And look at the silly sequence! It starts with the society going from bondage to spiritual truth. How likely is that? It is obviously trying to make people think of Biblical OT history, but bondage generally degrades, and is not all that enlightening. (If it is enlightening, then we should be very happy, because that may be the direction in which Obama will take us!)
Actually, our English-American history involves many ups and downs, and our constitutional system (derived largely from the English and the Scottish experience) came as a by-product of internal struggles ending in a standoff between royal authority and powerful, disobedient noblemen. Those in bondage had very little to do with it.
I am wracking my brains, but cannot come up with a case of a true freedom movement starting from the lower classes. Those who are really ground down just want to survive, and they seldom have the time or the wit to lead themselves in a new direction.
The American Revolution was led by relatively wealthy men. There were no true serfs here. The spiritual influence was a result of religious conflict back in Britain, which had simmered and flared over several centuries. The leaders were never those literally in bondage, but rather the churchmen and landowners of the day. One reason Americans wanted and valued liberty is that as Englishmen they were already familiar with the concept, and expected it.
You Biblical scholars, correct me if I am wrong. The Hebrews were freed from Egypt only by the leadership of Moses, and man who had been raised as an adopted son by an Egyptian priness — and he had a heck of a time trying to motivate the children of Israel to return to their own religion, and head home. There was complaining and kvetching all the way.
Similarly, the Babylonian captivity did not end because the Hebrews were spritually enlightened by their bondage. It was because an outside invader (Cyrus the Persian) happened to come in and destroy the Babylonian rule. Only then could the Hebrews return home.