American government is based on the principle of the consent of the governed, but in a diverse competitive democracy, not everyone consents to everything governments do. One of the virtues of a two year electoral cycle is that those who do not consent to the politics of the moment can focus on a relatively quick opportunity to try to change things.
This assumes that they are willing to wait. Charles Blow might be being a bit paranoid, but I'd like my students to read this over and tell me what you think. He argues that as a consequence of the recent election, conservatives:
. . . feel isolated, angry, betrayed and besieged. And some of their “leaders” seem to be trying to mold them into militias. For some, their disaffection has hardened into something more dark and dangerous. They’re talking about a revolution.
Some simply lace their unscrupulous screeds with loaded language about the fall of the Republic. We have to “rise up” and “take back our country.” Others have been much more explicit.
For example, Chuck Norris, the preeminent black belt and prospective Red Shirt, wrote earlier this month on the conservative blog WorldNetDaily: “How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution?”
Are they right to be worried? Is this a correct response (assuming Blow is correct in his assumption)? Considering they are threatening violence against a duly elected president, are they guilty of edition? Or perhaps this is a healthy way to blow off steam?
