Would an American Colour Revolution be a good idea?

[Panzersharkcat]

I dispute the bit about following Ayn Rand, considering her absolute hatred of central banking and governments doing pretty much anything short of the military, courts, and police.* Otherwise, I would say it's spot on.

*Even then, my defense of her is limited, considering her disregard and even encouragement of collateral damage** and the fact that she once claimed it was justified to have an 80% tax rate if it was "necessary for defense."
**"If we go to war with Russia, I hope the "innocent" are destroyed along with the guilty. There aren't many innocent people there—those who do exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps. Nobody has to put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self-defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent."

[Broomstick]

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?

Yep. The Republicans replaced the Whigs in 1860 with the election of Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency. Pretty major change. After which we got a 5 year bloody war but, hey, details.

Also, in the US political parties do not "form a government", the US government is not structured in that manner.

And while much of your essay might be said to characterize the current state of affairs things were significantly different as little as 15 years ago. Clinton was when the Democrats took a right turn and became "Republican Lite" and the Republicans went even further right. The change has been so dramatic that if Ronald Reagan were alive today he'd be considered on the left side of the Democrats, and Nixon (a Republican) would probably be too far left even for the Dems.

The fact that the situation was so different within my memory leads me to conclude that the current situation is not static and could well change, though probably not immediately.

[Eulogy]

The fact that the situation was so different within my memory leads me to conclude that the current situation is not static and could well change, though probably not immediately.

It's likely going to get worse before it gets better. Yes, it's clichéd, but it fits.

[Pelranius]

I dispute the bit about following Ayn Rand, considering her absolute hatred of central banking and governments doing pretty much anything short of the military, courts, and police.* Otherwise, I would say it's spot on.

*Even then, my defense of her is limited, considering her disregard and even encouragement of collateral damage** and the fact that she once claimed it was justified to have an 80% tax rate if it was "necessary for defense."
**"If we go to war with Russia, I hope the "innocent" are destroyed along with the guilty. There aren't many innocent people there—those who do exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps. Nobody has to put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self-defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent."

Wait a minute, how can the "Nobody" who refuses to "put up with aggression" be so sure in his moral righteousness that the "fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent", doesn't factor into his conscience or decision making?

[Panzersharkcat]

I dispute the bit about following Ayn Rand, considering her absolute hatred of central banking and governments doing pretty much anything short of the military, courts, and police.* Otherwise, I would say it's spot on.

*Even then, my defense of her is limited, considering her disregard and even encouragement of collateral damage** and the fact that she once claimed it was justified to have an 80% tax rate if it was "necessary for defense."
**"If we go to war with Russia, I hope the "innocent" are destroyed along with the guilty. There aren't many innocent people there—those who do exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps. Nobody has to put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self-defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent."

Wait a minute, how can the "Nobody" who refuses to "put up with aggression" be so sure in his moral righteousness that the "fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent", doesn't factor into his conscience or decision making?

No clue. Not a Randian.

[fgalkin]

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?

Considering that the US equivalent of a Color Revolution would be the Tea Party taking over, and considering how badly the other Color Revolutions failed...you tell me.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Force Lord]

Eulogy, I think the analogue you're looking for in this case would be something akin to the Arab Revolt, more Egypt and Tunisia instead of Ukraine and Georgia (the nation, not the US state).

[Ritterin Sophia]

Has the third party option ever produced a senator?

What about a government?

41st United States Congress

Or a president?

I suppose that in your reality the GOP existed before 1854?

That's what I thought.

See totally viable.

[Zaune]

Wait a minute, how can the "Nobody" who refuses to "put up with aggression" be so sure in his moral righteousness that the "fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent", doesn't factor into his conscience or decision making?

Simple. You just have to believe sufficiently strongly that the status quo is worse than any amount of collateral damage that comes with violent action.

[HMS Conqueror]

'Colour revolutions' were against communist government residues in favour of democratic reform, NATO membership, EU rather than Russia-directed foreign policy, etc. I don't see a lot of overlap to the US case. Obama, for all his faults, is not really an orthodox marxist-leninist, and you seem to be implying that the revolution would be left wing anyway (in support of the incumbent government - how then a revolution?).

[Irbis]

I suppose that in your reality the GOP existed before 1854?

Well, if the latest example is 157 years old, doesn't that mean such a change is extremely unlikely to occur? I mean, you might as well use 1776 as an example, it's almost equally relevant to today's politics as that.

[Simon_Jester]

'Colour revolutions' were against communist government residues in favour of democratic reform, NATO membership, EU rather than Russia-directed foreign policy, etc. I don't see a lot of overlap to the US case. Obama, for all his faults, is not really an orthodox marxist-leninist, and you seem to be implying that the revolution would be left wing anyway (in support of the incumbent government - how then a revolution?).

You are so missing the forest for the trees.

When normal people discuss them, a "color revolution" is one where the general public dissents from an undemocratic government forcefully enough that they shut it down and force it to step down, largely by nonviolent means. The revolution in Egypt recently was a "color revolution" in this sense, as was the one in Tunisia before that.

Thus, the idea of a "color revolution" in the US refers generically to things that are viewed as undermining the social and economic rights of American citizens. From the perspective of the OP, that means corporate control of politics, the impoverishment of the American middle class, and so on.

A revolt against such things would not be in support of the incumbent government, as the incumbent government shows no signs of wanting to change them.

EDIT: On the other hand, there is the perverse possibility of a Tea-colored revolution, so that could be on board too. Any sufficiently motivated political movement can have one, after all.

[HMS Conqueror]

I've never seen the Arab Spring described as a colour revolution, although maybe we just read different news. There have been one or two that don't follow the traditional pattern, eg. in the Philippines. Still, I don't understand the comparison. US isn't undemocratic and its current government has popularity consistently somewhere in the 45-55% range, which is perfectly normal for a democracy.

I don't think that a hard-left overthrow of the already left-wing Obama government to make undefined changes to the ostensibly already democratic system would fit into the mould of Belarus and Georgia. It'd be some other crazy thing.

[Simon_Jester]

I've never seen the Arab Spring described as a colour revolution, although maybe we just read different news. There have been one or two that don't follow the traditional pattern, eg. in the Philippines. Still, I don't understand the comparison. US isn't undemocratic and its current government has popularity consistently somewhere in the 45-55% range, which is perfectly normal for a democracy.

The basic complaint here is that the US is undemocratic if by "undemocratic" you mean "I can vote for significant policy change."

In many cases, both political parties are well to the right of the average American, and yet the political system makes it very difficult for anyone else to rise up and, say, present themselves as the party of public-option health insurance. Even though there are a lot of Americans who would love to opt into public-option health insurance, and not that many Americans who are all that resolutely opposed to having it.

This is only one example of the problem. It creates frustration, at least on the small scale, which could translate into a color revolution if it were scaled up.

For that matter, America was not all that undemocratic in the 1960s (note that the protests did not stop with the passage of the Civil Rights Act; blacks had other reasons to protest, many of them social and economic rather than political). And yet we saw massive demonstrations. In this case, the demonstrations and attempts to force the government to change its ways were motivated by the perception that the government was drifting away from some portion of the public. In this case, the younger generation's desire not to waste lives in Vietnam was being largely ignored, among other things.

For purposes of this conversation, everyone's working model for a 'color revolution' seems to have been the idea of mass protests bringing down an unresponsive government. What happens afterward, of course, is a huge problem.

[HMS Conqueror]

In many cases, both political parties are well to the right of the average American

Wait what? What possible evidence is there for this?

While there is obvious counter-evidence. America, like most every other democracy, has a right and a left wing party. The left wing party is not generally preferred, as you would expect if voters were leaning far left compared to the parties on offer.

For purposes of this conversation, everyone's working model for a 'color revolution' seems to have been the idea of mass protests bringing down an unresponsive government. What happens afterward, of course, is a huge problem.

Honestly, it sounds more like wishful thinking - that everyone who disagrees with [the OP/whoever] doesn't really exist and soon the "real" majority will rise up and impose [the OP/whoever's] preferred policies. Americans really don't seem to want some radical shift leftward. Some do, but others just as loudly want to roll back the state to 1900, and that isn't going to happen either.

[K. A. Pital]

Economically the democrats are not much more "left-wing" than Republicans. Most of the differences lie in social policy. In fact, there are Republicans well to the left of the current government policy (which is "Democratic") on the matters of economics, if I recall correctly.

America does not have any left - neither radical nor moderate. American left has been thoroughly and systematically decimated, and the only thing America has is the right and the limp-dick center. Well, and the radical right, of course.

Those are the only viable political forces in America.

And yes, I'm heavily skeptical of any "revolution" in America. Oligarchies tend to kill them revolutions or coopt them even well before they forment. They're damn efficient at that.

[D.Turtle]

Wait what? What possible evidence is there for this?

While there is obvious counter-evidence. America, like most every other democracy, has a right and a left wing party. The left wing party is not generally preferred, as you would expect if voters were leaning far left compared to the parties on offer.

If you look at specific policy choices, Americans generally are a lot more favorable towards regulating the financial industry, raising taxes on the rich, getting rid of tax loopholes, getting rid of oil subsidies, getting out of the various wars, etc than the political elites of both parties.

[Simon_Jester]

In many cases, both political parties are well to the right of the average American

Wait what? What possible evidence is there for this?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/U ... _poll.html

Broad general mandate for efforts to ensure universal health care. ~60% agreement that costs are likely to become disturbingly high in the future, even if they aren't already, among those already insured.

Now, the Republican leadership looks at this and cries "No! We will keep things as they are! And maybe get rid of Medicare!" The Democratic leadership looks at this and, while they do attempt to change the system, they change it very little. No federal program to establish universal care in there; things like public-option care went off the table in short order, for reasons that had little to do with opinion polls and everything to do with political deadlock.

While there is obvious counter-evidence. America, like most every other democracy, has a right and a left wing party. The left wing party is not generally preferred, as you would expect if voters were leaning far left compared to the parties on offer.

The American voter base is chronically uninvolved, with low participation rates and a lot of votes on wedge issues. Why voter turnout is low, particularly among the poor classes who are worst off with the status quo, is a matter worthy of massive complex speculation.

It is far from a certainty that everyone in this country is voting in a way that reflects the kind of government they'd like to see. Many may well be voting (or not voting) way that reflects their disgust with the system, their perception that it is corrupt and that trying to choose between politicians is useless, or the like.

Neither party really offers dramatic change to the system in a way that would alter the status quo, with the possible exception of the Tea wing of the Republican Party. Even as the nation slides into a state of low-level, quiet suffering that borders on desperation, neither party really sees much need to change the situation very much. Certainly not any urgent need that would drive them to engage in risky political strategies or rallying the masses for any purpose other than "give us your money and votes so we can remain in power."

This contributes to a perception that Washington is unresponsive, hence low presidential and congressional approval ratings, which have dogged the tracks of all political factions and figures ever since the recession began.

On this forum, you are mostly hearing this frustration from the perspective of the left, but it can be found in the center and right as well.

For purposes of this conversation, everyone's working model for a 'color revolution' seems to have been the idea of mass protests bringing down an unresponsive government. What happens afterward, of course, is a huge problem.

Honestly, it sounds more like wishful thinking - that everyone who disagrees with [the OP/whoever] doesn't really exist and soon the "real" majority will rise up and impose [the OP/whoever's] preferred policies. Americans really don't seem to want some radical shift leftward. Some do, but others just as loudly want to roll back the state to 1900, and that isn't going to happen either.

Probably, yes- which is one reason some on this very thread have cynically pointed out that the most likely color revolution to happen in America is a Tea-colored revolution.

The point is that "color revolution" does not reflect a specific thing to be rebelling against. It represents a specific style of revolution (nonviolent, and to a large extent non-ideological), usually motivated by the rejection of an unresponsive or corrupt government. Since many Americans already perceive their government to be unresponsive or corrupt, it is not inconceivable that such a thing could happen in the US... merely unlikely for the immediately foreseeable future.

[Civil War Man]

Has the third party option ever produced a senator?

What about a government?

41st United States Congress

Or a president?

I suppose that in your reality the GOP existed before 1854?

That's what I thought.

See totally viable.

Bernie Sanders was also the first person that came to mind for me, as well as Joe Lieberman. Representatives and Senators aren't necessarily the best examples, though, since they basically have to officially ally themselves with one of the two major parties in order to have any pull.

The examples are still out there, they are just rare. Sanders and Lieberman in the Senate, Lincoln Chafee as a Governor. You'll mostly find third parties in state and local spots, but they have a hard time moving up to the Federal level because the deck is stacked against third parties once you get to the national stage.

[Samuel]

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?

The Black Panthers were formed in 1966. The big piece of legislation was the civil rights act of 1965. Don't feel bad- I know this because I made the exact same mistake.

Now, the Republican leadership looks at this and cries "No! We will keep things as they are! And maybe get rid of Medicare!" The Democratic leadership looks at this and, while they do attempt to change the system, they change it very little. No federal program to establish universal care in there; things like public-option care went off the table in short order, for reasons that had little to do with opinion polls and everything to do with political deadlock.

Political deadlock has little to deal with the political ideology of the parties. It just means that the people who favor the change don't favor it enough for it to be forced through.

The American voter base is chronically uninvolved, with low participation rates and a lot of votes on wedge issues. Why voter turnout is low, particularly among the poor classes who are worst off with the status quo, is a matter worthy of massive complex speculation.

My guess is the two party system. The more political parties there are, the closer your choosen one will match your opinions and the more involved and willing to vote you will be. (Speculation)

Neither party really offers dramatic change to the system in a way that would alter the status quo, with the possible exception of the Tea wing of the Republican Party.

Alaska is famously pro-property and pro-oil so in 1996 the government streamlined existing regulations so that you only had to jump over one hurdle in order to get approval. It was repealed in 2004 because people didn't like the proliferation of oil wells. Arnold Schwarzenegger said that California needed to change its state government or else we'd go bankrupt. The voters rejected his plan.

Politicians support the status quo because they know that voters support the status quo. For all the whining, when politicians attempt to change the status quo they often get voted out.

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.

You do realize there is a business wing of the Republican Party? Or military voters? Or people who look at Europe, see it is left wing and poorer than the US and want to keep America rich and avoid any left ward move that could threaten that. Or people who believe that the Democrats are in bed with factions like the teachers union making the Republican Party the only hope for reforming education? Or...

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

Are you claiming the democrats are defined solely by not being republicans? Have you never heard of the New Deal? The Square Deal? The Great Society?

Sure the parties sound different but when you get down to observing the actual results the differences between them are pretty much cosmetic.

Because most conflict between the parties is on small scale details that are not immediately obvious but can have massive ramifications?

[Purple]

Well, my post was like all my text poetic to get the point across. But all in all I don't think I missed any.

You do realize there is a business wing of the Republican Party?

Tea party and the far right covers those. Remember that I am from Europe and I consider most of what you would call center politics far right. For example things like the corporate lobby are very far on the right from where I am coming from.

Or military voters?

Being in the military does not warrant a special group unless you will claim that the army tells its members how to vote or that all army personnel are almost completely like minded. Personally I think they are covered by the generic not so smart people tag I included.

Or people who look at Europe, see it is left wing and poorer than the US and want to keep America rich and avoid any left ward move that could threaten that.

Europe (unless you count the far eastern states) is not poorer than the US, at least not where it counts. Yes our gas prices are kind of high but when it comes to the standard of living we don't have such widespread poverty, crime and general suck that America is known for.

Or people who believe that the Democrats are in bed with factions like the teachers union making the Republican Party the only hope for reforming education? Or...

Yea, the teachers union is NOT a bad thing. Unions are good ok?
That I think is covered by the generic not so smart people tag I included.

Are you claiming the democrats are defined solely by not being republicans? Have you never heard of the New Deal? The Square Deal? The Great Society?

Modern democrats, as in during the last few election cycles. Who gives a dam about what party did what half a century ago. It's not like people should be voting based on merit so old that it happened before they were born.

Because most conflict between the parties is on small scale details that are not immediately obvious but can have massive ramifications?

That's the whole point. As others have reiterated the American problem is that there is no party there that represents any sort of even moderately radical change. Instead the only thing you have are very close variations on the same subject. And that by it self makes your vote meaningless as the end result is always going to be similar enough to what the other party would do that it might as well not mater who is in charge. That is simply an inevitable consequence of a two party system. Sooner or later the two will figure out that they can join a cartel and just trade places in power whilst forever keeping the status quo.

[Count Chocula]

That's the whole point. As others have reiterated the American problem is that there is no party there that represents any sort of even moderately radical change

That's not a problem, that's a FEATURE of the Republican system we still, limping along as it may be, have. Radical change seems to end poorly wherever it's applied (Russia, Germany, 18th Century France, Cambodia, etc.) and we frankly don't want that shit in our system. The Civil War was quite enough radical change, thank you!

Our system, as clumsy and frustrating as it may be at times, militates against radical change. The courts and the Constitutional amendment process allow more gradual, easily adjusted to, changes. To be cliche: we would rather not throw the baby out with the bath water.

[Bakustra]

Hahaha what? Radical changes have happened in the US a number of times. See, for example, the shift in attitudes between the years 1855 and 1865. In ten years, the US went from accepting slavery casually to being massively opposed to it. Racial attitudes shifted significantly during those years as well- interracial relationships were accepted in the immediate post-war era, and there were significant calls for equal representation for the newly-freed blacks.

In between the years 1926 and 1936, the US went from loving the unregulated market to enthusiastically in favor of the New Deal. In between 1934 and 1944, communism went from being a valid, if relatively uncommon but popular if repackaged, political stance to being a social death knell. In between 1955 and 1975, people's opinions on Jim Crow went from passive acceptance to open condemnation. Radical changes have happened and will continue to happen, and the American political system is incredibly dysfunctional regardless.

[Purple]

That's the whole point. As others have reiterated the American problem is that there is no party there that represents any sort of even moderately radical change

That's not a problem, that's a FEATURE of the Republican system we still, limping along as it may be, have. Radical change seems to end poorly wherever it's applied (Russia, Germany, 18th Century France, Cambodia, etc.) and we frankly don't want that shit in our system. The Civil War was quite enough radical change, thank you!

Our system, as clumsy and frustrating as it may be at times, militates against radical change. The courts and the Constitutional amendment process allow more gradual, easily adjusted to, changes. To be cliche: we would rather not throw the baby out with the bath water.

You are thinking way too radical. The examples you noted are not ones of radical change from the status quo but ones of extreme change brought upon by extreme radicals when the political system in place failed to deliver what was needed. Radical change is simply someone breaking out and saying what sucks within a society and fixing it. In your case radical that refers to things like raising taxes and imposing a minimal level of welfare and maybe, just maybe even doing something about the dysfunctional public school system. But as long as you have a two party system that is not going to happen unless both parties agree to it.

[HMS Conqueror]

Economically the democrats are not much more "left-wing" than Republicans. Most of the differences lie in social policy. In fact, there are Republicans well to the left of the current government policy (which is "Democratic") on the matters of economics, if I recall correctly.

America does not have any left - neither radical nor moderate. American left has been thoroughly and systematically decimated, and the only thing America has is the right and the limp-dick center. Well, and the radical right, of course.

Those are the only viable political forces in America.

And yes, I'm heavily skeptical of any "revolution" in America. Oligarchies tend to kill them revolutions or coopt them even well before they forment. They're damn efficient at that.

Dems want to move toward socialised healthcare - Republicans don't

Dems want to spend and raise taxes - Republicans want to cut spending and taxes (look at the argument about extending the Bush tax cuts, for instance).

Dems favour unionisation - Reps oppose.

You might claim that the Dems, while left-er than the Reps, are still to the right of the population. But if that were the case you'd expect to see heavy, sustained support for the Dems over the Reps, rather than ~50%. The actual split support that swings back and forth indicates that, like in most every other democracy, the parties approximate the views of the median voter.