THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM

I haven't stated that i believe that groups have different talents and energies, i referred to individuals. Nor have i contended that groups evolve such characteristics. Societies may enshrine ethical imperatives which mitigate for or against individual initiative--Chinese imperial societies, when fully in the control of the Mandarin (late in the history of any particular dynasty), were predicated upon an assumption of the perfection of Chinese civilization, and therefore often inimical to innovation and outside influence as a consequence.

It is this complex interaction of individual, group, culture and social tradition which lead me to look askance at any contention of a simple description of political philosophy. Locke is not possible without Hobbes, and the constitution of our nation owes much to both--but neither the simplistic statements of Hobbes about the human condition (often intentionally alegorical rather than categorical), nor the simple governance system envisioned by Locke can be said to conclusively descriptive of the politics of our society and their origin--in my never humble opinion.

Setanta
Setanta, the frustration I felt studying this Spring (for the first time at age 75) Rousseau and the other writers of the French Enlightenment was their failure to provide a way to achieve peacefully through political means their idealistic goals. They were Eurocentric in their thought and applied their theories to the educated classes. I think their best effort produced the Encycolopedia edited by Diderot.

Intellectual idealists often lead the masses into revolution. The French had their revolution. Then they got Napoleon Bonaparte. It took more than a hundred years to achieve anything like the beginning idealism of the Enlightenment.

At least Hobbes provided a plan to achieve his idealistic goals. I'm far more impressed by the English-Scottish Enlightenment than the French version. Am I missing something?

Another thought I had while reading your elegant history review was how often women are instigators of rebellion and on the front lines. Since most history is written by men, this is often not realized nor recorded.

BBB

No need for askant expressions, Set.

The three philosophers' work was heavily considered in forming the Constitution, as we have established. I would not, nor have I, suggested that was, in your words, "conclusively descriptive of the politics of our society and their origin."

BBB--

It was uproarious--the stories of the French women's role in the French Revolution. I got a kick out of it. I agree with the balance of your statements, too. (Imagine!)

Lash


Lash, I don't think I can survive the heart palpitations I'm having at the thought of you agreeing with me. Quick, call an ambulance!

BBB

Poor thing!! I'll scan quickly and try to find something to disagree with!!! Don't worry--I'm good at this!!!



Put some nitroglycerine under your tongue!!

Since you equal 'soicalist' to 'social democratic', George - when had there been one, just one singel - Socialist uprising (or failed Socilist uprsing), which led to several waves of European immigrants arriving in the USA?

(I think, an equal number of British left their home country under Conservative as well as under Labour govrnments for instance.)

1. Germans in 1848

2. Colonists and immigrants from Britain were mostly people escaping religious oppression - not politics per se.

Social Democrats in 1848? (I doubt, there have been even Socialists at time.)

Besides other reasons, certainly the failed revolutions of 1848 were for some people the final impetus to go overseas. But these people left their home countries BECAUSE their "socialist" revolution failed and the conservatives got [back] to power.

Walter has a good point, George--i personally only referred to the 1848 uprisings. As for the focus on the French, they are crucial to the development of the political spectrum in Europe. In 1789, Poland had been reduced to a nugatory entity by the first partition, and would disappear altogether within a decade. Russia was an autocratic empire. The Holy Roman Empire may have been none of the three in a favorite witicism of the cogniscenti, but the Habsburgs were nevertheless autocratic rulers of vast stretches of central Europe and portions of western Europe. Whether so advertised or not, the Prussian Kingdom of the Hohenzollerns controlled most of the rest of central and western Europe not under French control. Monarchy reigned in those states, as well as in Spain and Portugal. Poor long suffering Italy was divided between the Habsburgs and two feeble kingdoms. England may have claimed to be democratic, and certainly the proptertied classes exercised more power there than was elsewhere the case, but the electorate were less than three percent of adult, white males, and the government was essentially run by a plutocratic oligarchy. The French revolution was the event which unleashed faction on European politics, and hence, my focus thereon.

Frankly, considering how the members of the Holy Alliance treated their subject peoples, i rather think i let them off lightly. As for Metternich, he would largely have been an historical non-entity had there been no French Revolution, and no Napoleon. What you refer to as his "practical solutions" set the stage for 1848, as well as revolutions in France in 1830 and 1847.

I agree about Metternich, especially, since he showed little understanding for what actually happened in Europe of his times.

"I have come into the world too soon or too late,'' he rightly said.

That is exactly what I said. I don't understand your objection.

Had there been no French revolution Napoleon would also have been an historical non-entity - as would Wellington and many others.



I believe the subsequent (relatively mild) revolutions could as well be traced to the French revolution itself as to the end of the dictatorship and widespread warfare into which it degenerated.

What is your point of reference or measure? Metternich's work at the end of the political eithteenth centrry yielded far far better results than did the equivalent work of Lloyd George, Clemenceau, and Wilson at the end of the nineteenth.

In many respects the modern EU seems to me quite reminiscent of the Hapsburg Empire.

You reminisce about the Habsburg Empire? I would have thought you much younger, to have once flown navy jets. Whether or not Napoleon and Wellington would have been historical non-entities is irrelevant to my point that the focus i have put on the French Revolution is precisely because of the profound influence it had on the political spectrum in Europe. Metternich's "practical solutions" were only practical from the point of view of those who wished to re-establish autocratic monarchy as the sole political system operative on the continent. There were, subsequently, uprisings, civil wars and revolutions in Spain, what is now Belgium, in France, in Italy, in Poland and in the Balkans. Whether or not the Paris Peace Conference were a political disaster has absolutely no bearing on the extent to which Metternich's self-interested (from the point of view of reactionary Habsburg policy) scheming at Vienna produced a stable Europe--which it did not.

Well, I am an old guy, (tough as nails though - but not old enough to remember the Hapsburgs. ) F#@$ing kids!! "Once flown" !!!! I wince!! Twenty-four years of it!

I accept your point about the importance of the French Revolution and what followed. I do believe our history takes a relatively superficial view of the history of Central Europe in the nineteenth century, and that the French story in that century is mostly comedy.

In that context I believe Metternich is generally underrated by contemporary historians.

I also believe my point abour social mobility is more central to the discussion than these matters.
[/quote]

Certainly i would not argue against the importance of "social mobility." The thing which most characterizes immigrants to America before 1900 is their lust for land. In Europe, the franchise was only extended, in those few areas in which it existed, to the owners of land. Even then, the land had to have a certain value in property tax to qualify the voter. In North America (Canada is included in this crucial consideration), land was to be had almost for free. You might recall that i mentioned in my opening passage that many immigrants came here who were prosperous farmers--these people came to escape crop failures, and to escape economic repression as much as anything else. The distribution of land effectively ends revolutions (as Stalin well knew), because the new land owners then have a large interest not simply in the operation of the state, but in preserving the status quo. Immigration by those who sought land and therefore both prosperity and community influence far exceeds immigration to escape political or social repression (with notable exceptions such as the Poles, the eastern European Jews and the "forty-eighters").

Personally, i find Metternich overrated. Do you know who Kaunitz was? Assuming you might not (and not to insult you, simply that he is generally unknown), he was the chancellor to Maria Teresa, and to her son, Joseph. Absent widespread turmoil equivalent to that engendered by the French Revolution, Kaunitz is known only to those who study the Seven Years War and it's antecedants. Metternich is better known in history precisely because of the profound influence of the French Revolution. Kaunitz, reacting correctly to the life-long resentments of Maria Teresa, made it his business to first isolate Prussia and Friederich II, and then to form a coalition against him. In order to achieve this, he sought a French alliance. But the French Revolution and the subsequent rise of Napoleaon stood all of that on its head. Metternich found himself in the position of seeking a Prussian alliance against France (and he initially failed miserably). Kaunitz was by far the more subtle and skillful minister--he created his anti-Prussian alliance and set the wheels in motion before Friederich was even aware that he was a target. That means he was damned good. Metternich did not display half the skill or subtlety of Kaunitz, but he was, historically speaking, in the right place at the right time to have become famous.

Hmm, might be that I misunderstodd you.

And it's most certainly so that I'm not so well-read in US academic literature to have noticed that liberalism is equaled there to socialism and social-democratic as well.

It's not, Walter, that just the brush with which conservatives tar liberals in the day-to-day slanging match between the far-right and the not-so-far-right here.

Setanta
Setanta wrote: "Immigration by those who sought land and therefore both prosperity and community influence far exceeds immigration to escape political or social repression (with notable exceptions such as the Poles, the eastern European Jews and the "forty-eighters")."

Set, My limited knowledge (not being a scholar) may not be correct, but isn't it true that the Eastern European Jews (as well as Jews from other areas) did not do well in farming in the US following their immigration? I seem to recall reading something about their attempts and general failures. I assume this is because they were not allowed to own land in many countries and thus lacked the needed farming experience. This changed when the State of Israel was created. Was it the kibbutz farming system that facilitated their success?

Did the Poles have a similar experience?

BBB