Radicalizing Reformers and Their Movements

Reform does not seek to undermine or dissolve previous institutions, or values, while revolution is a "new way" of being in the world. The "tea parties" were correlated to the civil rights movement today on a program I was listening to. Is this the case?

The Civil Rights movement was a social/political movement that valued the institutions of our society, but the leaders of the civil rights movement sought change in the cultural mores concerning African Americans. This was a movement of Reform, according to Martin Luther King, Jr. Martin Luther King, Jr. believed in passive resistance, petitioning government, public demonstrations, and public discourse. Many that have sought to follow in his footsteps have been revolutionary, not reformist in their practice. This is usually the case with any 'mover or shaker" in society. The leader becomes radicalized. This has transpired with all political, religious and cultural leaders that have had major impact on society.

Revolutionary images appeal to "ideals" that the movement won. These "ideals" become internalized in a people's consciousness and create a factor of identification. The radicalization of the civil rights movement was seen especially in the 1960's, when the Black Panthers became the "standard representation" of "Black Power". This was not Martin Luther King, Jr.'s representation. His was based on character, their movement was based on power.

History tends to not just radicalize "ideals", but also create the environment for politicizing what was useful for social change at a particular time. The politicalization of movements are dangerous because of the emotionally driven identification factors, that can end up being an environment that creates power politics.

Revolution should never be embraced by those who value our institutions. But, those that radicalize their own "ideals" and de-value the checks and balances in our form of government are bent on revolution of their own kind. This is when the "tea parties" are a reactionary response that represents "ideals", institutions, and our form of government that have become de-valued and politicized for the purpose of "change", without accountability. Government without accountability is non-representative and is what our Founders understood to be tyrannical.

Tea Parties and Revolution

The "Tea Parties" are representative of our American system. We believe in our freedom to dissent, to petition our government, and to express our opinion. But, more so, we also want accountability from our represetatives.

Last night, my husband and I watched 4 hours of Russian history. I couldn't help but think that the 'peasants' who came to petition their Tzar, peacefully, only to have shots fired at them were a little like the 'tea parties". How so?

The Russian people found themselves oppressed and were wanting answers from their government. These were not using violent means, but met violence. Such is the case with our news media and how they are portraying the average citizen in our society. The "tea parties" want a peaceful way to express their anger and anxiety over the change that seems forced upon us. We are given no reasons why this is such an imperative, other than a "moral one". Is it not just as immoral to put our country's future viability at risk?

Why is Democracy the Greatest Value?

Democracy is the greatest value for human flourishing. Why is this so? There are various reasons, but the basic reason is the value of diversity.

Diversity ranges the gambit from personality, interests and talents of the individual to nation-states and their interests. But, the nation-state, cannot undermine the interests of the individual without doing disservice to civil rights. And civil rights are what our Founders promised as freedom from tyranny.

On the other hand, the nation-state is formed by the type of individuals that form "a more perfect union". Thus, character is a necesary ingredient for citizens and those in public office. Character is individual pre-disposition. As an individual matures, the weaknesses/strengths of the indvidual 's personality become tempered through various experiences or furthered 'expanded" by ulimited and unaccountable power. Those who hold "utopian dreams" or "idealized self-promotion" come to realize the limitations and corrections of reality in a real world. Life, itself teaches, tempers and trains.

In a Constitutional Republic, laws form the basis of proper behavior within a given society. The evolutionist understands the law as a tempering to "survival skills", whereas the religionist sees the law as tempering "sin". The Founders defined our nation-state's "proper behavior" by the "Constitution". The "Declaration of Independence" was only the beginning to being ruled by law and not by outside human authority.

The psychologist, sociologist or cultural anthropologist understands Constitutional government as integrated into the human psyche, as an environmental conditioning, while the religionist believes that government is the order of the universe under God. And the evolutionary "philosopher" biologist, or physicist understands government to be an evolving enterprise.

Each person is allowed their understanding in a "Constitutional democracy". The problem today is the place of power, which the tea parties are addressing. Government was never meant to give power, but to limit power. The limitation of power was to maintain the ordered structure, because whenever an individual or group usurps the right of another to information, due process, dissent, and voice, the disempowered rebels and resists. Today, unlimited power of those in our public offices are what frustrates the democratic process and what the "rebel" tea parties are resisting. Accountability of our public officials are what those in public office should never undermine ubt uphold. Transparency is a necessary character trait of those that seek public office. Our Founders never intended for power to be unaccountable whether through subversion of information, or free speech. This is where cultural diversity ends and tyranny begins.

Tyranny happens whenever power is unlimited. Today's intellegensia, political elite and the monied are those that drive policy. And "science" is what defines the intelligensia and prospers the monied. Therefore, science drives and formulates the frame of the democratic discourse. Whenever a scientific elite has unlimited power to frame the discourse, we have an abuse of power that undermines the democratic process, freedom of information and freedom of speech, because the "evolving enterprise" of science is not "natural", so much as the human and political enterprise of governing.

Diversity must be affirmed in all its demensions, whether individual personality, cultural, or scientific for the democratic process to uphold a free and open society where tyranny is maintained under the "rule of law".

The 'tea parties' are a beginning to balancing what has become tyrannical and what the Founders wanted to prevent.

Nationalism, Globalism, and "Tea Parties"

Yesterday, Obama said that he wanted to build our Nation on the "rock". He used scripture, appealing to the religious conservative. While no one disagrees that our Nation has to be built upon a "rock", most conservatives agree that the "rock" is the Constitution. Others find that our globalized world calls for us to "lay down our own interests", so that "the greater good" can be furthered.

Government in conservative eyes, should be to represent the people, private interests, private business and free enterprise, in general. But, with the "bail-outs" and budget over-spending, the conservative feels that government has overstepped its boundary. Government should be limited, so that there is personal freedom.

Today, Obama said that we needed to pay our taxes so that government could pay their bills. Joe Biden said during the campaign that "to pay taxes was to be patriotic". No, when the people pay taxes, so that government can pay their bills, while there is outrageous debt and, yet, government does not limit themselves in their spending, then there is moral outrage. Why? because the people support government, instead of government protecting the people! This is socialism! The common good, the public interests, the higher purpose, etc. all are synonyms for government's justification of "doing good" for us. We, the people, cannot do good ourselves, we are dependent on the government to determine and distribute what, when and where. We, the people, loose our power and control over our lives, not just our money!

What do Americans do? We throw 'tea parties". I just heard today that one lady called her U.S. senator to be told that he and the staff would not be able to participate in the local "tea party" because "tea parties" are a protest against government and since he and staff are government employees, then they are forbidden to go. Who says that on one's own personal time, one cannot participate in any activity that is legal? Is it ia conflict of interests? Has the federal government "laid down the law" that this is not a freedom that any government official is allowed? Does government "control" their employees political convictions and opinions? Is this why we have not heard from Republicans? One just wonders.....

The issue is really a complex one, as it is about national vs. international interests. This is like the old argument of individual vs. societal "rights"...where and how do we determine what to do when globalization is upon us. We have no choice. We do have to address it!

Just today I read where the U. N. had had "problems" with contracting out their interests. Humanitarian aid is a money making business, no matter what anyone says. America has limited her power at the U.N. to regard other "dictatorships". America should not give up her understanding of "right" for any "common purposes" of globalization. And, yet, I know we cannot live without our neighbors. This is what disturbs me about how Obama has repected the Arab nations (bowing) without continuing to honor the 'free world" in his behavior.

On one hand, SOS Clinton did agree to limit the "rights" of the pirates, but was this due to America's interests or humanitarian aid. Would there have been the same or similar opinions if it had been a military expedition?

I don't think that destroying our Nation or the "free world" for the interests of globalization is very wise. We have valid interests to protect and we must not let our freedoms slide into the nebulous, undefined "whole" of globalism.