Free Markets, Free People

Might there be a “second revolution” and if so, what would it look like?

Investor’s Business Daily is asking "Will Washington’s failures lead to a second American revolution?"

Good question. I don’t see it in the offing at the moment, but if the course continues – i.e. governmental overreaching coupled with increasing cost and incompetence – anything is possible.

Says IBD:

People are asking, "Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?"

Sure they’re asking that.  And sure they’re wondering if they should change it.  But that’s really all they’re doing at the moment.  There’s no impetus – other than talk – to make the fundamental change that is necessary to rein in this government.  Not yet anyway.

That’s because most of us are still comfortable enough that we’re not willing to do what is necessary (and destabilizing) to make those changes.  We’d rather complain and threaten politicians.

I’m not saying I’m any better or any more prepared than anyone else – I’m just putting forth an observation.

Nope – unfortunately, things will have to get even worse than they are now before I can imagine a “second revolution”.  And I’d wonder what form it would take.  Peaceful but determined overthrow of the system?  A new “Constitutional Convention” where the “people” again try to limit government to a specific and downsized role in our lives?

Or would it incorporate the enshrinement of certain “entitlements” and various programs that much of the libertarian right find unconstitutional and intrusive?

Who knows?

IBD seems to think Obama is driving us toward such a revolution.  Yet somehow, as unpopular as George Bush was, it didn’t happen then.  Perhaps its the cumulative effect of having two relatively unpopular presidents, one from each side, which will trip the trigger?

Again, I’m not seeing it or feeling it.

I’d love to see a second “Constitutional Convention” if I was assured that its intent would be limiting government.  But in today’s political climate and with the decades of “entitlements”, I have no faith that’s what it would be.  I also have no faith that the outcome of a Constitutional Convention would be acknowledged, much less followed by this government.

It’s a real thought to ponder.  How, short of a bloody revolution – which may or may not come out the way freedom loving people would prefer – do we get government under control?

If there is a 2nd revolution, what form would it take?  What would be the tipping point?  Would we survive it?

Looking out over the political landscape today, I simply don’t know the answers to any of those questions.



[tweetmeme only_single=”false”]
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

106 Responses to Might there be a “second revolution” and if so, what would it look like?

  • Only after (not “if”) the economy goes into the tank, possibly after a terrorist strike that makes 9/11 look like a picnic in the park and/or the economy goes completely in the tank.
    Obvious question then is” Who would govern/rule after a successful revolt or civil war?”.

  • You’ve jumped the shark.  Talk about a “bloody revolution” is silliness at the extreme.   We had a revolution in 2008 — it was the election of Barack Hussein Obama.  He would not have been elected if not for the pent up anger Americans had over the policies of George W. Bush.   And we may get another revolution in the election of a conservative Republican…and then maybe back to a liberal Democrat…but that’s how our system works.  Revolutions are at the ballot box — and if a group doesn’t have enough to win at the ballot box, they will be crushed by the government if they try anything bloody.  Timothy McVeigh thought similar thoughts back in 1995 and tried to spark a revolt.  All the tough talkers were aghast that he didn’t realize it was just macho fun talk, not serious.

    • Please look up “revolution”.  You will find the term does not describe the results of an election.

      • ROTFLOL!  As usual, Rags, the meaning of what I wrote sailed clear over your head.   Your insult best applies when you gaze in the mirror.

        • 2 a : a sudden, radical, or complete change b : a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed c : activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation d : a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something : a change of paradigm <the Copernican revolution> e : a changeover in use or preference especially in technology <the computer revolution> <the foreign car revolution>
          synonyms see rebellion

          Yeah.  You sail over my head.  See, words actually have meanings in my world.  And, in my world, knowing what words mean is a attribute.   Idiot.

          • As usual when you pin the tail on the Donkey (In this case, Erb’s Ass), he quits the fight, er, uh , discussion and runs away and hides.

    • I see you’ve gone to almost daily displays of idiocy and pathological narcissism. Sometimes more than once a day. Sorry you’re getting worse. Hope you get better soon, for all our sakes.

      Maybe when classes start back up, the sucking up from your students will feed your narcissism. That way, you won’t have to seek attention here, from people who you have called racist, sterile, inbred, and mindless. It must really suck to be so mentally sick that you have to gain pleasure by pestering people you detest so much.

    • Actually, Scott, Barack Obama would not have been elected but for a concerted effort by his backers in the mainstream media to hide who and what he was: A racist in a league with David Duke and a Marxist in a league with Bill Ayers.

      • Ah…true, but don’t forget his own lies before, after, and now…
        Nor the feckless campaign of McAnus.

        • Obama could never have gotten away with his lies if the mainstream media had just said, for instance, “the guy belongs to a virulently racist church, why the hell is he running for president?” He should have been , as I began pointing out what seems like long ago now,  hooted right off of the national stage before his second foot had hit it.

          That he wasn’t was a conspiracy of silence too grotesque to bear as it was happening, and it’s doubly grotesque to watch what it has led to.

          As for McCain, he would have made a terrible president, just as he was a ridiculous candidate, but Obama was destined to be a catastrophe, and he has fulfilled that destiny and more.

    • Why are you ignoring the revolution of 1860?   It was only the economic prowess of the North that prevented that revolution from being successful.  I suspect the economic prowess has shifted since then and the outcome might be entirely different.
      Second, I doubt the current incarnation of the North would have the ability or desire to fight.  Those states most likely to go bankrupt are those that would form the nucleus of an old North (which includes California, Oregon, and Washington.  it is interesting to contemplate a breakup which would leave the coasts looking like Pakistan and the central and southern  looking like India.    I suspect a country out of the Central and Southern states would survive much more easily than the remnants of the east and west coast states.
      I suggest though, you not dismiss out of hand any possibility of a revolution.  We already have polls suggesting this government does not have the consent of the governed.

      • Of course that was a revolution to defend the evil of slavery.  If the south had won they would have devolved into third world country status and may have even ended up like South Africa.   Fantasies of a revolution show that you are so out of touch with reality that it’s funny.  I suspect you read too much of the partisan blogs that agree with you and are commiting the typical psychological bias of thinking a minority view is far bigger than it is.  More likely you’re part of a minority reaction to a restructuring of US politics for the 21st century due to globalization.  The “tea party” will be remembered as a brief episode of right wing reaction to change that peaked in Obama’s first term and then petered out as the GOP realized aligning themselves with people wanting to reject reality was a political loser.   Time will tell.

        • Nice try, Scott.  Technically that revolution was over states rights.   I am amazed you do not even acknowledge there was a revolution.  Now that is the very definition of “out of touch with reality”.
          After all you lectures to the rest of us on not using ad hominems and dismissing out of hand people who do not think like you, I find it the height of hypocrisy to see you abandon your very own lectures.
          Do you deny the civil war was a revolution?  Do you deny the North won through economic prowess?  Do you deny there is a deep seated anger with government, Washington, Democrats, and Obama?  Do you deny the polls that claim the government does not have the consent of the governed?  Do you deny the Tea Party movement is both nationwide and has tapped into that deep seated anger?
          Basically, you just try to dismiss this all with a wave of your hand and a series of ad hominems.  Try  produce some actual argument some time.

          • I think the tea party is a small movement, and the sense of anger the right claims exists is vastly overstated.  I think it’s just a reaction to the inevitable transition in American politics due to changing demographics and the rise of globalization.  It can maybe be compared to the brief period of McCarthyism.   The Islamophobia being expressed (I discuss that on my blog today) is the kind of thing that will ultimately give the tea party movement a long term reputation similar to that earned by McCarthyism.   I realize you disagree with that — in a few years we’ll know who was right (or at least closer to being right).

          • Do not confuse number of members with the amount of sympathy.  As we have said, congress is now held in exceptionally low esteem.  The country, rationally, understands the stimulus did not work and we cannot continue to borrow and spend.  That is what brought the tea parties together.
            I claim you vastly underestimate the reach of the tea parties.  The left is trying various narratives to diminish the threat of the tea parties, but they are failing.  I have heard racist.  We know the left has tried to infitrate the tea parties with racist signs and allege they are members, but they have been exposed.  Tea parties also oppose, as do the bulk of Americans, illegal immigration and want the federal government to actually enforce the laws.
            Islamaphobia is a new one.  Is that the latest attempt to attack the tea parties?  Attempting to equate the tea parties with McCarthyism is pretty lame.  I expect that to one to die a quick death.  The left seems to be trying to throw all manner of charges against the tea parties in the hopes something will stick.  Nothing has.  The left really needs to explain why more debt, higher taxes, and more government control of our lives is a good thing.  If the left could make that case, they could obviate all need for the tea parties.  But, the politicians of the left don’t even try to do that because it can’t be sold.

        • There is another major problem with how people relate to their government.  That is the organization, particularly of the Democrats.   The Democrats organize the House by seniority.  To get seniority, the member must run in a safe district.  So, we end up with situation where, no matter what the nation thinks and how they vote, you will have Pelosi, Waxman, Hoyer, Frank, and others who maintain their place in the leadership.  Yet none of that  bunch could win any kind of a large scale election.  They can only win in their safe little districts.  So, If I live in Nebraska and I vote for a Democrat,  get those guys who now control my guy.  At least, with Republicans, Gingrich instituted term limits.   In the Senate, I get Reid, hardly a winner.
          The net of this is my vote becomes less and less important.  We were always told to vote for the man, not the party.  But, that advice stinks, now.  Pelosi, Reid, Frank et al do not in any way reflect the country.  So, someone in Nebraska is forced to vote for a poorer candidate just to avoid “rule by Pelosi”.  Term limits would be a collassal move in the right direction to address this problem.    But, it is a trait of government, that it exists to increase its own power.  As a rule, these guys will never vote for anything that reduces their power.
          That is why, as Sean Connery said in “Hunt for Red October”:  “A little revolution, now and again, is a good thing”.  At this point, I am willing to entertain anything that has the possibility of throwing the bums out.
          Also, the 17th amendment has been a complete disaster for the states.  Where before the state legislatures had some  control over their Senator, now they have none.  With a major portion of funding for this new Health Care Bill being pushed off on the states via Medicaid enhancements, there is zero chance this could have passed the Senate if the state legislatures appointed their Senators.  Zero chance, as in none.

        • Of course that was a revolution to defend the evil of slavery.

          Once again, you do not even know the meaning of words you write.  A Revolution is successful, a Rebellion is not.

          And you call yourself a Professor?

  • The Battle of Anacostia Flats didn’t turn out too well for the protesters.  Just saying.
    We have a revolution in this country every four years and I would expect the vast majority to think that was enough.   I think it would be a real revolution if real conservatives were elected to the majority in the House and Senate.

  • We have tools we did not have during the American Revolution.  They came to us via Henry David Thoreau and his successors.
    A second revolution needs no violence.  Civil disobedience is both extremely effective and moral.  In fact, it depends on the morality of whatever cause it seeks.  It is inherently non-violent, and a dedicated, committed activist minority has always been sufficient to carry the day, according to history.
    There will be another revolution, and I think soon.  It will be to reinstate the Constitution and the principles of the Declaration.  Individual liberty and a limited Federal government will be its moral base.

    • LOL!  What color is the sky in your world — rainbow colored and whispy?  Your lack of knowledge about how politics in America works is incredible.   Oh well, I suspect your ideology is fostering imagination driven understandings.

      • It’s hard to know what you object to most about that, Scott: morality, principles, individual liberty or limited government.

        Let’s rewind the tape to Martin Luther King and you get to ask him what color the sky is in his world.

  • Perhaps a revolution in an electoral sense….

    • It happened in 2008, and you all want a counter-revolution in 2010 and 2012.  It’s possible, but demographically and politically, I think it’s unlikely.  We’ll see.   I’ll congratulate you if you succeed.

      • As usual, you’re a simpleton. The way you use “revolution”, each time we switch parties controlling the White House is a “revolution”


        I mean electoral revolution in the types of candidates that we elect ( or more to the point, finally start to throw out).  Right now electing a slate of true fiscal conservative, smaller govt. types would in fact be a stark revolution in contrast to the “ruling class” elite we currently elect.

        No more American royalty.

        There’s your revolution right there pal.

      •  I’ll congratulate you if you succeed.

        Personally, I do not want your congratulations.  Your permanent departure from these pages would be far more appropriate!

  • I’d love to see a second “Constitutional Convention” if I was assured that its intent would be limiting government.  But in today’s political climate and with the decades of “entitlements”, I have no faith that’s what it would be.  I also have no faith that the outcome of a Constitutional Convention would be acknowledged, much less followed by this government.

    I doubt it would need to convene.  There is a historical precedent. Congress averted the stampede by giving the people a change in the law.  This time, we should demand an amendment.
    But ultimately, McQ, the Constitution belongs to the people…even to totally screw it up.  If that were the outcome, many of us would at least know we have to find somewhere where we can live according to the Founding.

    • My 2 cents.
      Here’s where we enter, ‘consider revolution territory’.
      1) The Republicans fail to engage spending constraint after getting congress
      2) The energy behind the Tea Party moment reforms into an actual Party (or Parties) of some kind
      3) That Party (or Those Parties) are suppressed by the Democrats and Republicans.
      4) Time to stock up on Water
      As for a Constitutional Congress, the special interests would love the opportunity.  They are far better equipped to hijack such a meeting.  I recall when the Canadians finalized their Constitution after severing their last superficial ties of English Control in the 1970’s/1980’s time frame.  The ‘contributors’ were a whose who of radical activist groups and special interests.

  • If there is a 2nd revolution, what form would it take?  What would be the tipping point?  Would we survive it?

    Most likely it has already started and we are merely in the early stages of escalation. The Democrats have taken huge slices of wealth and freedom against the will of the majority, (if you believe the polls) while siding with foreign nations in legal actions against its citizenry. The leadership of both parties is purposely allowing a foreign invasion on our borders and then protecting and caring for those invaders. The supposed counterbalance to all this drama, the Republicans, have proved time and again to be about as valuable as a neutered cow that does nothing but eat. This Government has clearly demonstrated that it is becoming more dictatorial than representative. Because of this, the revolution, although unorganized and muddled is on a steady and unstoppable path, people everywhere are talking about it. What one thinks the country will look like and what the results will be depends on which of the sides you’re standing on as it develops. What it will actually be like when it’s over? No way to tell.

    Will it be non-violent? Rational people will hope so, but is doubtful for one simple reason. Those driving the “change” are committed philosophically to violence; it is part of their doctrine as a means to achieve their goals. Whether they are in power or not.    

    • Those driving the “change” are committed philosophically to violence; it is part of their doctrine as a means to achieve their goals. Whether they are in power or not.

      And THAT will be the moral high-ground the revolution must occupy.  The people in the vast middle…indecisive and often complacent…will be moved off the fence.  Either by watching good, productive people stomped on by the legal system, or by seeing them assaulted with violence.

  • I don’t think a bloody revolution will happen unless people start mass starving in the streets.
    What it would look like: People mass starving. The government creating a Police State. Mass rioting in the huge metropolises. Then an exodus to the rural areas. Then a period of complete anarchy until some how a leader emerged.

  • Bush was a moderate. The anger against him came from the unhinged left, the right, and the middle.

    The left hated Bush because he was a Republican.

    The right hated Bush because of things like Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, deficiets, and talk of amnesty.

    The middle hated Bush because of Iraq and the screaming MSM, and because they want their entitlements without the debt.

    Any revolution against Bush would be basically a circular firing squad. Erb is partially right that 2008 was something of a revolution against Bush, in that the right wasn’t energized, the left was energized, and moderates wanted change. The election was as much revolution you could have against Bush.

    Now, bigger picture is the damage done by the left over the last 70 years is very difficult to undo. And even the “conservative” party makes little real effort to undo it. It may very well take a real revolution to undo this damage. The major part of the problem is the mushy middle who wants fiscal conservatism, but not at the cost of grandma’s social security check or medical care for all.

    • But people DO learn.  That is reflected in this…
      There IS a revolution working up now, and it is a ACTUAL revolution…not a rearrangement of seats.  People are BEGINNING to get that our course over the last century or so was fundamentally wrong.  It is apparent that it cannot be followed, and must be reversed.
      We are the heirs of a great revolution.  We are fighting the reactionaries like Erp.

    • Don, we’re going through a systemic transformation (described well by Zakaria in his book ‘The Post-American World,’ which actually ended up far more optimistic about the US than the title would sound).   Part of the ‘tea party’ response — the looney part — is from those who have a fantasy we can go back to 1950 or even 1776.  It’s a completely different world.   But part is accurate, a recognition that government is too big and society too spoiled by cheap goods and entitlements to care.   The left also recognize this in their criticism of corporate welfare, big business control, and hyper-consumerism driven by cheap credit.   If they can stop demonizing each other, and throw out the extremists on each side, there are some common threads by those on the left and right dissatisfied.
      Revolutions don’t happen in countries as well off as the US where the government is considered legitimate by well over 85% of the population (that’s basic government type and style, not parties or leaders in power).   We would need economic collapse and mass starvation to make it even possible, and in that wildly unlikely scenario it would be localized and fragmented.  There would be no more USA, just a patch work of regional governments (much like after Rome fell in Europe).  I don’t think even you guys want that.   Well, maybe Elliot does.

      • Part of the ‘tea party’ response — the looney part — is from those who have a fantasy we can go back to 1950 or even 1776.
        Nobody suggests we “go back” in history.  But human nature…which the Founders understood remarkably well…is a constant.  There is no need to “go back”.  Rather, it is a matter of going forward with a Revolution they gave us, in preference to the French Revolution you love.

      • I don’t think even you guys want that.   Well, maybe Elliot does.

        You don’t know what I want, so you just make it up.  That’s pretty lame.
        What I want is for my choices to only apply to my life and to the lives of others with whom I have associations, but only in the capacity of voluntary, consensual relationships.  I don’t have grand plans for others.  I’d simply like for the people who consistently violate individual rights of others to stop doing so.
        I get the anger coming from particular anti-government groups, but I’ve made clear that I don’t want violence or collapse.  But you couldn’t resist lying about me, even when I hadn’t even made a comment on this article.

        • I’ve been reading a history of Farmington, Maine.  It incorporated in 1794, and the reason it did was to have the capacity to levy taxes to build an infrastructure so the town could prosper.  There was some dissent to taxation going to the feds when the Federalists made the states pay fees, but that went away quickly.   Even in the early days of our Republic, we realized taxes and community building was necessary.

          • Duh.
            What an IDIOT…!!!!  You have to read a history to get that, huh…  Prior to that epiphany, I’ll bet you thought there were free goods!!!!

          • I will note that you wrote not one word in defense of your accusation that I want widespread collapse and starvation.  Knowing you, that’s as close as I’ll ever get to an admission that you made that up about me.

            Even in the early days of our Republic, we realized taxes and community building was necessary.

            You weren’t alive in those days.  So “we” didn’t do anything.  And, by your very admission, there was dissent, so “they” didn’t “realize taxes … [were] necessary”.  You’re employing the Ambiguous Collective Fallacy, which seems to be all the rage in these comment sections.
            As I corrected Ragspierre on his use of the fallacy, when you say some group decided something, what you mean is that a subgroup came to an agreement and had enough power to force everyone else to comply (or, at least go underground and not stop their overall efforts).  And, you say that “taxes … were necessary”, but you don’t explain for whom they were necessary.  The subject of the verb need remains unspecified, for good reason: if you got into that, your argument gets watered down and starts looking more and more pointless.
            People can have voluntary associations without resorting to force.  In an individualist culture, people don’t turn into hermits.

            Richard Nikoley (here): There are different kinds of busybodys. There’s the kind that speaks with the “authority of the law,” presuming that most people will be just stupid enough to take seriously such “reasons,” and they’d be right. People always fail to draw the proper distinction between force and reason. Force is the circumvention of reason. Contre-reason is the raison d’être of force. Think about that. Long and hard. Where force exists, it is expressly because what is being forced is ultimately unjustifiable by reason. Oh, plenty of people try; but reasonable people differ. Did you get that: reasonable people differ. Therefore, they must be forced. They must be forced because they’re reasonable (and they differ, i.e., they are individuals).

            The law is a convenient device when you have no good reason for demanding something of someone; it’s none of your business; you’re too lazy to argue good reasons that may exist; and/or you actually prefer playing the brute and escaping the consequences that ought to befall you when you stick your nose where it doesn’t belong.

            You submit to force because it’s force, and you submit to reason, because…because it’s reasonable. Get it? Do you grasp the great gulf that exists between force and reason?

  • There’s no way to vote America out of the dilemma that it’s in. This is a country locked up in government and government bureaucracy. There can’t be a revolution at the ballot box if your freedom and property and income are constantly on the auction block.

    There is a peaceful pathway to another American revolution that would involve the restoration of a limited national government, but that peaceful pathway would likely cause violence from the people who are used to voting for a living, not unsimilar to the situation in Greece, but probably far worse.

    The secondary problem, after the problem with the national government, is the condition in many if not most of the states. They were never constrained by limited, enumerated powers and many of them have become completely detached from, well, reality. If you haven’t been following the news from New York State, you might have missed that it’s just as bad as California. It is all but officially bankrupt, and once again it’s the public employee unions front and center.

    So, because the national government is fundamentally a creature of the states, in the peaceful path to revolution it becomes a more difficult matter to reform the states — because each is in the American system a distinct and sovereign political society (and I am using the term “American system” to denote both the Constitutional and the pre-Constitutional state of the states).

    A revolution at the level of the national government would still require the new national government to meet, in one way or another, the obligations it has taken on to its citizens. But would proscribe any further accrual of such obligations. In other words, you get bought out of your Social Security “investment,” but no further obligations accrue.

    One thing that would definitely make sense would be the dissolution of Washington DC. Leave all the nice historical landmarks but return the land to Virginia and Maryland and move the capital around every ten years or so.

    But, in a very technical sense, and a very American sense, there is a way to take the whole thing apart and re-form the American political system. It could be done at a level much more basic than a Constitutional Convention, which in my opinion would be a mistake. You start with a Continental Congress, which would be unconnected in any way to the present government, and that would issue a new DOI and rewrite the Articles of Confederation. A very smart move would be to toss USSC jurisprudence as a whole. Just get rid of it, writing necessary provisions into the Articles that would recognize any principle worth recognizing that was within the scope of the newly limited government with newly enumerated powers.

    It would obviously get more complex than just a change of documents and methods, but I think that shedding government would be easier than anyone thinks. There’s just so bloody much government that its insinuation into every stitch of everyday life the biggest problem would be for people to cope with renewed freedom.

    But a new world of privatized life would bring with it a huge economic boom, as people sought to accomodate themselves privately with advantages previously sought through government.

    The problem of the transition from the present government under the Constitution to a new government under a revamped Articles of Confederation would necessarily involve resistance from what Angelo Codevilla has recently called the American Ruling Class. Well, I don’t care about them, and I don’t see an America where your property and income is on the auction block at every election to have any chance of continuing to remain America. There could be a whole succession of Obamas who gain and regain power under the present system, continuously moving it toward its totalitarian bottom.

    Obama is both a symptom of a long-stewing disease and the most forward expression of the disease we’ve seen so far. I’ve called him Our Allende.

    • There is only one sovereign remedy, namely, non-violent non-cooperation.  Whether we advertise the fact or not, the moment we cease to support the government it dies a nature death….

      Now, I get that there are limitations on that philosophy.  It worked with the British.  I would not have worked so well with the Japanese.
      The Ruling Class would literally have nothing to say about this kind of revolution in any active sense.  They could rail against it, sure.  But they could do nothing to stop it if it got started, short of outright violence.  Were that to happen, all bets would be off.

      • But Rags, if you had enough people so committed that they’d be willing to do that at probably a great personal cost, then they’d also be numerous enough to fund elections to alter things at the ballot box.   That’s your dilemma — without massive support a peaceful or violent revolution would fail.  If you had that support, you’d win without a revolution.   And if you want to dismiss the majority as somehow wrong or corrupted and think a small clique of right thinking folk should rule, well, I think you’d find the public supporting a crack down on those.   Seriously, you’re vastly over-estimating the level of support your point of view has.

        • So, your position is that “a small clique of right (sic) thinking folk” describes the Abolitionists, Suffragettes, and Civil Rights movement, to name a few?
          You at least suggest a testable hypothesis, which I’m willing to bet everything I have upon.
          What was the popular response to Prohibition BUT civil disobedience?  What do you think the popular response will be to ObamaCare?

          • Things don’t change until people change their thinking.   If you look at the history of revolutions, they usually don’t go well.  Even the US revolution was really a break away from Britain, retaining traditions similar to Britain (they already had an early democracy — the Monarchy gave up much of its power by then) and having the ruling class continue, albeit independent from Britain.   They almost always betray their goal.   But civil rights, equal rights for women, changes like that — people persuaded and when a majority agreed, political change via democracy and elections was possible.

        • And if you want to dismiss the majority as somehow wrong or corrupted and think a small clique of right thinking folk should rule, well, I think you’d find the public supporting a crack down on those.

          This is another tell-tale that you actually are stupid.  A civil disobedient…definitionally…CANNOT be a ruler.  A persuader, yes.  A leader, yes.  But, being utterly without POWER, they cannot compel anybody to do anything.
          Gawd, what a swindle you perpetrate on your “students”!

      • That, not the government, is the source of our liberty, our prosperity, our health, and our ability to pursue happiness. In fact, it is the government that now endangers the extended order itself, continuously placing burden after burden on it to the point where it could crack and come apart. Not another Depression, another Rome falling and a Dark Age.

        The extended order is what made America great. The government was just a rules committee. But now the government has become a corrupt business unto itself and an obsessive regulatory state. It sells itself like a drug to anyone who can’t take care of himself for five minutes and addicts him to it. We already have widespread social breakdown where government is the proximate cause in aiding and abetting human failing. Right now the number of children born out of wedlock in the U.S. is 70% among blacks, 50% among hispanics, and 30% among whites. That is catastrophic.

        Culturally it is difficult to tell how much strength American society has left in its bones because the government is so insididous. I think that the very worst element of the government(s) in the U.S. is the public schools. They are the source of multiform mischief. I knew for years that they were bad, but only in the past several years as I’ve watched the system in my community function have I really gotten a more fundamental and essential understanding of what rot they beget. It’s mind-boggling. I think that they were a miscue from the beginning but it took them decades to get the upper hand on society. They have the stink of the radical Left all over them now, and even where that is less obvious there is still something fundamentally wrong with their organization and structure, particularly in their creation of dysfunctional peer communities among teenagers. It’s called “socialization,” but it’s really institutionalization and it begets a general conspiracy against adult reality that now has intergenerational complications.

        • [Well, that comment got through, but I miscopied it without the first two paragraphs. So it doesn’t have a beginning. Here are the first two paragraphs.]

          I think it’s easier to just say, O.K., we’re going to plug America back into very limited government, and we’re going to do it by going back where we came from, dropping this big pig that’s developed over the past century, and reinstitute something like the original.

          Here’s the thing. We do not depend on this government. The reality is that we rely on our own efforts within the extended order of liberty. That’s our jobs, our incomes, our property, our self-defense, our private contracts, our buying and our selling, etc.

    • Rags: I can’t get my response to your comment through the filter. Haven’t found any dirty words in it, but it’s getting jammed up. It’s a great response, though. I’ll try again later.

  • The author is obviously unaware, as obviously those responding, of public record. The fact is public record shows a convention should have already been held and it is the deliberate action of Congress in refusing to obey the Constitution that has prevented it. See The states have applied already in sufficient number to cause Congress to call a convention. What most likely would be considered is in their applications which can be read on the FOAVC site. Go to the site and learn the facts. Then discuss what might happen based on the reality of the applications, not on speculation. Read the Constitution and realize getting any amendment through is a daunting task. There have been, according to public record, over 10,000 amendments proposed. Twenty seven have made it thus far or about .00001 per cent. That gives you some idea of the task and thus the already in place barriers intended to prevent much of what here is feared. A convention should not be feared. It is simply another method whereby the American people can freely, lawfully and constitutionally change their form of government and there is nothing to fear in that.

    • There are a lot of reasons that a Constitutional Convention could be disasterous.

      For starters, the people who would likely get control of it from the outset.

  • I guess that depends on what the definition of revolution is, but I don’t think we’re not anywhere close to a true revolution.  Or even a constitutional convention.
    A true revolution could be very dicey.
    Not only would we start with many, many entitlements enshrined in what ever ‘democratic’ government formed.  People have gotten used to the safety net.  Everyone but me can give up their scared cow.  There will always be the except around which we’ll make law (even though that’s proven over and over to be a disastrous way to enact law).  Don’t count on that changing.   The infighting would never end.  The new constitution would look like the tax code by the time it came to a vote.  Then we could add the tax code on top.
    And worse, we might wish for the good ‘ol days of the Obama (or Bush if you will) admin, should the wrong people come to power.
    I’m not happy at all with the direction that we’ve taken.  We are ruining our country, but serious talk of revolution, had better be taken much more seriously than it is when it’s tossed off like this.  How often does a true revolution happen and the country is better off than it was before the revolution?   How often?  By what measure?
    Sometimes it’s the devil you know.

  • Would that be the Constitution that our fearless leaders so elegantly and publicly pontificate over while having their staffs make confetti out of it in the boiler rooms of DC?

  • I don’t think that a revolution will take the form we imagine or might even hope for.  I doubt that most people will want to do anything drastic because for many of us, life here is still pretty good.  But we’re very quickly heading towards a future where money for entitlements may run out.  I will, again, point out that in Greece, when the government made necessary spending cuts in order to qualify for a bailout package designed to save their economy from collapse, angry citizens protested (in some cases violently).
    Think about that- their options were to either slash government spending and get help from the EU, or watch their economy collapse, and they took the better option– and people were furious at getting their entitlements cut (as opposed to lost entirely)!  If that is how they respond to a reasonable course of action, how do you think Americans will respond when entitlements suddenly disappear because government lied to them over and over as they built their rickety house of cards ever higher?
    On the bright side, it’ll finally motivate a lot of really lazy people to action…

  • So I stop by here for the first time in six months or so and the first thing I see is

    “I don’t see it in the offing at the moment,”

    Can’t think of a better example of why I stopped visiting. Your judgement has gone absolutely to hell.

  • I’ve got to hand it to you,Bruce McQuain, you do know how to stir up the pot. I love it. Great job.

  • By the way, how many of you would be revolutionaries are under 40?  Or even under 45?   The youth are of a different generation and mindset, and demographic change in the US has the older white male population relatively low.

    • So, you’re only skeptical about a renewal of American principles. In fact, those principles worry you: clear right and wrong, private property, small limited government.

      But you’re not skeptical or at all worried about the ongoing Marxist revolution working its way via Obama. That you think is just great. Huge bureaucratic takeovers of entire economic sectors. A regulatory state so pronounced that nothing can evade it. Big lootings like the Stimulus, which had nothing to do with stimulating the economy and everything to do smothering the recovery.

      The young coming out of your public schools and rotten universities are gonna find out pretty quick that the Marxist revolution has killed the goose that lays the golden eggs. They’ll turn on freaky dopes like you pretty quick, Scott. Pretty quick.

      A lot of people are really ready for some change they can believe in. That’s going to mean a return to doing the right thing and taking care of business, the essence of America. Your job is going to be getting out of the way and trying not to be noticed. Because absolutely no one needs what you are selling. No. One.

    • Erb’s comment is useful as a demonstration of the tactics of the left. Demographics is used as an explanation  for ideas. Proponents of big government always try to marginalize their opponents, whether it be old white males, Jews, the ‘Christian right’ , etc. 

      The ‘youth’  have always been of a different mindset than the older generation. People that rely on government also have a different mindset.  Exposure to self-reliance completely changes that mindset for most people.   That’s why Dems supported lowering the voting age to 18 under the guise that it was because they could be drafted, but consistently throw out absentee ballots from those that are actually in the military.

      Two-thirds of the signers of the Declaration of Independance were over 40. At a time when the average life span was 35. They were supported by the youth of that era because people were self-reliant at an earlier age. Do all life lessons have to be learned the hard way? For some people, yes. But for many, Martin hit on a key point. A large number of liberal arts teachers that are committed liars like Erb for the youth that remain in school and government handouts for the ones that don’t.

    • Would that be those unemployed youth with vast debts from college loans for courses such as”political economics” that have no earthly value in the real world?  Those guys who now feel lied to, moving back in with their parents, and realize the college debts are non dischargeable?   Yeah, I am sure they feel differently.

    • Still ANOTHER display of stupidity and ignorance, Erp?
      How old…especially relatively…were the Founders?  “The youth”…???  That’s like your “general economists” or “most academics”.  It means absolutely NOTHING, and is the cheapest of cheap rhetorical slime.
      A civil disobedience campaign by productive people…especially the MOST productive people (who tend to be older than “the youth”)…would bring this Collective to its knees in short order.   The productive HAVE to cooperate for this crap pile to work, and when they don’t   IT IS DONE.  (To paraphrase Gandhi).

      • I’m only pointing out that demographics are against the idea of a revolution, and the tea party reflects a small part of the population.   To compare it to a time when blacks were slaves and only white males had political power is funny.  We’d now reject the system the founders originally created as evil and undemocratic (what if Iraq had said “we want slaves, we don’t want our women to vote, etc.).   The founders were not god like!

        • The Tea Party has more support than the Congress, Scott.

          And the demographic shift is decidedly going to increasingly resent entitlements because they increasingly have to pay for them. The younger demographic is the group, once it comes out off the haze of being around stupid people like you and is out trying to earn a living, that will be funding the unfunded entitlement programs. They will want them bought out and privatized. And, no, the solution is not going to be killing their grandparents and parents off in the Obamacare death machine.

        •  The founders were not god like!

          And neither are the political elite we have in DC today.  And yet they malign those who oppose them as Racists and Traitors when just 24 months ago they were declaring to the world that opposition to the administration was the height of democracy.

          And you defend them.  So where does that put you in this equation?

        • Once again, an illustration of how the left relies on tactics over substance. Erb made an unsubtantiated claim about the demographics of a revolution. When an example is brought up that shows his claim is clearly wrong, what happens? Does he acknowledge his point may be false? No. Does he find a host of other revolutions to show that the American revolution was an exception? No .  He  justs throws out a random insult and puts up an argument against the founding fathers that has absolutely nothing to do with the original point.

          • What are you smoking, Phil.  Demographics of a revolution?  What wrong claims?   You’re making stuff up.

          • More classic tactics. Erb starts with an insult, moves on to complete denial of his own comments immediately above, then  projects his original action onto me.

  • Any revolution, a real revolution as opposed these cerebral revolutions in the minds of pols, will start out with something that looks more like the Lincoln County War. I’ve seen none of that.
    With all the changes that effect so much money, I’m surprised that there wasn’t been a real blood shed … they say for a few hundred dollars anybody can be …

  • The founding fathers knew in the course of human events there would come a time when the States must rise up and take back their power from a bloated federal government – that time is now.  Check out to see how we can make a difference.

  • I believe a revolution isn’t necessary.
    There are two real problems from which all the others stem.
    One is a dishonest 4th Estate.  If they were at least honest about their bias would all that it would take.  Then the public might wake from their sleep.
    The other is the allowing of financing of a campaign from outside an electorate’s geographical region.  Essentially the fact a candidate is financially and not just philosophically beholding to a Party and other external interests.

  • The welfare state is headed for the dustbin of history. That is certain because it is no longer sustainable. The critical question is what will replace it. As Mises pointed out, there are only two alternatives: freedom or totalitarianism. There is no middle ground. There is no political compromise that can bridge this gap.
    Regardless of which side of the issue you are on, the battle will be bitter and likely last a decade or more. Economically, everyone will be hurt, including many of the “well-off.” Whether our moral and ethical code is strong enough to get through this together is moot. We are not like our ancestors in the sense of their strong commitment to community, responsibility, forbearance, and integrity. We are the pampered generation, entitled to gratification now and willing to cut corners to get it.
    In many ways, this problem is more serious than that faced by our Founding Fathers. After all, King George had little control over their lives or fortunes. Yet these principled men risked both rather than accept even a little bit of tyranny. Theirs was a fight of principle; ours is one of survival. The fight is made more important when it is coupled with a depression. We know what monsters rose to power during the last depression and their effect on the world.
    We will either get liberty or totalitarianism. There is no middle ground. For me, the choice is clear and was stated by Patrick Henry more than two centuries ago: “Give me liberty or give me death.”

    I am willing to sacrifice just as much as our Founding Fathers did so that my grandchildren and their grandchildren can live in the same country I grew up in. I hope enough others feel the same.

    Read the whole thing.  That is a sentiment I’ve expressed many times, and there is a growing legion of people who feel the same.  There is a tipping point in the affairs of men, and we are very near it now.

  • Rags, you make a logical error — to say there is either “freedom or totalitarianism” is downright stupid.  In reality, all systems have different levels of and definitions of freedom.   You fantasize about everything falling apart, but the reality is that what we need is a rebalancing of the economy and adaption to globalism and the fact the US is no longer the dominant power.  We’ll do that, in pragmatic fashion.  Those like you who are lost in ideological fog are doomed to be disappointed, always thinking the masses are being manipulated, that you see the truth better than the evil ruling class lining their pockets or the “sheeple” going along with the herd.  That sense of superiority will feed your self-esteem, but keep you from getting off your high horse and actually dealing with the messy details of reality.   Faith in an “ism” is like a religion — it gives you a sense of purpose and certainty, but you have to take a leap of faith.

    • Gosh, dude…  Project much…!!!
      Ever read any history…BESIDES Zinn and his myrmidons, I mean…???

    • Erb: “Those like you who are lost in ideological fog…”

      Holy moly. Too stupid for tears. Academentia at its most smug.

    • Faith in an “ism” is like a religion — it gives you a sense of purpose and certainty, but you have to take a leap of faith.

      A leap you have obviously taken with your slavish admiration of the current administration and the direction they are taking this country.  As I said in an earlier prost – “And you defend them.  So where does that put you in this equation?”

      • Erp’s a post-modern, post-America, post-freedom-means-a-damn-thing, post-there’s-anysuchthing-as-your-money pragmatist jihadist.
        I mean, where have you been…out demonizing nice office-holders public servants or something…

  • Please check the links referred to here re: 2nd American Revolution:

  • Here’s tea party Islamophobia, Rick.  As for the unemployed youth with debt — many of them minorities — I bet they’ll follow the left.  As for the alleged strength of the tea party (they already are fading), I think you’re wrong, but we’ll know better after the next election or two.   If you’re right, I’ll give you credit.
    Rags, you completely ignored my point and fell into a bunch of insults.  I notice that if you can’t let something pass without hurling gratuitous insults thats a sign you know you lost the point but you don’t have the grace to admit it.   Your insults say more about you then about me.

    • If quoting you equates to “insulting you”, put me down as your “insulter”.
      A single piece by a Tea Party organization is hardly proof of a trend.  BTW, what part of that article do you take exception to?  Hmmm….???  Is opposing a “Muslim Day” Islamophobia?  Really?
      I ignore your “points” because they do not dignify a response…when they are even intelligible.
      Polling shows the youth vote becoming more and more conservative.
      Polling also shows the TEA Party movement more supported by Americans than is Obama’s Collective.

      • Who said it was proof of a trend.  It’s just the kind of thing that is giving the tea party a bad name.  I talk about this Islamophobia on my blog today.  I don’t believe you about the polling data; 2008 seems to show you wrong.    In fact, I think you’re claims about polling data are pulled out of the part of the body you’re sitting on.  You’re a lightweight, rags.

        • Obama is losing in a match-up against a generic Republican challenger by 37 percent to 34 percent among voters in the 18-34 age group, according to a stunning Quinnipiac University poll released yesterday.
          In March, voters in this group approved of Obama by 54 percent to 37 percent.
          “The youngest age group may be the most impatient and the most easily disillusioned among all age groups,” said Molly Andolina, a youth-vote expert and DePaul University political-science professor.
          Stick that…sideways…up the part of your body you are sitting on, puke.  It will scramble your “brains”.

      • You ignore my points because you are an inferior debator.  I’ve got you pegged, Rags.  😉

        • I make a living winning BIG, complex debates (they are called “lawsuits”) before actual people, Erp.
          I used your “points” to pin you to the wall, as anyone who can read knows, puke.

    •  If you’re right, I’ll give you credit.

      No you won’t.  You will just disappear the way you did the last time your ass got handed to you on a silver platter and you couldn’t hide from it anymore.  If memory serves, it was Basra, wasn’t it?

      Small steps there, Erb.  Small steps!!!

      • What the heck are you talking about SShiell.  I’ve been right on Iraq since 2003 when I mocked the plain to make it a model democracy and pro-American ally.   I supported the change of heart by the Bush Administration to stop trying to defeat the insurgency and co-opt it, as well as the embrace of realism (and rejection of neo-Conservatism) with Gates and Rice having more say.   I’ve been right on Iraq, and I was warning about Afghanistan worsening as early as 2005.  When I noted the Taliban was gaining power and becoming a renewed threat, I was mocked.  The Taliban was defeated, only an idiot would think they are still a problem, I was told.   No, SShiell, you’re claim is pure fantasy.

        • I’ve been right on Iraq . . .

          Just like you were right to call “The Surge” a complete failure a month before the first Surge Brigade was to arrive in Iraq.

          Just like you were right to call Sadr and his troops the winners when Malicki’s government troops drove them out of Basra.

          Small steps there, Erb.  Small steps!!!

        • “I’ve been right on Iraq since 2003 ”

          Careful there, slick.
          Unlike your site, comments on this site are not erased.

    • Definition of gratuitous;
      “without cause; “a gratuitous insult” ”

      Wrong again, Erb. These insults are for cause, thus not gratuitous.

  • Oh, and Rags — of course opposing a Muslim family day is Islamophobia, especially with the over the top rhetoric at that tea party website.   A church in Florida is having a “burn the Koran” day.  As I point out in my own blog, the tea party seems to be taking its queues from the Third Reich.

    • There you go, Scott. It’s always clear when you know you’ve lost another argument. The Third Reich makes an appearance. Usually with you accusing someone of being like Goebbels.

      Pretty funny. You can’t see a Marxist if he’s standing in front of you wearing a Che t-shirt and holding a copy of Mao’s Little Red Book, but the people who see right through your revolution have to be Nazis.

    • Maybe I am missing something but is there a “Christian Family Day” being celebrated in these United States.  Or is there a “Jewish Family Day” or a “Zen-Buddhist Family Day” or a “Shinto Family Day” or a “Zoarastrian Family Day” or even a “Reformed Druid Family Day”? (Note: For the uninformed among us, rather than having a requirement to worship trees, the reformed druid Church allows the worship of any old bush.)  So tell me why I should get all hot and bothered about a Muslim Family Day?

      A church in Florida is having a “burn the Koran” day.

      So the next time the Westboro Baptist Church protests at the burial of another Iraq/Afganistan casualty, we on can accuse you and the Left of Homophobia?  Code Pink and the WBC folks both protested the burial of an Afgan casualty in Virginia last week.  So you want to be labeled with those WBC people do you?

      As far as taking any cues from the Third Reich, why should the Tea Party take any cues from the Left Wing National Socialist Party?  You and yours on the left have been advocating those kinds of actions for years and when criticized said “These Protests are the highest form of Democracy.”

    • Anything less than Deliverance-reinactment-porking dhimmitude is Islamaphobia to you, Erp.
      Simple turn-around-test: Christian fundamentalist only day at the major amusement park of your choice.  Would you object?
      Since we know that there would be many in you camp who WOULD object, are they Christianophobes?
      I will now continue to breath, since I will not wait for anything LIKE an honest answer from a puke like you.

      • I would not object to Christian days, and I suspect there are celebrations of Christian holidays too.

        • “I will now continue to breath, since I will not wait for anything LIKE an honest answer from a puke like you.”
          And, as I predicted…  You are as constant as a fixed star, Erp.  Good to know there are some things…like your dishonesty…on which one can always depend.

        • I would not object to Christian days, and I suspect there are celebrations of Christian holidays too.

          That’s awful big of you, since you know a “Christian day” wouldn’t involve Six Flags pandering to the idea that women are second-class citizens who shouldn’t wear shorts in public.  (Well, maybe a Pentecostal day, if the company required female employees to wear long dresses and no makeup.  But that’s not what you meant, of course.)

    • …of course opposing a Muslim family day is Islamophobia, especially with the over the top rhetoric at that tea party website.

      A few salient points: Six Flags doesn’t have Buddhist family days or Christian family days, and the company has asked its employees to wear long pants on a hot day, apparently so the female employees don’t offend people who view women as second-class citizens who must cover their horribly sinful flesh in public.  Should they also ask their employees not to allow their shadows to touch Hindus, for fear that they might among those who still subscribe to the policy of “untouchability”?  Why not hide the black employees away from the public so the redneck visitors don’t get offended?
      Six Flags is a private company and they have every right to set the dress code for their employees.  But their way of handling this is a disgusting attempt to placate people with barbaric notions of keeping women covered so they know their place and they should be ashamed for giving any credence to such ideas.

      A church in Florida is having a “burn the Koran” day.

      As long as they pay for them, they can do what they want.  Do you have the same reaction to people who burn the American flag?
      As an atheist, I don’t think anyone should feel the need to treat a Koran, Bible, or other “holy” book any different than a Stephen King novel or a copy of Mad Magazine.  If there were a group of people who rioted and threatened beheadings to anyone who burned a picture of Alfred E. Newman, would you have a problem with the crazy, violent idiots or with the picture burners?  Isn’t it crazy that people in the Land of the Free are afraid to show images of Mohammed?  Yeah, I get the argument that it’s not nice to needlessly provoke people about things they hold dear, but not to the point of showing respect for sexist or violent ideas.

      As I point out in my own blog, the tea party seems to be taking its queues from the Third Reich.

      That’s a despicable lie.  The unusual actions of a few people who call themselves tea partiers is not typical of the general trend.  Not that I’m in any way supporting the various and sundry people and groups who call themselves tea partiers, because many of them don’t seem to have a good grasp of the principles involved and they’re foolishly trying to win back their freedom at the polls.
      One could take examples, like the Black Panther voter intimidation incident which far more resembled the activities of brown shirts than anything you’ve cited, to make the case that the Democrats are taking their cues (note the spelling) from Nazis.  But really, all that shows is that a relatively small subgroup of Democrats engages in over-the-top tactics.
      Frankly, I think a lot of things that political parties do have too many eerie similarities to groups who have done terrible things.  That’s yet another reason I don’t vote—a vote is an attempt to lend your authority (stamp of approval) to some “representative” who will act on your behalf.  But once the polls close, you have very little influence.  You wanted “hope” and “change” but you’re getting a good dose of Mussolini-style fascism (government domination of big businesses), and a heaping helping of European-style socialism (Health Care Deform, anti-small business regulations and taxes).
      Even the freaking Pledge of Allegiance, which I recited mindlessly when I was younger, now strikes me as disgustingly similar to other countries who never were the Land of the Free.

  • It is of interest to speculate WHY people revolt against their government.  I suggest that the basic cause is that they come to feel that it is abusive to the point of illegitimacy.  Look at our own Declaration of Independence: once past the noble language about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, one gets to a laundry list of complaints about what George III was doing – or NOT doing – that offended the patriots’ sense of propriety.  By refusing to do that which they felt he SHOULD do as well as doing that which they felt he should NOT do, George made himself illegitimate in American eyes.  Happily for them (and us), they were able to throw him off.

    Is there, then, a general feeling that our national government has become so abusive and, hence, illegitimate?

    Not yet.  Yes, many Americans could make up a laundry list of things that they believe the federal government should / should not be doing.  But so long as the ballot box is still operating and most Americans believe that elections are fundamentally honest, I don’t think that there will be a revolt.  Rather, people will reach a point where they’ve had enough and vote for change as they did in New Jersey*.  I’m waiting for the people of California to – eventually – follow suit.  They tried when they elected Ah-nold; I think they will have to try again.

    As for a constitutional convention, I have come to fear that like the pit of hell.  jpm100 puts his finger on it:

    [T]he special interests would love the opportunity.  They are far better equipped to hijack such a meeting.  I recall when the Canadians finalized their Constitution after severing their last superficial ties of English Control in the 1970’s/1980’s time frame.  The ‘contributors’ were a whose who of radical activist groups and special interests.

    Can you imagine people like The Dear Golfer, Pigface Waxman, Bawney Fwank, Paul Krugman, that troll Kagan, The Justice Brothers, and others like them writing a constitution?

    Article MCLVI – The right of the people to drive an automobile powered by renewable energy costing not more than 75% of the poverty line shall not be infringed.

    No, thank you!  Let’s start enforcing the Constitution that we have before we start making a new one.


    (*) I suggest that the election of ’08 was not quite the vote for change that the dems would have us believe.  First of all, Bush was smeared like few presidents have been smeared in our history.  Second, The Dear Golfer’s entire history was (pardon the expression) whitewashed.  People were tricked into voting against a phony reality in favor of another phony reality.  The backlash against The Dear Golfer and the bloodbath his odious party is predicted to suffer in November are, I think, evidence that the American people are realizing that they were flimflammed.

  • The author talks about a convention but does not mention the states have already applied in sufficient number to cause a convention call. The applications can be read at There are a lot of different issues the states have asked for and they would make a major difference in our nation. Anyone serious about this subject needs to study them.

  • Sure, the Constitution was great while it lasted.
    But perhaps the larger decline has been in the American culture? Think about it. The Soviet Union — a corrupt, communist state — had a public school system that would still far surpass, in standards and academic performance, our American public schools anyday. A far bigger revolutionary/leftist/Marxist slant permeated its classrooms, and yet our schoolchildren could not and still cannot compare (academically-speaking!).
    Now I’m not saying the Soviet Union was a good nation, but it did have one central strength that America lacks: CULTURE. For all its state-wide corruption, an adherence to “culture” across various institutions amid all the potential for corruption is what enabled institutions such as Soviet public education to, relatively-speaking, succeed.
    Sure, it may be nice to discuss “radical [leftist/socialist] activists” and possible libertarian “revolution” every now and then, but…(time to get to the point)…
    There will be NO revolution until a massive, cultural shift occurs throughout the American public.
    Rather than discussing the technicalities of “planning a libertarian revolution”, a better question may be how to reverse the growing socialist/anti-free-market/government-should-do-everything trend that’s popular (now) in American culture.
    (Hold all the “Constitutional Conventions” you wish…any “libertarian” progress will be reversed in a matter of weeks seeing where our culture’s headed anyway…)