Protests and the future

Today was my first day off in a week, so I ran some errands and went to the grocery. I also wanted to go driving around photographing murals around Austin, but I ran out of steam. Austin is full of them, many on the walls of businesses to promote whatever they sell, like video stores with figures from famous movies painted ten feet high. There's a frog mural on Guadalupe so famous, when Baja Fresh bought the building to remodel, so many people protested they ended up leaving the wall it's on alone.

Austin has a bit of a protest culture, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but it can lead to anger in some people that can grow unhealthy (the above example excluded). When I read about people fire-bombing McDonald's in France, I think that society has a deeper problem than cheap fast food replacing local restaurants. Violence is never an option in this day and age for anyone who wants to be taken seriously on the merits of their argument.

Does anybody truly believe the Second Amendment unrestricted would prevent a dictator from taking over America? Can you see any gun owner you know who's not crazy or abusing some substance pointing a weapon at an American soldier under any circumstance? Gun owners are overwhelmingly conservative in their politics, the kind of people who celebrate the troops, not prepare to fight them. In my opinion, the most likely scenario for the United States as we know it to cease to exist (and I by no means believe this is likely) is for a President (especially one like Bush, who believes himself destined to rule the country) to simply refuse to leave office. He'd still call himself President, and still convene the Congress and everything that goes along with the way government is run today, but with his supporters in power there (Bush's campaign this time around encouraged fealty oaths to Bush himself, not the office of the Presidency, or the United States), he could ignore any court rulings he didn't like (President Andrew Jackson did this), order the army anywhere he needed to suppress dissent (e.g. Kent State), and if his policies were popular enough, basically rule with impunity. He wouldn't have to declare himself a king (this would be counter-productive), he could claim he had to stay on as President because of "the will of the people", or the need to eliminate the terrorist threat, but he would in effect be a king. Throughout history, kings have only ruled by the consent of the people or through the application of violence. But in America today, the people with the greatest capacity to violently fight for freedom are the ones ideologically aligned with those in the government who are taking it away in the name of security and moral values. Let me reiterate that I don't see this happening. I'm sure at the end of his second term, Bush will leave the office to whoever wins the next election, because I think he does believe in the America he grew up in. But what about the next guy?

The problem with investing so much power in the Presidency, as has happened since 9/11, and promoting so much secrecy, as Bush has done since he got into office, is the loss of accountability. The Republican majority are so high on their own power right now, they don't see a downside to eliminating dissent and consolidating power. But what about when the other side comes back into power? (And if America and the Constitution survive, they will eventually.) Are they comfortable leaving the precedent of having all that control in the hands of the opposition? There used to be checks and balances, but they're eroding. If conservatives ever cease to care if their arguments are taken seriously by those they disagree with, they might change their minds about how much support those troops deserve when they're taking orders from their political enemies. That's the nightmare scenario-protestors with guns instead of signs.