Bastille Day…
…is today.
The French rallying cry “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” sounds something like our “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but in actuality it was very different. Although originally the “equality” meant equality under the law, things soon changed [emphasis mine]:
This identification of liberty and equality became problematic during the Jacobin period, when equality was redefined (for instance by Frané§ois-Noé«l Babeuf) as equality of results, and not only judicial equality of rights. Thus, Marc Antoine Baudott considered that French temperament inclined rather to equality than liberty, a theme which would be re-used by Pierre Louis Roederer and Alexis de Tocqueville, while Jacques Necker considered that an equal society could only be found on coercion.
The third term, Fraternité, was the most problematic to insert in the triad, as it belonged to another sphere, that of moral obligations rather than rights, links rather than statutes, harmony rather than contract, and community rather than individuality.
It is no coincidence that the French Revolution was marked by the Reign of Terror, and inspired both the Soviet and Chinese communist revolutions.
I don’t think I’ll celebrate much.
I linked to Roger Kimball’s PJM article “Battling the Amoeba” in an earlier thread.
Now I’ll link to Subotai Bahadur’s comment in that same thread, which is quite pertinent.
The French have long had a greater fascination for the philosophically impressive than the logical. They personified Reason as a woman for god’s sake. A quick scan at ‘Liberté, égalité, fraternité’ ought be enough to set off alarms. Freedom loses by a 2-1 vote. Frédéric Bastiat was more than a little annoyed with the concept of fraternité and found it as troubling and incompatible with liberté as égalité was certain to be. And who, anywhere, believes in equality except in the abstract and on the occasion of a shared bottle and a friendly disagreement?
I’ve mentioned J.l.Talmon’s 1952 book, “The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy,” several times before here, because of its discussions of the ideas of Rousseau, “social utility” (a favorite idea of Czar Cass Sunstein, and from his statements/writings the principle that will be guiding the medical review panels i.e. “Death Panels” he is busily working at implementing), and the Leftist totalitarian political philosophy and approach Talmon analyzes–taking the French Revolution as its major case–are extremely relevant in the age of Obama & Co., and his emerging “Totalitarian/Messianic Democracy” approach to government, and I believe Talmon’s analysis and ideas deserve more attention.
More attention particularly for Talmon’s description and dissection of the idea of those on the Left–believing (that is what they tell themselves) that they have superior “vision,” and therefore an imperative reason/justification/duty/mission, one that trumps everything else–one that requires them to “force people to be free,” no matter what methods might be necessary, in order to be able to herd people down the road to the Left’s vision of “Utopia,” “for their own (did they realize it) and the greater good.”
Thomas Jefferson was also enamored with it.
Seriously, what is wrong with the French? Is there some genetic lesion that in every instance prevents them from adopting a sensible course of action, and instead to plump for some bat-sh!t crazy option that all non-French grownups instantly recognize will not work.
See, inter alia, and in no particular order, wanting to fight the Prussians in 1870 (result: ass kicking), wanting to fight the Germans in 1914 for “revanche” (result: another ass kicking),
red pants on their infantry in WWI, grinding Germany’s face in the dirt in the Treaty of Versailles, thereby guaranteeing another, future ass kicking, building the Maginot Line and selling out Czechoslovakia to avoid said ass kicking, which of course arrived shortly thereafter any way, plumping for accommodation (Vichy France) with the enemy, trying after WWII to regain their colonies in Indochina (another ass kicking), and to retain one they still had, Algeria (result: yep, you guessed it), and last but not least, establishing the EU, a French production to allow France to exert clout in Europe out of all proportion to France’s importance.
A common denominator seems to be that the French consistently wildly overestimate their strength, importance and competence, and adamantly refuse to engage with reality.
I am in France and I saw the parade on TV. It was impressive. There was an air force fly-by too. I felt sorry for the parachutist who injured his knee when he landed near Hollande. It was a good day. We had a nice meal and a good wine and it had stopped raining. It has been a cold summer so far.
Revolutions rarely go well. We are witnessing this today in the Middle East. Regardless of the original reason or the high ideal of the original revolutionaries something else always seems to replace that and usually violently.
holmes Says:
“Thomas Jefferson was also enamored with it.”
I think he saw the opportunity for it to be good. Which was there… but passed.
Even today when I hear foreign leftists saying they don’t want American style democracy and my first thought is ‘idiot; you have it none the less’. Our revolution has eventually spread through almost the entire western world and much beyond it. But; just like in the French revolution; the left wants to subvert it…
Example: Want to buy healthcare? Not fair; someone else can’t afford the same things so you can’t have it…
Very Hemmingway of you Jay W.
“Revolutions rarely go well.”
Indeed, we were fortunate that our revolution produced (what was) the best federal system in history. As thomass notes, the left are busy bees attempting to subvert life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
“A common denominator seems to be that the French consistently wildly overestimate their strength, importance and competence, and adamantly refuse to engage with reality.”
Its what makes them French. 😉
But as Jay W states, Bastille Day in Paris is a grand and enjoyable affair. And, there are people in France who have their feet on the ground and are well aware of the “genetic lesion” found in too many of their compatriots.
Occam’s Beard said: Seriously, what is wrong with the French? Is there some genetic lesion that in every instance prevents them from adopting a sensible course of action, and instead to plump for some bat-sh!t crazy option that all non-French grownups instantly recognize will not work.
Your question reminds me a little bit of one of the observations often made by one of my housemates in graduate school. He liked to observe that although many countries which were former colonies had problems, the countries which were former French colonies usually had the most screwed up histories. It was no coincidence, therefore, that Vietnam, Cambodia, Haiti, and Algeria and the Republic of Congo (among other countries) were all at one time under the influence of the French empire.
St.Just, the young protege of Robespierre & fellow member of the Committee of Public Safety during the year of the Terror, was my youthful Hero. When the Triumvirs were arrested on 9 Thermidor and quickly sent to the guillotine, St.Just could likely have saved himself due to his strong ties with the Armies. He chose to remain with Couthon & Robespierre, an act of admirable courage and honor. He was just 26. I loved him when I was his age and on the left. Still have a framed print of the ‘Angel of Death’ from David’s portrait here in my study.
He chose to remain with Couthon & Robespierre, an act of admirable courage and honor.
Yep, not to mention plucking himself from the gene pool.
Occam…Young Louis-Antoine would have found your humor wanting…But there were much Bigger Fish to purge and, thus, would have spared you. Not so, Danton. Nor Hebert. (-:
Occam…Young Louis-Antoine would have found your humor wanting…But there were much Bigger Fish to purge and, thus, would have spared you.
Temporarily, at least, until a free spot opened up on the national razor.
But I’m down with the French slogan, what is it, liberté, égalité, nudité? Sounds like a platform to me.
Oui, oui..!
Louis-Antoine
He should have been executed just for having a hyphenated name.
What is it with the Frogs and hyphenating not just surnames, but given names? Indecisive parents?
I’ve had the honor of peeing on French soil.
Wee-Weeee..!
You could celebrate if you knew WHAT to celebrate. The revolution did eat itself, then died to a dictator, who drove France into the dirt, and much more quickly than the other revolutions. While it is unfortunate that many died, many of those who did die were indeed aristocrats who… may well have deserved to die. Between communists and royalty and nobility and socialists… which is worse depends mostly one which despises you at the time you are discussing the matter. All are lethal, whimsically lethal way too often, and none of them are worth the ideals that formed them.
Long live Short Revolutions!
Doom…ALL the royalists/aristocrats in human history haven’t caused more than a flyspeck of human carnage when compared to the 100+million deaths due to Communists of last century. Toss in Hitler’s contribution to mass graves-crematories in that same century and monarchies–even the Tsars–look a tad tepid.
Occam,
While I sympathize with your intent I feel the principle of universal nudity, while desirable in some cases would be a disaster for the majority.
On the bright side I find that some of the optimal cases are prone to submit to the principle voluntarily?
Who needs a revolution?
NeoConScum,
Oh, yes they have. By doing exactly, sort of, in a round about way, exactly what you suggest. What communists and socialists destroyed, royalty/nobility prevented from ever happening. By stagnating everything from science to wealth, keeping things as they are by force, they murdered by proxy. And, as I have suggested, they were just as murderous, simply they didn’t act on it as often because most people simply feared and stayed in line (as if that always helped).
The saddest thing is, it is the aristocrats who loosen the grip… just a bit… who end up being flushed down the memory hole. It seems, for them to remain in power, they must never question their authority or be lenient in the slightest. Odd. Still, aristocracies had to be ended. Unfortunately (despite what you are assured), Britain is still greatly ruled by royalty. Don’t even doubt it.
Doom –
That’s a good point, and this whole discussion of the antagonism between modern tyranny and ancient aristocracy is the theme of Jouvenel’s “On Power.” Aristocracy was not an ideal system by any means, and you’re right to note how stifling and oppressive it could be – but at the same time, the diffusion of power to multiple centers of “petty tyranny” (as Jouvenel called them) prevented power from consolidating into an overarching center. To put it cynically, the difference is between ordinary old oppression and modern totalitarianism.
Once the aristocrats either lightened up or began doubting themselves (as they did in France and Russia), the monsters were ready to “hang them with the noose they fashioned.” And the people were ready to support this, due to their often legitimate sense of grievance against the aristocrats. Of course, the people too were hanged with their own noose.
History is a field of irony, isn’t it? So often the lesson is “pick your poison,” although just as often it is clear which poison is preferable (communism or aristocracy? Easy choice, if that is the choice). The American experiment was an attempt to have neither aristocracy nor tyranny, or rather, to have just enough aristocracy blended with just enough popular government to secure both real liberty and real veto points forestalling the emergence of centralized despotism.
In short, a balancing act, made on a tightrope.
– Also, re: Wolla Dalbo –
I appreciate your plumping for Talmon, who is, somewhat inexplicably, completely forgotten today. I am ashamed to admit it, but I’ve never read “Origins” because whenever I checked on Amazon it was too expensive. Instead, I read “The Unique and the Universal,” “Political Messianism,” and “The Myth of Nation and the Vision of Revolution.”
Talmon was one of the greats. A beautiful writer, a penetrating thinker, and yet, as far as I can tell, more or less a man of the left ’till the end (as was Sidney Hook, who reminds me of Talmon in many ways). There’s a lesson here too, or at least a question, about the tenability of left-wing anti-communism.
On the one hand, many of the greatest enemies of communism were self-proclaimed men of the left: Hook, Orwell, Ulam, Aron, Koestler, Talmon; I would say even Havel, Kolakowski, and Milosz were best classified as “on the left” (though that’s debatable).
On the other hand, there has never been a viable left as a national movement that has been able to maintain a clear and unambiguous opposition to communism. Perhaps for a time there was such a left, by one-by-one each instance of it descended into muddle and gave up the ghost.
One of the reasons I went over to the right, as I’ve recounted before, was that so long as I was going to be locating myself ideologically on one “side” or another, I could not in good conscience be on a side that had so much trouble opposing such an obvious evil as communism. That is, to call myself a “left-wing anti-communist,” as I may have been inclined to do at one point, struck me as being unsustainable.
It isn’t that guys like Hook were not real and effective opponents of communism; it’s just that this didn’t set well with their leftism.
Anyway, a discussion for another day…
kolnai,
Actually, I consider most writers, modern to classic, as of the left. They, pretty much, don’t make it to print otherwise. A few slip through, mostly in religious circles. I have read none of these men, though after extensive reading in my youth, I sort of realized, after leaving the left myself, that there is little else out there to read but “of the left”… save a very few.
And, yes, irony. Not the cute, or little, kind. The punch on the nose until you see stars type of irony. Hard, brutal, bleeding irony. That IS history. If America ever truly descends into the madness of even true socialism, the world will truly hate us. While they do hate us now, it is the way people who can’t race but want to might hate the fastest man in the world. Jealousy. But if we throw it all away to become like them, or fit in, we will truly be despised… maybe for all of history. Ironic to be sure. As the reason many want to change this nation is to be liked by the rest of the world! hehehe
Obama, by signing this EO 13617, actually declared a national emergency.
Obama can now “justify” any action he wants to take by citing EO 13617 since it declares a national emergency.
– EO 10990 allows the Government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
– EO 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.
– EO 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision
– EO 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
– EO 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
– EO 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate and establish new locations for populations.
– EO 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.
Rather than getting politically philosophical about this I simply raise a glass, figuring that anytime you can do so in honor of the French shooting themselves in the head it is a good enough reason.
North Carolina governor Beverly Perdue (Democrat), on September 28, 2011, suggested that perhaps elections should be suspended for two years by canceling, until the economy recovers, the 2012 elections.
Former White House director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag “Too Much of a Good Thing: Why we need less democracy”. Orszag suggests that the constitutional rules of limiting government offers impediments to autocratic, dictatorial actions, and are just too great.
“According to Talmon, totalitarian democracy sees freedom as something achieved only in the long term, and only through collective effort . . . all that is required of the citizen is to carry out his role, whatever it may be, to the best of his ability.”
“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own.”–Barach “I stink” Obama.
Artfldgr, another addition to the Democrats against Democracy brigade is Woody Allen, back in 2010. He said this in Cannes.
Beverly Perdue claimed her statement was a joke. The people of North Carolina decided that, on the contrary, it was Governor Perdue who was the joke: due to outcry against her statements and performance as Governor, she decided to not run for reelection.
It’s always a joke with the Democrats, such as Anita Dunn’s response to negative feedback to her “Chairman Mao is one of my two favorite philosophers” remark at a commencement speech. I saw the video, and detected no irony, no joke.
Extremely fortunate in our history up until now and, thus, naive and trusting, we give our Presidents extraordinary trust, power, and scope of action.
If you look at all of the emergency powers that a President has–that we have very trustingly given him via Congress, any President has the tools at hand, if he has the “audacity,” if he really wants to use them, to try to become a dictator.
In terms of “infection” by such a dictatorship, the U.S. today is what in epidemiological terms is termed a “virgin field” i.e. having no immunizing experience with dictatorships–attempted or successful–we have no antibodies built up against them, we are not on the alert for their signs, have not built up any defenses specifically designed to counter them, and can very easily be completely overwhelmed if the infection, the imposition of a dictatorship, is swift.
Put another way, we will still be groggily looking and milling around, tossing our heads, and just starting to realize that there is something that is “not right” in the wind, when the predators already have us surrounded, and it is far to late for action.
Up until Obama–with perhaps the exception of Roosevelt–we have been very lucky in not having Presidents who were interested in becoming, or seriously trying to become such a dictator.
No it couldn’t happen. Doesn’t Obama always use that nice word “folks” when referring to us. We’re folk. Dem goo peeple dats full of unnertannin ne’er gonna hurts us. Massah Obama lookin outs for us.
While I sympathize with your intent I feel the principle of universal nudity, while desirable in some cases would be a disaster for the majority.
I just thought of Rosie O’Donnell and Roseanne Barr.
I abjectly withdraw my slogan, and will gladly report to the national razor to get that image out of my mind.
Aristocracy was not an ideal system by any means, and you’re right to note how stifling and oppressive it could be
Aristocracy wasn’t all bad, particularly in England and Scotland, where relief from the need to work for a living entailed an obligation to contribute to society. The literary and mathematical output of British aristocrats is staggering, especially considering how small the population was from the 16th to 18th centuries (ca. 3-5 million, IIRC). From sonnets to logarithms, their achievements were remarkable. (No doubt there were a vast number of wastrels, hence the expression “drunk as a lord,” but still …).
I’m less familiar with the accomplishments of French aristos, but recall that they were the backbone of French contributions to mathematics. And I can’t omit mention of Lavoisier, the French aristo who is considered the father of modern chemistry.
By contrast, what comparable achievements have our smelly socks aristos, such as Ted Kennedy, contributed? Anyone? Bueller?
While they do hate us now, it is the way people who can’t race but want to might hate the fastest man in the world.
Yep. Kinda like the way people hate the NY Yankees. Nobody hates the Cubs.
Occam’s Razor
The mathematical, scientific, and engineering achievements in Great Britain from the 16th to the 19th century were achieved in the main by Dissenters- who were not of the hereditary aristocracy, as pointed out in Darlington’s The Evolution of Man and Society. Napier, born into the Scottish aristocracy, was the inventor of logarithms. As far as I can tell, he was about the only member of the hereditary aristocracy who was prominent in math, science, or engineering.
Darwin’s family was well off, but they were Unitarians. His grandfather Erasmus Darwin, also a scientist of note, was named for his great-great grandfather Erasmus Earle, sergeant-at-law under Oliver Cromwell. Dissenters, dissenters, dissenters.
By and large, the contribution of the hereditary aristocracy in Great Britain were in the fields of war and government. The classes below the hereditary aristocracy did much better in advancing mathematical, scientific, and engineering knowledge.
IMHO, a similar argument can be made in literature. For every Sir Phillip Sidney, there are numerous Alexander Popes [son of a linen merchant], though I suspect that the hereditary aristocracy made a greater contribution to literature than it did to math, science, or engineering.
While French impersonate Reason by a female goddess, they impersonate their nation by a cock. Quite appropriate, if it means what Occam observed: “French consistently wildly overestimate their strength, importance and competence, and adamantly refuse to engage with reality.” But how much reason this bird can symbolize? In terms of psychiatry, such type of personality usually referred to as narcissism, and such persons have really bad time when confronted with reality.
All these qualities can be briefly described as deficit of common sense, a virtue which Anglo-Saxons proudly celebrate. And with a very good reason. While British rulers frequently had problems in this department, too, their subjects usually don’t. This is the only reason why Brits consistently refused to fall to totalitarian temptations of Nazism and Communism, to which almost all other European nations readily succumbed.
This is the only reason why Brits consistently refused to fall to totalitarian temptations of Nazism and Communism, to which almost all other European nations readily succumbed.
Now we can add the EU to that list.
The mathematical, scientific, and engineering achievements in Great Britain from the 16th to the 19th century were achieved in the main by Dissenters- who were not of the hereditary aristocracy, as pointed out in Darlington’s The Evolution of Man and Society.
Good point, Gringo. I must confess on the mathematical front I was thinking of Napier, but I believe that the hereditary aristocracy was prominent in literature. Alas, my English literature classes in college were … uh … a while ago, and I don’t recall specifics!
Doom…You’ve gotta be ****ing ****ing me!!
Probably not 1 in 10,000, of the tens of millions liquidated by Stalin, Mao & company were enemies of their regimes. Much less any kind of threat. That wasn’t the point of the butchery. Duuhhhh…
The French have long had a greater fascination for the philosophically impressive than the logical. They personified Reason as a woman for god’s sake.
I always took this as much-needed evidence that the French had a sense of humor. /ducks
Occam’s Beard: two examples of philosophy/math/science productive aristocrats are Bertrand Russell and Francis Bacon. Francis Bacon’s contributions to the scientific method and the philosophy of science helped spur the scientific revolution in Great Britain.
My offhand opinion is that hereditary aristocrats in Great Britain made their biggest contributions to literature, philosophy, or to STEM during the Elizabethan Age. Literature: Sir Phillip Sidney and Edmund Spenser [Faerie Queen]. Francis Bacon.