movement, movement

Modern America’s political discourse seems to lack one major aspect these days, a consideration which I believe could and would set many minds straight. Its sad to imagine and understand the negative feelings and connotations that “Democrat vs. Republican” seems to bring forth from the mere mention of American politics.

The most absent consideration from American political thought these days seems to be the true historical record. Especially the politician, almost always a power driven man or woman, whether Democrat or Republican, seems to be too busy with conquests and entrepreneurial endeavors (and re-election) to understand even the last 500 years of Western history and culture. Sure, the marks of a qualified politician include a college education, maybe even a doctorate or a masters, but rarely in the study of history, or better yet, History. Not even the general public will take into account what History has taught us. Sadly enough, our public mind and discourse seems to be directed by the whims, feelings, intemperance, and financial security of the modern American Media. Political commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, whether you like him or not bear truth in the matter of referring to said Media as “The Drive-by Media”. A description of this term can be found here if you are not familiar with its meaning. In addition, the question “Does the story make the news, or does the news make the story?” adds additional insight into inherent Media process, but I will restrain myself from getting onto this topic beyond one particular book recommendation, Amusing Ourselves To Death by Neil Postman.

The reality is that in almost all “official” public discourse, real History is never invoked as a teaching tool. Sure, you might say that a news story or a magazine article might incorporate the testimony of a “historical expert” but in the end will rarely draw upon said history in its offering of future direction and responsibility. I also will not go into the validity of any such experts point of view, as any “expert” opinion can obviously be found or offered to support any agenda or opinion.

So getting to the point of this stab into society wide ignorance, I call into your memory pre-Revolution medieval and Reformation-era France. Now there are plenty of European histories and cultures that can further illustrate this point, but in recently reading and studying more of French history, it has sparked my desire to use it as a primary example. Books such as The Victory of Reason by Rodney Stark go to great detail in emphasizing the butterfly effect of Christianity to freedom and property rights to the industrial revolution and Western success. They also emphasize the shortcomings of specific societies throughout time and location in second millennium Europe that further prove the point.

If you’re short of a full understanding of pre-Revolution French history, let me fill you in a little. I claim not to be any sort of expert but have seen enough in the history I do know to at least be able to make a valid, relevant to today point.

France was a bit of a slow developer throughout most of the second millennium. (or, to be more specific, up to the Revolution in 1789) Capitalism, the economic system which is credited as the primary cause of Western American and European worldwide economic success was beginning to develop during the 1200’s, starting in the independent city states in what is now Italy. Cities like Milan, Venice, Florence, and Genoa were all developing the basis for modern commerce and Capitalism. These city-states were able to achieve this due to different levels of independence and freedom from both distant rulers and local despots. Through the centuries, similar situations developed in the Netherlands as well as England primarily.  We have all heard of the Magna Charta, one of the great socio-economic, among other things, advances of its time. It was some of the freedoms granted by this document that would help England lead the mid-millennium march into economic freedom and success.

France, on the other hand, seemed unable to overcome its constant poverty (French serfdom was often rated as the the worst in Europe) and out of control Royal fiscal spending. While England in particular developed a more republican form of government, somewhat limiting the absoluteness of its monarchs, France retained its absolutist form of government through the years. Some of this was due to issues such as location. Not only England and Spain held different territories of what is now France especially throughout the first half of the millennium. It was not until around 1500 a.d. that the country as a whole was brought together under the sole French Monarchy.

Keeping economic success at bay was also the unchecked taxation on the people, especially the lower classes. French monarchs were so empowered that they levied not only property taxes but taxes on commodities and enormous protective import duties designed to keep foreign products out. While taxing the people into the ground, the primary benefactor of this system was of course, the Monarchy, spending an estimated 6% of state revenues on the extravagant court at Versailles alone. Taxes were so illogical and exemptions were so often purchasable, that it rarely made sense for a craftsman, farmer, or other worker to invest in their business. Even the appearance of added wealth would be noticed by officials and a higher tax would be imposed on the success of a business, whether real or not. Due to this, gained wealth was very rarely reinvested, and in actuality usually hoarded. A better investment was often considered to be a purchased position granting social status to its purchaser.

This sort of “purchased position” was quite common within French government, not so much leading to status of Nobility, but rather simply, status beyond that of peasantry. These positions, called venal offices would often be purchased without much return or even negative return on investment to the purchaser, which in reality made very little difference to the purchaser, as the title and position were often much more desirable and valuable than rate of return on the investment in their position. The French people during this time suffered from what could be called a severe lack of effort and interest in leisure and gentlemanship. The common thinking was to instead of work for a living, gain some amount of social status and leave the labor to the peasants. French society was “afflicted with a mania for prestige”.

Not only were taxes unregulated and developed into a huge complicated mess, rights to any sort of commerce came at a high cost as well. Since the French Royalty laid claim to any and all sources of economic gain, a permit had to be purchased for any venture into commerce. Further economic and social repression was advanced as these permits were often simply a form of social status. It was not uncommon for a purchaser of mining permits to, with that permit, be allowed to extract the ore or mineral from locations across the country regardless of ownership of the land and without regulation.

Also a major factor in the repression of economic gains was the intransigent guilds. Guilds, the early form of modern labor unions, were often led by officials who had purchased their positions in the same way that venal offices were purchased. All industrial guilds were highly highly regulated by both qualifications to membership and production. Any firm wishing to hire workers in a specific industrial field was not only required to request such workers directly from a guild, but also highly regulated were the rates of pay and maximum sizes of firms (weaving companies were said to have been allowed no more than six looms, a measure that would obviously repress its growth and success). Invention and innovation were discouraged. Unreliable or inefficient workers were impossible to dismiss while good workers were hard to reward. Finally, the guilds also set selling prices, (usually quite high in order to facilitate high taxes and high wages) having no regard for market conditions or other effecting circumstances.

The understanding of the development of any economic success or lack there-of can be quite the complicated task at times, but at least to me it seems obvious how the French found themselves (especially the peasants) in the most backward and underdeveloped state of being in lowland Europe during the 1700’s, leading to the Revolution beginning in 1789 which would eventually dethrone and later behead Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.

Many parallels of French economic suppression can be drawn to political directions often introduced under the guise of “for the benefit of the people” in modern American politics. I mean not to suggest that somehow America is on its way to the type of economic repression that was created in pre-Revolution France, or that America will also soon succumb to a similar Revolution. Such epic times are for the most part behind us. What I do mean to suggest is that on a smaller scale, we are still fine-tuning the institution of freedom.

There are plenty of Liberal ideologies available attempting to make equal and better lives for the people. Many have also come and gone. One problem with such extreme cases as Marxism somehow never seemed to notice that freedom and independence and quality of life came with free markets, labor, and property rights. Rarely do they recognize the fact that the guilds were one of the first institutions abolished immediately during the French Revolution, even before the Monarchy.

My point is this: Such liberal institutions as the raising of organizations, often with the interest of the people, constant lack of control in taxation, rampant regulation in any and all commerce, and the embedded hierarchy of social status are what led to the disparity in pre-Revolution France. It led to the repression of the people, losing their desire to invest in innovation, business, and life. It led to lag in the race of technological development and the improvement quality of life in Europe. I compare modern America not to other countries of the world, as I do believe we remain the free-est and most blessed country on the planet, but rather to what America could be, and the direction America seems to be heading. I suggest not that Liberalism is attempting to take our country to the conditions of pre-Revolution France, but rather that it is attempting to take us at least in the direction of a Orwellian or Huxleyan world, devoid of the freedom that has brought the West to its modern and very recent level of success.

As Thomas Sowell wrote, “Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face.” Liberalism is the modern equivalent of French Absolutism. You need only but look into the modern liberal political directions and liberal institutions in America. And as Etienne Gilson wrote, “History is the only laboratory we have in which to test the consequences of thought.”