OPINION & EDITORIAL
The revolution continues
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Zach Stern:
- Conservative betrayal (April 14, 2005)
- Freedom and responsibility (May 5, 2005)
- For everything else, there's bankruptcy (March 17, 2005)
- The revolution continues (March 3, 2005)
- Voter apathy with reason (February 17, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Dissecting the Republican revolution (February 10, 2006)
- The Progressive movement, or has it been? (October 25, 2002)
- Lopez-Obrador deserves full recount (September 19, 2006)
- Confederate holiday way off (March 23, 2007)
- In Defense of Progressives (October 28, 2002)
by Zach Stern
Thursday, March 3, 2005
There has been a moment in the history of every society when it just clicks — as if a part of the human brain itself triggers some fundamental, innate call to action — and the people rise up to overthrow those with power. For each group, the justifications, means and motivation for this revolution differ, but one thing remains constant: people power has consistently triumphed over aloof, out-of-touch elites.
Sometimes this is for the better, such as the case with the British and American revolutions more than 200 years ago, and sometimes it is for the worse, such as the October revolution in Russia. But the fact remains that it is the growing pain of a mature society — tragically and heroically, the blood of brave young souls giving their lives for freedom seems fundamental to the very existence of it.
However, over the past few years, the world has seen more consecutive revolutions than there have been seen since those of 1990 or 1848. The specifics behind these revolutions differ wildly from one another, but what is particularly peculiar is the bloodless nature of these revolutions.
Look at Georgia, a post-Soviet state firmly under the boot of its ex-communist leader Eduard Shevardnadze for much of the past decade. In late 2003, the Georgian people won their freedom — not with guns, bombs or blood — but with the might of a single rose, held aloft on the floor of their parliament. The “Rose Revolution” — an image for the ages, no doubt, but simply the first of many in these historic times.
Look at Ukraine, another post-Soviet state, where citizens through the simple power of mass protest demanded a fair election to determine their own future. Rather than stand by as Russia did its damnedest to control the results that favored its own interest, the people of Ukraine took their future into their own hands. And what future did they choose? A future with the West under Victor Yushenko and his victorious “Orange Revolution.” This stemming from a former state very close to the heart of the Soviet Union.
And most recently, look at Lebanon. Like Ukraine, a state controlled by the will of another for so long (in this case, Syria) stands up and demands the resignation of its government. For days, protesters filled Martyr’s Square in Beirut, the threat of violence constantly apparent, until they proved victorious. This “Cedar Revolution,” as it is now being called, comes at a time as much of the Middle East is beginning to catch up with the rest of the world.
But wait — the good news doesn’t end here. With free elections held for the first time in Iraq just a month ago, millions of Iraqis braved the danger presented by the terrorist insurgency to shape their own future. Disappointingly, Iraq’s “Purple Revolution” was not bloodless, and it is unlikely that the violence will completely vanish very soon. However, events such as these seem evidence enough that the world is poised for dramatic change of historic proportions.
And that’s just the list of states undergoing formal, rapid and fundamental change — don’t forget the recent elections in Palestine. The hope for peace in much of that region has never been as great, and the reality never as close to fruition.
Rose, Orange, Cedar and Purple. Four revolutions in less than two years.
Each of these important events gives us hope that indeed democracy will not only spread out toward everyone who suffers under the rule of others but also serves to increase faith in the prospect that American policies are actually working. Who could have imagined such spectacular change around the world four years ago?
While there is little doubt as to whether or not the revolutions of Georgia, Ukraine and Lebanon are evidence of the progress of people power, it is extremely unlikely, particularly in Lebanon, that such events would have occurred with an indifferent, relatively hands-off American foreign policy. The Bush administration’s aggressive approach has had results, shaking the status quo of the world around, helping move the people of the world toward self-governance and liberty.
Any history buff knows that the American Revolution ended in 1783. But as the call to arms for the disenfranchised people of the world continues to spread, America must stand ready to help move events toward such ends. And we must do this, not merely for the interest of American citizens, but for the spread of freedom itself.
Zach Stern (zstern@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in political science.
Anonymous (March 3, 2005 @ 12:44am):
"Vote or Die" was P.Diddy's slogan for encouraging voter turnout, but it wasn't a literal endorsement of a preemptive war policy where we invade other countries and kill people because they haven't been allowed to vote. Shit, if that were the case, we'd have to invade our nation's prisons and elementary schools. Just kidding, obviously.
Seriously, though, "freedom" doesn't mean anything anymore, especially not when used 27 times in an inauguration speech to revise the justification for invading WMD-riddled terrorist-cooperating Iraq. "Let the Eagle soar / Like she's never soared before!"
Anonymous (March 3, 2005 @ 8:09am):
If any poster can give me a convincing explanation as to how Bush can receive even a small amount of credit for the Lebanese revolution, I'll buy them a beer. Given that we've coddled Syria as a partner in the war on terror, what right do we have to take credit for this ? Give credit to where credit is due: the Lebanese (and/or the Syrians, for being dumb enough to put out a hit).
Anonymous (March 3, 2005 @ 8:14am):
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/cartoons//Cartoons/03-01-2005.gif
Seriously, "Vote and Die" was the slogan of the foreign terrorists in Iraq, the very same terrorists that the US is trying to eliminate.
Anonymous (March 3, 2005 @ 8:41am):
"If any poster can give me a convincing explanation as to how Bush can receive even a small amount of credit for the Lebanese revolution, I'll buy them a beer."
Don't you know by now that Bush is God? He just snaps his fingers and the oppressed rise up to throw of the yoke of oppression foisted upon them by their terrorist loving rulers.
Anonymous (March 3, 2005 @ 8:50am):
You've got your history wrong. The Russian revoloution wasn't the people overthrowing an elite; in fact, just the opposite. The czar was deposed in March and a constitutional Duma put in place. The Bolsheviks, a revolutionary elite, justified their October power grab through such concepts as dictatorship of the proletariat, democratic centralism and the truly revolutionary class. The Russian people then suffered the results of this revolution for over sventy years.
As for your list of recent revolutions, I wonder how they'll look in ten years. I think it's too early to begin cheerleading.
Anonymous (March 3, 2005 @ 8:55am):
Oh yeah, the domino effect of Bush's garbled language, incoherent foreign policy (war in Iraq, coddle North Korea, bad mouth Iran!), and stumbling ways has resulted in...global freedom. BULLSHIT! No other way to paint it. There is absolutely nothing Bush can take credit for here except being the wrong man at the right time. As for Iraq he barely qualifies as having brought them elections. Just because they voted doesn't mean anything positive has resulted yet. As for Lebanon, the above posters are dead on. We sucked up to Syria, then railed against them depending on which way the wind blows for decades. It was the massive bomb killing a beloved former leader after years of relative peace that has angered the Lebanese. This has about as much to do with Bush as my coke habit does. Actually, my coke habit has a lot more to do with Bush than this because when I heard the President did it, I though, awesome! I'm going to try that drug too! After all, if we have learned anything it's that the kids all do exactly what the president does.
Get off it, Stern, you know that Bush has so little to do with Lebanon, Georgia, and the Ukraine, I cannot imagine you weren't spitting your coffee all over the monitor as your tapped out this drivel.
Anonymous (March 3, 2005 @ 9:47am):
Right on Zach! The Bush haters will live in denial to their grave, and the grave of their pitiful party.
Anonymous (March 3, 2005 @ 12:57pm):
"If any poster can give me a convincing explanation as to how Bush can receive even a small amount of credit for the Lebanese revolution, I'll buy them a beer."
Where's my beer? Or will you now claim Bush had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq?
***
From the Middle East, listen to Walid Jumblatt, the Lebanese Druze Muslim leader and member of parliament, formerly an accommodator of the Syrian occupation and no friend of the Bush administration or its predecessors. On February 21, Jumblatt, in Beirut, told the Washington Post's David Ignatius that he is determined to work to get the current Syrian-stooge government out of office and to get Syrian troops out of Lebanon. What accounts for his new sentiment--echoing and echoed by millions of others, in Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East? Here's Jumblatt:
It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. . . . The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/292bhhzj.asp
Anonymous (March 3, 2005 @ 2:01pm):
Gosh, if the Weekly Standard said it, I'm changing my party affiliation.
Anonymous (March 3, 2005 @ 3:03pm):
Sorry, no beer. I said "convincing" explanation.
BTW, I'm open the possibility that five or ten years from now, the success of a democratic Iraq will have been seen to have a powerful effect on various elections throughout the world, and I'll eat my shoes. However, one quote from one person by a conservative rag doesn't make my cut. Iraq, yes. Ukraine...? Egypt--we've been propping their autocrats up for years. And Lebanon? Come on. Do you think that absent Syria's hamfisted assassination, either the Iraqi experiment (successful in the election, and a failure in safety, stability, and economic growth, so far) or Bush's rhetoric is a CAUSAL factor in these changes? I guess I want more evidence, though my initial "bet" was sloppy and not circumscribed in such a manner (never post pre-coffee).
Call that welshing if you want.
Anonymous (March 3, 2005 @ 3:14pm):
Hey Bozo, Walid Jumblatt isn't the Weekly Standard. He's a real Bush shill:
Here are the views of Walid Jumblatt on American soldiers: "We are all happy when an American soldier is killed."
Here are the views of Mr Jumblatt on Israeli soldiers: "The fall of a Jew, whether soldier or civilian, is a great accomplishment."
What the Weekly Standard he said was also reported elsewhere:
"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt then went on to say that the spark of democratic revolt was spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/03/03/do0302.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/03/03/ixopinion.html
Anonymous (March 3, 2005 @ 4:30pm):
Where's me beer???
***
Do you think that the people of Lebanon would have had, sort of, the courage of their conviction, having not seen--not only the invasion but the election which followed? It's almost as though that the Iraqi election has emboldened this crazy--something's going on over there. I'm smelling something.
Jon Stewart (noted Bush fan?)
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/03/jon-stewart-goes-neo-con.html
Anonymous (March 3, 2005 @ 10:02pm):
Yes, please quote someone in the fake news industry. Was Herbert Kornfeld unavailable for comment?
Anonymous (March 3, 2005 @ 11:24pm):
"Yes, please quote someone in the fake news industry"
Dan Rather was unavailable.
Anonymous (March 4, 2005 @ 7:09am):
Could we all agree on one thing? That Zach Stern is an idiot who writes these articles because it makes him feel important because his penis is too small to get a girlfriend?
