Different Agendas

These are photos of two very different sets of protestors confronting police.  The first is from a 1967 anti-war demonstration at the Pentagon, the second is from a BLM demonstration in NY in the past month.

Someone asked me why today’s protestors seem so “mean and angry.”

The woman in the lower photo certainly looks angrier than the young man in the top photo placing flowers in the guns of the police.  But is she?  Or is it a different kind of anger stemming from very different underlying motivations?

I am a “veteran” of anti-war protests of the 60s.  While my experience was mostly one of loud, rowdy, but mostly peaceful protests, that does not mean that there was not also some violence at some protests.   There were organizations that sometimes seemed more interested in creating violent situations than in having their voices heard in protest.  I can recall attending a couple meetings of the radical SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) and learning “guerrilla warfare” tactics that could be used for violence within a crowd.  (I did not participate in those protests). 

SDS was a Leftist or perhaps Socialist organization; its militant faction the Weathermen were inspired by other revolutionaries and believed that by creating or inflaming violent confrontations they could “bring the war home” meaning force the U.S. out of Vietnam in order to deal with a violent domestic revolution.  Whether their hopes for their revolution went beyond that or not, I don’t know.

Protesters of the 60s talked about peace and love, but they were also angry.  The anti-war protests channeled the anger that many had toward what they saw as a conflict that the U.S. should never have become involved in and should get out of as soon as possible.  The anger was at what the protesters saw as a misguided policy giving way to incorrect if not immoral actions of our government.  The hope was that the government would change course.  The protesters were passionate about their cause. 

Today’s protesters are also passionate.  Many of the protesters are peaceful and, not unlike SDS of the 60s, there are also more militant and violent groups.   But their focus is broader than one defined misstep and mistaken policy of their government.  The protests look, feel, and indeed are very different.

I suggest that the difference is the underlying agendas.  The vast majority of the anti-war protesters of the 60s wanted to end the war.  They may have had different reasons (pacifist; saw this war as unjust; didn’t think US role included this war; didn’t want to be drafted; pro-communist; just want to be with the cool kids; and many more) but the underlying agenda was to stop the war.  Not the government, but the government’s participation in this unjust war.  That was the underlying clear focus and the belief was that if that participation ended the country and the government would be better.

I would note that there were other protests during the 60s – civil rights, women’s rights are two that I was also acquainted with.  Like the anti-war protests of the time, these protests also had a very focused target with the underlying agenda of causing the government to correct that targeted wrong and hence move forward to be better for its correction.

At times the 60s protests might very well have sounded like and looked like an expression of hatred for the government generally, but in reality it was for most of the protestors a hatred for a particular policy or action of the government.  Stopping that action, not the entire government, was the agenda.  The anger was a constructive and positive movement forward. 

Not so the current protests.  Today’s protests, whether peaceful, or attempts to incite violence, or actually violent are not directed at one act of our government but at the entire government (the “system”).  While today’s protesters may speak of justice and a better America, their agenda in achieving that is not to correct misguided actions but to actually dismantle the entire structure of America and rebuild it as something else. 

This is classic Marxism. Any good Marxist or Socialist understands that a revolution which seeks to restructure a governmental system must involve violence.  And, like any good Marxist leader, the leaders of this revolution have created a coalition of victim groups and pitted them against the “system.”    Lenin, in engineering the Russian revolution, used the workers as the ones to press that revolution and destroy the existing system.  (Once it was destroyed, however, power was once again taken from the workers and returned to a new power group to build a new system from the top down.)

Today we do not have a worker class revolting against czars, but we do have identity groups fomented to “hate the system” and hence to tear it down.  While the protestors of the 60s still, for the most part, respected the “system,” today's protestors do not.  They don’t want to fix it, they want to destroy it.  Why?

When they were children, the 60s protestors were taught that America is a great country.  They were told of America’s strengths and weaknesses, of her achievements and her sins.  But, most importantly, they were taught that the American “system” provided a voice and a means of making corrections and improvements that would move America forward and to even more positive achievements.  They learned that this voice (and its accompanying responsibilities) belongs to them and that while our government through our Constitution protects and preserves that right, it does not own it.

Today’s protestors have not been taught how the “system” works for our and the country’s good.  Rather, they have been told that America is generally bad and its “system” is not good.  Rather than being taught that the Constitution protects rights that belong to each individual, they are taught that rights are something the government creates and then gives these rights to (or takes them away from) the individual.  The government, not the individual, owns the rights.   From there it is an easy step to convince those who do not have all that they want or that others have acquired or achieved that they are victims of the “system.”

So, while the 60s protestors respected the system because it protected their individual rights (including their right to protest), today’s protestors rebel against a system that they see as not providing what it should.  This is a big difference.  And the anger that is generated is also very different. 

If the perceived or desired “system” is one of large government that, rather than protecting individual rights, doles them out as it sees fit and thus, takes from the people their right to guide themselves, then it makes sense that one who feels that he or others are unfairly dealt with might want to overturn that “system.”  And, so, today’s protestors work not to correct a misstep of our current system, but to overturn it entirely.

The 60s protestors, and many similar protests from our history (women’s vote, civil rights, union and labor laws, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, etc. ) have all had an agenda directed at correcting what was viewed by the protestors as a wrong action of government.  Working with the system and the right it gives people to conduct such protests, these groups worked and channeled their anger to better the existing system.

Today’s protestors do not have a similar narrowly focused agenda.  Theirs is not to correct a specific wrong, but to dismantle an entire system.  This is a revolution going on.  The anger it generates is destructive. 

The language and demands and future visions of the movement sound a lot like the pretty promises of Socialism.  The tactics are the same – create a victim group or groups and pit them against other groups that are labeled to signify the victimizers and the current system.  Step one – destroy the system.  Step 2- rebuild to the design of a new ruling class.  That is the agenda and it is very different from simply wanting to fix something within an otherwise functioning and good system.

So, the soldiers in the protests may have the same passion, but the anger is very different and is the product of a very different sort of war.  While the 60s protestors for the most part had a general respect for and wanted to correct and improve the “system”, today’s protestors have little respect for the “system” or any of its institutions.  Their anger is different, and their agenda is destructive. 

Today’s protestors are not interested in improvement of what exists.  They want to tear down America.   Their anger is that of a manipulated socialist revolutionary.  It is not directed at anything other than destruction.  And that is why today’s protests look and feel very different.

Rage

Rage.

Feeling rage after watching the video of George Floyd dying under the knee of a police officer is reasonable.  In fact, anyone who, after watching that video is not filled with rage, has probably lost every shred of their humanity.

But, we can decide how to channel the rage that we feel.  That rage can fuel hate and destruction.  Those who never let a crisis go to waste will use that rage to fuel the flames of revolution.  They will destroy everything in their path, not in memory of George Floyd, not to stop this or similar atrocities from ever happening again, but to further hate and then use it to overthrow everything that is good. 

Rage and destruction are not necessarily equivalent.  One can even understand the emotion behind the rage, find it rational and real, and yet condemn the act of channeling that rage into destruction. 

Everyone should be speaking out about the horrendous acts of four Minneapolis police officers.  Everyone should speak out about any such acts.  Anyone who cannot see injustice when it slaps them in the face is truly blind.  Anyone who tries to justify it is someone whose view and narrative of the world is so closed that they must certainly live in complete fear and hatred every day of their life.  But anyone who thinks that this is an excuse to hate and destroy everyone and everything around them is also filled with a hateful and closed narrative that certainly must make their life a living hell.

Hate.  Fueled by fear.  Creating narratives that hold no hope, no understanding or tolerance, where everyone who is not you is simply out to get you.  This is the world that sadly so many live in today.  People, locked in their narrative, look about them and see everyone and everything around them as an attack on their narrative and ultimately on themselves.  They hate and hate and hate until they explode.  And others will certainly take advantage of that hate, using it for their own political advantage.  People will not stand up to the hate of others if they can use that hate for their own political gain.

Some of you interpret those last two sentences as a slam against the President and his followers, others will see them as a slam against the Democrats and progressive Left.  They are not either and yet perhaps a bit of both.  Seeing them as simply a confirmation of your own political views demonstrates the problem that we have in our society today.

We live in a dystopian world these days.  We are schooled in it from the time we are young.  Compare the original Star Trek series, full of joyfulness and hope for the future, with the most current Trek offering – the Picard series - showing us a dystopian world full of angst and very little hope, and certainly no joy.  We are berated every day with all the problems we might be facing, encouraged to share all the sadnesses and hurts we have suffered, encouraged to see everyone else and even our country as out to get us in one way or another. 

We make sure that children are taught every evil that has or might happen, all the ways that they or their life style or their feelings might be under attack, but we fail to teach them the simple joy of being alive, of having understanding and appreciation for those around us, even those who may seem strange or different.  Actually, that joy is stolen from them as quickly as possible.

Instead of teaching tolerance, we teach hate.  Hate of the other, of the one not like us, of the one with a different value or faith or color or economic status or education.  When that hate becomes real and strong it becomes violent and it engenders fear.  And rage.

I remember the 1967 riots in Detroit.  They were fueled by rage.  A rage similar to that of today’s riots fueled by the death of George Floyd.  After the rage and riots subsided, we could have moved forward seeking understanding.  But instead what we saw was a rise in identity politics and its divisiveness.  Politicians stepped in to turn identity group against identity group as they sought to use a hugely magnified and often manufactured struggle and hatred between groups to further their own power.

Rather than telling inner city people of color that only the powerful politician who needed their vote could help them and then, after getting that vote leaving them with their simmering rage, those politicians and other leaders should have worked to give these people the hope, self-confidence, and skills needed to raise themselves up, not to become a dependent underclass.  Those leaders should have worked for equality and tolerance rather than creating a class of helpless and dependent voters designed to keep their political masters in power.

Identity politics is a political power tool.  It has become more pronounced, more used, and more hateful.  It helps no one but those who use one group or another for their own power.  It dehumanizes and fills people with hate.  And we should then not wonder that life, especially the life of those seen as belonging to a different identity group, becomes meaningless, valueless, and expendable.  We should not be surprised to see hate breed both fear and ultimately rage.

And so, here we are facing that rage for another time in our history.  We can sit back and let the instigators for whom that rage serves a selfish and self-powering purpose prevail.  Or, we can understand the rage but not accept its violence. 

The 1967 Detroit riots are also now referred to as the rebellion.  Some of today’s rioters also hold signs demanding rebellion.  We see others demanding revolution.  And, there are those who march in memory of George Floyd.  We can decide how we wish to channel the rage that our country is experiencing.  We can decide whether we want to turn our rage over to revolutionaries who can use it for their own ends while destroying everything we hold dear, whether we want to revolt against our entire system, or whether we want to demand justice for George Floyd and work toward education that will make similar events less likely in the future.

My rage is great.  I will use it to work for a better understanding and I will direct my intolerance  toward those who seek to use identity of one sort or another to continue to further divide and diminish our humanity.

Coup or Revolution? Does it Matter? And Do You Really Want a Revolution Anyway?

America, its way of life and its governmental structure, is clearly under attack.  This post addresses three questions about that attack:  1. Is it a coup or a revolution? 2. Does It matter? And 3. Do the warriors even understand what they are doing?

Anyone who doesn’t see that America as we know it is under attack from within has been asleep for at least 4 and probably more than 12 years.  That attack has been called a witch hunt and a coup.  I would add another possible label: a revolution. 

A coup or coup d’etat (literally blow to state) is usually defined to include both suddenness and violence in the overthrow of an existing government.  One of the chief prerequisites for a coup is that those waging the coup have control of a major part of the peacekeeping and military elements of the government.  

A coup generally does not alter the country’s fundamental social or economic policies; rather, its purpose is to either remove a leader by force or to maintain a current leader or his successor by force.  It is a change in power from the top that merely results in the abrupt replacement of leading government personnel.

A revolution, in contrast, is a challenge to the established political order, government, and its related associations and structures.   It is generally radical and profound, establishing a new order that is radically different from the preceding one.  For example, both the French and Russian revolutions changed both the system of government as well as the economic and social structures and the cultural values of those societies.

Historian Clarence Crane Brinton in 1938 wrote the Anatomy of Revolution, likening a revolution’s dynamics to the progress of a fever.  He described a pre-revolutionary society as having both social and political tensions caused by a breakdown of the values of the society.  He saw that as leading to a fracture of political authority.  As the existing political order loses its grasp on authority, diverse forces of opposition band together to topple the existing authority. 

Socialist doctrine believes that social revolution is necessary to bring about structural changes to society.  That is, socialism believes that revolution is a necessary precondition for the transition form capitalism to socialism.  Socialism does not believe that revolution is necessarily violent; rather, it is seen as a seizure of political power by mass movements. 

I would argue that while the political battles that we see going on may have started out as a coup attempt by Democrats and Never-Trumpers simply to remove President Trump from office and replace him (and the will of the people) with someone of their own choosing, the battle they are waging is becoming, if it has not already become, more in the nature of a revolution.  That is, there is a war being waged against our fundamental system of government with the hope of replacing our society with a radically different one.

We now see not just the attempts to remove the President from office.  We see attacks on our very system of government.  Our Constitution is no longer valued by those waging this war.  The First Amendment, and especially free speech, is easily dismissed when ideas expressed are not those of the revolutionaries.  The second amendment is being similarly dismissed.  Constitutional protections such as freedom from unreasonable searches, privacy rights, the belief in innocence until proven guilty are all ignored when it serves the revolutionaries’ purposes.  Hence, we have significant violations of such things as protections against wiretapping or other surveillance of U. S. Citizens; we have political assassinations being staged based on testimonies unsupported by any real facts (not unlike the encouragement of the Soviet regime of neighbors to inform on neighbors without any factual investigation or regard for truth). 

We have the continuing attempts to overturn the results of an election, not by vote but by investigation upon investigation, the current one being conducted in secret by Adam Schiff and his cronies with hearings to which he bars Republican members of his committee and, other than telling us what he chooses and claims is true, he keeps all evidence secret from any and all who are not on his team; he denies the people’s right to know. 

We have attacks on our Supreme Court:  threats that if it does not render decisions acceptable to the revolutionaries that they will “pack the court” – that is, add enough justices of their own persuasion that any and all contrary voices will be silenced.

Silencing the opposition, ignoring the facts, making up the narrative as they choose.  These are key tactics of the revolutionaries.  Their intolerance has no exceptions.  While America has always demanded tolerance while allowing individual and diverse views, the revolutionaries would deny the holding of any view, value, or belief contrary to that which they approve.  And, their attacks on many traditional values, the mere right to hold such values, is increasing every day.

Yes, this is a revolution, not just a coup.  It’s intent, whether there at the beginning or not, is now to fully replace our government and our culture with something new.

Brinton, in his study of revolutions, also observed the different stages of a major revolution.  After the government is overthrown, there is usually a period of optimistic idealism; however, this phase does not last long.   A split usually develops between moderates and radicals which ends in the defeat of the moderates, the rise of extremists, and the concentration of all power in their hands. For one faction to prevail and maintain its authority, the use of force is almost inevitable. The goals of the revolution fade, as a totalitarian regime takes command.   Again, one can see this pattern played out historically in both the French and Russian revolutions.

Hence, it is significant that this initial anti-Trump movement has now morphed into an all-out revolution.  It would have been bad enough to witness a coup in which unhappy Democrats wrested the presidency from the people and took it for their own.  But, if that had been all they accomplished or sought to accomplish, the country could have been put right again at the next election.  With a revolution on the other hand, things cannot and will not be rectified so easily or so quickly.  The Russian revolution began in 1917, the resulting Soviet Union did not fall until 1991, and Russia still feels its effects today.

America can survive a coup; it cannot survive a revolution.

The final question posed at the start of this essay is whether these revolutionaries even understand what they are doing.  That is, did the warriors enter this revolution blinded by a hatred of Donald Trump and now are being pulled along by those who do truly seek the demise of America as we know it to fight the revolution?  Do these warriors even realize what they are fighting for? 

I come back to the description of a revolution as the progression of a fever.   When President Trump was inaugurated in January 2017, many people were angry; this anger was ginned up into a hatred.  That hatred is the fever which continues to progress; its flames are fanned by those who do truly hate America as we know it and would happily see it destroyed.  This fever, this illness, was simmering before 2016 as identity politics and challenges to those holding traditional values were being used by astute politicians to begin tearing the country apart into warring factions.  Those factions and their fever are now uniting into a dangerously combustible whole, encouraged to band together to topple the existing form of government and the very fundamentals of our society.

America is under attack.  What was an angry outburst against election results has moved from a childish outburst to a coup and now a revolution - a full out challenge to the established political order, government, culture, and their related associations and structures.   This matters.  This is a challenge to every American.  And every American who is involved in this revolution needs to be very clear on what they are doing while those of us not involved need to do everything we can to educate those warriors and defend our country from their attack.

So, you say you want a revolution?  Perhaps we should end by reconsidering the lyrics of the 1968 Beetles song “Revolution”:

You say you want a revolution

Well, you know

We all want to change the world

You tell me that it's evolution

Well, you know

We all want to change the world

But when you talk about destruction

Don't you know that you can count me out

Don't you know it's gonna be

All right, all right, all right

You say you got a real solution

Well, you know

We'd all love to see the plan

You ask me for a contribution

Well, you know

We're doing what we can

But if you want money for people with minds that hate

All I can tell is brother you have to wait

Don't you know it's gonna be

All right, all right, all right

You say you'll change the constitution

Well, you know

We all want to change your head

You tell me it's the institution

Well, you know

You better free your mind instead

But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao

You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

Don't you know it's gonna be

All right, all right, all right

All right, all right, all right

All right, all right, all right

All right, all right

The Baby or the Bath Water?

There is a difference between protesting an act of a country and protesting the country itself.  It may be difficult to see or understand the distinction, but there is indeed a distinction, just as there is a difference between emptying or changing the bathwater and throwing out the baby that sits in it.

I can remember marching against the Vietnam War in the 1960s.  I, along with most of my fellow marchers, was marching as a proud American upset with my country’s involvement in Vietnam.  I was protesting that involvement, the decisions that led to it, and the decisions to remain involved.  I was not protesting the country itself.

Contrast many of the protests we see today that include signs and proclamations that “America was never great; we need to overthrow this system,” “Revolution,” and “This country cannot be reformed, it must be overthrown.”  These are one’s I can print here – others include far more violent sentiments against both the country and its leadership.  The specific issue allegedly being protested is often lost in the much louder rhetoric against the country itself.  Indeed, sometimes the actual point of the rally seems to be to protest the country; there is no focused issue being discussed.

Protesting an issue or an act is very specific.  It voices a position that something the country has or has not done should be rectified.  Such protests are a very real and necessary part of democracy.  They are one of many ways in which the people can speak, and protests over a specific issue have often been the catalyst that has caused our country to improve itself:  giving women the vote and the civil rights legislation ending segregation are just two examples of actions by the government that were preceded by specific protests about these issues.  Protests such as these led to reformation; they did not completely overthrow our system of government.  Rather, they made our country better.

And, here lies a key to one of the perhaps insurmountable problems in our country today.  Whereas, in the past we could debate issues while all sides unanimously believed in our country and our system of government, today we debate issues while some believe that the basic system can be reformed or improved and others truly believe we should just throw out the entire system.

In reality we are often not debating specific issues, but whether we should keep our system of government or completely throw it out and start over.  It is far more difficult to come to any resolution or compromise on that issue than it is to resolve or compromise on a specific point or action currently being taken or ignored within a system that all members of the debate agree is basically good.

Let’s consider a simple example.  If we have a garment that we agree is worthy of keeping but needs to be altered, we might argue about whether it is better to take in the side seams or the darts or the back seam, but, we would be in agreement that there is a problem that needs resolution.  We might even disagree about how much the garment needs to be taken in.  But we are not arguing that we need to replace the garment itself.  In such a case we will ultimately be able to resolve the issue and alter the garment, hopefully in a way that is satisfactory to all.  But, if we have a situation in which some believe the garment is basically good but must be altered while others believe there is no hope for the garment and it must be replaced, then we have a far bigger problem.

Today we have those who believe in America, in its system, a Democratic Republic with essentially a capitalist economic system.  Some believe that it is near perfect as is; others see areas that need improvement in various areas.  Those people could probably discuss and reach compromises on nearly all those issues.  But, today there is another group who do not believe in that system.  They do not see its possibility and its hope but rather find its promises to be empty or hopeless and therefore they see the solution to any imperfection as a complete rewrite of America itself.

So, there really is a divide between those who would simply throw out or change the bathwater and those who would toss the baby as well, refill the bath and replace the current baby with someone new.
This is a huge divide! 

If there is any hope of closing or crossing this divide (and I’m not sure that there is) we first must actually face it square on.  Keep or toss the baby?  Do we need a Solomon to help us decide?  We cannot split the baby in two (see my recent posts dated 8/10 and 8/13/18 on socialism and democracy and the incompatibility of the two).  This is far more than an issue about a specific act or inaction of our government.  This is an issue of our government itself and whether to retain our identity with all its flaws,  working to alter it so it fits us better, or whether to completely replace it with some other system.

A question such as that requires a far more informed debate than many are currently willing to have.  It requires an understanding of history and of various governmental systems.  It requires the ability to look beyond the immediate and consider both short term and long term consequences of any decisions.  It requires an understanding of freedom and individual rights and the type of freedom that America upholds versus what other countries may define as freedom. 

I am not really sure if those who currently assert that they would like to see a complete end to our democracy really mean that, or if they are simply screeching hyperbolic statements as a way of venting frustration at not having everything exactly as they want it.  I think there is some self-examination required in light of a full understanding of what replacing our country with something else would mean.

So, we have the bathtub and the baby.  Please consider the options before doing anything rash!