Likelihood of Revolution

Lately, with the popularity of President Bush in the low twenties, and the Supreme court tilting toward the right, and no one trusting voting results, I wonder what it would take to spark a revolution, or a coup.

The thing with history is that nothing seems likely until after it happens. So if your first reaction is to dismiss this possibility because it’s unlikely, you haven’t studied history. Everything that happens is unlikely.

So what series of events could cause an uprising? While I am not predicting it will happen, I think it’s more possible than you think. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, the following series of events unfold:

1. McCain, behind in the polls, somehow wins the nomination and the general election.

2. McCain’s win causes mistrust in voting machines, for reasons either real or imagined.

3. McCain intensifies the war in Iraq because he thinks it’s the right thing for the country.

4. Protesters take to the streets in sixties fashion. There are clashes with police. The media makes this THE story.

5. McCain, one of our oldest candidates, dies in office from natural causes. His vice president assumes the job. The vice president, chosen to appease the conservative base, is the most right wing politician ever, and makes Dick Cheney look like Bambii.

6. The new Vice President cracks down hard on protesters. He starts suspending even more civil liberties. Martial law is discussed as if it is imminent.

7. An opening on the Supreme Court allows the new president to push a conservative into the slot. This moves the court completely to the right. All abortions are banned in the United States.

8. The war in Iraq spreads to Iran, where once again, no signs of nuclear weapons production are found. This added war is so unpopular with the rest of the world that allies start withdrawing from NATO to form their own defense club.

9. Strained by the war in Iraq, and now Iran, and potentially Syria, the American economy crumbles.

Now would there be a revolution? And which part of this scenario couldn’t happen?

Comments

[sohbet]

thank youu

[sohbet]

thank you

[AnaetAltelf]

I just got an email

Who would have guessed Ameritrade? Only through the application [url=http://www.cool-trade.com/Default.asp?tda=y&MyUrl=izone]Cooltrade[/url]

Monthly subscription of $39.99 a month. No Contracts.

*For beginners, you can execute manual trades or confirmation of trades.
**Prices only valid if trades are made through the CoolTrade application.

[David Dalton]

This is all fine but we have to realize that we are alot closer to war with Iran then we think. Could this lead to and economic calase? Absoluty

[checkers]

I think a more likely scenario is for anarchy not revolution.
What would happen if several simultaneous nuclear bombs went off in NY, chicago, cleveland, LA, Seattle, Washington-DC.
Also London, Hong Kong etc.. You don't have to sneak them in in these locations, they are easily accessed by waterways from the ocean.
Imagine the communication and financial nightmares.
Economies would be ruined for decades.
Who would we bomb?
Who would decide?

[joshua]

Impossible? I guess nothing nothing is impossible.

Many of the comments here are well thought out and thought provoking. Yet there are many still that are posted with a spirit of arrogance with no attempt at engaging in a logical conversation aimed at reaching some kind of ensight, but rather to make sniping remarks aimed at shutting down dialogue and making others feel inferior.

would it be impossible for everyone, not to agree on every subject, but to agree on a logical exchange of ideas and opinions with hopes of discovering the truth or at least a consensus?

On a side note, Would it be wrong to eliminate or make illegal a practice in which human life is destroyed, such as abortion?

[Monkeydarts]

Scott asks, "Which part of this scenario couldn’t happen?
I shall answer--
1. McCain has no chance getting the nomination. He'll drop out after 6PM on the last Friday in September 2007.
2. Is void due to answer #1.
3. Is void due to answer #1.
4. Although #4 is also void it's important to note that "Protesters take to the streets in sixties fashion." won't happen because Dick Nixon ended the draft in 1971. The only reason there were 60's anti-war protests is because limpwrists/ hippies were worried about getting hurt.
5. McCain could die in office but it will be as he serves his last term as US Senator from AZ
6. Void for several reasons butmainly because most sane people know there's no suspension of civil rights going on.
7. Even if the SCOTUS reversed Roe v Wade it doesn't make abortion illegal it simply returns the decision to the states. I'm sure CA, NY and other would continue to slaughter their unborn children at the current rates.
8. Iran (Quds Force) is already attacking the coalition forces in Iraq.NATO serves little purpose so nobody should care if it disbands-- more importantly the UN should disband.
9.The American economy is strong and since the entire defense department amounts to little more than a rounding error over at the DHHS nothing as described in #9 will happen. Therefore, no revolution... but leftists will still be revolting forms of life.

[@Rob]

And AIDS grows out of control and nuclear bombs hit all around the world...that about right? heh

[y.a]

I'm not from america. I think that the scenario could happen, but i feel the american people would not resort to a revolution. I think that the american people have already given up a lot of their rights, without much fuss.

Whether its Clinton, Bush or Mcain it simply wouldn't matter foreign policy-wise. The part about THE media. If Americans are angry about Iraq, its due to the fact the death toll of americans is rising, and that its hurting their economy, but there is no death toll for Iraqi's in THE media. I hope the American people do take some action though.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

The really funny part about this is that if you were a little older, you'd remember people spinning these stories about Nixon. If you were a little older yet, you'd remember when people were saying that Roosevelt was planning the same things.

[Wade]

Orson Scott Card's Empire is a red-state vs blue-state American civil war based on the deep hatred of each other with no room for a middle ground. At the end of the audio book, the author gives his opinion of how such a war could come about with recent examples from civil wars in other countries.

[Nicole]

I sometimes wonder not whether a revolution is likely, but whether a revolution would help. Would it change the government to be more like the way I want it to be? Usually the answer is no.

I vote for a small, focused political party which seeks drastic (but peaceful) changes in the government. I still vote, even after reading about vote hacking. This is the type of thing that made me wonder what exactly would be necessary to change the government, if voting cannot be trusted.

A lot of other countries have had revolutions. And I don't see any post-revolutionary countries that have the kind of government I want.

[Wise-acres]

Two things would not happen. john McCain getting elected, even though i like him. If politics is just a giant popularity contest, then i predict that Giuliani or Clinton will win. Then again, Bill Clinton came out of nowhere and won........ The second is the economy crashing. A. Milatary spending is below 4 percent of the U.S ecomony (ref thru the cia world fact book, at cia.gov, great site for stats). B. too many people have too much invested to let the economy crumble (but of defn of the economy crumbling could be different). Japan has debt of 176% of it GDP, vs about 76% in the US. Lot of stuff you here are scare tatics by people that know you dont know what these numbers mean.
I read an article not to long ago, stating that statistically, that chief justices political beliefs do not affect his decisions. although i can see how the normal person does not percieve it that way.

[DaveR]

>All abortions are banned in the United States.

Few things are more blatantly stupid than people who sit around and opine things like this. I'm guessing you have no idea that Roe v Wade was not the thing that made abortion legal, and you believe that overturning it would make all abortions "banned in the United States."

And then you post hype to get others to believe the same thing.

Civics is not your strength. Then again, we knew that, since you predicted Joe Biden as the next President of the United States!

[adora]

Revolution usually happens not directly for political reasons, but during economic downturn. When majority of the people don't have steady income, promising future or at least illusion of wealth and safety.
As the social gap widens and the president is taking more vacation than he should, it feels like pre-1789 all over again.
One of the smartest thing Clinton did was to encourage education during economic downturn. There were a lot more scholarship and loans available so people who were unemployed can go back to school. When the economy is good, they are ready to contribute.

[adora]

Revolution usually happens not directly for political reasons, but during economic downturn. When majority of the people don't have steady income, promising future or at least illusion of wealth and safety.
As the social gap widens and the president is taking more vacation than he should, it feels like pre-1789 all over again.
One of the smartest thing Clinton did was to encourage education during economic downturn. There were a lot more scholarship and loans available so people who were unemployed can go back to school. When the economy is good, they are ready to contribute.

[bcammack]

Stankleberry,

Don't flatter yourself.

[Stankleberry]

Haha, I guess the comment I left here was a little too true for you to post it up. Aww.

[BobUK]

Hi Eric

The name of the poster is UNDER the post. My post was the one above. I really like Scott's blog too.

[Dalebert]

You left out our $9 trillion debt and the decline in perceived value of our FIAT currency both locall and around the world. That will help with the economic collapse.

[Dotacus]

People with lots to lose will never take up arms against the government in enough masses to overthow it. This country is far too rich for that to happen. Would you risk your house, family, job, life by grabbing a gun, club or other weapon and and walk in front of a group of Glock and M1 carrying Secret Service dudes for those points you listed? Hardly likely. If you were literally starving with no home, job, and your kids died of startvation or lack of medical attention, then you might. Until the percentage of those people get high enough to make a difference, there may be a lot of complaining, but no revolution, and we're really far from that. I'm not talking poor like the american version, with Nike shoes sipping Starbucks and eating McDonalds. Even they have to much to lose. I'm talking people with nothing.

[dedhed52]

WOW! Talk about a doomsday scenario! I think everything you mention is ENTIRELY possible ... and FRIGHTENING! I don't believe Americans are sheep at all. We may have long fuses, but eventually things will become too much for even the most complacent to take and things will explode.

But if we're already fighting wars in Iraq, Iran and Afganistan, where would the soldiers come from to fight the insurrection here at home? They'll all be overseas! So the revolution COULD be successful and change would come, restoring the Constitution and sanity to American government. Happy ending!

[Dmitry Z]

Revolutionary conditions have been studied and theorized over back in early 20 century (read Lenin works for reference). Italian Antonio Gramsci, while jailed by fascists, further explained, in 1930-ies, how the ruling class will be preventing such conditions from organizing. Your scenario, while highly attractive and logical, will suffer a blow from the media, which will distort the entire picture, making it seem that the conservatives and warmongers are staging most of the protests. The media Matrix has you. Sorry.

[Paul C]

This is only tangentially related, but it may raise a smile, Scott. I have just been reading a history book called "The Steel Bonnets", which is about the debated border when England and Scotland were both seperate nations.
Short version: the King of Scotland thought the border should be as far south as posssible (ie, well inside modern England). Meanwhile, the Queen of England considered the border should be as far north as possible (ie, well inside modern Scotland).

While the two nations were fighting each other, the people who actually lived ON the Anglo-Scottish border took full advantage of nobody being there to enforce any law, and efectively pleased themselves. They became a feudin' fightin' set of hillbilly clans with no allegience to any king or queen, and lived a life of plunder, thieving, fighting, cattle-rustling, robbery, et c, with no greater law than the Family. Effectively, these were lying, bullying,thieving, cheating, thugs with no social graces.

On unity betweeen England and Scotland, the border was pacified (read: the clansmen were rounded up and deported en masse to Ireland and colonies in North America).

The starting point of the history I've just read is the inauguration of President Richard M. Nixon. ("The Steel Bonnets" was written in 1971, before watergate).

The author notes that Nixon, who is flanked by outgoing Prez Lyndon B. Johnson and "chaplain" the Rev. Billy Graham , is one of the Names of the old thieving, lying, bullying, fighting, Border clans. As is Johnson. As is Graham. Without irony - that would have come after Watergate - he notes that this is where the old Border clans ended up, in the highest positions of moral and legal responsibility in the USA. The old robber barons and their henchmen who gave the world concepts like "blackmail" and "protection money".... and these are descendents of convicts who (Australia not having been discovered) were transported in chains accross the Atlantic. America, we apologise.

[DanFM]

'2. The new President serves his term slowly taking away American's civil rights "to keep our children safe from terrorists."

That could easily be rewritten as

2. The new President serves his term slowly taking away American's civil rights "to keep our children safe from [their own bad decisions, poor self esteem, bruised knees, bad influences, "one sided education", evil video games, ironic comic strips, smoking indoors, drinking, eating trans fats, driving too fast, Carbon Dioxide and bad sunburn, and so on and so forth].

a much more insidious erosion or rights and one far less American than responses to terrorist threats.