destruction of a culture? Political pilgrimsnonce cited official government claims ofnuniversal literacy and improved healthncare. (Such unsubstantiated claims havenalso blossomed in Castro’s Cuba and arennow being spewed by the camp followersnof the Nicaraguan junta.) Russia hadnher revolution and slid into Orientalndespotism.nWhen one turns from the major revolutionsnto some of the more interestingnsideshows, a similar picture emerges.nMexico—the real target of the CentralnAmerican Marxist-Leninists—had hern1910 revolution. A part of the rulingnelite feared for its future after the retirementnof the aging Diaz. Madero, son ofnone of the wealthiest families, issued hisnpronunciamento. The result was massndevastation. Anarchy reigned; the countrynwas torn apart; thousands died of starvation.nThere were villages in which everynfemale from 12 to 65 was raped. Thenpopulation of Mexico actually declinednand most campesinos did not eat at thenprerevolutionary level until the late 50’s.nThe revolutionary elite paraded thenusual social and economic promises andnindeed incorporated some of them innthe 1917 constitution. But there wasnminimal social and economic benefit fornthe averse Mexican. When life returnednto normal, Mexico was still burdened byna ruling elite, similar to the prerevolutionarynelite but fostering different slogansnand wearing different uniforms.nIreland—the “land of saints and scholars”—hadnher 1916 Rising. Ireland hadnbeen an integral part of the United Kingdomnand had secured a promise of post-nWorld War I home rule. Many expectednIreland to evolve in the direction ofnCanada and Australia. But a small elite ofnfanatics, obsessed with the cult of bloodnsacrifice, revolted on Easter Monday,n1916. The dramatic exercise ignited thencountry and the Anglo-Irish war (1919-n21) ensued. Ireland secured Free Statenstatus followed by a civil war over thenterms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. The independentnIreland was divided politicallynand geographically. It is probable thatnwithout the Rising and the resultingnAnglo-Irish war and civil war, Irelandnwould have secured her independencenintact and avoided the subsequent Ulsternterror. Yeats probably deserves the lastnword on the Irish revolution:nPamell came down the road, he saidnto a cheering man: ‘Ireland shall getnher freedom and you shall break stone.’nWhy do virtually all revolutions fail ifnevaluated in terms of their prerevolutionarynpromises and objectives? Why arenthe ramifications so different from thenpledges? YCTiy is the revolution alwaysnbetrayed? There are a number of reasonsnfor the inevitable failure/doom of revolution.nOne is the arrogance of the revolutionaries.nAs they perceive it, they possessnthe one and only truth, and theirnsituation is unique. History starts withnthem and their cause; there is littie theynare prepared to learn from the past. Bothnclassical wisdom and Judaic-Christiannprecept prepare us for the fate of the arrogant.nA second reason is revolutionarynsimplification. Ordinarily, the revolutionariesnportray life as an Armageddon,na battle between good and bad, saintsnand sinners. This distortion, while eliminatingncomplexity, makes it difficult tonfathom reality. Third, the revolutionariesnvirtually always fail to appreciate any inheritedngoods and services. They takenfor granted the accomplishments of thenprevious regimes, failing to comprehendnthe difficulty of maintaining systemicnorder. When, following their reign ofndestructiveness, they secure power, theynmust assume the role of the previousnregime in maintaining order and producingngoods and services. Since the attributesnof an effective revolutionary arenseldom those of a good administrator,nthey generally lack the expertise for thisnpedestrian task. Finally, the revolutionaries,nwith their rhetoric, raise the levelnof popular expectation. They conditionnthe masses to expect change and improvementnin their individual Uves. Theynpromise fer more than they are ever ablento deliver, hence the resulting fioistration.nnnWith such a dismal record of accomplishmentnand a marked record of atrocity,nwhy the continuous appeal of revolution?nTo romanticize revolution seemsnas grotesque as flaunting the Spanish Inquisitionnor New England witch-hunts.nWhy has man failed to learn from thenpast; why must he start from scratch;nwhy must he learn and relearn? Therenare perhaps six reasons to account fornthe continuous appeal of revolutionarynmythology.nFirst, revolutions, like wars, are seldomnpresented in retrospect as they actuallynwere. The new, victorious elite mustnlegitimize itself by interpreting the revolutionnas a mass, popular, heroic risingnagainst evil incarnate. It must exaggeratenthe difficulty, the suffering, and the overwhelmingnodds that were transcended.nIt can seldom acknowledge the importantnrole of foreign intrigue and foreign aidn(e.g., Castro’s victory was actually wonprimarilynin Washington and New York,nrather than Cuba). Its regimented controlnof education and media will allow noncounterinterpretation of the “glorious”nevent. Ultimately, the objective story ofnthe revolution must be told by those whonhave escaped or avoided its sway.nSecond, it is difficult in all societies tonaccept that most people will have to livena pedestrian/prosaic existence. The routinenresponsibilities of life cannot benavoided. Man must work, experience defeatnas well as victory, and eventuallyndie. Pain is mixed with pleasure. Revolutionnseems to offer a break with this unpleasantnfeet; it seems to restore romance,nexcitement, and Utopian transformation.nThird, Western liberalism encour^esnan obsession with change. It comparesnone’s own society to a transcending idealnrather than to other mundane societies.nIt lacks any historical/comparative perspective.nIt is seldom content with thingsnas they are, and in urging reform usuallynpresents the society in the worst possiblenlight. For the liberal’s children to embracenrevolution is the logical next step;nit is rational and consistent behavior.nFourth, the perennial boredom of then^wmberl983n