You Say You Want a Revolution?

Many of the American theoreticians behind "regime change" thought they could succeed because they remembered the constitutions and new forms of government imposed by the United States on Germany and Japan after World War II. But that was different. In that case, the United States served, in effect, as midwife to the liberal, democratic forces that Adolf Hitler and Japan's militarists had repressed. And a very financially generous midwife at that.

In fact, there never has been a successful revolution in modern times that was conducted in a country by a foreign power. Calling a revolution "regime change," as if such a radical transformation of politics and society were a simple technical matter — like upgrading your software — isn't going to set a precedent.

No wonder conservatives anoint their slightest political triumph a "revolution." There was the Reagan revolution, and then there was the Gingrich revolution. Some people even like to talk about the Bush revolution. ("Is it a regime change?" "No, Mr. President. That was your alarm clock.")

Given their envy of the French, Bush and his own Robespierre wannabe, Karl Rove, might well tune in to tonight's two-hour special. If they do, they'll discover an American indebtedness to the French that is sure to trouble them in more ways than one. For it was Louis XVI who bankrolled the American Revolution, thus impoverishing his government and opening the door to the events of 1789. Louis, you see, wanted to avenge his father's defeat by the British in the Seven Years' War.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-siegel17jan17,1,1122482.story

It's one of the reasons I love it.

"For it was Louis XVI who bankrolled the American Revolution, thus impoverishing his government and opening the door to the events of 1789. Louis, you see, wanted to avenge his father's defeat by the British in the Seven Years' War."

history are condemned to repeat them."