The Revolutionary Personality

Am reading a biography, "The Godwins and the Shellys" by St. Clair. It helps us to understand the mind and origin of the English Revolutionary Personality.

Many revolutionaries or proto revolutionaries, I am discovering, are children or grand-children of, for example, strict Calvinists or strict Jansenists. Historians, applying the theories of Freud, claim that they adopt unitarianism, liberation, and other revolutionary ideals as a way of unleashing the repressed.

What then, would be their penchant for revolutionary acivity? It would be another form of unleashing of the repressed. They tend to arrive at a point when they deny the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, original sin, and other fundamental doctrines. They only accept what is "rational" from the Bible, assuming that whatever is Catholic cannot be rational.

In effec, they become like the revolutionaries of early Christianity. The Arians come to mind. What do they repress? In the interest of pursuing their passions, they repress God, Redemption, authority, and sacrifice. So, when they advocate revolution, they are advocating temporal redemption, human authority (that becomes totalitarian), and instead of sacrificing themselves, they sacrifice the blood of others.

Yeltsin's Death

The Death of Boris Yeltsin is a reminder to us all of the conditions that lead to revolution. When the Soviet Union fell, Yeltsin stepped in. Under the guise of promoting democracy, a number of oligarchs were able to buy up the privatizing Russian Industries. These oligarchs were on the verge of promoting a revolution in Russia when Putin took power. Putin expelled them or put them in jail, with the idea of stabilizing Russia and its economy, in the hopes of building up, over time, a stable society that could support republican institutions. The oligarchs, from their perch in exile, have been doing all they can to promote "democracy" or even now revolution, as a way of getting back their piece of the pie.

What happened under Yeltsin, oligarchs using the guise of democracy to seize power, is a typical movement in the direction of revolution.

Trotsky Versus Stalin in America

Below is a letter to the editor to the Washington Post and a few links to some articles on neo-conservatism.

Based on these letters and links, our country is entering into a bizarre stage in which we might see ourselves watching ideological conflicts similar to those that went in Europe in the first half of the twentieth century. On the one hand, we have the Troskyite neo-cons, who want to spread democratic revolution throughout the world. On the other hand, within the US itself, we have the anti-war movement being led by Stalinists, who do not want a world revolution right away, but they want to use the war and the protest against it to plunge the United States into a communist republic. Then, there are also signs of fascism emerging among the conservative materialists. In short, we have the three political ideologies that develop from materialisms, leading to an inner fight among themselves. Ironically, stalinism, trotskyism, and fascism, in the end, are all ideologies of the left!

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10734

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/national_socialism_and_national_greatness

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST:

Dear Editor:

Your paper's coverage of the so-called "anti-Iraq protest movement"
seriously failed to identify both the groups involved in leading the
demonstration on March 17th, but also failed to identify its leaders
whose names either appeared in the WP or on their press releases and
websites.

Brian Becker, identified as "national coordinator for the Answer
Coalition" is not identified as a longtime member and leader of the
Stalinist "Workers World Party", perhaps the top communist party in the
US today. The same goes for other ANSWER spokespersons (over time)
including Richard Becker, Steve Hackwell, Leslie Feinberg, Monica
Moorehead, Sara Flounders, John Catalinotto, etc. Many of these
individuals were identified as members of the WWP as far back at April
1974 in the report "The Workers World Party and Its Front
Organizations", House Internal Security Committee (HISC) and in an
earlier hearing, "Revolutionary Activities Directed Toward the
Administration of Penal or Correctional Systems, Part 1", March/May,
1973. Thus WP writer Brigid Schulte's writing in "Veterans, Others
Denounce Marchers", March 18th, got the chant "Workers World traitors
must hang!" wrong. It was not "a reference to the Communist newspaper",
i.e. "Workers World." It was a reference to the WWP as the sponsoring
organization of the demonstration, along with a mixed Communist/Maoist
coalition.known as United for Peace & Justice, led by an old Communist
Party USA-connect activist, Leslie Cagan, and Revolutionary Communist
Party leader, the aging Carl Davidson.

Conservatism and Sexual Revolution

Previous comments from previous posts, which are very insightful, have led me to take a second look at an aspect of Adams's biography, his arrival to France for the first time as a diplomat.

The biographer, Shaw, explains that Adams was struck by how forthright a bourgeois French lady was about physical intimacy. He also described certain delights that took place in the theater.

What Shaw indicates, is that Adams was ambiguous about this situation. He describes in his letters how much he delighted in these situations. He never seemed to fully repent of them, though, he did not like what he saw in the libertine behavior of Franklin in Paris.

At the same time, he never seemed to speak of in his letters the moral decadence of France leading up to the Revolution. Voltaire and his associates were clearly engaged in a campaign to subvert French morals. The story of Adams on his arrival to France seems to indicate that Adams was ambiguous about France. He did not seem to identify this as part of the problem leading up to the French Revolution. He saw it more as one that involved a lack of knowledge about political institutions.

Is there a blindness here? In other letters, Adams seems aware of the need for a moral order to uphold any constitution. Though, he does not seem to be concerned about the ambiguous at best moral order in France on his arrival. In his critiques of the revolution, he tends to emphasize more the political failings, not the failings of the moral life of France.

Rival Political Scientists: Adams and Condorcet

In 1787 and 1788, Condorcet and Adams would prove themselves to be rivals in attempting to influence the overall orientation of the coming revolution. One author has identified them as two Newtonian physicists arguing over the best way to turn government into a science. Condorcet used the method of strict mathematics. Adams employed weights and measures. Condorcet sought to replace history and philosophy with the science of enlightenment. Adams thought that history and philosophy led man to the science of enlightenment. Condorcet, along with Turgot, took one powerful national legislature to be the ideal form of government to replace a powerful king. Adams thought such a legislature would be given over too readily to the interests of the wealthy and the powerful. Better, he thought, to grant something like a senate or house of lords to the powerful and wealthy, so that their influence could be felt and then checked (Thompson, 368-375).

The Soul of Adams

A number of references in Peter Shaw, The Character of John Adams, give us insight into the soul of Adams. Many of these insights are taken from Adams's diary or letters, in which we can see a lot of introspection into his soul.

As a young man, he read an essay by Jonathan Mayhew that Adams's claimed, took possession of his soul. Adamas idolized certain elements of English culture. At the same time, he grew up in a period during whcih there was a “gradual erosion of parental authority.” “A universal drift away from seventeenth-century Puritanism” (11).

As a young man, he tended to Enlightenment religious ideas, God as a creator who has a plan of operation of the universe. He was struck by the Seven Years’ War. He freely discussed universal sufferage, Arianism, Deism, and Atheism (“that all Religion was a cheat, a cunning invention of Priests and Politicians”) (16).

“For the secularized Adams as for the religious Puritan the scrutiny of the self-examiner proved to be more severe than that of any putative future judge” (23).

“Passion remained the hallmark of his spirit. It led him to youthful revolt against his father, his tutors, his best friends’ advice that he become a minister, and the constrictions of a provincial society; later in life it led him to revolution…in the characteristic …of assuming rather than rejecting responsibilities.” (38-39). Throughout, Adams thought that he was called to suppress his passionate spirit (38).

The Puritans, in the mind of Adams, were the inheritors of the Ancient desire for freedom and thirst for knowledge. They had brought that desire with them in laying the foundation for the United States (56).

Stoking Revolution, in France, in Iran

I know that this is almost a re-statement of a previous entry, but I have re-worked the paragraphs. The story that is told here might be very relevant for our own times, as we face a potential US attack on Iran. If we understand the current Iran to be analogous to France in 1787, the current US to be analogous to England in 1787, and current Europe as analogous to the US in 1787, we can perhaps sympathize with Jefferson's position. In addition, we can take pause when considering our own situation. Our country might be doing things in the international sphere so as to radicalize Iran, making her look to be the kind of country we should fight. Whereas, if we were to leaver her alone or engage her diplomatically, many of the democratic changes that we claim to hope for, might happen anyway (as they were happening in France).

And so due to the French political situation, it seems to be the case that Jefferson, during the summer of 1787, remained silent about the book translation project, and while he probably did not block the project, he probably did not fight to get the book translated and published either. One aspect of the problem had to do with the political situation of France and how Jefferson saw the French experiment in relation to the ideal as compared to the English Constitution in relation to that ideal. The second aspect of the problem had to do with what Jefferson saw to be the larger political situation in Europe, and where Britain and the soon-to-be United States of America stood in relation to that larger situation.

As Jefferson wrote to Adams in the summer and Fall of 1787, he described mobs gathering in the streets of Paris. They hissed at the nobles. The King was perceived as being aloof, as he was drinking wine rather than addressing the problems of the nation. While Jefferson did not make direct attacks on Adams’s book, his letters to Adams indicate that he was aware of the ideas in Adams’s book, and that he was, perhaps, trying to draw attention to what he saw to be a more refined view of the problem of Constitutions and society. Jefferson thought that a revolution had already taken place in France, a revolution that outstripped any revolution in England: “I think that in the course of three months the royal authority has lost, and the rights of the nation gained, as much ground, by a revolution of public opinion only, as England gained in all her civil wars under the Stuarts” (Paris, August 30, 1787. Jefferson to Adams, 196-197). Jefferson did not think that the ground gained by the nation would ever be lost.

Jefferson continued this theme in a second letter sent in September in which He explained to Adams the principles of good government: “the first principle of good government is certainly a distribution of it’s powers into executive, judiciary, and legislative, and a subdivision of the latter into two or three branches.” He admitted that the English constitution was better than previous constitutions, but that it was only better in relation to this standard (Jefferson to Adams, Paris, Sept 28 1787).

As Jefferson pondered the progress made in constitution-building, he also was aware of the difficulty of building an advanced constitution, given a complex political situation. And so, he discussed the Constitution of France and England in the light of events in Europe. In August he indicated that at the same time that France was undergoing her revolution, Jefferson feared that London and Berlin might have been pining for a war against France.

France did not want such a war, and France would look for ways to change Europe rather than submit to the aggression of the English and the Prussians. France, he predicted, would change all of Europe, making it conform to her laws, rather than submit to the yoke of England (Paris, August 30, 1787. Jefferson to Adams, 196-197). In his second letter, Jefferson indicated that the French clearly saw England as her enemy, and was making diplomatic efforts to unite Russia and Austria against England (Jefferson to Adams, Paris, Sept 28 1787).

Jefferson then commented on the situation in Holland, which he thought showed that it was better to never have hereditary offices. Overall, Jefferson hoped that the nations of Europe would be able to chasten England, if only a little. He feared that a conflict was coming with England, and that the nations of Europe were hesitating before confronting her. Jefferson hoped that, in this coming conflict, America would be able to remain neutral. He feared that the English, or rather the King, would force America to take the side of the English. Jefferson thought that common sense would lead the English to leave America neutral, and so she would not.

In this letter of Jefferson to Adams, we can see the beginning of what would come to be divergent views between Jefferson and Adams over the emphases necessary to keep America closest to the ideal constitution, given the coming war in Europe. Jefferson and Adams agreed on the desirability of revolution for France. They also agreed that the best kind of Constitution involved a balancing of three powers. Their disagreements were more matters of emphasis than principle. Jefferson, from his letter to Adams, thought that the popular branch should keep a legislative power.

Adams thought it should keep a diplomatic power. Jefferson admitted that the British Constitution was better than most Constitutions, but it was very imperfect in relation to the ideal. If the French were to change their constitution, they should look to change it with respect to the ideal, not with respect to the British Constitution. The English Constitution was a compromise, given the historical circumstances, with respect to this standard. France might have already outstripped England in achieving rights to bring about this standard. By implication, it would be foolish to propose the British model for a society which was on the verge of better adhering to the ideal standard than the British compromise. A book like Adams’s, if widely distributed, might confuse the French population as to real gains that had been made in France in 1787.

In addition, Jefferson thought that to extol the English government too much might be dangerous with respect to foreign policy, and how foreign policy could affect the internal order of the soon to be United States. The English seemed to be on the verge of a war against France and come combination of other European states. To extol England at a time such as this might lead Americans to think that they were allies of the British, and to drag Americans into the war alongside the British against the other nations of Europe. This policy, Jefferson thought, would be potentially harmful to the young democracy in the US. It could also lead the US to see Britain as the standard of government, rather than the ideal that was currently being established, one of a balance of powers between the three branches of government, with the principle of representation being popular sovereignty.

This strain would only be exacerbated by the coming of the French Revolution. And, in a way, England’s bellicosity from even before the Revolution might have been partly responsible for the radical turn taken by the Revolutionaries during the revolution. Jefferson thought a great war was about to take place in Europe, and that the United States should stay out of the war. He was convinced that the end result of the war will be progress in the art of free government, furthering the advances made in the British and American revolutions, as well as the revolution in public opinion that was happening in France. In a European war, England would attempt to draw the United States into a conflict to defend aristocratic constitutions, which Jefferson, overall, did not think upheld the standard of free governments.

Adams, it seems, did not respond to the statements of Jefferson about balance of powers between the three branches. He was, overall, ambiguous about America’s relationship with England. He was ambiguous about the question of whether the United States should commit to helping England or not in the upcoming conflict. Instead, he admitted that only “Force, Power, and Strength” would restrain some nations. He thought that not England, but that Europe would try to draw America into its conflicts, and he hoped that the United States would come out richer for it, in the end (Adams to Jefferson, Grovenor Square, October 9, 1787).

Jefferson, Adams, and War

In 1787, Jefferson argued very clearly that the United States should stay out of European affairs. He saw a war coming in europe between Engalnd and France. He saw that, over time, France and the other nations of Europe would have their own internal revolutions that would bring about republican governments in those societies. What he feared was being dragged into a European war on the side of England, and to end up defending a government that was, to some degree, behind the times. Jefferson advocated neutrality. Adams was ambiguous. His response to Jefferson was that Force and power will prevail, and that America will come out richer in the end. By implication, he was open to an alliance wtih England. This ambiguity on the part of Adams helped forge one of the first major poliltical divides in the United States.

We face a similar problem now, how should the United States see itself in the Middle East? Only now, we have become what Engalnd was in the 1780s. We should learn from the wisdom of Jefferson. If we were to leave the Middle East alone, the nations there, over time, would develop republican forms of government, including Iran and Israel. Otherwise, we risk fighting wars, expanding the Empire, and destroying our way of life.

Below, is a summary that explains the previous two paragraphs.

Before 1789, we see Jefferson and Adams exchanging impressions on the events in Paris, the upcoming revolution, and their hopes and fears for its final outcome. By 1785 Jefferson was in Paris to negotiate on behalf of the United States a treaty with France on commerce. Adams was in London for a similar purpose. Within the context of negotiating this treaty, Adams and Jefferson began what became a life-long conversation about France and the French Revolution. To begin, Jefferson and Adams both sense that great changes are about to take place in the country. Jefferson notes its poverty. He also notes that the situation in Paris was growing more tumultuous over the summer of 1785. The government, which was actually fairly moderate, was putting more people in jail, especially those who were infiltrating France with radical ideas that were coming from England and the German states. He also notes the hostility that the French Court was expressing to English ideas. As an example, he observed how the Queen refused to weak clothing made from English wool (Cappon, 20-100).

By 1787, the unrest seemed to have grown. Jefferson over the summer of 1787, lots of mobs were gathering in the streets of Paris. The mobs hissed at the nobles when they saw them. The King was perceived as being aloof, as he was drinking wine rather than addressing the problems of the nation. But, Jefferson thinks that a revolution had already taken place in France, a revolution that outstripped any revolution in England: “I think that in the course of three months the royal authority has lost, and the rights of the nation gained, as much ground, by a revolution of public opinion only, as England gained in all her civil wars under the Stuarts” (Paris, August 30. 1787. Jefferson to Adams, 196-197). Jefferson does not think that the ground gained by the nation will ever be lost. At the same time, Jefferson feared that London and Berlin might have been pining for a war against France. France did not want such a war, and France would look for ways to change Europe rather than submit to the aggression of the English and the Prussians. France, he predicted, would change all of Europe, making it conform to her laws.

Jefferson indicates that the French clearly saw England as her enemy, and was making diplomatic efforts to unite Russia and Austria against England (Jefferson to Adams, Paris, Sept 28 1787). In this letter, Jefferson explains to Adams the principles of good government, and how the affairs of Europe represent a potential threat to the American system of government. Jefferson says that “the first principle of good government is certainly a distribution of it’s powers into executive, judiciary, and legislative, and a subdivision of the latter into two or three branches.” He admits that the English constitution is better than previous constitutions, but that it is only better in relation to this standard. Jefferson then comments on the situation in Holland, which he thinks shows that it is better to never have hereditary offices. Overall, Jefferson hopes that the nations of Europe will be able to chasten England, if only a little. He fears that a conflict is coming with England, and that the nations of Europe are hesitating before confronting England. Jefferson hopes that, in this coming conflict, America will be able to remain neutral. He fears that the English, or rather the King, will force America to take the side of the English. Jefferson thinks that common sense would lead the English to leave America neutral, and so she would not.

In this letter of Jefferson to Adams, we can see the beginning of the strain in the friendship between the two men. This strain would only be exacerbated by the coming of the French Revolution. Jefferson thinks a great war is about to take place in Europe, and that the United States should stay out of the war. He is convinced that the end result of the war will be progress in the art of free government, furthering the advances made in the British and American revolutions, as well as the revolution in public opinion that was happening in France. In a European war, England would attempt to draw the United States into a conflict to defend aristocratic constitutions, which Jefferson, overall, did not think upheld the standard of free governments.

Adams was ambiguous about America’s relationship with England. He is ambiguous about the question of whether the United States should commit to helping England or not in the upcoming conflict. Instead, he admits that only “Force, Power, and Strength” will restrain some nations. He agrees that Europe will try to draw America into its conflicts, and he hopes that the United States will come out richer for it, in the end (Adams to Jefferson, Grovenor Square, October 9, 1787).

Principle, History, and Tradition

What distinguishes Burke & Adams on the one hand, from Pius VI, on the other, is the commitment to a robust principles of the moral order.

Pius VI saw the destructive effects of all revolutions. Burke and Adams wanted to be conservative revolutionaries. They wanted revolution, but without the radicals, especially the relativisti or hedonistic radicals. Thus, for a time, conservative and liberal revolutionaries will unite to undo the old order. The conservatives hope that their good intentions will enable them to preserve what is good from history and tradition, without giving in to the excesses of the radicals. The radicals can respond: we have drawn the line here, why not take it one step further? Unless the conservatives renounce the revolutionary ideal, they will have difficulty responding.

This is the ambiguity that persists in conservatism this day. They want tradition and history, but lack solid commitment to principle, in deed and in truth.

Rivers of Blood

Reflecting on the French Revolution, and the disagreements between Adams and Jefferson during the 1790s, Jefferson indicates that at the heart of a disagreement was whether, in that time, the popular branch needed strengthening or whether the aristocratic and executive branch needed strengthening. Adams sided with the aristocrats, Jefferson with the popular branch. This is a conflict that has occurred throughout history.

Jefferson indicates that both are committed to free government, and that, in the end rivers of blood will flow before free government will be brought about.

Adams, in the end, says that he contemplates the rivers of blood with melancholy, impliciitly admitting he sees no other way.

This is worth thinking about. Is it really necessary that rivers of blood must flow to bring about just and free societies? Why were Adams and Jefferson unable to see another possibility? In the end, their political philosophies were both too materialistic to admit the possibility of union, republicanism, and freedom coming about any other way than by rivers of blood. They lacked a robust and prinicpled moral system. Adams at least knew that such a system was necessary, but he himself failed to articulate it.

This is all the more significant now, as the US is ready to make rivers of blood flow in the Middle East, and the most that the opponents of such activity can do is look on in melancholy.