The Arab Spring Was A Bad Idea

Violent revolution is always a bad idea.  The violence lets the most violent, the most ruthless, take power.  It gives opportunity and excuse, justification, for tyrants to take advantage of the chaos to take power.  Democracy is always the loser.
So how do we explain the one exception that might prove the rule?  The American Revolution apparently resulted in a democratic country, with freedom and equality, and that has provided the hope and cover for revolutions ever since.  But every violent revolution since then has resulted in the triumph of tyranny.  The French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions brought in the worst excesses and all lead to war.
Why was the American Revolution different?
First, we are not sure it was completely different, since history is written by the victors.  Certainly the first years of the USA saw continuation of slavery, and the rule by an elite over the masses.  These unresolved issues lead to the Indian Wars of Jackson, and then to the Civil War.  Still, even though it was a minority that ruled, it seems that the American Revolution escaped the worst of those revolutions that followed.
The reason may be because, for the Americas, the rulers that we revolted against were distant. It was not a revolution against despots in our own land; the rulers were in England, remote. We could throw off those chains and start anew without the continued presence of the defeated rulers.
We also were very lucky to have revolutionaries who actually believed in some form or limited amount of democracy.  And finally, the colonies were actually very united against English rule, without the schisms that lead to the infighting, division, chaos,  and eventual tyranny that followed all succeeding revolutions.