National Liberation Committee. Its president, Ho Chi Minh, spoke to a huge crowd at the city's Ba Dinh Square and read the Vietnam Declaration of Independence. He began "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights....do you hear me distinctly, my fellow countrymen?"
That old Ho, he sure knew how to start a revolution.