Che Guevara? CHE GUEVARA?
Such counsel may seem bland beside the very real romance of revolution. But those on the political right (from which most, though not all, of the militia movement comes) should know better than to yield to that romance. Ever since the idolization of Che Guevara, a large chunk of the American left has succumbed to revolutionary romance, while those on the right have focused on workaday politics. The relative fortunes of those two movements over the last 25 years, especially after November's elections, suggest which approach works.Seems pretty clear to me. Glenn thinks the armed revolt against the government - while not something to be encouraged - is something understandable and can be excused.Having said this, I also have a cautionary note for those who are not part of the militia movement. When large numbers of citizens begin arming against their own government and are ready to believe even the silliest rumors about that government's willingness to evade the Constitution, there is a problem that goes beyond gullibility. This country's political establishment should think about what it has done to inspire such distrust--and what it can do to regain the trust and loyalty of many Americans who no longer grant it either.
Armed revolt against the government is precisely how this country started; viz. Declaration of Independence. Has its points.
So, these racist, white separatists are the equivalent of our founding fathers?
Just because you use violence doesn't make you George Washington.
I did not make either of the 2 points that you refute, Sir.
What I meant was: violence against government historically has its place in the spectrum of political discourse, at the very end of band. While bitching is pleasant, I can certainly understand how people interested in results (and perhaps not too keen on long-term thinking... which, while valuable, can easily become an end in itself to the intellectually capable) will soon explore alternatives all across the board.
As to Washington, all we hear of is the conventional hagiography. I'm sure he was a selfish, ambitious, short-tempered little fuck just like most of us.
Perhaps.
I think the results they'd like to see are the rounding up of pretty much everyone that doesn't look like them, the imposition of a theocratic rule and the abolition of all government in any form which isn't under their dictatorial control.
And while I can understand their frustration at not getting the above items checked off on their agenda, I hope that I'm not the only one who thinks that they should remain frustrated and that this is a good thing.
I'm sure GW was a human being. But I do think there are significant distinctions in the quality of human beings - despite their being human. I don't think that any one in the Michigan militia or those jokers down on the border of Mexico, or the members of the Texas Jihad are in the same classification.
I guess this could be just sour grapes from a member of the current order which needs to be replaced by the glorious new order of the one true prophet, but then I think that would be slipping into relativism, and I'm supposed to be avoiding that as a good liberal trying to win myself back into the good graces of my red state moral overlords.
"...armed revolt against the government - while not something to be encouraged - is something understandable and can be excused."
I'm ready. Have been since 4 May 1970.
I don't think your side is the same as the people he's talking about. . .