In his answer, Tennis is worried about the future:
At a certain point in the near future, if the current oligarchy cannot be removed via the ballot, direct political action may become an urgent and compelling mission. It may then be necessary for many people in many walks of life to put their bodies on the line. For the moment, however, although pressing and profound questions have arisen about whether the current government is even legitimate, i.e., properly elected, there still remains a chance to remove this government peacefully in the 2008 election. (Or am I living in a dream world?)
All this is interesting because it’s the kind of speculation you read more and more in the precincts of the left that the time for “direct political action” (violence) is approaching. The anarchists you see smashing up Starbucks windows at G8 conferences are the shock troops of leftist “direct political action.” The more the Democrats lose elections, the more talk like this we will hear. And someday it will be more than just talk.
Instapundit has a round-up of reactions. The good Professor Reynolds has some rational thoughts, as always:
Apparently, Tennis is ready to join a militia, since he's saying the kind of stuff they were saying in 1995.
My advice: you could try something radical like winning elections instead of losing them, by putting forward candidates capable of attracting support from a majority of the electorate. But that would require a commitment to democracy, something that seems rather weak in this piece.
Of course, in answering the grad student’s question, Tennis misses the most important point: in the long run, teaching philosophy students in universities influences cultural change more than street demonstrations. But, hey -- if leftist philosophers want to leave their teaching positions to throw trash cans through McDonald’s windows, that’s fine by me.