I’m not sure exactly what we all agree on. Expressed above are differences of opinion over the meaning of liberty, the history of European ideas of liberty, the history of American ideas of liberty, the underlying dynamics of the French Revolution, the breadth of applicability of the generic label “Europe” and what exceptions ought to be considered in this context, the degree of difference between the US and whatever part of Europe has chosen security over liberty, and on and on…

I guess we mostly agree that Europe, on average, is more accepting of government control and oversight than the US, that Europe faces difficult demographic and cultural challenges in the years ahead, and that European governments generally favor stability over liberty in the Middle East and elsewhere.

You may well have a more fine-grained appreciation of the variation within Europe than most (or any) of us do. I think people here would be interested in hearing what you have to say on these matters – if you can avoid dropping stinkbombs and instead treat the others here as potentially reasonable people.

And many of us over here are wondering how many of you are going to vote in favor of the proposed EU constitution.

One topic I haven’t heard discussed is the one concerning military commission oaths. Should the EU ‘constitution’ be ratified, would members of the European armed services be required to pledge to ‘protect and defend’ the ‘constitution’?

By the way, what’s the current count of incinerated mosques and churches in the Netherlands?

Anyway, it’s fun to see how you all agree.

Chuck, I have to go with Richard here.

Yes, the strength of local communities that were largely self-governing helped lead to a workable solution. The mobs of Paris didn’t exist among the majority of American Revolutionaries. Remember “No taxation without representation”? There were jobs and work aplenty – the colonists just got tired of paying for England’s wars and then hosting battles with the french and their indian allies without support.

I weight the fact that the ability of individuals to become self sufficient via their own labor, and do so within the space of a couple of growing or trading seasons, had more to do with keeping people in their fields and shops and off the streets than any conscious group politik sentiment. There was little public tendency to demand bread from the government because the vast majority of the people shared a pioneer existence to a lesser or greater degree.

The founders were giants. The principles of citizen sovereignty, manifested in the concrete recognition of individual, inherent rights and protected by concrete definitions of the duties, not powers, of government, were indeed pie- in- the- sky liberal thought for the time. I dearly wish that kids got some taste of that in public school, but if what my kids have been taught here in Happy Valley represents education in an acknowledged conservative stronghold, I am frankly apalled at what the standard may be elsewhere.

There is a lot of “shit happens” sentiment running through history education. It’s a travesty.

As a nation we are many things. An accident of history we are not.

The french revolution was a scramble for power cloaked with slogans, fueled by mobs, and resulted in the Napoleonic Empire. The road from the Declaration through the Articles of Confederaton to the Constitution was built on visionary debate and compromise conducted by men more interested in getting back home to manage their affairs than in rule – and their actions were ratified by the votes of people who were inclined to do for themselves more often than not.

What was the first country in the world to allow full citizenship rights to Jews? France.

Was Paris 100 years ago more elite-ridden than New York or London? I’d say not.

And I think anyone who admires liberty has to have some level of respect for a guy like Clemenceau – in fact the way the Dreyfus affair worked itself out in the end shows the great traditions of French liberalism at work (although it also shows the effectivelness of appeals to authority). Zola was basically a socialist, but “J’Accuse” appeals to the liberal tradition.

While it’s true that French liberal traditions have often been overidden, and that there has always been a statist element in French liberalism, I think what’s happened is that France has abandoned that part of her political heritage. I think it’s possible that it can be rediscovered, but right now I don’t see much chance of that happening.

Nine years after the ratification of the US Constitution, and eight years after the fall of the Bastille, the two new states were already trading broadsides in the Quasi-War.

Richard, I believe it was much more complicated than that. I think what really made the difference between the French and American revolutions is that the Colonies were already self governing democracies. The rebellion merely turned back an attempt by the Crown to impose itself and carried forward the already established order. Or anyway, that is how it looks to me in broad outline. I am not an historian