On Social Change

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/17/us/four-ways-to-beat-the-man/index.html?hpt=hp_c4

The above article details the important components of staging a successful social movement.  I found it highly informative.  One question the article raises is whether or not another social revolution is necessary in the US.  Seeing as how it seems fashionable to declare that we live in troubled times, I don't think there's any stronger way to deny that claim than to look around and note that there is no social revolution.  The conclusion of the article is that if the circumstances are extreme enough, any group of people will rebel, and I honestly think that about the US today.  I think that my generation has become too dependent on technology and doesn't know how to get their hands dirty, but if their comfortable life is threatened, they'd learn.  Unfortunately for the proponents of change, those circumstances are not threatened.  The average person is still relatively content, and neither side is successfully appealing to the average person.  The article does sort of mention the importance of appealing to the middle, and to the necessity of compromise, but I feel that enlisting the support of the middle is absolutely necessary.  It isn't the downtrodden you have to convince to join your cause, and you'll never convince the people against you.  It's the moderates who need to be convinced.

An important example of this is the aftermath of the Boston Massacre.  The instigators of the riot were hoping that the British soldiers would be charged with murder, and that Britain would intervene on the soldier's behalf, proving that Britain did not have the colonists best interests at heart.  Unfortunately, if that had actually happened, all it would have proved that Boston was being run by an unruly mob, and that Britain was fully justified in military intervention.  Thanks to the impassioned defense of John Adams, the soldiers were acquitted, and there was no military intervention yet.  Furthermore, moderates felt they could get behind the Bostonian's cause, so when the British military did come in after the Boston Tea Party, the reaction in the colonies was that Britain had gone too far in punishing Boston.  What does this prove?  Patience and compromise are essential in any social revolution, and that the middle will only act when they feel threatened.  I fully acknowledge that things are not perfect, and that change would be nice.  However,  the parties at either political spectrum pushing for change seem neither patient or willing to compromise.  Compromise and moderation is certainly not in the Tea Party's language, and liberal minded people always seem to forget that part of toleration is tolerating the opinions you don't agree with.  As much as the vocal minority would lead you to believe, things are not that bad right now.  As a content moderate, I don't feel that my standard of living is in any danger.  Why would I go out and campaign for big change when I don't think it's necessary?  Why should I care?  Until I feel like I would get something out of a social revolution, I'm going to stay put.  And until someone proves otherwise, I'm going to keep considering the people out on the edges as exactly that: crazy people who are out of touch with reality.  So for all you prospective revolutionaries out there, I'll offer this wisdom: pick the battles you can win, cause you won't win all of them.  Maybe sometime you will, but not today.