http://celine_carol.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] celine-carol.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] revolution_fr 2010-04-19 12:29 am (UTC)

I've been reading this for awhile now, and I really find this discussion interesting...

I can't help but wonder if one of the two factors (Nature or man) would have caused it without the interference of the other... I mean, would the people have revolted against the monarchy if Louis had not been such a schlub, and rather, had been able to provide food? And if the volcano hadn't happened, and harvests had turned out fine, would they have done anything? I've got to say, I really doubt it... I can't think of an instance in history where a people have revolted when all their basic needs are being met. Usually hunger or lack of medical care play a role (yes, there are instances of widespread militant suppression of free will causing uprisings, but it's not as common as you'd think...)
But I really think there's something about seeing a leader flounder in the face of a natural event that emboldens people.. After an 8 year economic tailspin, lying us into 2 wars, and generally behaving like an imbecile, nothing caused Bush's approval ratings to tank like hurricane Katrina (and those poor ratings for Reps across the board lead to Obama's election and a filibuster-proof Dem senate and house!). But you could blame that final rating-dip on the hurricane, or on his previous bad reputation, or both... idk, I hope that was pertinent and not too ramblesome!

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting