Whilst not a desirable result of the various revolutionary events, for that is what they are, rocking the middle-East from Yemen to Egypt it would be highly understandable if the end result will be the installation of Islamic fundamentalist type governments across the region.
Who could blame people if, after thirty years, in the case of Egypt, of one party rule, of poverty, and perceived corruption of a once proud country-being the second biggest recipient of American aid after Israel, that patriotic Egyptians threw out their government and installed an Islamic one which had, as its main emphasis a renewal of a moral spirit?
The precedent for this is of course Iran whose people threw out the corrupt and violent regime of the Shah and also Afghanistan. Both events proved, in the long run disastrous to both their peoples, the cause of democracy and Western interests-the latter in blood, money and the moral high ground.
That revolutions can, and often do as history has shown time and time again, take a wrong term is the result of bottled up tensions at very real wrongs. The outrage is not necessarily a financial one, though of course that is a strong factor, as people can live in poverty as long as they see the possibility of economic growth and that their government is, in the main honest-India would be a prime example.
However, if there is poverty and moral corruption, then when the revolution breaks out the end result might very well be a turn to extreme religious radicalism. Before the end of communism that economic system would usually be the radical turn, but now, with no economic alternative, Islamic fundamentalism is the safety valve.
I say no alternative, however free market capitalism or mixed market capitalism under a democratic government is of course an alternative, but that is usually an evolutionary response. It may be that all these Middle-Eastern attempts at revolution go straight to the democratic style of government but, given the hostility to the West and to the moral corruption which abounds, that may not be the case. Even if it is, history has shown that democratic governments that take over after a revolution have so many problems, and have to deal with so many unfillable expectations that they quickly collapse into some sort of radical alternative.
Of course America is not going to undergo a violent revolution but, in the American sense, it is very possible that there will be a revolution in the political balance. This was presaged in the 2010 House election where the Democratic party lost over 60 seats-a staggering rejection of the Obama administration.
As part of that rejection on economic grounds mainly, there was also a strong social element as clearly pointed out by the rise of The Tea Party. This loosely structured organization has, as well as an economic element, a very strong moral element. This element has been seen e.g. in the rejection, wherever the community has had the opportunity to vote on the matter, of Gay marriage-even in ultra-liberal California.
The moral element, which is the true status quo of America, played a part in the re-election of G.W. Bush in 2004, but was submerged in the general anti-Bush feeling, promoted by an ultra-liberal media in 2008. That the Obama administration mis-read the underlying toneof the electorate was clearly shown just two years later.
If the Obama administration, and especially if the Beltway elite and main stream media continue to push for an ultra-liberal agenda (as they have via the Sate of the Union call for more “Big Government” then there should be no reason why the revolt against all they stand for, which surfaced in 2010, will not be further re-inforced with the Republicans capturing the senate and presidency in 2012.
Only one possible candidate, Sarah Palin, has, from the start, had the guts and wisdom, and clear sightedness to see the nature of the true America, mainly because she is a daughter of that fundamental nature.
If she runs for president on a moral crusade basis a 'renewing of the true spirit of America, a resurgence of American values" then that should strike exactly the right chord with a populace who will be ready to ignite their own spark of moral outrage, their own version of the Middle East revolution-but for American values against a corruption brought by a small East/West-Coast elite.
It is nonsensical,and yet another aspect of the liberal smear machine, to say that Palin has no policies-she has clearly set (see Palin's top 10 policy statements) out her economic vision. They do however admit that she has a "values' standpoint (which is undeniable even for them)-unfortunately for them, and their ilk, it is the unbeatable combination of moral values and common sense economics which will sweep away the detritus of the liberal past as "the plain people whom Lincoln so loved" reassert themselves and their values in 2012 with Palin.