Making Sense of Revolutions and Bernie Sanders?

Politics for me is basically something to consider and sadly to entertain. for the most part I will watch, like many people, the various commentaries and analysis offered in the evening hours on cable TV. Once in awhile there is a provocative point found but in general it is simply background as I digest and relax. Something to watch till Elementary or whatever is on.

With the Presidential election happening however, and this one does seem to be special, it has provoked me to put my thoughts down or better yet on the screen here. Bernie Sanders especially provokes me. Basically, a nice man but on so many levels concerning. 

Tonight I focus on one theme: Revolution. 

Revolution is a word that many are intrigued with and Bernie Sanders often enjoys playing with it. He routinely uses it in his speeches. Revolution entails destruction, and for Bernie Sanders it is political and social destruction. He wants to to dramatically change the political and social landscape - through a democratic process. He is not suggesting or encouraging violence. He uses the term "Revolution" to allude to the severity and the dramatic nature of the changes he desires to make. 

Again, in no way is he suggesting any type of literal violent action. He uses the term "Revolution" to inspire and captivate his audiences. His revolution will happen democratically. That said the term still goes hand in hand with his boast that he is a socialist, granted a democratic socialist. In short, you have a socialist, who is not a socialist, pleading for a revolution, that may or may not be a revolution. 

Enough said about Mr Sanders. I want to focus now on the story of revolution. The conclusion I want to arrive at is that though we routinely learn about and hold in high regard the American Revolution, revolution is really not an American phenomenon. Perhaps, a better way to phrase it is that what we refer to as the American Revolution was really not a revolution. Despite all our talk we are not a country that has embraced revolution. 

I offer nothing all that new here. I actually defer to an author, Edmund Burke,  and his various letters, speeches, and pamphlets written in the late eighteenth century. Edmund Burke, a member of the British Parliament, offers much on revolution. He attempted to defend the colonies in the English Parliament of that period, arguing that as English subjects, the colonist had a legitimate grievance regarding the taxes imposed upon them, and further argued against the war that followed in America. He likewise witnessed, again from England, the destruction of the French Revolution, the guillotine, the Reign of Terror, and the rise of the French Republic, which ultimately led to Napoleon.

Further, as an Englishman of the eighteenth century, Burke inherited the results and history of the Glorious Revolution, which took place in the England in the late seventeenth century. During that time the Monarchy was replaced ever so briefly with a Republic. The Glorious Revolution is a story in itself, For now let us simply say that the English decided after a brief period that a Constitutional Monarchy was preferred. 

So what can we gain from this sparse summary of the late eighteenth century? In short, we have three revolutions: The English Glorious Revolution, The American Revolution, and the French Revolution. The first two basically have preserved the traditions and institutions of a people. The English maintained much of what they had for centuries, and returned to Monarchy. Perhaps it was a more limited monarchy, but still a Monarchy. The Americans Revolution again largely preserved what they had for a time lost under late British rule. In short, I am arguing that what we called the American Revolution was an act of preservation. To neatly sum up the American Revolution, we were simply protecting our property from an over-reaching English monarch turned tyrant. 

The French Revolution was not initiated to preserve. It was the destruction of a state. it was the complete elimination of the monarchy, the ruling classes, and the institutions associated with those classes and monarchy. Ultimately it led to the Terror of 1793 which involved the purge of any and all perceived to be enemies of the Revolution. This revolution largely is a precursor to those following in the twentieth century - the Russian and Chinese Revolutions. 

Going back to Burke, or at least my appeal to him, the key question regarding whether something is a revolution goes to its intent. Does a person or movement intend to dramatically change the traditions and institutions of a land or people or preserve them? A true revolutionary sees existing traditions and institutions as corrupt, as totally and inherently corrupt, and with that requiring to be removed, exorcised, and eliminated. 

Go back to the American Revolution. Once we chased the British out, things largely returned to how they were. We basically preserved our property. In the process of doing, however, we also created a new nation. That said, even then our laws and our approach very much borrow from the British, just minus the monarch. We had no purges, we did not eliminate any traditions, classes or institutions aside from those who considered themselves allied to the British and their monarch. Existing colonies became states, and their local government continued and thrived. You can see in this the kernel of Federalism. And all (granted all white males at that time) were welcome to the American cause. Those who felt sympathy for the British went to Britain. 

For Burke, it was all about the preservation of tradition. For him to govern requires not only law, but an appreciation of the customs, traditions and the heritage of a people. Further the law needs to built on those customs and traditions. Those who appeal to such a mix will thrive. Those who ignore such concerns risk much. Burke appealed to these themes again and again not only regarding the French and the Americans, but the Indians (as in India) and English.

Burke's thoughts have largely become the foundation of English conservatism and I would argue political conservatism in general. I would like to think it also alludes to Darwin and the idea of evolutionary change. Granted we are now mixing biology and politics, but still the story of how a species survives through a slow gradual series of progressions does sound like Burke. Perhaps it is better to point to the American Progressive movement, which aims not at revolution but the improvement of social conditions and people.