Would an American Colour Revolution be a good idea?

[Eulogy]

How effective would a Colour Revolution be in fixing, or at least lessening America's problems? Note that I am not advocating a violent uprising. Would widespreade displays of discontent, boycotting, and civil disobedience be able to help push the US off it's current path?

[Simon_Jester]

It'd probably shake things up if it was extensive enough. Especially if it visibly overawed counterprotests by the Tea Party, as happened in Wisconsin.

The real problem would be organizing and leading it- you need a certain caliber of person to organize and lead such things, and a provocation that actually gets people moving.

[Stark]

How wouldit avoid establishment scaremongering and increasing radicalization leading them into increased violence and decreased policy?

[Broomstick]

How effective would a Colour Revolution be in fixing, or at least lessening America's problems? Note that I am not advocating a violent uprising. Would widespreade displays of discontent, boycotting, and civil disobedience be able to help push the US off it's current path?

You mean, sort of like what happened in the 1960's with the Civil Rights movement? Sure, a "color revolution" could do that, the trouble is getting one started. People have to be uncomfortable enough with the current situation to risk things like arrest, firehoses, tazers, police beatings, and the rest. The average US citizen hasn't reached that point. That, and you inevitably will have some level of violence - we certainly did it the 60's.

[Purple]

Wont any attempts at something like that get stomped on and nipped in the bud by the government thou? I am sure there is some way they could tie it to terrorism and what not and just shut down the leaders before they can organize anything.

[Broomstick]

You mean like in the the 1960's when the governor of a state threatened to bring in the National Guard to "deal with" young black men quietly sitting at whites-only lunch counters? When they used dogs on people participating in peaceful protest marches? When white people registering black voters were murdered? When four students at Kent State were shot dead and several more injured during a war protest?

Of course the government will resist. That's what governments do. Back in the 1960's Mom banned TV during dinner because there were too many dead young people showing up on on a regular basis.

[Purple]

I did not mean like that. Rather, if you remember what S_J said that organizing something of that sort would require a certain caliber person. I agree with that. It would also take some time to set up. My thought is that the US government would notice this happening and shut the whole thing down before the whole thing starts. As far as my admittedly limited understanding goes surveillance equipment is much better than back than and the legality of its use are much laxer now than they used to be (with the Patriot act and stuff like that). And furthermore, unlike in the 60's the government actually has legal ways to arrest the guy as a terrorist and put him/them away in some far away place where they can't be a problem. And the PR machine could than spin things up to discredit him and his followers thus completely destroying any chances of it happening.

[Eulogy]

Not if too many people are discontent enough. Even the US can't build and fund enough gulags for most of its population, and the poor vastly outnumber the rich. Then you run into police and military who sympathize with the people.

The US forgets that it got as powerful as it did because of its people. The US has forgotten that, and for that the people's wrath will be most scathing.

[Purple]

You don't need to lock them all up thou. All you need to do is make sure they turn on each other and not the government. Get rid of the ringleaders, the ones who can actually unite the crowds and you can be sure that it will all just break on societies regular fracture lines. Like say fundamental Christians will argue against homosexuals, extreme white vs black, extreme black vs white, everyone against the Mexicans and other immigrants etc.* You can pretty much make sure that they spend time hating each other or in an extreme example even locked in war with each other** but newer get to the critical mass needed to overthrow the government.

*Examples listed are just to demonstrate the point and NOT actual examples. I do not expect these exact groups to be the points of fracture. And if any of them do indeed turn out to be said points (which they very well may be) the relationship between that and my post is purely coincidental. The point is that people can easily be misled to blame one another rather than those in charge.

**Locked in war refers to a state of mistrust, hatred a raise in hate crimes and things like that and not an actual civil war.

[Simon_Jester]

I did not mean like that. Rather, if you remember what S_J said that organizing something of that sort would require a certain caliber person. I agree with that. It would also take some time to set up. My thought is that the US government would notice this happening and shut the whole thing down before the whole thing starts. As far as my admittedly limited understanding goes surveillance equipment is much better than back than and the legality of its use are much laxer now than they used to be (with the Patriot act and stuff like that). And furthermore, unlike in the 60's the government actually has legal ways to arrest the guy as a terrorist and put him/them away in some far away place where they can't be a problem. And the PR machine could than spin things up to discredit him and his followers thus completely destroying any chances of it happening.

Purple? I'm pretty sure you don't quite grasp the way the US political climate works right now.

The biggest reason why the US government has gotten away with human rights abuses is because it has been doing them to people who don't get a vote, and who can't show up to protest their friends being arrested. I don't like that, but it's still there. For the US government to effectively nip a color revolution in the bud they would have to go full-out Pinochet: they would need to 'disappear' large numbers of political opponents of the regime, in a coordinated fashion, faster than new leadership could emerge to protest.

In the judgment of most Americans, this is extremely unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. There are simply too many people who would object, including ones who are fine with "torture foreigners," contemptible though that attitude is. And too much of the US internal security system still runs through courts that place considerable value on the rule of law.

If leadership competent to run a color revolution emerged in the US, and if the public supported it, it is far more likely that said revolution would succeed- at the least, it would succeed in getting people out into the streets and the voting booths, and make their unhappiness with the situation clear. It would probably include a lot of violence and a certain amount of terrorist-baiting tactics by the government, as did the 1960s... but the 1960s did have real effects on the direction of American politics. A lot changed because of the way people started dissenting from the establishment.

[Purple]

*sigh* You are probably right.

[General Mung Beans]

Is a Colour Revolution involving mass civil disobedience and all that necessary since most of the other revolutions occurred in authortarian countries where civil disobedience was necessary to allow political activity?

And the fact is that despite everything the US is socially stable compared to say the 70s-societal chaos added to a bad economy is a recipe for disaster.

[Simon_Jester]

While political activity in the US is legal, it would probably take something on the same scale as a color revolution (general strikes, mass ongoing protests in Washington, and so on) to really get the attention of the establishment and convince them that this political movement is actually serious.

[madd0ct0r]

The thing is, I can't see what it'd accomplish.

honestly - what political change would it like to bring about, and how would it do that?

[Sarevok]

The problem with America is the American people. People get the kind of government they deserve. So a change at the top brought by temporary street protests is unlikely to cause any dramatic improvements in how the country is governed.

[Simon_Jester]

People who are sufficiently motivated to protest in the streets are typically a sign of a change in public attitude. If there actually was a large enough, organized enough movement to put together massive, nationwide, ongoing protests- on the scale of what's happened in Wisconsin with the union thing, or larger- it would make a very significant difference in the American political landscape.

[Broomstick]

The problem with America is the American people. People get the kind of government they deserve. So a change at the top brought by temporary street protests is unlikely to cause any dramatic improvements in how the country is governed.

Right, that's why the US South is still segregated and all those Jim Crow laws are still on the books...oh, wait....

It's been done before. Whether or not it could happen right now is a different question.

[Temujin]

Keith Olbermann mentioned something akin to this, getting back to the kind of movements of the 1960s, towards the end of his special comment on his Current TV show Monday night.

[Surlethe]

Are the demographics there? IIRC, the Arab countries are full of young people. The US in the '60s was full of young people. The US now ... not so much. And the US political climate has changed: the only grassroots movement afoot right now is to the right of the body politic.

As much as we progressives like the idea of a malcontent public taking to the streets and demanding socialist reform, at a quick glance it just doesn't seem like it's in the cards.

[Broomstick]

The young are a higher portion of the population in the US than in Europe (largely due to immigration), so there's that.

The thing is, a certain portion of the population has to wake up to the fact they've been duped and sold out. Until they do, nothing will happen. If/when they do things could get interesting. Americans tend to be sleepy and complacent until something finally makes them snap, at which point they get loud and confrontational. Americans are obstinate, often disrespect authority, and they're heavily armed - and that's when they're behaving.

So the potential for a "revolution" is there... as I said, whether or not it actually happens is an entirely different question. Despite the current inequities there are a surprising number of Americans still absolutely convinced there is nothing inherently wrong, around a 1/3 of the Republican/Tea Party crowd to be more specific, and most of the rest are busy trying to get by under the current rules. Not enough discontents for the color revolution at this point.

[Count Chocula]

Well, as long as we can vote and still make a little bit of difference, I don't see much point in advocating revolution. MLK and his supporters had a damn good reason for their nonviolent resistance...now THAT was a color revolution! I think we're still at the soap box/ballot box stage and, unlike the Wiki examples, we have the bullet box as an absolute last resort. We don't yet (and hopefully won't have) that type of government where elections mean nothing.

[Purple]

We don't yet (and hopefully won't have) that type of government where elections mean nothing.

I am no expert but I thought that this was exactly what America was. You have only two parties big enough to count one of whom is pure insane that people vote against and the other that knows that they can do what ever they please becouse they know you are not voting for them but against their opponents.

But feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[Count Chocula]

We don't yet (and hopefully won't have) that type of government where elections mean nothing.

I am no expert but I thought that this was exactly what America was. You have only two parties big enough to count one of whom is pure insane that people vote against and the other that knows that they can do what ever they please becouse they know you are not voting for them but against their opponents.

But feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

I'm guessing you think the repubs are insane. Your next sentence completely invalidated your bias...I guess by your logic democrats are brainless. Nice choice of options. I'm no fan of the two party system we have, but at least we can get rid of the suckers every couple of years so we don't need alternative means yet.

[evilsoup]

Well, as long as we can vote and still make a little bit of difference, I don't see much point in advocating revolution. MLK and his supporters had a damn good reason for their nonviolent resistance...now THAT was a color revolution! I think we're still at the soap box/ballot box stage and, unlike the Wiki examples, we have the bullet box as an absolute last resort. We don't yet (and hopefully won't have) that type of government where elections mean nothing.

Quick question: do you think the NAACP and so on would have been successful with their non-violent protest if the threat of violence (in the form of Malcolm X, Black Panthers etc.) had not been on the table?

[Purple]

I'm guessing you think the repubs are insane. Your next sentence completely invalidated your bias...I guess by your logic democrats are brainless. Nice choice of options. I'm no fan of the two party system we have, but at least we can get rid of the suckers every couple of years so we don't need alternative means yet.

Actually I think nether are smart, but the Republicans are in your face about it. Tell you what, I will write a short essay here to explain how I see the American political system and than you can tell me if I got anything wrong.

---

The American political system is based around two monolithic super-parties that compete for power and some sort of third party joke option that will newer be a viable threat to the two. If you disagree ask your self this. Has the third party option ever produced a senator? What about a government? Or a president? That's what I thought. Now as for the two parties them self they are pretty much the same thing just wrapped up differently.

You have the Republicans, an umbrella for all sorts of not so smart people ranging from the pretty normal ones who would only replace evolution with the bible, outlaw abortions and homosexuals and to the downright scary ones like the Tea Party and the far right. The two things that join all these together is that they vote Republican and watch Fox for intellectual content. The Republicans therefore have a pretty stable and unchanging voter base that they can always rely on to vote for them and no one else. Ergo, once in power they can do what ever the hell they want and know that their part of the votes are safe.

Periods of Republican government and presidency are characterized by three things. Pondering to corporate lobbies and the rich, keeping taxes low and starting wars.


Than you have the Democrats, the ideological foil to the above mentioned but only in name. Their voter base consists of people who have looked at the worst of the Republicans recoiled in terror and decided to vote for what they see as the only viable alternative. The Democrats therefore have a pretty stable and unchanging voter base that they can always rely on to vote for them and no one else. Ergo, once in power they can do what ever the hell they want and know that their part of the votes are safe. After all what are you going to do? Vote republican?

Periods of Democrat government and presidency are characterized by three things. Pondering to corporate lobbies and the rich, keeping taxes low and starting wars.


So who ever you vote for you get pretty much the same package. Sure the bible to textbook ration is different but other than that they all start wars, pander to the corporate lobbies and the rich and fallow the economic teachings of Any Rand. The only difference is that the Republicans are in your face about it while the Democrats do it and than blame the Republicans. I can tell you that we in Europe often don't even make the distinction between those two as the differences in practical returns from them are too small. Sure the parties sound different but when you get down to observing the actual results the differences between them are pretty much cosmetic. As such I believe that you indeed have no real alternative, no proper left or right let alone a center. All you have is the parties who preach what ever they want and than get to power to do pretty much the same things either way. And that by definition means that your vote means nothing and that your entire political system is a farce.