Bush’s Dangerous Liaisons - NY Times op-ed

[BridgeTheGap]

Op-Ed Contributor - NY Times
Bush’s Dangerous Liaisons by FRANÇOIS FURSTENBERG - 10/28/07

MUCH as George W. Bush’s presidency was ineluctably shaped by Sept. 11, 2001, so the outbreak of the French Revolution was symbolized by the events of one fateful day, July 14, 1789. And though 18th-century France may seem impossibly distant to contemporary Americans, future historians examining Mr. Bush’s presidency within the longer sweep of political and intellectual history may find the French Revolution useful in understanding his curious brand of 21st- century conservatism.

Soon after the storming of the Bastille, pro-Revolutionary elements came together to form an association that would become known as the Jacobin Club, an umbrella group of politicians, journalists and citizens dedicated to advancing the principles of the Revolution.

The Jacobins shared a defining ideological feature. They divided the world between pro- and anti-Revolutionaries — the defenders of liberty versus its enemies. The French Revolution, as they understood it, was the great event that would determine whether liberty was to prevail on the planet or whether the world would fall back into tyranny and despotism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/opinion/28furstenberg.html?th&emc=th

[Somawas]

1. Well written and argued

Bush as a statist terrorist. There is an idea that should gain some traction.

[Andy Canuck]

2. But the French revolution was popular, was it not?

It was also an organized revolution against the tyranny of the monarchy. It was the coming together of a variety of people's to overthrow the monarchy and install a more legitimate (at the time) market economy and an idea of governship of the people. The liberals of the French Revolution would be today's conservatives. That is the danger in revolution it gets out of control, it makes strange bedfellows of people coming together to overthrow a single tyranny. Much like I see in the US with far right groups finding footing with progressive groups, because both sides feel the pinch of the administration on their ideas of liberty and freedom. After power has been taken away, then the revolutionary groups also fall apart and fight for the power that is available.

So I guess my point is I don't see Bush as the Jacobin, I see him as the Monarchy. I see it as more likely that the Jacobin are the populist, religious right, who will sign on to work with progressives to end, for example, wire tapping, but after the struggle then have the vehemence of their convictions to take more power for their personal agenda.

Every revolution has the potential for violence and oppression. After the Bolshevik revolution, on his deathbed Lenin stated (I paraphrase) 'Whatever you do, don't let Stalin take charge.'

[BridgeTheGap]

4. The U.S. had the Torries -or- British loyalists

and they, also, were not treated very kindly.
The problem with revolutions is that the "overthrown" more often than not, don't just quietly into the night. They continue to resist and there in lies the problem. The effort to squelch them often mimics the same tactics they used to hold on to power. The problem seems to be one of identifying who represents a legitimate threat to the revolution and how to deal with them.

[rodeodance]

3. 'the origin of the term “terrorist” has gone largely unnoticed by politicians and pundits alike.'

.............If the French Terror had a slogan, it was that attributed to the great orator Louis de Saint-Just: “No liberty for the enemies of liberty.” Saint-Just’s pithy phrase (like President Bush’s variant, “We must not let foreign enemies use the forums of liberty to destroy liberty itself”) could serve as the very antithesis of the Western liberal tradition.

On this principle, the Terror demonized its political opponents, imprisoned suspected enemies without trial and eventually sent thousands to the guillotine. All of these actions emerged from the Jacobin worldview that the enemies of liberty deserved no rights.

Though it has been a topic of much attention in recent years, the origin of the term “terrorist” has gone largely unnoticed by politicians and pundits alike. The word was an invention of the French Revolution, and it referred not to those who hate freedom, nor to non-state actors, nor of course to “Islamofascism.”

A terroriste was, in its original meaning, a Jacobin leader who ruled France during la Terreur.