I have studied over the years the causes of war and revolution, the break down of societies, and what the after effects are to such large scale events. My minor in college was European Studies with a focus on Eastern Europe and Russia. I am also an avowed Russophile but not for the reasons most would think. I find the history of Russia to be fascinating as I do all of Europe. There are many lessons to be learned there. In particular it is the definition of what Civil Society means at any given time and what happens when it starts to break down.
Civil Society is really at its base an unwritten contract between the citizens and their government. It doesn't have to be any particular type ie Captialism, Socialism, or Monarchal. None of these really make any difference. They are really at their roots all the same. They are all systems in which the citizens agree to the conditions in exchange for something the governments provides. Russia is a great example. In the early days the contract was between the gentry and their Czar. The Czar granted the gentry land and serfs while the gentry gave the Czar their loyalty. Neither could have really existed without the other. If the Czar had not kept the church in line and the serfs by extension the landed gentry could not have lasted. The same goes for the other. The Czar could not have existed without the money and the support that the gentry provided. It was for the two of them a happy arrangement. But as we know it did not last.
Throughout history revolution has played an important part as it has in many ways expressed the will of one group or another in their dissatisfaction with their part of the contract. We have all studied history in school and we all know what Revolution means. I am stating the obvious because there is also a flip side to revolution that is much more sinister, one that I feel is relevant to the times in which we are living. That is the revolution that happens when the dissatisfied are cajoled, manipulated, and ultimately controlled by what could only be described as a charismatic leader. Post war Germany in the 1920's gives us the best example of this. The 1920s in Germany was a very interesting time. As the result of World War I, the civil contract that had existed prior, broke down. There was unrest in the streets, rampant inflation, poverty, and most of the population were disillusioned. There were stories of rampant corruption in business where certain elite groups made massive profits in selling armaments to both sides fighting. There was government corruption and rulers who represented themselves as fair and just when they were not. The Weimar Republic that followed was for the most part ineffective. All of this laid the groundwork for the rewriting of a new Civil contract, one that was designed from the start to be an instrument of manipulation and control.
I bring these points up because I see that this threat is again becoming reality. Not in Germany, Europe, or anywhere else. I see it happening here.
History has a tale to tell about us too. I only have to look back to the Great Depression to understand just how dangerous these times really are. The Depression was in essence a breakdown of the Civil contract that had existed between the citizens and their government. The government promised prosperity, technological advances on a scale not know before, and general peace. The citizens by extension gave electoral support in return. But by 1932 that had broken down. The economy was for the most part in ruins, unemployment skyrocketed, and there were tales of stock market speculation by a chosen few that defied belief. Mass armies of dispossessed where marching on Washington, camping near to the White House. Hoovervilles were popping up everywhere. Civil Society as it had be known was near collapse even if many in the hinterlands did not see it that way. All the dispossessed needed was a charismatic leader. But no one came forward who was strong enough. Yes, there were many local or regional ones but not one on a large enough scale. Had one come forward, I feel we would be living in a vastly different country. F.D.R. knew what was happening and he did everything in his power to pull the country back from revolution. Many may debate that his alphabet soup of programs and the speed in which they were implemented were for the most part altruistic in nature. They may have been but they were also designed to stop the revolution that was about take hold. F.D.R. had a very good sense of reality.
So here we are again. With a president who is offering and implementing vast government programs and a group of people who are dead set against him doing it. In many ways the Tea Party Movement resembles many of the same in the past. They firmly believe that the Civil contract that they signed onto is for the most part broken. And they are fomenting revolution as a result. They have found politicians who pander, like in the past, to their sense of fear and frustration. They operate, for the most part, outside the accepted boundaries of political activity. They are an entity in and of themselves. And their cause has spread across the length and breath of the country. In a more dangerous way they have the ability to draw large crowds to events. They organize caravans to ride into towns and to seats of governments, protesting and even threatening as they go. The one thing they do not have is a charismatic national leader. Is there one who is ruthless and strong enough to manipulate, cajole, and ultimately control them? Who's to say. Can the unwritten civil contract that has existed for more that 230 years survive? It will be interesting to see. Personally I have no answers. I do though see the trends. And I have to say we are living in interesting times.
