The Pendulum of democracy.

[Nathan]

For a while I a have been toying around with the idea that nearly everything works as if it is a pendulum as far as social trends go.  For instance if you look at environmentalism you will see that right now it is declining.  In my opinion it is near the top of what it will be and it will decline for a while.  My evidence for this is that looking back about 30-40 years ago you will see that there was a lot of environmentalism. and at a point it started declining only to rise again later.  I think a much more important pendulum to look at however is democracy.  Let me first say that this pendulum moves much much slower than the environmental one.  This pendulum also is made of two smaller pendulums that of government action in the economy, and in social issues.

Look at the beginning of America, there is very little involvement of the government in the economy and we are very conservative as far social issues go, these are two parallel pendulums. Looking at the issue of government involvement in the economy this policy of no involvement worked for a while. But then later you get people like Carnegie and Rockefeller who take advantage of the system and end up causing serious problems. (Workers dying weekly, terrible working conditions, low pay, and high prices for their products.)
While they would be making tons of money the workers would be getting paid less than a dollar a week.  Here you have motivation to push for governmental action, which after a time works and now in America trusts and tycoons are illegal.  This pattern continues, the workers feel oppressed by something that their bosses do and eventually get government action on it.  You can see it even today with all the many many many many many requirements that the government has on businesses.  For instance, minimum wage is ALWAYS increasing even though the long and short term effect of this is that jobs will be cut. 

Moving over now to the pendulum relating to governmental action on social issues.  Once again at the start of America you see that there is very little action, people are free to do what they choose and this causes little problem.  The problem comes from no governmental action in regards to the poor.  Of course this relates closely back to the economic issues such as minimum wage.  However the main cause of increases in programs to help the needy is the need for a politician to get elected. 

In George Orwell's book 1984, he details how every single rebellion in all of history involves the middle class using the lower class to overthrow the upper class and then pushing down the lower class.  In America and any democratic society we have a different situation.  The upper class (usually) has to appeal to the lower class for help to gain power over all of the classes usually in the form of promising tax cuts, reforms that benefit them and more programs to help the lower class.  Once this happens however the lower class still maintains the majority of power because there are always more people in the lower class than any other class otherwise society would collapse.  So instead of the lower class being pushed down as they normally would they maintain control.  Now the politician has to enact or at least appear to try to enact some of his policies.  No politician can cancel any of the policies made by his predecessors because it will cause the lower class to become upset and they won't be elected or stay in office.

So this problem builds upon itself continually, the overall effect of the two pendulums working together in this case is that the government gains more and more control.  The problem with a pendulum however is that the force that comes from its release at the top of its arc carries it straight through the point of equilibrium.  So while at one point I'm sure we were at a good point as far as government action in the economy and in social issues we swung right past it and will continue to swing in that direction until the force of gravity pulls us right back down and to the other direction.

Conclusion:  The pendulum of democracy, made up of government involvement in society and economy swings from totally free no involvement to inevitable socialism.

So here is the question.  At what point is there too much governmental action and is it even possible for it to reverse without some type of actual revolt, as opposed to the civilized revolts we have in the form of election?'

Sorry this is so wordy, but I had to pack in a lot of information.

[Ponch]

At what point is there too much governmental action and is it even possible for it to reverse without some type of actual revolt, as opposed to the civilized revolts we have in the form of election?'

Governments can always be overthrown (assuming they don't simply collapse from internal decay at some point). But civilized revolt is always preferable to violent overthrow. Nine times out of ten, when you topple your leadership by force of arms, you wind up with something just as bad, if not worse, than you had before the revolution started.

When do you know the time for revolution has come? When it happens. It's not the sort of thing that happens on schedule. In fact, revolution is always on the horizon. There are always people talking about change: either going back to the ways things were (usually an idealized yesterday that never really existed) or going forward into some sort of "better tomorrow" utopia (which never seems to deliver the unicorns and rainbows as promised).

In either case, these visions of the future always involve killing those who oppose you and then dragging everyone who didn't have an opinion in the first place along for the ride, whether they want to go or not. (In my country, the US, most colonists didn't really want to revolt against the crown. But enough of them did want it, and at just the right time too, so that a revolution happened).

I don't think it's fair to say that the people who didn't want to go along with Henry, Jefferson, Franklin and the rest were happy with the way things were (though some certainly liked it), it's just that most people are uncomfortable with too much change too quickly. And overthrowing the rule of the British Empire at the peak of its run to strike off on our own was clearly a hell of a lot of change.

Authoritarianism is sort of the default setting for human society for as far back as we have history. The concept of freedom (not individual liberty, which came much later) was a hell of a leap forward for our species, but it seems to have been a good one. Since The Enlightenment, freedom of one sort or another has been slowly spreading around the world. But personally, I think lots of people talk about freedom more than they actually want (too much of) it.

It seems to me that, at our core, a great many of us prefer to have somebody else making most of our decisions for us -- that way we have someone to blame should it all go wrong. This is where the mob comes from. If you can harness the power of them (as Mao did), then you can move mountains. But you don't necessarily need them either. If they'll just stay out of the way (like many of the New Englanders did during the American Revolution) then you can deliver change to them after all the heavy lifting is done -- and hopefully it will be a change they want. Otherwise, you've got a new revolution a'brewing.

The truth of it, I suspect, is that most of us just want to live our lives as peacefully as possible. Revolution is an easy thing to talk about until you're older, have a home, a family, a place in society and all those other things that would be jeopardized by overthrowing the status quo (this is why people become more conservative as they age and radical voices usually find acceptance in young crowds). However, get enough people angry about something and let it simmer long enough, and no government can stand against them (though it helps if the government doesn't control all the guns).

What sort of society they make after the smoke clears depends greatly on what sort of people they were going into the revolution and the reasons they had for starting it in the first place.

I teach history for a living and every year I always have students who love to talk about taking on (and often talk of overthrowing) the system. I said the same things when I was their age. I loved punk rock, wore a "No Future" T-Shirt, the whole thing. I always listen to them with a warm sense of bemusement, because talk of revolution is just that: Talk. That's all it ever is. Until the day comes, I suppose, when the revolution finally arrives.

Here in the States, we're probably overdue for one (since there's no frontier to which anti-social types like myself can escape). But personally, as much as I think it's going to happen sooner or later, I hope I'm not around to see it. I'm too old for that sort of nonsense.

Just my two cents. Hope that answered your question.

- Ponch

[Nathan]

How then can the rebellion begin?  If talk is always just talk then how would any rebellion begin.  It seems to me that the tension just continues to build and build and build and build up until the point where one man breaks it and let's hell rain down.  Except for the case of the French Revolution. 

And how do you draw lines for a conflict like this.  Would it be a rebellion or a civil war?  I distinguish the two with the idea that a rebellion is relatively quick whereas a civil war is prolonged. (I don't know if that is the actual definition)  If it's a civil war how are sides drawn?  I really don't know how this would work at all...

[loominous]

The pendulum of democracy, made up of government involvement in society and economy swings from totally free no involvement to inevitable socialism.

So here is the question.  At what point is there too much governmental action and is it even possible for it to reverse without some type of actual revolt, as opposed to the civilized revolts we have in the form of election?'

While the pendulum has a great span, the swings tend to decrease into smaller motions over time, and frankly the current swing in the US feels rather minor in the grander scheme of things, though the right-wing media's hyperbolic reaction makes it seem like a big deal. Obama's victory seems like purely a swing back from Bush, and since W pushed things quite far, the counter movement will be a bit bigger than usual.

At the core of the current, if you will, paranoia, seems to be the idea that once the government seize power in an area (in this case health care), this area is now lost, barring a grand revolt.

I guess it might be due to inexperience in governmental involvement, and a general slippery slope mentality, but if you look at europe, things go back n forth between privatization and governmentalization. Just because the government is controlling or is active in an area doesn't mean it can't be privatized without any fuss. We're balancing, cautious creatures, but also equipped with a crave for new things to stimulate, and will grow tired of ruling parties and ideas, and off the pendulum goes again.

[Atelier]

Civil wars are more organised than rebellions - civil war is a power struggle between citizens of the same country. To take the example of the English Civil War, King Charles I was using his power to manipulate and control parliament, which they didn't like. A few other factors sparked the declaration of war. Religion, the banishment of parliament for 11 years, and at the very end the arrest of five MPs who King Charles locked up for treason. The King and Parliament, now officially detached and at war, rallied their forces. Noblemen and countrymen (who were no doubt owned by the noblemen) joined under the King's banner, the Cavaliers. Parliamentarian forces were constituted of Scots, Puritans, and people who lived in the cities (who would feel the influence of Paliament).

Rebellion is an uprising or deliberate resistance of authority , typically by lower classes, who fight to overthrow their leader/government. Also, rebellion doesn't nessecarily mean violence is involved.

[Nathan]

Rebellion is an uprising or deliberate resistance of authority , typically by lower classes, who fight to overthrow their leader/government. Also, rebellion doesn't nessecarily mean violence is involved.

And yet how can a rebellion achieve anything except with violence.  I'm not saying it would be a good thing to use violence but I don't see any other way that it will happen. 

Something that I find interesting about a possible future American rebellion is that contrary to the normal lower class uprising it would be the upper class and the middle class.  There is very little reason for the lower class to revolt at what is going on but considering that realistically speaking the upper class is becoming more and more oppressed they would be the one to strike.  The troubling thing about this is that they would have the money to finance a full scale rebellion, contrary to other rebellions which rely on sheer number of people. 

While it is true that Bush pushed us back a little bit the fact is that most social programs remained enacted and this is because in order to stay elected he has to leave them alone or he would be impeached.  So programs keep getting added with few getting taken away. 

[Vince Twelve]

Yes, the poor, oppressed Upper Class.  Won't somebody please think of the wealthy for once!

: Sheesh.  If only I had the same set of problems a member of the Upper Class had.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht_W5_Ogh0U

If the upper class (depending on the metrics, between 1% and 6% of America) pull off some kind of revolution it will be because they bamboozle millions of misinformed middle and lower class members who trust the people whose opinions and whinings receive far more than a representative portion of the media coverage.

Step 1: Get all the money
Step 2: Whip the crazies into a frenzy
Step 3: Revolt
Result: Get all the money.  Wait...

[Atelier]

That's very true, although when saying 'without violence', I meant strikes or boycotts. That is still a rebellion, but I agree uprisings with violence are more likely to be successful.

[Nathan]

Yes, the poor, oppressed Upper Class.  Won't somebody please think of the wealthy for once!

: Sheesh.  If only I had the same set of problems a member of the Upper Class had.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht_W5_Ogh0U

If the upper class (depending on the metrics, between 1% and 6% of America) pull off some kind of revolution it will be because they bamboozle millions of misinformed middle and lower class members who trust the people whose opinions and whinings receive far more than a representative portion of the media coverage.

Step 1: Get all the money
Step 2: Whip the crazies into a frenzy
Step 3: Revolt
Result: Get all the money.  Wait...

I'm not saying that the upper class have it bad I'm saying that policy changes are primarily effecting the upper class in a negative way. The money to help the lower class has to come from somewhere and the easiest solution is simply take it from the rich.  Sure the rich get more money than they deserve and I'm not saying they would be justified in a revolt but it seems the most likely.  Besides as it is looking right now the right wing extremists would be the 'leaders' of this movement.  With the amount of money the upper class controls a few of them could easily fund this rebellion. 

[Vince Twelve]

Yup, sorry Nathan, I didn't mean that to sound like I was disagreeing with you.  Talk of this very thing is already floating around various circles.   Although, make no mistake.  These people are not really wanting to incite a revolt.  They're just trying to swing voters for the next cycle via a little rabble rousing.  I was pointing my dissatisfaction at the people inciting this and their motivations and tactics, not at your statement!

The only part I disagree with was

There is very little reason for the lower class to revolt at what is going on but considering that realistically speaking the upper class is becoming more and more oppressed they would be the one to strike.

Even though things are going to technically (at least attempting to) move in a direction favoring the poor, it's like moving a few pebbles off of a mountain.  The upper class currently has it better than they've ever had it before (with the exception of that pesky recession that they caused), and the government has only barely started moving things away from where Bush has taken them.  The lower class still has a much better reason to revolt, they just are too busy working three jobs to pay for their kids' bronchitis.

Also fun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHVwrCzRUX0

And no, I'm not a socialist, it's just that there are nearly no roads currently open for people to get out of the lower class.  Lots of people are there because of bad decisions, others were born into it with no way out.  Yes, some people rise out, but it's very rare.  Money attracts money, and the lower class don't have any.

Even Billionaire Warren Buffett (lives in a modest house a few blocks from where I grew up, I've met him, smart guy) wants the government to raise his taxes.

October of last year:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/06buffett.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin

To help pay for the rescue, the government should raise taxes on the wealthy, Mr. Buffett suggested. “I’m paying the lowest tax rate that I’ve ever paid in my life,” he said. “Now, that’s crazy.”