Revolution: From Cairo to Wisconsin

I was told by a man dressed like Patrick Henry at CPAC 2011 that violent revolution is only acceptable when the people can't vote to overthrow their government. While I can't vouch for the source of this sentiment, the words of this Tea Partying, ponytailed reincarnation of our nation's arguably most aggressive founder have been driving my thoughts this week in light of recent uprisings from the streets of Cairo to Wisconsin. In the Middle East, we seem to hear echoes of "give me liberty, or give me death" as the people there resort to violence, hopefully in search of a vote. Meanwhile, public sector employees in Wisconsin are striking essentially against the results of this past November's general election. And so, I guess my musings this week amount to this: we would be remiss if we summarily congratulated all popular revolutions, whether violent or democratic, and embraced each one as a reflection of our founding.

Remember what a bloody mess the French Revolution turned out to be just a few years after our Revolution? How about the ones in Communist Russia, China, and Cuba? More pertinent still to our discussion about the Middle East is the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which replaced an enlightened Western Shah with the totalitarian Islamic regime we see today, still ruled by Ayatollah Khomeini. It is indeed possible for the people, in whom we as Americans have so much faith, to bring about change that is evil. Hamas, for example, is a democratically elected governing entity in Gaza that both the US and EU classify as a terrorist organization. When Radical Islam has already claimed the governments of two separate Middle-Eastern countries through either violent or democratic revolutions, one can't be too cautious about the new, post-revolutionary governments that will soon sprout in Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, and Tunisia.

Having written thus far with the utmost cynicism on a level of naked practicality, I can tell you on an emotional level that I would love for the revolutions in the Middle East to succeed. Ideally, we as Americans should aid other sprouting Democracies if we really believe that God-given rights (which we unfortunately take for granted) may not be taken from man without his or His consent. But once we fight for another people's right to chose their own government, we retain the right to hold them responsible for their choices and consequent actions. In the end I would have no problem with Egypt electing Hamas, so long as I was certain we would bomb them if that happened.

Insofar as the Obama administration won't call the sky blue, and certainly won't harm a hair on Hamas' head until we've "absorbed another attack," I don't think we have the luxury of letting this play out without jeopardizing some of our interests in the region (namely, Israel). Besides, it seems like most of these revolutions are just culminating in a change of hands, not regimes, with the former Second-In-Command graciously accepting the title, responsibilities, and power of whatever dictator has just flown the coop. And for some reason, the people that fought in the Egyptian town squares for a "change in government" are OK with another military dictator. The way things are going right now, Egypt will probably just be a new weapon in my arsenal of examples when I try to explain the difference between a "one time democratic process," and a lasting democracy. The former doesn't always lead to the latter. In fact, America is practically the only country in all of history that's managed to transition from a democratic revolution to a functioning democracy rather smoothly.

Perhaps that's why the Libyans are practically begging the Obama administration to step in, and take a strong stance for "peace-loving democracy" in the Middle East via the UN Security Council. Of course, when we invaded Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein we were called monsters, and our interest in Iran's oppressive regime and nuclear weapons is summarily dismissed as "materialistic." But when the people of Libya are in trouble, we're told by the Libyans that our silence makes us practically complicit in Qaddafi's carpet bombings.

Those liberals that joined in calling Bush a war criminal for trying to foster freedom overseas are now also holding up a crucial vote in Wisconsin. 14 Democratic State Senators are proving harder to find than Qaddafi; they are actually hiding out somewhere to block the passage of a bill they don't like. Their cowardly refusal to submit to the will of the Wisconsin people, who voted for a Governor and Senate Majority that promised to pass a bill curbing union power (the bill in question right now), is no different than Qaddafi's hiding out in a fort while shooting at his own people. How dare they chose to shirk the power and duty of the vote granted to them? Why do they think that a mob consisting of out-of-state union thugs is more representative of the will of the people than an election? Remember, protest and violence is only necessary when you don't have the vote. Patrick Henry is certainly rolling in his grave. Or at the very least, the guy dressed like him is very, very peeved.