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.

Scott Brown

Scott Brown wins in Massachusetts: Does it mean anything? Has something significant come out of the state of Lexington and Concord or will he just play Ken to Palin's evil Barbie in the press? Clearly the democrats are alarmed; Jim Webb is taking moral lessons from it. But the government cares little for the opinions of the public, whether through ideological certainty or simple arrogant disdain, so why would the election make a difference? It does imply more voter integrity than I expected; that itself may be important. But the train may have left here. The damage to the economy, the impact on the producers in the society, the disillusion that will likely follow, the decline in reward--then in living standards, the obvious government incompetence and its inexplicable tangle with financial interests, the suspicion that Obama may be more interested in ideological fulfillment than the nation's well being---all will contribute to an economic and psychological unwinding that will not end well. The distance that has grown between the government and the governed is now greater than the separation between church and state. The uplifting lesson the Brown election may give is that the victims seem to care.