A drawn out revolution will not save on blood. It may look that way because the blood would be spilled over a long stretch of time. I really favor the whole "politically aware populous votes en mass for a third party" It could even happen, people seem to be waking up and I'm genuinely surprised at the amount of conservative thought I find here. It buoys my hope.
I think that by merely posing this question, you are exhibiting the understanding that change comes slow. Patience is required. I understand your use of "revolution" (vs evolution) to mean that we need something novel to address some of the fundamental issues facing the country--our youth and issues such as choice, gay/lesbian, death penalty, .... I agree here as well. I am interested in any specific thoughts you have on this. I feel the starting point is participation at the local levels, which have the most potential to approach a democratic ideal.
If some OTHER political party receives at least 5% of the vote in a national election, they will be able to get the same federal support that the Democrats and the Republicans currently get. All we need to do is enough people vote AGAINST the two major candidates in the same way, and you bet, they'll start paying attention. They feel they are in a monopolistic situation, typical of they way businesses have acted in the past - "We can charge what we want, and if you don't like it, tough!" . WE CAN FIX THIS NONVIOLENTLY!
In theory, at least, this is supposed to be a democracy in which an orderly transfer of political power can occur without violence. It's happened many times, so it's not that bad a theory.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
Sounds Great where do I start.
A drawn out revolution will not save on blood. It may look that way because the blood would be spilled over a long stretch of time. I really favor the whole "politically aware populous votes en mass for a third party" It could even happen, people seem to be waking up and I'm genuinely surprised at the amount of conservative thought I find here. It buoys my hope.
I think that by merely posing this question, you are exhibiting the understanding that change comes slow. Patience is required. I understand your use of "revolution" (vs evolution) to mean that we need something novel to address some of the fundamental issues facing the country--our youth and issues such as choice, gay/lesbian, death penalty, .... I agree here as well. I am interested in any specific thoughts you have on this. I feel the starting point is participation at the local levels, which have the most potential to approach a democratic ideal.
If some OTHER political party receives at least 5% of the vote in a national election, they will be able to get the same federal support that the Democrats and the Republicans currently get. All we need to do is enough people vote AGAINST the two major candidates in the same way, and you bet, they'll start paying attention. They feel they are in a monopolistic situation, typical of they way businesses have acted in the past - "We can charge what we want, and if you don't like it, tough!" . WE CAN FIX THIS NONVIOLENTLY!
In theory, at least, this is supposed to be a democracy in which an orderly transfer of political power can occur without violence. It's happened many times, so it's not that bad a theory.
Slow revolution = evolution.
What we need is to take all politicians above the rank of mayor and throw them into a giant bon-fire on national tv.
The world has yet to see such a thing occur, but it sounds neat. Gotta plan?
Elections are designed to be the peaceful change of power. What do you have in mind?
Sounds like Iraq to me. I say short, fast and bloody. Then everybody that's left can get on with the rebuilding and "democracy creration"