|
In March of 1917 the nation of Russia was embroiled in a hugely unpopular war. To fight World War One the Russian people were paying dearly in terms of lives and life's necessities. Due to an extremely harsh winter, a deepening famine added insult to injury. In spite of these conditions, the world seemed appalled when a revolution tore Russia apart.
Russia's 300 year old ruling dynasty, The Romanovs, had more than enough time become insulated against the needs of the common people. As a result Nicholas was forced to abdicate to a Socialist, Menshevik Government in the hands of Alexander Kerensky. Yet Kerensky failed to end Russian involvement in World War One, so the difficulties did not end. The fatal result was a Bolshevik Communist revolution in the autumn of that same year…. And (to make a very long, very complicated story short) the USSR disappeared behind the Iron Curtain.
The seeds of what happened in Russia in 1917 are present in the United States today. A hugely expensive, immoral war is sapping the lives and resources of this nation and natural circumstances have caused a wave of need throughout the land.
The Bush's, like the Romanov's and then the Mensheviks, have violated the social contract that they have with their people. Most Bush supporters claim that national security and moral issues are the basis for Bush's "mandate." They actually believe that this President's agenda will rescue them from some sort of "pre-moral," natural state. This will mean their deliverance to a prosperous and moral future where self-reliance is paramount. They need to re-read John Locke.
Our natural state was anything but pre-moral. According to Locke, families and small communities live in a natural state. Everyone is equal and indispensable. There is a mutual respect for each other's natural rights. When the members of "this" community join with the members of "that" community to form a political state they surrender some of their liberties in exchange for the protection of their Natural Rights. In the natural state the community's elders or adults hold the powers of protection and punishment. In a political state the government must act in that capacity. The Bush Administration's perceived morality was not the only reason for its re-election. Many Americans believed in its supposed ability to protect our Natural Rights and us.
It is ironic that it is in this duty of protection that the Bush Regime, like the Romanovs, has failed so miserably. Katrina has shown us that this administration seems willing to sacrifice the health and lives of the citizenry for their agenda. Their "odd" interpretation of and disregard for the Fourth Amendment serves as evidence that the Bush Administration is anything but intent on protecting our liberties. Morality and responsibility were claimed as the hallmarks of the GOP vision, yet again and again there have been deep cuts in programs that would have improved infrastructure and made the poor more self reliant. In further violation of the Social Contract, the President as repeatedly sought to shift blame for the many failures from his desk to the nearest liberal. How moral or responsible is that?
Thomas Jefferson, in his commentary on the Social Contract known as The Declaration of Independence, acknowledged that the power of government comes from the people. In the event that that power is abused it must return to the people so that they can form a new government.
In 1994 the GOP came out with a platform that won them political control of the country, "The Contract With America." In their version of the Social Contract they revealed an agenda to push the country to the "Right." The Conservative Revolution they outlined and worked so ardently for has caused wreck and ruin in this land in the years since. I saw evidence of this in the faces of the people at the Superdome and in the New Orleans Convention Center. I saw more, larger, far left wing groups getting the attention of average folks at the September 24, 2005 Anti-war March in Washington DC. This was something I had not seen at any march before. I was overjoyed by the winds of change in the air, and they were NOT coming from the right.
Does this mean that I am advocating Socialist Revolution in the United States? No. I think that ultimately the health care and non-renewable resource industries as well as education may have to be nationalized to protect the American people from the likes of Dick Chaney and Ken Lay. But I also still agree with Jefferson's assertion that going too far off the beaten path can cause more problems than it solves. Just ask the Iraqis. We are more fortunate in many ways than the Russians were in 1917. For one thing, we have mechanisms for political change that they did not. But I would say this to Conservatives who have pushed their agenda a little too hard in hopes of bringing on a "Socio-political" revolution: "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it…. In reverse"
By Kathy Wilson
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
