Moderation in Revolutionary America

[A]ssasinations of public officers is not an American crime. -- Abraham Lincoln

A nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces but also by the men it honors, the men it remembers. -- John F. Kennedy

They are tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now. -- Barack Obama



A government that only provides candidates already groomed for power by the elites cannot be called a democracy, and therefore should not be trusted. It is an aristocracy -- a country ruled by a small group of so-called nobles. Such is the system that elections enable to exist. The elites of the past (idealized in the authoritarian phrase "Founding Fathers") were scared of losing their property to the agitated masses in debt from the revolution, and are comparable their descendants today who seek to impose a borderline-fascist "belt-tightening" to secure their wealth. And while the Fathers sought only to further a confused policy of inequality, their principles were sound enough to win the independence of the colonies from England and allow for the extension of substantial civil rights to the lower classes in years to come.

In police states, revolutions are put down with police repression (or worse), and replaced with flag lapels, "red breeches" and "brownshirts" to impose discipline on the population. What is spooking the powers that be right now is the public's incredulity toward the desire for continued involvement in pointless and  expensive wars and similar distaste for the insurance sector's refusal to allow health care to be free to all sectors of the public, regardless of class.

I think the Wikileaks group being blamed for simply believing in the public's right to know and being labeled terrorist-minded and treasonous might have spooked me a bit. The fact that they are being attacked through indirect and obviously false accusations of immorality (rape) proves to me that we don't have a serious claim to justify a ruling that favors a conspiracy in the other direction -- one that maintains draconian punishment for those in the press who release embarrassing, but not dangerous information. (Several politicians have claimed Mr. Assange needs to be killed by the government.)

Mass protests against such fraud, while often overwhelmingly unstable, actually have the potential to initiate a kind of pluralism that can be more constructive than political vanguardism, which invites radical counter-revolutionaries to antagonize, buy off or kill their enemies in assassinations or civil war. In my opinion, with elections our only recourse, we are only moving around the deck chairs of the Titanic.

People who can shut down the public's agitation on these issues effectively are free to transit through the revolving door between the business sector and the government and many choose to. They are rewarded with lucrative positions of influence, wealth beyond their wildest dreams and pats on the back for a job well done. One example of this practice is the memoir -- it serves as a way to enrich the author while further legitimizing his ideas with evidence of the market's favor as a talking point, often even printed on the cover. Another example, though more sloppy in its execution is Sarah Palin hamming it up on her own TV show whose job is reinforcing the authoritarian "mamma bear" persona, while she is  connecting personally to the public with a pretty face and cutesy accent. On the other side are the Dick Cheneys whose private businesses are protected and prospered in return for their service to other elite interests. The Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels called this the "optics" of the country, not necessary for the wars, only for the public's acceptance of them (however, instead of Indians as scapegoats, he used Jews and Communists).

Such a system was described by the German sociologist Max Weber in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism as relying on an archetype of an "ethical adventurer" who might be approached with "ethical indifferen[ce]" or simply tolerated as "reprehensible but unfortunately unavoidable." Such are the effects on people who are required to adapt though "the strictest conformity to tradition" until it no longer needs justification, but is "tolerated as a fact."

Clearly the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of property have been almost entirely corrupted in their interpretation due to this deep-seated prejudice against traditional values, replaced with what Weber described "an economic society which [has] known trade with the use of money and which [has] offered it opportunities through commenda, farming of taxes, State loans, financing of wars, ducal courts and officeholders". I see little reason to hope for the government to fix it, as it is and always will be complicit in the corruption. The monetary incentives can only be overcome by a public that shows its government that the trust it is trying to win is not sincere or strong enough for a dignified existence. I say this in the spirit only of human liberty. To expect our rulers to protect us is naive vanguardism. My brother pointed out to me that nobody will invest in a political party without expecting some kind of return. So in the tradition of the Founding Fathers, I say that a government that longer responds to the will of the people must be abolished. That is a radical doctrine, but it is not foreign to Americans, nor should it be.

Many if not all of the current problems facing us today can be traced back to deep-seated aristocratic bigotry in the ruling sectors of this country. At the heart of it is a narcissism that reassured the Founding Fathers so deeply  that they enshrined it in the constitution. The state was also for free enterprise in name only, as it was actively encouraging the plunder of Indian land once freed from the confines of British-enforced borders, and discriminated against Blacks by continuing the savage tradition of slavery (not to mention the current occupation of several countries, with plenty of military bases around the world). The Indians were our original  Marxian "red spectre" that was vividly described by the elites at the time to whip up support for the revolution, along with the scapegoating of Dutch traders in the Tea Party protest. Later on, the Black culture as well as others were found suitable for this purpose, and would continue to be vilified in a similar fashion  with alarming rhetoric typical of ethnocratic conspiracy mongering.

Some of our most beloved presidents like Lincoln and Kennedy have not only died as as a result of this prejudice in their assassins (though Lee Harvey Oswald might be considered a legitimate traitor), but had governed with the very bias that people were fighting to counter-act at the time.

Kennedy was an independently wealthy liberal but even he had his shortcomings. While he felt the war in Vietnam was unwise, he was easily persuaded by his cabinet to let it continue. While some of his words suggest ambivalence towards violent means of control in the world, he permitted the murder of the president of the Dominican Republic, a failed attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro (coupled with a botched invasion) and the same gambling attitude towards the occupation of Vietnam that Obama advocates in Iraq, along with suspicion of "cables" that might be dangerous to the propaganda efforts.

Lincoln was not the noble cartoonish stove-pipe-hat-wearing goodfella that we think of him as today. He was a foul-mouthed racist who didn't want to see an independent South threaten the economy of the North. While the war did "free the slaves" in some fashion, their liberty (nor for that matter, Lincoln's values of "peace and friendship") did not come without the type of civil disobedience that I think is required today to finish the job. Black Americans moved only slightly higher up on the social ladder from slavery to Jim Crow, and still do not get a fair shake even with a "brother" as president (who antagonizes by labeling them irresponsible).Lincoln was also instrumental in setting a precedent for indefinite detention of dissidents.

The unlimited spending of corporations now permitted to influence elections, along with the complete disregard (even by Democrats) of civil liberties in the name of "security" speak to the deep illegitimate nature not only of the institution, but the traditions it was founded on. One vote every several years, not only in my opinion but in the writings of greater men before me, is not sufficient to express displeasure and even furthers  the complicity of those who choose to participate.