Bernie Sanders has a book out, called Our Revolution. The picture on the front is triumphalist; he's at a podium, possibly at a rally, though if any pros were involved with making the book, the cover was staged.
Bernie lost. Not only did he lose, but instead of fighting the Democrat leadership, he just ran away. Bernie didn't have to run away. He had huge crowds and it is quite possible he would have won against Hilary if it was a fair fight.
Now, if Bernie had actually won, he still would have lost. If we were waking up to a Sander's administration, where he could actually implement his stupid ideas, we would witness apocalyptic levels of losing as his policies consistently and completely failed to achieve what he wanted them to do.
At this point, if anyone is using the word revolution, they are either deluded about something or they aren't; and if they aren't, they are fucking evil.
I doubt Sander's fits in the evil category, and his giant miasma of delusion seems mean he thinks he actually effected some sort of change, when he obviously didn't.
And a lot of good people, like Ron Paul, have used the word revolution. I suspect, in this case, there's confusion over the political definition versus the more mundane physics sort of definition. Although, when you think really hard about when a cylinder or something has one full revolution, and is back at precisely the same place it started- well, you start to realize you might not necessarily want a revolution. But it becomes even more annoying when you realize revolution is always against the natural order. It isn't just the revolution of an engine- no, it is more like taking all your resources and shoving them into fueling that engine to keep normality at bay for just a little while longer.
I'm not sure how close they are to evil- but sometimes you can find the ones who accept the objectives, and state the objectives as if it was a moral statement. I heard one recently talking about recidivism rates and how the statistics gathered were unfair to minorities. In some cases it seemed this person was pointing out statistics that could actually be unfair; but in other cases it seemed she would simply ignore true statistics in order to achieve her goal. In other words, removing any correlation between race and likelihood for recidivism seemed to be her moral objective.
Even though that might not feel evil, it can get very close. Che's twisted morality had him out there killing lots and lots of people. We've got this weird idea that the evil person needs to be really enjoying the evil actions- but, that's just not necessary for evil to be done. When people become committed to treating falsehoods as moral objectives, they begin to see particular actions as necessary- unpleasant, perhaps, but necessary (although, Che seemed quite happy with his murderous work).
The natural order, though it is natural, needs to be fought for. There are still many libertarian/conservative principles that are good principles- the rather large gaping hole in the logic was this idea that we didn't really need to enforce them- like they were laws of gravity. Well, no. The left will always try to subvert- it's not like they pro-create very well, so they have to steal your children. We can't just have a fair playing field, or simply repeal laws.