The Coming Revolution?

In the front yard of our farmhouse stood a very tall magnolia tree that we loved to climb. From high up in the tree we could see all the way to Garfield School a mile away. It was on the northwest corner of Minnewawa and Shepherd Avenues. One day while up high in the tree I could see two cars heading for the intersection of Minnewawa and Shepherd. One was travelling north on Minnewawa, the other west on Shepherd. I recognized that neither was slowing down for the stop sign and in shock I watched as they finally met in the center of the intersection leaving mangled cars blocking all lanes.

How inevitable—certain to happen; unavoidable—is inevitable? For these two drivers, if neither woke up to the coming stop sign and neither stopped, inevitable was absolutely certain to happen. As neither did I was watching the inevitable.

What I’m writing about I’ve already written as a possibility: a coming revolution and not a revolution in our thinking but an actual physical bloody revolution. I missed the American Revolution, I missed the Civil War, so I can only imagine what it was like living in a community that had its life so totally disrupted and not knowing what the end would mean. I wonder if pre-war was much like today where we try to live as though everything is going to continue as is so we conduct ourselves “normally”. You know, I watch my favorite television shows as though they will always be there; I go to my favorite eateries, again as though they will always be there; I purchase both my needs and wants; I look at my stock, my savings account thinking that money will always be available to me and will grow. But in a physical revolution all that changes.

Were the Revolution and Civil War inevitable? Americans tried to get King George to back off and had he and Parliament listened, Americans would have been happy remaining British subjects. But King George didn’t want to back off, he wanted to push his rule in their faces and so by the time the Declaration of Independence was penned war was inevitable. As for the Civil War, the issue of slavery (and this was only one factor in the War) had to inevitably be settled because its glaring immorality demanded its end, and the longer this was put off the more devastating its demise would be. It became inevitable when reason failed to bring about change. It was, we can also say, inevitable from the beginning as the new nation grudgingly tolerated slavery and found itself always in tension over it, but did not stop it.

The year 1968 was supposed to begin in the United States the great Marxist/Socialist revolution that would sweep out democracy and free market economics. Like millions of other Americans, I watched on my television riots in the streets, riots in Universities, riots at the Democratic Convention. This Marxist, Socialist, Progressive ideology that had charmed the intelligencia and academics and politicians never really made its way down to the ordinary people of America. True back then, not true today. So the rising up of the masses never happened and the radicals didn’t have any support to continue their rebellion so some went back into their radical closets, others became professors hoping to redirect the minds of the young their way. And it worked.

Fast forward to today and the elements needed back in the sixties that were missing are not missing today. I would like to analyze their grips back in the sixties—and don’t get me wrong, some of their gripes had merit—but of the legitimate arguments, like civil rights, war, feminism, it was really an attempt to remake a Constitutional Republic into a Marxist/Socialist/Progressive nation. Their answer to any issue, legitimate or not, would have had its definition inside their radical ideology and that is scary.

What the radicals of the late sixties and early seventies didn’t understand was that government was already in progressive mode (meaning that government was becoming every day larger and more dominate in our lives) so they weren’t fighting the principles founded our country (though they described it that way), they were fighting themselves, a less radicalized version of themselves. They didn’t understand that it wasn’t George Washington, or Abraham Lincoln, or Calvin Coolidge that got them to this place of rebellion, it was Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon B. Johnson, all big-time progressives. Government was corrupt, unresponsive, in bed with crony capitalism, Gordian knot-tied to a growing military industrial complex. The inspiration for these radicals was both Russia and China, yeah, those paradigms of justice, social or not. Like the French Revolution they didn’t have a plan, just bring government down, crush it and then remake it, but remake it how? Into what? Platitudes don’t cut it. Their mentors (Russia and China) were good at crushing, they just weren’t good at remaking because their image of remaking was seriously flawed.

So none of this went away, it just went underground popping up from time to time in various riots, and it popped up in our universities with malleable minds that were reshaped into the Marxist/Socialist/Progressive way of thinking.

Occupy Wall Street was a renewed attempt to unite the masses into a rebellion. Again, part of their gripe was legitimate, but the idea that Democrats have been trying to sell since forever is that Republicans are in bed with big business and do the bidding of big business. Democrats were the party of the people. In truth, that phrase—party of the people—ought to scare you because every communist/socialist takeover used that phrase as their anthem to gather the hearts of the unsuspecting. The bottom line of Marxism/Socialism/Progressivism is all about creating a class warfare between the worker/common folk and the businessman, especially the big business man/woman. And so in good progressive fashion it began in the late 1800s and early 1900s, this war on “big” that became synonymous with “bad”. Truth is, both Democrats and Republicans have their ties to big business, both are guilty of crony capitalism, there are no innocents here. But that’s not how it’s presented or learned.

Yet again the masses didn’t bite into this apple. Yet again the radicals were stuck on a limb with little support, certainly not enough to keep them from falling in failure. But the elements for revolution were growing in the hearts and minds of common folk and they were not party politic driven. This was the element needed where the masses were fed up as much as the radicals and what the radicals didn’t know—but that’s okay because they will use it anyway—“fed up” was not about political party but political government—it doesn’t matter Democrat or Republican, they both represent “out of touch” leadership. Democrats hated Republicans because that is what they were taught to do. This wasn’t enough. But when Republicans began hating Republicans, now we can have a rebellion that includes the masses—everyone is fed up with government so let’s all rebel and bring government down.

When asked why she supported Trump, this woman said: “I wanted the nightmare over,” she said of the last eight years. “That’s how I felt, because I feel like — since 2008 — this has been a nightmare, and I feel like my life has changed a lot.”

Just as the conditions for the perfect storm analogy fit the election of Obama, who would “fundamentally change the United States”—and he has—so the analogy again fits with the rise of Donald Trump as a serious potential presidential candidate and possible new president. It is not my purpose in this essay to tell you why not to vote for Trump, I’m trying to look through my sociological glasses at all that is going on for an understanding. Of all the people who put in their papers, paid their fee, and sought to be president under the Republican banner, why is it Trump, a non-Republican, non-Conservative, non-politician, non-experienced in government (far less than Obama who at least had some experience as a Senator) leading the Republican ticket? All those “non’s” turn out to be the key.

What was it again that supporter said: “I wanted the nightmare over.” What nightmare? Government! Government, both the Democrat and Republican version of government had become a nightmare. And I totally agree. It’s what I feel. Our reality is that the United States, both domestically and internationally, has become enormously complex. It didn’t have to get this way but it’s what happens when big government rules.

What many grass roots Republicans didn’t understand about their Republican leaders was that the progressive bug that took a big bite out of the Democrat Party had also taken a bite out of the Republican Party. The illustration to the left is a visual image of where we began as a nation—near the end zone marked “Anarchy”—with the least of all possible central government involved in our lives. Even ten years later when we redid the Confederation into a Constitutional Republic the marker was only slightly farther away from anarchy. Today both political parties are rubbing shoulders with “Totalitarianism” with the Democrats in the lead followed closely by the Republicans. Most grass roost Republicans are still on the anarchy (or less government) side of the political playing field.

The last Republican president before Ronald Reagan who believed in limited government and free markets and Constitutional governance was Calvin Coolidge who took office in 1923. Reagan was our last truly Constitutional president who believed in limited government, but when he came into office in 1981 the Republican Party was already on the 40-yard line, though still on the anarchy side of the field. His vice president, George H.W. Bush would push the Republican Party past the 50-yard line, and his son would continue the push. But let’s face it, presidents are just one person and whatever good or bad they do, they do with the blessing of Congress and the courts. The problem Reagan faced, and I don’t think he truly understood this, was that the Republicans in Congress were already past the 50-yard line into Totalitarianism and while Reagan pulled on the reins of that wagon trying to slow it down, in the end it got away from him. Congress, both Representatives and Senators, both Democrat and Republican, had already drunk the purple Kool-Aid and were full-fledged progressives, that is, they, not we, ruled; they, not we, knew better what we needed; they, not we, would determine our freedoms; life, liberty, and happiness would be defined by politicians not by we the people.

As I’ve written before, the last nail to be driven into the Constitutional Republic coffin was driven in by Barak Obama. And as I’ve also written, he drove the last nail in, it was Congress and the Court (Supreme) that had already driven in the other nails. From the day Obama took office he was never President of the United States, he was President of the Progressives and always demeaned, belittled, tried to marginalize Republicans and/or non-progressives, or as I call us, Constitutionalists. Every thing he did was for his ideology and that trumped the nation. He was never for equal opportunity (the level playing field as he liked to say) but equal outcome and set about in an attempt to redistribute wealth in a lame attempt to play Robin Hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. The legacy he is now so focused on creating about himself will be in reality the most negative legacy of any president. His signature programs, like Obamacare and the Iran agreement, are failures, despite the glowing language he uses in his attempt to paint them in glowing colors. I say this not in a mean spirit but as an explanation of the man, he is a classic narcissist: “Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others.” (Mayo Clinic, “Narcissistic Personality Disorder”.) Every charge against him left him pointing the finger at someone else (mostly Bush) blaming them for any failure, never ever able to accept he was wrong.

I went down this road because grass root Republicans were crying out for their Republican leadership to counter all this, to stop this train into Marxism/Socialism/Progressivism and leadership like Senate Majority leader McConnell and House leader Boehner, who talked a good game but gave in to the president and to progressivism every time. The only hope came with the rebellion in the House in ousting Boehner, but it was too little too late. The frustration grass root Republicans were feeling now turned into hopelessness and a realization that their political party was no longer their political party, they, the public, were not being represented.

And now everyone is disenchanted with government: the radicals for their reasons, the Democrats for their reasons, the Republicans for their reasons, and everyone else for their reasons. No one is satisfied with government.

I have been saying for a long time, we need to get rid of every elected politician and start fresh. The problem here is that “we” aren’t very smart because we keep electing and reelecting people who screw us and the hope that we will finally wake up and elect someone who will truly represent us is more a pipe dream than a reality.

And now stepping into the scene is Donald Trump. Trump is his own definition of who he is and it fits none of the definitions he tries to use as a banner and none of the definitions others want to place on him. I’m not making a moral judgment here, just stating the facts, even if some would disagree. Is he a Republican? No, he is politically all over the place and not enough in one place for any party definition to define him. Is he a conservative? No. Again, his inconsistency keeps him from making—and others from making—him conservative. Is he a Christian? Yes/No. I cannot judge his heart but I can judge his speech and his actions and if he is the model of Christianity the acts of Jesus were for naught. Is he a politician? No.

It is this last banner—the non-politician banner—that has caused so many to ditch their intellect, their vision and hearing, their moral perspective and grasp onto him like a mother hugging their long lost child that found their way home.

The moment most supporters of Trump glued themselves to him was his first pronouncement against illegal immigration. Obama and other progressives have never understood the division they have caused among citizens over illegal immigration. That it is the leading hatred of all things politic can be seen in one conservative supporter, Ann Coulter, who’s newest book, ¡Adios America! The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole, believes only Trump will actually do something about stopping illegal immigration. And for the majority of supporters who are asked why they support Trump, it is the illegal immigration issue that has them tied to him. Obama and progressives don’t care how great a slap in the face of Americans their effectively allowing open borders is. If anything, this was the straw that broke the camel’s back for many Americans, and it really reveals how out of touch Washington D.C. (politicians) are with citizens. And it is this “out of touch” that is the second great divide, particularly in the Republican Party grass roots who find their political leaders acting just like Democrats and progressives. What many are now accepting is the fact the Republicans are just as progressive as Democrats.

There is a Constitutional Republic candidate in the race in Ted Cruz. With Rubio out Cruz is the only legitimate Constitutionalist left. What does this mean, “Constitutionalist”? That we go back to the old days and to the old ways? No. It does mean that the principles that this nation was founded upon (and if you want a more detailed understanding of this read my review of Bastiat’s, The Law, found HERE.) Let’s look at his banner. Is he a Republican? Yes/no. Like Trump, Cruz is under the political banner “Republican” because there are only two political parties allowed success, but the Republican Party left Cruz and so Cruz is as much Libertarian as anything, meaning (to back up to the political football field illustration above) he is more on the “anarchy”—little government. Is he Conservative? Yes, consistently so. Is he a Christian? Again, not judging the heart but the words and behavior, yes. Now for a whole bunch of folk this is a negative, and for some in that group a downright evil.

I understand that the last few paragraphs sound like a political speech for one person and against another and I apologize for in my mind the two men, Trump and Cruz, are so distinctly different that even an objective review sounds political. Again, I’m not asking you here to support one person over another, but I have to paint the picture for why I see a coming bloody revolution ahead.

I know this analogy—the enemy of my enemy is my friend—has caused as many problems as solved. We put Cruz in the political camp because he is a sitting Senator. Then why do “establishment” Republicans hate him? And many of us have repeated those words of hatred, having accepted them as true though we have never reasoned out their truth. He is, in fact, an enemy of our enemy (establishment Republicans) because he came to Congress with only one goal, to do work of the people, not the political party and has consistently done this. This is a great threat to the establishment (like McCain) who understand that the more power Cruz gains the less power they will have because he will cut that power block they’ve built.

Okay, now let’s look at the players: the usual suspects are the Marxist/Socialist/Progressive radicals, this same group we first saw rise up in the late sixties. For them any political party in power, even Democrat, the party they would most identify with, if not at least basically Marxist in nature needs to be brought down. Second is the Democrat Party who over time sold out to progressivism and created—at least since President Nixon—a war scenario against Republicans under the flag that all things Republican are evil, all thing Democrat are holy and righteous. Part of the first two groups that are active today trying to cause riots are the Soros-backed Black Lives Matter, and Occupy Wall Street looking to kick start riots. The third group is the Republicans who have bought into progressivism—big government—who have lost touch with its founding in Thomas Jefferson. The last group is we the people who have become disenchanted with politics and disaffected—“dissatisfied with the people in authority and no longer willing to support them.” Trump supporters don’t own this disaffection and dissatisfaction with government, most Americans deeply feel it. The rise of Obama came out of Democrat dissatisfaction with what they decided were evil Republicans and were willing to take anyone who offered “hope and change” ignoring the man’s personal ideology, even when it was pointed out as being anything but hope. Two terms later the shoe is now on the Republican foot, but, and this is the key, because Obama didn’t really give hope, now both Democrats and Republicans are angered at government.

This is the make-up of the French Revolution—the three D’s: disaffection, dissatisfaction, despair. Once despair sets in there are only two directions one typically goes to: flight or fight. For the radicals they, by intention, are trying to start the fight. What they didn’t have in the past, and they now have at least in its beginnings, is a group (Trump followers) who are happy to hit back, supported in this slap-back by Trump, himself. This is the makings for a bloody revolution.

The fuel for this fire by “Trumpites” comes not just from the radical left, it comes from the establishment Republican Party. This now very large body finds themselves caught between the horns of a dilemma; Trump and Cruz. They hate Trump because he is not a Republican and if he wins they will not have control over him. On the other hand, if Cruz wins he is more Libertarian than Republican and they will have no control over him. So who do they fear the most? Turns out Trump and they are running helter-skelter—in disorderly haste or confusion—trying to find a way to stop him. There is only one legitimate way to stop Trump, that is for Cruz to honestly win more delegates, either by State to State contest or in a honest convention where the delegate count is close. Anything short of that Trumpites (and Trump, himself) have let it be known that this will cause riots. Even those of us who do not support Trump will not stand for backroom maneuvering because that is just one more part of the corrupt political system we are all fighting.

The danger ahead is the real possibility of bloody rioting by all sides and parties leading to an American version of the French Revolution and a completion of the riots of the late sixties. For the first time the elements for this are being placed on the road to a new president. This is fact, not supposition. Is it inevitable? That’s the question. We haven’t reached the point of no return, but daily it gets closer. None of us are going to get what we want in this kind of revolution, not even the Marxist radicals.

Be careful in who you vote for, what you stand for, and what you will accept.