Why aren't more Americans violent revolutionaries?

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Mr. policraticus asked the forum a July 4th question regarding to what causes any of us would pledge our lives, liberty and sacred honor in the context of modern America. He also, quite rightly to my sensibilities, stated that Thank God nothing of such consequence, requiring a pledge like this, faces us today. However, that concept did get me thinking about our relative lack of political violence in America (as opposed to criminal and random violence) given that we are in a period of fairly extended, hyperbolic rhetoric from the extremes of our body politic and the somewhat large numbers of people who say they believe fairly dire matters in our national health.



It is true that there has been violence aimed at abortion providers and clinics where they work. And while I do want to downplay the human toll of 8 known murders, 41 bombings and 193 arsons and a host of threats, I do wonder why that level of violence is so low compared to the number of abortions in the U.S. and the number of people who believe abortion should be banned under all circumstances. The numbers are clear: 20% of Americans believe abortion should be banned totally, and that number has never been lower than 12% since 1994. That means that, for all intents and purposes, roughly a fifth of the country believes that over a million MURDERS are committed each year in the nation's abortion providing clinics.

With that in mind, the level of violence seems, per capita, to be quite low. The level of street activism itself seems low. I am not a genius political activist, but it seems to me that a few million dedicated anti-abortion activists could all but shut down abortion providers without resorting to violence protest if they merely relied upon the tactics of civil disobediance. If they truly believe we are murdering a MILLION innocent lives every year, and with the protection of the state to boot, why don't more people in that 20% take to the streets?

It is a question that other political positions held by minorities in the body politic that still amount to millions of adherents raises as well. While thankfully shrinking in number, 10% of the country still thinks it is "likely" that President Obama is foreign born and, therefore, an usurper to the legitimate office of the Presidency. 15% of the country still finds it "credible" that the World Trade Center towers were brought down on purpose by explosives which would make the attacks of 9/11/01 one of the most terrifying conspiracies of any supposedly free government against its own people.

I don't know how many Americans ultimately agreed with this sentiment:



But it was certainly a theme that found legs among many of my fellow leftists. Similarly, this gentleman:



Seems to reflect the views of a portion of our electorate that our government has reached levels of tyranny that justify revolutionary solutions.

But do people really believe that? The rhetoric and the imagery is surely inflammatory, and there is a risk, of course, of some people cloaking themselves in that rhetoric to try to justify acts of violence. But how close are we to the gentleman in that picture organizing a brigade to occupy a hill and dare the government to dislodge them? Some people have huffed and puffed that they are doing some things along those lines, but so far, they have failed to create a mass swell of people willing to lay down their lives, their liberty and their sacred honor much the same way that other movements occupying fairly extreme positions in the body politic have failed to do so.

I am left, as an observer of American politics and an active participant since I cast my first ballot in 1988, to conclude there are three posibilities:

1) These people don't believe things are really as bad as they say they are and cynically use hyperbolic rhetoric to gain supporters.

2) These people believe these things, but fail to truly appreciate the implications and natural conclusions of their rhetoric.

3) These people believe these things, appreciate the implications of their rhetoric...but are cowards unwilling to risk much of anything in the face of what they characterize as mass murder, usurpation of the Constitution and tyrrany.

Comments

[dwer.livejournal.com]

two other options:

1) People believe these things, but are too lazy to do anything other than bitch about it on facebook
2) People believe these things, but know that the continuation of these things drives a lot of money into fundraising, so they're only interested in having the argument ad nauseum, rather than actually "fixing" the issue.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I have a cousin who is one of my Facebook friends, but I've long since hidden her. The reason is that she is a full on Alex Jones enthusiast and when she isn't posting macros about Building 7, she is posting links about chemtrails or links about how Monsanto is not merely a case of worisome business practices but a tool of the Rothschild conspiracy to wipe out 90% of mankind.

But before I hid her, I had to wonder: if you believe there is this much evil in the world and it is so hell bent on destroying us all, why the fuck are you going to the beach?

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

That man does not look gentle to me. He has a deadly weapon strapped to one of his extremities and he is holding a sign that supposedly threatens brutality. Thug or gang banger may be more appropriate terms.

I'll add to the list with:

4) These people believe these things and are hoping for a lifetime prescription of brain damaging pharmaceutical devices.
5) These people do not really believe these things, but hope to get laid by appearing to be macho.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

So if he were concealed-carrying, he would be half as threatening, would he?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I think the issue is that those who are deeply into conspiracy theories are rarely with it enough to actually act on them, or, worse(?), afraid to act in the event that they are then retaliated against themselves.

A weird example, but bear with me - I watched the documentary Resurrect Dead (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1787791/) last night, about the Toynbee Tiles (http://www.damninteresting.com/the-mysterious-toynbee-tiles/). The documentary effectively narrows down the tiler to a guy who has effectively sequestered himself into his home in a fit of extreme paranoia, boarding the windows and putting a large iron bar across his door, except at night to drop these tiles onto the street. He first started with sending the media information, papering the streets, and that didn't work, so then he tried driving around with a shortwave radio to break into television broadcasts during the news, and that didn't work, so he moved to tiles. One of the tiles indicts the media into trying to murder him in order to keep the resurrection of the dead on Jupiter a secret, and the timing goes right along with a house break in over a noise disturbance at the same time. Those who believe legitimately crazy things (like birtherism, or trutherism, or the Illuminati, or whatever) generally aren't the types who can actually accomplish anything. Yes, occasionally an Alex Jones leaks into the world. Occasionally we see someone actually act (like the Tiller murderer or the guy who shot up Focus on the Family), but, for the most part, it's a lot of quiet talk (or what's believed to be quiet talk) because it's all their capable of due to whatever mental illnesses they may have.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Maybe my inclusion of Birthers and Truthers is a mistake as they are so easy to see as on the fringe of loopiness.

But what about anti-abortion activists? I'm not suggesting that they don't believe what they believe if they are not KILLING people. But what about street activism and blockades? Operation Rescue did their "Summer of Mercy" in 1991 in Wichita and rather withered under intense backlash leading to the anti-blockade act in 1994. But I am rather shocked that there were fewer than 20 prosecutions a year under the act during the remainder of Clinton's term.

20% of the country believes abortion should be banned under all circumstances. Surely, a portion of that percentage believes it is worth taking a personal risk to stop mass murder. Why aren't there 10s of 1000s or even 100s of 1000s of activists ready to take that risk?

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

I think they truly believe these things, but only because they've been presented an incomplete argument by monied interests. Propaganda works, especially on people who aren't very smart or not accustomed to critical thinking. As for why they aren't taking the next step, they're either consciously or subconsciously aware of several factors:

1) They're a distinct minority since most people are not disaffected enough to resort to violence.
2) Because of #1, the domino effect they want or need to happen for a successful coup would likely never manifest.
3) Therefore, as soon as a bloody rebellion begins, it would be over 15 minutes later due to being vastly outgunned.

It's either that, or it's because the chemtrails are making us lazy and subservient.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

You might want to peruse What's the Matter with Kansas? by [forgot first name] Frank. He asks exactly this. Why is a labor and farm radical state of bygone days now thoroughly conservative and not activist at all? What changed? Gone are the days when Kansas farmers implored people to "raise less corn and more hell."

You're right, there has been a phase shift in recent decades. I'll posit one possibility.

It has been observed that people gather, march and protest in general to regain what they think has been or soon will be lost. As I pointed out above, the anti-choice crowd has been winning big in recent decades, so there's no reason for them to get nasty, not right now. The rest of us have been enjoying a historically unprecedented rise in our standards of living thanks to the harnessing and use of cheap fossil fuels. Ever since the turn of the century, ever improving transportation, coupled with electricity delivery to just about everyone, has given us the lives of kings in ancient times, only better.

Yes, there are still injustices abounding and inequities to slay; but why rock the boat too much? I'm a perfect example. I work four hours a day, own a house in a great neighborhood with The Wife™, and live pretty comfortably all things considered. Paid vacations, two cars, kitty; as long as I don't go nuts spending, life is good. I also fully expect this will change, perhaps soon.

The world supply of liquid petroleum peaked in 2005. It has been steadily declining since. The Arab Spring uprisings? I wonder why the media didn't happen to mention that those initial gatherings and protests were as much food riots as miracles of F@c#book; food prices doubled just before the gatherings, largely due to dwindling oil supplies and the effect such has on food delivery.

We have yet to endure the deprivations of even the 1970s, strangely enough. Yes, there are stress cracks in our economic system; but so far, crisis has been largely averted.

So far.

As soon as things really start collapsing, I think we'll start seeing how far people are willing to go.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Where do you work, and are they hiring?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

While I agree on the whole with your reply, I just want to say how much I despised that book.

It takes a staggering amount of hubris to think that you understand a entire class of peoples "interests" better than they do and a certain myopia to think that petroleum workers as a whole will decide that they are better off unemployed than working non-union jobs.

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

An interesting topic. It may help explain why I, personally, do not do this yet seeing as how I see the entire state and capitalist hierarchical system as an undesirable coercive imposition built on deception, exploitation, domination and predatory violence, even though I do not fit into any of the issues posted about in the OP. I do see violent insurrection as a necessary part of the needed revolutionary process, both in self defense of those working to create the peaceful alternative structures necessary to care for and expand a revolutionary movement as well as fight back against and end the oppression of institutions and groups who have not hesitated to use violence themselves to enforce their will on the rest of us all over the world and who will use all their coercive power to repress, divide and destroy any meaningful revolutionary movement which arises to oppose them.

However, I do hold the maxim true that--the only ones who should kill are those who are willing to be killed. I am not a coward, but I do consider myself a strategic thinker. And I will not intentionally go out in stupidity and make my death a meaningless, senseless one that fails to effect even the barest modicum of meaningful, beneficial revolutionary change.

1. In truth, there are not enough people who truly feel that way and will back it up with determined, courageous, self-sacrificial action when the hammer falls, not even to fight for their own liberation, much less in defense of the people in general. Most of whom, while naturally dissatisfied with the bare inequalities, abuses and corruption of the present system, fail to do the research necessary understand the root causes or embrace the radical notions necessary to end them.

So because of the lack of strength in numbers or a leaderless but coordinated movement willing to take up arms clandestinely (there is no U.S. equivalent to the Greek Revolutionary Cells of Fire Conspiracy for example), I do not think there is enough hope for success. That said, what the media calls violence in protest ("property damage" or "self defense against cops" for example) is something which is ongoing and necessary, though there is still a stigma among the more establishment left for its bad media portrayal. But despite all the stones and gas canisters thrown back at the cops, none of the protesters ever pull out a 45mm or even a 9mm and stop a policeman from killing (yes killing) a protester from his incessant beating, because they know it would open up the entire protest to a hail of gunfire which would cost lives and make a tragedy.

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

(cont)

2. Also, I do not believe the U.S. has had enough public education and revolutionary groundwork laid so that if the institutions of oppression in power were completely removed, the people would have the wherewithal and revolutionary education through struggle to create the kind of free and equal society we desire without it devolving into some petty dictatorship or Somalian parody. It is intrinsic if we want to achieve our revolutionary goals, to connect with the majority of people and show them the ills of capitalism, statism, hierarchy, patriarchy etc. and provide revolutionary contexts where they can begin to get involved in meaningful ways and where they can learn things like direct action, face to face democracy, community organizing, security culture which would help ensure that the society we build after the insurrection is over continues to strive for true freedom and equality rather than lies and violence.

So I write this kind of stuff and talk with people more than I do target practice (though I do that too :D)

3. Were such an insurrection undertaken, unless one could secure mass desertions from the armed forces and law enforcement, have support from the majority population and take out key leaders, it would be against incredibly tall odds (surveillance, infiltrators, false flags, WMDs, sheer overwhelming military technology) and very bloody. Unless the population could keep its determination and taste for revolution, they would lose their nerve after too much of this.

But if everything there lined up and created the perfect storm it might be possible. I definitely believe its desirable and going to be necessary to prevent the human rights, ecological and economical atrocities which the systems in power will continue to engender.

I though it might be helpful to hear someone who does think this way give my answer.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I would like to add my 3 cents worth.

1) Age
2) Marital status
3) Conservative nature.

Note: These are generalities and I know everyone out there (including me) can point out exceptions.
Note 2: These are mostly addressed to why anti abortionists TEND not to be violent

1) Large demonstrations seem to be mostly inhabited by the young (tea party aside) and the young tend to be more liberal. In this case, more accepting of the idea of abortion.
2) It is amazing how less activist one becomes when one has the responsibility of a family. I don't recall ever seeing a walk for life that wasn't 75% female. The only real confrontations (locally) that I recall were verbal and it involved a few of the teenaged boys that were on the anti side.
3) As a rule conservative people tend to be, well, conservative, even the conservative activists I know (and no, of course I don't know every one) really believe that you change things with ballots not bullets; and Jeff is correct, we do believe we are winning.

note 3: regarding *malasadas'* 20 percent, I do not dispute the number, but I would submit that of the 20% who believe ALL abortion is killing an unborn child the vast majority are women; and I'm sorry but I really can't see a bunch of moms and grand-mas leading a violent revolution. That is not to say they wouldn't be capable, heck threaten one of our grand-kids and my wife (who is totally terrified of guns) will cut you long, wide, deep and continuously. More seriously, these type of people tend not to be violent in their militancy, they tend toward CPCs unwed mother homes and adoption.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

As a rule conservative people tend to be, well, conservative, even the conservative activists I know (and no, of course I don't know every one) really believe that you change things with ballots not bullets; and Jeff is correct, we do believe we are winning.

You are talking, I believe, about SANE conservatives. The birthers cannot possibly believe they are winning as a) Obama won reelection and b) they have not a single court win under the belt. And THIS fellow (http://melvin_udall.livejournal.com/) does not believe he is winning. He believes he is in a life and death struggle where the consequences of losing an election to the Democrats are not that will have to see policies he disagrees with put into effect and an economy burdened with ill thought out legislation, but that those Democrats will actively work to destroy the country and that he is personally at risk for persecution, imprisonment and murder.

His response to this dastardly plan to undermine the Republic and replace it with a gulag?

He tweets quite a lot.

Does that make the least amount of sense? Either he does not believe what he says and says it merely for partisan gain or he believes what he says and is a coward.

Regarding the anti-abortion forces:

I won't dispute this: More seriously, these type of people tend not to be violent in their militancy but I tried to suggest that they don't have to be violent to live up to their beliefs, but I still don't understand. My point is largely this: I keep trying to wrap my head around how I would act if I sincerely believed that there were a MILLION murders in this country that had state blessings and I keep coming to the idea that I would be organizing direct action to get the millions of people who agreed with me to, peacefully, make it impossible for the clinics to operate.

And I cannot understand how the clinic protection law in 1994 could have possibly shut that down so effectively with mere arrests and fines.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

When it comes down to it, people just aren't pissed off enough. Why do something extreme and extremely dangerous when you still have a job, a car, a house, food, etc? Best to just talk about revolution against the ebil, ebil Liberals for now and make do.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

The above isn't necessarily a call for violence or revolution.

A thing to consider is, none of those who call for action necessarily believe that violence or bloodshed will fix the deficit, or bring about a positive or necessary change.

They agree that we need reform and our current path is unsustainable.

But when it comes to what specifically should be done, we are far from having a consensus there.

And in terms of action, it doesn't necessarily entail a revolution waged by guns and war as it could imply peace public protest and other less militant means.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm curious -- since the "tree of liberty" is refreshed by the blood of patriots and tyrants (http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_liberty...(Quotation)) how exactly does that blood get to the tree absent some sort of violence? Jefferson was writing about Shay's rebellion, so I doubt it is purely metaphorical.

[evildevil.livejournal.com]

http://8020vision.com/2011/02/05/what-feeds-a-revolution/

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

Is it really a question, whether banning abortion or imposing some other ideological dogma is worth losing thousands of lives for, in an armed revolt?

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

The question for abortion is why the segment of the population that believes a million murders happen a year in this country do not do more direct action civil disobedience.

Can you imagine believing that and being satisfied with nibbling at abortion via legislation instead of sitting in front of a clinic with 1000 other like minded people?

As for violent responses -- if people who listen to Alex Jones believe what he says, I cannot understand why they are not more violent, honestly.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

In a way I'm kind of thankful that most Americans don't act on their revolutionary fantasies. Otherwise, you know, we might be seeing more car bombs and stuff.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

This.

"Try to learn instead of burn" - Jimi Hendrix

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

In addition to dwer's 2 additional options, there's also:
6) People believe these things but their lives are still comfortable enough that they don't need/want to join a protest movement that would essentially end with jail. Or their spouses won't let them.

And I certainly would never expect a mass uprising over abortion. It'll be over actual tyranny.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I'd argue that it's because to get a bunch of Americans to agree on a common cause requires one of two potential actions: invent a non-issue that's blown out of proportion, or engage in ruthless discipline backed by Terror to make the herd of cats co-operate. American terrorism at present tends to favor the lone wolf over the group, but I'm not sure how much that's an artifact of the media reporting on more successful plots by individuals as opposed to plots by groups stopped before they get off the ground. Then there's the whole reality that these things haven't really worked out that well the last times they've been tried with the singular exception of the bloody 1870s. And then only because it targeted black people, not white people to any equivalent degree.

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

The difference is now that they're armed and dangerous, OMGZ teh wingnutz!11!

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Seems to reflect the views of a portion of our electorate that our government has reached levels of tyranny that justify revolutionary solutions.

But do people really believe that?

This combat veteran does.



An outlier to be sure, but very disturbing.

Also, Dr. Tiller is dead. So many threatened, now worried for their lives. Seems pretty real.

Perhaps even some have a strong ethic that these problems cannot be solved through violent means.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

"Also, Dr. Tiller is dead. So many threatened, now worried for their lives. Seems pretty real."

So shouldn't we be grateful that more of the "20%" aren't cowards? (actually this is more addressed to malasadas than you)