So this week we've spent some time talking about the French Revolution in class. On Monday and Wednesday we discussed how the revolution went from having more moderate goals and ideas to becoming incredibly radical in nature. Dissent was crushed, opposing viewpoints, even from within the revolutionary party, were purged and put down, churches were vandalized, and a lot of people died.
This radicalization left no real middle ground for rational, reasoned discussions in French politics. You were either for or against, in or out, supporter or traitor. Part of the reason that the Thermidorian government never stabilized was because it had no center or moderate middle ground.
In my opinion, part of the power of history is being able to compare what happened in the past with what is happening now, so without bringing in some ugly political comments, my question is are seeing something similar happening in the politics of our own time? Let me be clear, I do not think that we're going to see someone in D.C. set up a guillotine and start axing opposition voices, and I don't think a Reign of Terror is coming in the U.S. But in a serious thought, is the U.S. losing its middle ground of rational political discussions? More Americans identify themselves as moderate than any other ideological grouping, but yet the major political parties seem to be swinging further away from the middle. When was the last time some bill passed Congress with so much as moderate bipartisan support? Let's be honest, the obstinate and stubborn bickering has come from both sides of the isle too. Each party tends to claim that the other's platform is going to lead to the end of the world in some way, shape, or form. It's almost as if politicians would rather us vote on some emotional reaction than really reason things out and say, "hey both of you make some sense, why can't we find a compromise?"
And reflecting back on France, how many years did it take to regain that moderate influence in politics once it was purged out during the Revolution? Sure Napoleon brought a little bit of sense in to the mix, but he was by no means democratic, or even in favor of a republic, and he certainly had his own censorship laws on the books as well. It took some seismic events in French history and a lot of time to restore political stability in Paris.
So that brings me to my three questions:
1) Do you think American politics are headed away from a more moderate center based around rational discussion?
2) Are their any similarities between what's going on in U.S. politics and what happened when the French Revolution turned radical?
3) If politics are becoming more polarized, what types of things do you think would need to happen in order to restore some sort of middle ground in our political system? To play devil's advocate, do we need a Napoleon to hit a sort of "reset button" for us and allow us to rebuild from the ground up?
Comment away, but please keep it clean. I understand I'm inviting conversation on a subject that many hold dear to their hearts, but this is for a college course and I expect mature comments. I'll let you know upfront I have no problem removing comments I view as over the line. With that said, I don't anticipate any problems :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting point you're bringing up, David. I think the United States people are moderate for the most part, and are dissatisfied with both political parties. This dissatisfaction was visible in the success of Obama's "Change" campaign in 2008. I think the tendency of media networks and publications is to choose far left or right to get the most outspoken and fanatical constituents to follow, leaving most Americans out to dry. As far as needing a Napoleon, I think the next few election cycles are a perfect opportunity for the emergence of a third party. I would welcome this, as I tend to have libertarian views and am used to not having much in the way of political representation. I, like you, don't think we're on the verge of a French-style revolution. I think people do want more variety in who to vote for, and this will hopefully get some different candidates running instead of the same old political families like the Bushes and Clintons.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that I see the same parallels. The French had just re-defined the function of their government and its relationship to the people. In the space of five years, France switched from an 'absolute' monarchy to a constitutional monarchy to a republic based on a broad suffrage to a moderate republic based on a restricted franchise. While current conditions in the US are not exactly fabulous, I don't really see the comparison. Honestly, I would go so far as to argue that the problem with US politics is exactly what you suggest-- that most people believe roughly the same things and that the parties need the fringe groups to sort of distinguish themselves. (I would also argue that many Americans are indifferent or apathetic to politics, seeing all politicians as essentially the same and finding little real change in the political system.) I do not think that the people in France approached their government with such apathy. The differences in the factions in France consisted of much greater differences (what type of government France should have) than the divides between the parties in the US today.
ReplyDelete