-Caveat Lector-
BF>Let me share a few very short thoughts on the difference between the
American Revolution and the French Revolution. The American Revolution
is often claimed to have been conservative, while the French Revolution
was radical. However, there was a definite democratic component to the
American Revolution. There was also an elitist component to the French
Revolution. The real differences between these two go deeper than those
involving Locke battling with Rousseau.
In my opinion, the difference between the two revolutions was not
that one was a movement of independence and the other a revolution, as
Russell Kirk and other conservatives have claimed. In a sense, if our
Revolution was a movement of independence then we have the strange
spectacle of the colonists first trying everything to reconcile with the
Crown. The Eagle did not want to separate from the Lion. The American
Revolutionaries only attempted independence when it was clear that their
Lockean claim that taxation was wrong without representation would not
be accepted by a Fillmorean England.
The French model began with a conservative rebellion of noble
against king, and ended with a blood-bath, and then a conservative
restoration of the monarchy, even if a "citizen monarchy". The French
monarchy ruled by some concept of divine right, and the Republic
attempted to replicate this with its "Goddess of Reason" and "Cult of
Reason". The Appolonian religion of the Jacobins degenerated in to the
Dionysian rite. The French attempt to impose the rule of law could not
overcome the irrationality it so strongly opposed. Thus we have the
tragedy of all attempts to ignore the irrationalism that will surface in
such atrocities as the Holocaust, Pol Pot's purges, and other historical
tragedies. Such appeals to "reason" over reality are doomed to
disregard reason entirely.
In contrast, the American model recognized law, the restraint of
passion, as the guiding principle. If the American Revolution was
"conservative", as some who have compared it with the French Revolution
have claimed, then it would not have differed from the Whig revolutions
of England. America did differ considerably from Whig England. The
Whig revolutions, with their Hannoveran monarchy and their unwritten
constitutions, had no protections for the individual other than a set of
precedents. This conservatism may have preserved England during her
darkest hours, but did not function as a workable model for the United
States. Obviously, French Revolutionary traditions were never accepted
by the mainstream of the American liberal tradition. American
liberalism emphasized legalism and compromise, not strident ideology.
However, both the Anglican conservative model of constitutional liberty
and the French model of radical republicanism are seen as foreign to the
American mainstream for the same reasons. Protection for the individual
is seen as a matter of legal protections, ignored by the English and
French models alike. Plenty of nations have constitutions. Very few
have the Bill of Rights that we have, putting a spine in the
Constitution.
The French Revolution was the soil in which nationalism in its
modern form was born. The non-monarchical State no longer relied on the
patriarchical notion of the oldest son succeeding the oldest son. The
State no longer had a personalist basis, except for demagogic States.
The new State was impersonal, and yet demanding total obedience from its
citizens. The United State was not consolidated in this manner until
World War I, when the war state took the helm. The war state meant the
death knell of tolerance. Tolerance and legalism, with a strong dose of
pragmatism, are the trademarks of American liberalism. American
liberalism may have some of its origins in Christian and Enlightenment
traditions of total certainty. However, for good or for ill, it differs
from these traditions in the sense that it does not claim the
certainties that Christian and Enlightenment traditions claim.
The American model of legalism has survived great strains on its
resurces. War scares have taxed the traditions of tolerance greatly, as
even Wilson lamented. Today, we have the "Patriot Act" purporting to
save us from enemies in our midst. What Americans must understand is
that the sentiments held in the Declaration Of Independence, set to
music against a waving flag, do not save us from tyranny. They are
simply sentiments if they are not backed by a set of binding legal
precedents. The Constitution holds these binding legal precedents in
its Bill of Rights. They are no vague sentiments. Unfortunately, they
were so legalistic as to not be universally inclusive at the beginning.
However, they provided the basic structure that allows for an expanding
tolerance. They are not Utopian, and have permitted evils to flourish
under the banner of "choice". A profound philosophical argument could
be raised as to what extent the purely negative freedoms we have claimed
inspire hope and unity. Freedom means freedom to choose evil, while
observing the restraints of contractual obligations. One must then
justify the moral defense of this "right" to choose personal evil if one
is to call oneself a Constitutional Republican. That could mean
profound problems in our justifying the freedoms we enjoy from an
absolute moral standard, a standard that cannot be discarded by moral
philosophers. However, we disregard these freedoms in favor of
religious extremism, Marxism, Fabianism, or some other innovation to our
peril. Utopianism does not work out as planned, not ever.
Bates
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
