MIKE FREIMUTH: A Tale of Two Revolutions

Follow Mike on Twitter @MichaelFreimut2

In 1776 American colonists rebelled against the British and ushered in an unprecedented era of liberty and prosperity.  In 1789 the French peasantry rebelled against the church and the monarchy and ushered in a period of mob rule followed by a time of terror, and ultimately a dictator.

What accounts for this drastic difference in outcomes?  Of course, there are many possible answers, but we would benefit from considering this question since we stand at a rather unique position in history with two simultaneous populist movements vying to change the system.

The British colonists in the New World, prior to the revolution, found themselves in an unusual situation.  They were relatively free.   Because they were far away from their government carving a society out of a vast untouched (by Europeans) wilderness, they were left largely to their own devices.  It was only after they became somewhat prosperous and Great Britain needed money to pay for a number of wars, that the king and parliament turned their gaze westward seeking new sources of revenue.

"The Destruction of Tea at Boston Harbor", lithograph depicting the 1773 Boston Tea Party

In order to consolidate their tax base, the British had to demonstrate that they were in charge in the colonies.  They did this by passing the “Intolerable Acts.”  While Americans certainly did not appreciate the new taxes, what really pushed them to rebellion was the assault on their liberty that was necessary to ensure the collection of those taxes.  It was this threat that ultimately convinced the colonists to risk their lives and property in an attempt to maintain their freedom and the rest, as they say, is history.

The French had lived under a dictatorial monarch for centuries and considered their well-being to be the responsibility of the monarch.  In 1789 the well-being of the lower rungs of French society was in a rapid state of decline.  This was due partially to high taxes and poor leadership, and partially to factors beyond the control of the government which had led to several years of poor grain harvests.  The result of these factors was a public that was on the verge of starvation.

The French revolution was brought on, not by a loss of liberty, but by a loss of bread.  It was fueled, not by a solemn determination to be free, but by the hatred of the have-nots toward the haves.  Consider the following excerpts from the Wikipedia articles on the two revolutions:

American Revolution: “A motivating force behind the revolution was the American embrace of a political ideology called ‘republicanism’, which was dominant in the colonies by 1775. The republicanism was inspired by the ‘country party’ in Britain, whose critique of British government emphasized that corruption was a terrible reality in Britain.  Americans feared the corruption was crossing the Atlantic; the commitment of most Americans to republican values and to their rights, energized the revolution, as Britain was increasingly seen as hopelessly corrupt and hostile to American interests. Britain seemed to threaten the established liberties that Americans enjoyed. The greatest threat to liberty was depicted as corruption—not just in London but at home as well.”

"The Storming of the Bastille", Visible in the center is the arrest of Bernard René Jourdan, marquis de Launay (1740-1789)

French Revolution: “Fueled by rumors of a reception for the King’s bodyguards on 1 October 1789 at which the national cockade had been trampled upon, on 5 October 1789 crowds of women began to assemble at Parisian markets. The women first marched to the Hotel de Ville, demanding that city officials address their concerns.  The women were responding to the harsh economic situations they faced, especially bread shortages. They also demanded an end to royal efforts to block the National Assembly, and for the King and his administration to move to Paris as a sign of good faith in addressing the widespread poverty.”

One of these groups is concerned that the government is a threat to their liberty, while the other is concerned because government is not addressing their economic concerns.  The former is trying to push that government away while the latter is trying to pull it in closer.

The real amazing thing about these two movements is that early on they embraced largely the same philosophical foundation.  They were both products of enlightenment political philosophy, and the values laid down in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen are very similar to those outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

But four years later the French had abandoned these principles.  Revolutionary leader Maximilien Robespierre, “the incorruptible,” had decided that it was every citizen’s civic duty to serve the collective.  The government was fixing prices of goods, confiscating food from farmers, requiring people to greet each other as “citizen,” and sending thousands to the guillotine.

How could a movement based on individual liberty turn into a totalitarian nightmare in such short order?  The answer is simple: it wasn’t based on individual liberty.  It was based on bread.  The masses were willing to embrace a political philosophy that they thought would bring them greater prosperity but they only embraced it on those grounds.  When economic prosperity did not immediately materialize they quickly abandoned these ideals for a different system which again promised bread.

On 10 August 1792 the Paris Commune stormed the Tuileries Palace and massacred the Swiss Guards

French Revolution (Wikipedia): “When war went badly, prices rose and the sans-culottes — poor labourers and radical Jacobins – rioted; counter-revolutionary activities began in some regions. . . Policy became considerably more radical, as ‘ set food prices and led to executions of offenders. This policy of price control was coeval with the Committee of Public Safety’s rise to power and the Reign of Terror. The Committee first attempted to set the price for only a limited number of grain products but, by September 1793, it expanded the ‘maximum’ to cover all foodstuffs and a long list of other goods. Widespread shortages and famine ensued. The Committee reacted by sending dragons into the countryside to arrest farmers and seize crops. This temporarily solved the problem in Paris, but the rest of the country suffered. By the spring of 1794, forced collection of food was not sufficient to feed even Paris and the days of the Committee were numbered. When Robespierre went to the guillotine in July of that year the crowd jeered, ‘There goes the dirty maximum!’”

The only way to gain freedom is to accept nothing else.  The best way to get bread is to gain freedom.  Any people which depend on the government to provide bread will never be free and will often go hungry.  It is not difficult to tell which modern movement is trying to get the government off their back and which one is trying to use it to put bread on their table, and it should be no surprise which movement has already led to mob violence.  But conservatives must be careful not to get sucked into this dependency mentality as well.

The 20th century articulation of the dependency doctrine was “it’s the economy stupid.”  And the 21st century has two words for bread.  For the left the word is “healthcare” which properly outrages the right, but for the right the word is “jobs” which is universally supported.  This is why you hear pundit after pundit, on both sides, proclaim that this election will be about jobs.  Every policy discussed on the news includes an estimate of the number of jobs it will “create” or “cost.”  But in a free society the job of government is not to provide jobs, it is to provide freedom.  If we can get that back, prosperity will follow.  But if we are willing to purchase prosperity with our freedom, we will end up with neither.

None of the grievances in the Declaration of Independence have anything to do with the income of the colonists relative to Great Britain, the unemployment rate, or the price of bread.  The American patriots were not focused on their pantry or their bank account, they were focused on their liberty and they got it.  What we need now is not an election about jobs but an election about freedom.

Mike Freimuth is a PHD candidate in economics at the University of Washington and thinks Liberty is the answer.  You can follow him on @MichaelFreimut2

If you are interested in potentially writing an article for Real Reagan Conservative, e-mail pitches to realreaganconservative@gmail.com or go to the contact form.