It is indeed an excellent read, Teacher317! Vazsonyi definitely connects the two revolutions to their respective "views of man," that is their respective systems of thought regarding the nature of man and the world.
He very usefully sees the glaring differences between them in terms of "Anglo-American" vs. "Franco-German" systems of thought. The two revolutions spawned, from their respective philosophical systems, wildly divergent outcomes. To my way of thinking, a look at the respective "results" tells you a lot about the quality and truthfulness of the underlying systems of thought.
Regarding "the French Connection" Vazsonyi wrote:
In order to trace the origins — and the curriculum — we must go back at least as far as the eighteenth century when political thinking in France laid the foundations for the monumental fiasco known as the French Revolution. In the same number of years it had taken in America to travel the road from the Declaration of Independence to the signing of the Constitution (1776–1787), the French went from beheading their king to the coronation of their new emperor (1793–1804). The mindless slaughter that filled the gap was the translation of French political philosophy into practice.The French line of thinking led to Marxism, socialism, communism, progressivism. The American line led to a system of ordered liberty under a written Constitution promulgating just and equal laws for all citizens alike — as individuals, not as members of some group, to be variously favored or disfavored as (manipulated) "public opinion" shifts.The words of the French Enlightenment affected people in ways that no set of ideas had, perhaps, since the Bible. The names Diderot, Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Rousseau are forever enshrined in the minds of educated people. The twenty-eight volumes of Diderot's Encyclopédie became the new model for the systematized presentation of knowledge and thought. To Montesquieu we owe the articulation of separated powers in government. Voltaire, many still believe, was endowed with the clearest and most incisive mind of the age; and few remained unmoved by the power of Rousseau's pen.
Montesquieu derived his advocacy of the separation of powers from the British model. Voltaire unequivocally admired John Locke and Isaac Newton, attributing British successes to the freedom of political discussion and to the use of reason to evaluate empirical evidence. But it was Rousseau's Social Contract and his judgment of man as "corrupted and rotten to the core by society and its institutions" that came to dominate French prescriptions for the future....
Brilliant as Rousseau was, he failed to understand that one ought not to demolish without immediately reconstructing; one ought not to disseminate ideas which have no foundation in the human experience. But then, that was precisely the difference between the French Descartes and the English Locke, as Voltaire noted. The former advocated the application of reason before; the latter, after the event.
Apart from unparalleled self-importance, Rousseau's fatal mistake was the proposition that man was in need of, and capable of, perfecting, which was exacerbated by his emotive dismissal of institutions. Once man's need and ability to be perfected are espoused, the way is clear for those who "know just how to do it" — which is why the Anglo-Scottish approach always focused on the improvement of conditions and institutions, rather than of man. If, as Rousseau suggests, institutions, in and of themselves, are corrupting, their role has been permanently undermined.
And that is why the French Revolution of 1789 failed to accommplish a positive goal; it did not have one. It merely sought to demolish the existing. Man was still "in need of perfecting"; societal institutions were still the "source of corruption." Unsurprisingly, a cacaphony of ideas, agendas, events, and power brokers erupted. Consequently, it became a matter of transitory opinion whose head ought to be chopped off by the guillotine, and control of the executioner elevated to being the "next hope of the people." Danton countenanced the massacres until he was beheaded on orders of Robespierre, and Robespierre was himself beheaded a few months later. In the absence of workable institutions, it was only matter of time before a supreme ruler would have to restore order and govern France once again. Bonaparte crowned himself emperor in 1804.
Even more decisive for posterity, however, was the spectacle of mass executions in an effort to eliminate entire categories of people — clergy, royalists, aristocrats. The unprecedented bloodbath conjured up new ways of manipulating history. Marx was the first to recognize its unlimited potential. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot showed the world how it could be done on a truly massive scale. [p. 94ff]
Despite French prominence in the "Age of Reason," the events as they unfolded in France were determined by the rule of emotion. In America, the choice was determined by study, experience, and contemplation.
The French aimed to eliminate — the old order, the ruling class, the church. Americans, as soon as independence permitted, endeavored to build a society that would embody the noblest, time-tested, most successful principles known to man....
It was in France — not in America — that a giant experiment began, and continues in our time. America was established almost instantaneously — not as an experiment, but as a nation. (p. 98)
Vazsonyi is a true authority about what it's like to be on the "receiving end" of a revolution. Hungarian-born, he was there when Nazi tanks rolled into Budapest in 1944; he was then eight years old. In 1947, Soviet tanks rolled into Budapest — Vazsonyi charges FDR of having "ceded" Hungary to Stalin at Yalta. Then, in 1956, the aborted Hungarian Revolution, when Soviet tanks again rolled into Budapest. On each of these occasions, a couple hundred thousand people "took the long walk" (i.e., were murdered by their new "masters") — mainly the political class and intellectuals. Vazsonyi eventually managed to escape from Hungary, landing in America; he became a naturalized citizen in 1964. He also founded the Center for the American Founding; and is a world-class concert pianist.
In this book, Vazsonyi is warning us of what can happen here in America, if we don't get our political/philosophical thinking straight — by going back to the Founders and, in particular, to their timeless views of God, man, and society.
Vazsonyi writes, "It is astonishing and frightening how little time it took both in Russia and in Germany to accomplish [their murderous, collectivist goals]. Demolishing what centuries have built does not require even a single generation."
On that happy note, let me close with the observation that the reigning political elite in America and their enablers are most definitely on "the French model," not the Anglo-Scottish/American one. And most notably, that includes the sitting POTUS.
When are we going to throw out these bums?
Thank you so much, Teacher317, for recommending this wonderful book!
Apparently, you are not aware that America is rapidly changing in the direction that favors the "French model" and that it has to do with the demographics. The American population is rapidly becoming alienated to the principles and beliefs of the Founding Fathers.
It is a mathematical certainty that in not such a distant future this country will be dominated by groups that traditionally favor the "French model" and seek to transform this country into the country that resembles the countries they left behind. Their goal is not to assimilate into something that is alien to them, but to take over—ironically, with the help of the system they seek to destroy.