The Second American Revolution

Every so often, I come across an activist claiming to be part of a "Second American Revolution". I generally find these assertions to reflect the ignorance of the person making the assertion -- after all, haven't we already had more than one revolution in this country?

Looking around the web, it seems that the term Second American Revolution is used to represent a few different historical conditions. First, there is the war of 1812, which might better identified as the "Second Revolutionary War": as John Adams wrote of the first revolutionary war, the revolution was not in the war itself (though others assert that the war was revolutionary), but was a change in the "principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people." With that perspective, I have to think that the revolution was not complete with our independence from Britain in 1783; instead, it only completed once our institutions had all been modified to recognize the fundamental equality of everyone in our society.

To some, this means that the American Revolution had two aspects, the first being anti-monarchism and independence, the second being a broader anti-elitism. This second aspect was never seen to conclusion, but was expressed in post-independence resistance to the new government such as Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.

Another way to parse this interpretation of the American Revolution is to identify the first revolution as embodying the ideal of fundamental equality among members of a society--in this case, "society" was defined as white males. This "first" American Revolution only reached its conclusion in the period of Jacksonian democracy, around the mid-nineteenth century. This was immediately followed by a strong push for the "second" American Revolution, which sought to expand our definition of "society" to include every person involved--specifically blacks and women. This revolution was only completed with the social and political reforms of the 1960's, and its gains are still being consolidated.

This is my favorite interpretation, though I realize attempts to delimit social evolution are far from objective. Still, I think this paradigm provides some context for thinking about contemporary changes in American society. Has America stagnated, such that we will have no more revolutions? Is there a "top-down" revolution being forced upon us by the ruling elite? If there is to be another populist revolution, will it be a reactive revolution, such that we just regain some liberties that have recently been lost? Or have we entered into a new, progressive revolution that builds upon the accomplishments and experiences from the previous revolutions?

I suppose only time will tell, but your thoughts are appreciated.

There's a recent cover story in Reason, in which Brink Lindsey makes the argument that since the 1960's, American culture has been moving in a libertarian direction. However, rather than seeing this as a conscious ideology/revolution, it is the result of a stalemate between the mass counter-culture of the hippies and the traditionalist reaction embodied in the religious right.

If we are to identify an ongoing American revolution, I think we need to identify the trends in American life, along with the novel concerns of the American people arising both from the previous social revolutions and recent economic developments. For example, I consider most desegregation programs to be hacks* that don't really address the core problems: they focus on increasing minority representation in particular institutions instead of addressing the issue of why access to these institutions is essential, and if access is essential, why are so many Americans excluded. Likewise, how do we respond to economic globalization, and further internationalization of America itself via immigration from regions other than the traditional immigration sources.

*I suppose "hack" isn't commonly used in this sense. I'm using it to mean "an alteration to a system that achieves the desired goal, but is a superficial, clumsy addition to the system rather than a fully integrated modification"

excellent book. I think he's very much right.

Perhaps he is thinking along the lines of Jefferson's "Revolution" when he took office. In the waning moments of the 18th century we had the Alien and Sedition Acts. I think that's what we need today, a Jefferson to take over the political reigns and withdraw the creep of the federal government.

It's overused...I've seen it used to describe the influence of Neoconservative after 9-11, with the doctrine of pre-emptive war, US Military Supremecy and hegemony, and the use of force to force the spread of democracy. As your "reactionary" link indicates, we also see a legitimate push back by the States on issues likle Real ID(around half are revolting on Real ID) and medical marijuana, which specifically relates to a push back on the creeping scope of the federal government.

I've read the term applied to Karl Rove's attempt to create a permanent republican majority, but as this recent study by PEW demonstrates, such a revolution was short-lived.

Frankly, the last 7 years have demonstrated clearly that top-down revolutions don't last very long--there's usually a push back that follows--but bottom-up revolutions(typically having some link to the internet) are the movements that typically last and end up getting incorporated by the mainstream and the elites.

Sorry, but i misidentified that "revolutionary" website as "reactionary" -- I had only skimmed it and misinterpreted the perspective of the author. I've edited the post so that it is not labeling that website as "reactionary".

It's interesting to note that the Revolutionary War started out in large part as a reaction against the king's encroachment on liberties that the colonists had become accustomed to. However, once the dam broke, it went much further than just restoring those liberties.