Two Sides as One

There are two roads to freedom. The obvious one is the power of the vote.

The problem with relying on this is that sometimes mistakes happen, and need to be corrected. The only fear that politicians have is the next election. That, normally, is years in the future. They can do a lot of damage in that kind of time.

Let's take the current, new US administration. They are greatly feared, and the potential is certainly there for a lot of grief. Not only is the President suspect, the same party controls the Senate, and the House, and soon will dominate the Supreme Court as well.

Let's say that they do what everybody is scared they will do; eliminate all wealth and corporate taxes, and all government regulation, as well as bringing in new draconian laws, and destroying all public services; health, education, veterans affairs...and everything else.

Clearly the people would be appalled, and in two years the scoundrels would lose control of both the House and Senate, and two years after that, the Presidency.

So what? In those years the people would have had to suffer immensely, all because the people in power wanted to pillage all they could before their clock ran out.

And what if we are not talking about a democratic country at all. How do they remove the problem?

There is always the possibility of an actual civil war, but that can take a very long time and be a bloodbath. In the case of a berserk US administration, it would take longer than would the democratic process, and so is unlikely to be deemed worthwhile by the citizenry.

Interestingly, the solution is two-fold, and together these two components make up another road to freedom.

There needs to be a citizenry willing to protest in numbers sufficient to be terrifying to the government in power, and a military that is unwilling to intervene in favour of that government.

Let's look at a few examples of how the will of the people can shine right through a military intervention.

At the start of the French Revolution, everyone was scared to death of the mighty French army crushing the desperate people of Paris. The King was unwilling to bend to the masses, and brought more and more troops into the simmering city, confident in their power. Then that whole Bastille thing erupted, with people facing off against the guns of the prison garrison. In the middle of it all, the Army showed up......

...and joined the people, forcing the prison authorities to surrender.

In Eastern Europe, several of the Communist regimes, desperate to retain power, ordered their troops to open fire on the assembled mass of their protesting citizenry. The soldiers refused.

In both of these examples, the soldiers knew that they were part of the people. The protesters were the families, friends, and neighbours of the soldiers lined up before them. In effect, they were the soldiers, and the soldiers were them.

More recently, well over three million Americans joined the Women's protest march against their new, suspect government. There was no violence, and the police lined up to control them were in good humour and friendly. They joked with the women, and swapped hats. Likely, many of them had spouses, friends, and neighbours out marching. The police were the protestors, and the protestors were them. No riot gear, or water cannons, or tear gas.

This is remarkable occurrence for the USA, as normally the military and police are willing to see protestors as some kind of “other.” Currently in North Dakota, this is precisely what is happening. The protestors are being regularly gasses, and hosed in sub-zero temperatures, being labelled as a bunch of native troublemakers and hippy environmentalists.

Imagine the reaction if over 3 million African Americans came out to peacefully protest Trump's election. Do you think they would be met by happy, joking policemen? There would be lines of men in riot gear, and armoured vehicles, and swat teams. Even if there were not a single incident, the day-long event would be tense from the first moment until the last.

It isn't that there are no Black or Native police and soldiers, as of course there are. It is what the mass of the police and soldiers can be made to feel. If the protestors can be made into an “other,” then the people in uniform will willingly stand against them.

Consider the anti-war situation during the Vietnam War. At Kent State University in Ohio, members of the National Guard were called out in reaction to violent protest by students. These solders were literally the same people as the students. They were the same age, and clearly anti-war. In the 1960s if a young person joined the National Guard they were most likely doing it to avoid being sent to Viet Nam.

On May 5th, 1970 the soldiers spontaneously opened fire on the crowd for 13 seconds, killing 4 and wounding 9 others. Officers immediately ordered a cease fire. If the troops had been actually ordered to open fire, it would seem that these young soldiers would have been happy to comply. This is by far the more usual reaction of American soldiers and police when facing protestors.

This is not unique to them.

In 1989, after prolonged pro-democracy protest, the Chinese government had had enough. Troops were ordered to move violently against the protestors. Thousands were killed, and thousands more arrested. The soldiers were made to believe that the students were out to destroy the Chinese state.

In countries such as modern France, citizens and government understand this relationship. Cut pensions to old people, and the grey-haired citizens will march with fire in their eyes. The government knows that they are at the mercy of their citizenry. They also know that they cannot count on anybody in uniform acting as armed muscle for protection.

Should the French government do something that the people would refuse to accept then the masses will march. The army will not intervene to stop them. The soldiers are the protestors and the protestors are them. Anger the people enough, and it won't be chanting, signs, and songs. Make the people mad enough and they will remove you. They will not wait for some future election.

Let's say that the current US government were to do something unacceptable to the American people. Let's say a few hundred thousand citizens of more show up in Washington, marching towards the White House. Lines of armed men await them with orders to use deadly force. The uniformed men instead choose to step aside, and the crown surges across the White House lawn, and into the building. Of course, Trump would have fled earlier, but the image of angry citizens swarming through the White House would make quite an impression.

That's what the women marching did. Trump won't hear them, and nor will his cronies. Some of that party will be concerned about future elections, but not enough. What the millions of women did was to draw a line in the sand, and show that they had millions who would move together. They planned and did this before the new administration even had time to do anything that the women feared. They did it preemptively.

It also looked as if the authorities would be unwilling to turn water cannons on them, or to use tear gas, or machine guns.