And if you donate twice as much, your name will be removed from the raffle.

After TvD’s post today, I now know the perfect entree for this soiree.

C.K. Macloud: I think as a practical matter, you are probably right, which is (probably?) what I meant in my original comment before I retracted it. Frankly, I’d have to think much more about what I mean when I say “revolution” before I (continue to) opine on what degree of “violence” is risked or indulged in.

This topic overlaps with JL Walls’ recent post on the definition of “war,” incidentally, and is worth a book or several, not just a blog comment.

I guess the reason I think we’re coming to a flashpoint of political legitimacy is that I think economic conditions are more precarious than conventional wisdom suggests. I realize apocalyptic economic thinking is kind of tired on the Internet, but I don’t see a good ending for the Iran situation, which would immediately precipitate both 1) a rapid acceleration of the Euro calamity leading to near-instant global depression, as well as 2) an even more intense cleavage in America over the war issue between the young and the old, which is a remarkably good proxy for the self-identified 99%ers and their skeptics. But I understand I’m asking you to assume a lot in this, and it’s off-topic besides.

Even the almost entirely peaceful “Velvet Revolution” turned for leadership instantly to the individuals (e.g., Havel) who had proved their will to sacrifice, and also, generally speaking, were eager to demonstrate their martial virtues, for instance by being more supportive of the War on Terror than “Old Europe.” On closer analysis, the Czech/Slovak typical exceptions qualify as inheritors of the sacrifices of prior epochs and local beneficiaries of risks undertaken elsewhere.

Good point about the New Deal. In fact, I wrote the first draft of my comment believing you had made your analogy explicitly with the New Deal and not, as you really did, with the 1930s.

I still think that we are further from the 1930s-esque moment in history than you seem to believe. Not only because of relative affluence–as you rightly point out, it’s not based wholly on whether people are better off now than 80 years ago–but also because I suspect (and these are only suspicions as I lack the evidence to back them up) that social mobility, or even the perception of social mobility, isn’t as challenged by present circumstances as in the 1930s. I might be proven wrong, but I guess it’s hard for me to see it, perhaps partially because I am (so far and knock on wood) in comfortable circumstances myself.

I’m entirely in agreement with you regarding problems of New Deal legislation, although I’m not sure something similar is gonna be the outcome here. I also agree that many of the people protesting are ironically the beneficiaries of government programs for the middle class, but I’d say it’s fair for them to protest when the means for their social advancement are jeopardized. Certainly it’s fair to thwack Occupy for being a middle-class movement, but it’s done a good job of at least acknowledging its limitations, so I don’t know how much to hold against it. (As a related thought, I wonder how much more public unrest there’d be in minority enclaves if McCain were president right now.)

I’m using “revolution” in a more expansive sense than you apparently think (i.e., to include radical changes to the composition of government if not a chaotic overthrow of its very form), but that’s poor communication on my part.