A Tale of Two Revolutions
The other day when I was reading in the fabulous ‘special collections’ library here in Williamstown, Massachusetts, I overheard the chief librarian – a very distinguished and knowledgeable man– welcoming someone to the building. (‘How are you? Good to see you again. Please come along in…’) I imagined from the way he was talking that the visitor must be the College president or some big-shot professor, but not at all: it was the electrician come to change some light bulbs.
That’s one of the things I like about the US: the almost complete lack of snobbiness. I know that there are obscene inequalities and massive social injustices. But on the whole people can expect to be treated with respect, and nearly everyone manages to be polite without being obsequious or deferential. And that strikes me as an important cultural and political achievement, with roots in America’s past.
Europeans with some sense of historical progress tend to patronize the American revolution of 1776, treating it as little more than a rehearsal for the big one: the French revolution of 1789. The American revolution, they think, was merely a matter of throwing off the yoke of British imperialism, whereas the French revolution was a positive attempt to invent a new political order. (Of course the French revolution has the additional advantage of having failed.)
After spending the last six weeks fussing about eighteenth-century America I cannot believe that any more. Most recently I’ve been reading the works of Thomas Paine (and also a scintillating new introduction to them: by the admirable . Tom Paine was nearly forty, a recent blow-in to Philadelphia, when he published his first book: Common Sense: addressed to the Inhabitants of America … by an Englishman. It was January 1776, and his demolition-job on absolute centralized power, hereditary succession, and political interference in religion became the clarion of the American Revolution.
Thirteen years later Paine was in Paris to observe a revolution that he, like many others, thought would be modeled on the American example. He was regarded as a hero by the revolutionaries in France, and wrote his Rights of Man (1791-2) to defend what they were doing. Despite difficulties with the French language, Paine was elected to the National Convention in Paris, where the tide of events turned against him. He isolated himself by arguing in effect for American values: for a loose, federal system of government as opposed to centralized absolutism; for an independent judiciary; and for complete religious freedom and an end to state interference in matters of faith. He also spoke up for Louis XVI, who had after all supported the American revolutionaries in their final battle against the British only a decade before. No one could have been more anti-monarchical than Paine, but he was against the proposal to execute the King without even the formality of a judicial trial. (‘An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty’, he wrote, and ‘he that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from repression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.’)
The response of the terrible Robespierre was immediate: ‘Those who talk of fair trials and the rule of law are unprincipled’, he wrote. The king was executed, and Paine himself was thrown into prison for the best part of a year, escaping the guillotine only because of an administrative oversight. He returned to America in 1802 and expired unnoticed seven years later. It may go against the grain of self-styled progressive thinking, but he surely had a good point: wouldn’t everything have been better if the French revolution had been a bit more like the American one?
""wouldn’t everything have been better if the French revolution had been a bit more like the American one? ""
OR " wouldn't everything be better, other countries, religion etc if they were more like America?"
There are two definitions of snobishness.
The first refers to someone who admires the upper class and looks down on the lower class. In this respect I agree that by enlarge the Americans do not do that. But they do love mixing with royalty and being seen with them. Witness the queuing when Her Majesty arrives in the US
The second definition : someone who believes that they are better than other people - I believe fits the Americans and is exemplified by the present President.
In my view the Americans ever since they invaded that continent and freed themselves from the shackles of Europe, France and England have been telling the rest of the world how to do it better. The current carnage and mess in the Middle East is in my view a direct result of this "snobbishness".
They, I am sure, regard themselves as the moral and economic policemen of the world.
They of course never developed a class system like the one they left behind but have certainly invented a new 'class' system, which I would define as "theocratic intelligentsia" - or in more understandable terms - " we know best and God is on our side"
Thomas Paine wasn't really that bright if he for one moment thought he could convince the French to adopt the American system afer all didn't the French once invade America and try to convince it to adopt their system?
All he was demonstrating really was the New World phenomena of 'theocratic intelligentsia'
The Americans (whatever they are, they were all emigrates anyhow) like to make a great deal about 'defeating the British' in the revolution. To my knowledge the standing British Army in America was never reinforced from mainland England only from Canada, so it can be argued that the Europeans in America never defeated the British army, just the colonial garrisons.
The claim of a successful revolution is a bit rich, they went on to pretty much wipe out the indegenous indians; the true owners of that land and the only ones with any right to revolt. Lets also not forget that Lincoln may well have been the great emancipator but they were still hanging black men in the 60's, the American way of course!
America now executes enough people a year for Liberty to rage against them, go figure that one out. By any conventional measure the American revolution shouldn't be seen as a great success or a great act. It was just men fighting men the way they always do, fighting over the right to be the oppressor and not the oppressed.
Mr Ree, get out of the library and go to the nearest state prison, then talk about Liberty. Go to the senate and investigate the political process, then talk about truth. Visit the court circuit and investigate the judiciary and talk about egality.
They were all pariahs, what did anyone expect!
I do believe that the Americans did produce some noble tenents about democracy. They wanted to break away from the old world and start afresh. But unfortunately as our friend Anonymous points out it didn't include slaves! nor the Indigenous folk already there.
So their democracy - for the people, by the people,of the people etc etc was an exclusive one - ie certain non-gratis groups were excluded. Can one really call that a democracy, or is it rather a semi-democracy or part democracy, or something entirely different again - an 'old boys club'
I find the more local version of 'tale of two revolutions' much more interesting. The revolution of the oppressed and minorities in the form of 'black power' and 'first nation' power.
These are two revolutions that not only America has learnt lessons from but the rest of the world.
And talking about the French as we were originally - I was always of the opinion that they embraced black power or presence much more nobley than the Americans ever did
If America had success, it was because of a belief in God, Diversity, Merit, and Individualism [that anyone can pull themselves by the bootstraps and become successful].
The reality was that the Native Americans [who are the true Americans], the Latins [who were also in America], African-Americans [who were brought in because the Anglo-Saxon Governing Class did not want to work] did not count.
Unfortunatly with the present leadership of Republicans and Democrats, there has been an increase of the powers of the state to the detriment of the liberty preached by Thomas Paine.
The Republicans and Democrats have also re-introduced the concept of absolute hereditary monarchy [albeit elected] in the form of Bush, Clinton, Kennedy.
The Republicans and Democrats talk about liberty yet repress alternative parties such as the Libertarians and Greens, make deals with Castro and Chavez [their puppets].
The Republicans and Democrats have destroyed the value of the US Dollar.
The Republicans and Democrats have closed ALL DOORS to anyone except themselves.
What is the solution?
A return to the original ideals of the Paine, Jefferson, and Franklin.
How is this done?
1. Respect for everyone without regard to race, creed, ethnicity, and ideology [this would be the first time that the USA would
do it].
2. Autonomy for the states, cities, and even ethnic groups. Other countries in Europe have this arrangement and it has functioned nicely].
3. Removal of Government Interference in the Daily Lives of the People of America. [This means the Government should defend the borders and protect its citizens. The rest should be left to the citizens themselves].
4. People participating in the political arena should only GO for two terms and that is it [The Presidency [as well as Governors of some states] is the only post that has term limits. All other positions are reelectable as long as the person or voter wants it [There was one Congressman who spent 55 years in Congress].
5. A Multiracial Multiethnic Government of the Libertarian/Green Kind.
America has no "snobbiness"... so long as you're American, or you speak US English without any determinable accent. If you're British, you have the advantage of being "cute" - since our accents are apparently "quaint" and "adorable" - but none of these terms are, in fact, applied favourably in the general sense.
Push an American - any American - even slightly, and they'll tell you one thing: one American life is worth a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, whatever number you care to mention, of any other nationality. The line varies depending on the degree of extremism of the individual, but the general perception is that American life is intrinsically worth more than any other.
That's worse than snobbiness; that is, at best, nationalism. And at worst, out and out racism.
Didn't we fight a world war -against- that kind of thing? And didn't America supposedly 'save' Europe from nationalism?
So please. No more rubbish about how wonderous and beautiful our cross-Atlantic neighbours are. They're far more into that worst form of "snobbiness" than Britain was even at the height of imperialism: nationlist snobbiness.