Aeon: Vive la révolution!

The legacy of the French Revolution is not found in physical monuments, but in the ideals of liberty, equality and justice that still inspire modern democracies. More ambitious than the American revolutionaries of 1776, the French in 1789 were not just fighting for their own national independence: they wanted to establish principles that would lay the basis for freedom for human beings everywhere. The United States Declaration of Independence briefly mentioned rights to ‘liberty, equality, and the pursuit of happiness’, without explaining what they meant or how they were to be realised. The French ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen’ spelled out the rights that comprised liberty and equality and outlined a system of participatory government that would empower citizens to protect their own rights. [...]

The French Revolution’s initiatives concerning women’s rights and slavery are just two examples of how the French revolutionaries experimented with radical new ideas about the meaning of liberty and equality that are still relevant. But the French Revolution is not just important today because it took such radical steps to broaden the definitions of liberty and equality. The movement that began in 1789 also showed the dangers inherent in trying to remake an entire society overnight. The French revolutionaries were the first to grant the right to vote to all adult men, but they were also the first to grapple with democracy’s shadow side, demagogic populism, and with the effects of an explosion of ‘new media’ that transformed political communication. The revolution saw the first full-scale attempt to impose secular ideas in the face of vocal opposition from citizens who proclaimed themselves defenders of religion. In 1792, revolutionary France became the first democracy to launch a war to spread its values. A major consequence of that war was the creation of the first modern totalitarian dictatorship, the rule of the Committee of Public Safety during the Reign of Terror. Five years after the end of the Terror, Napoleon Bonaparte, who had gained fame as a result of the war, led the first modern coup d’état, justifying it, like so many strongmen since, by claiming that only an authoritarian regime could guarantee social order. [...]

To reduce Robespierre’s legacy to his association with the Terror is to overlook the importance of his role as a one of history’s most articulate proponents of political democracy. When the majority of the deputies in France’s revolutionary National Assembly tried to restrict full political rights to the wealthier male members of the population, Robespierre reminded them of the Declaration of Rights’ assertion that freedom meant the right to have a voice in making the laws that citizens had to obey. ‘Is the law the expression of the general will, when the greater number of those for whom it is made cannot contribute to its formation?’ he asked. Long before our present-day debates about income inequality, he denounced a system that put real political power in the hands of the wealthy: ‘And what an aristocracy! The most unbearable of all, that of the rich.’ In the early years of the revolution, Robespierre firmly defended freedom of the press and called for the abolition of the death penalty. When white colonists insisted that France could not survive economically without slavery, Robespierre cried out: ‘Perish the colonies rather than abandon a principle!’ [...]

For five years after Robespierre’s execution, France lived under a quasi-constitutional system, in which laws were debated by a bicameral legislature and discussed in a relatively free press. On several occasions, it is true, the Directory, the five-man governing council, ‘corrected’ the election results to ensure its own hold on power, undermining the authority of the constitution, but the mass arrests and arbitrary trials that had marked the Reign of Terror were not repeated. The Directory’s policies enabled the country’s economy to recover after the disorder of the revolutionary years. Harsh toward the poor who had identified themselves with the Père Duchêne, it consolidated the educational reforms started during the Terror. Napoleon would build on the Directory’s success in establishing a modern, centralised system of administration. He himself was one of the many military leaders who enabled France to defeat its continental enemies and force them to recognise its territorial gains.

read the article

Lapham’s Quarterly: The Denazified Library

The policy called for the elimination of all schoolbooks that had indoctrinated youths with the malign tenets of Nazism and militarism. Few changes had been made to textbooks in the early years of Hitler’s regime, except for the inclusion of new prefaces and introductions touting National Socialism, which could be excised or pasted over. By 1937, however, Nazi ideology permeated students’ daily lessons: physics books applied “scientific principles to war uses, biology and nursing texts had long chapters on ra­cialist theories, while algebra texts were filled with examples and problems based upon the use of artillery, the throwing of hand grenades, the move­ment of military convoys, and so on,” the ERA reported. History and geography had been rewritten to highlight the losses caused by the Versailles Treaty; Latin readers glorified strong leaders and individual sacrifice to the state. Allied education planners wanted such textbooks impounded and replaced. They decided initially to reproduce Weimar-era texts as a stopgap measure and planned to publish new works authored by non-Nazi German educators.[...]

On its face, the military government’s perspective was simple: Nazi books were akin to a virus or infestation that required quarantine and elim­ination. If this seemed self-evident to many, underlying this view was an array of social science research. To a remarkable degree, the American mil­itary developed its media policy by seeking the counsel of psychologists, public-opinion researchers, sociologists, and German émigré intellectuals. For decades, communications experts had warned of the power of media to influence a mass audience. Some had specifically investigated state control and media indoctrination in totalitarian countries, while others considered how Americans could fend off such influences and build morale through effective propaganda. Émigré social theorists, such as Franz Neumann and Herbert Marcuse, also shaped perceptions of Germans’ psychological state under Nazism and reinforced the need for thorough cultural change. The OSS even interviewed Thomas Mann and other prominent German writers, who thought that “Nazi education and literature must be stamped out,” yet “placed little confidence in teaching democracy from books.” Although contradictory, their suggestions leaned toward using the methods of to­talitarian propaganda and indoctrination in the service of democratic values. “We had much advice from those who professed to know the so-called German mind,” commented General Lucius Clay sardonically. “If it did exist, we never found it.” Nevertheless, transforming the “Nazi mind,” as it was often called—and thus the German reader—became a problem of postwar reconstruction. [...]

Removing Nazi literature from German homes proved to be a red line. Although a committee drafted a directive to this effect, it aroused strong opposition in the U.S. Control Council. To accomplish this goal, one general objected, they would need not only a vast index expurgatorius of “tens of thousands of titles” but also armies of inspectors to search every home and bookshelf. “The ease with which printed matter can be concealed is obvious,” he said. Even more than these practical matters, however, the Control Council balked at an action reminiscent of Nazi book burning: American public opinion would be outraged, and Germans would perceive this as a hypocrit­ical and punitive measure. Even the Nazis had not gone on house-to-house searches for banned books. A counterproposal recommended a publicity cam­paign to encourage Germans to voluntarily give up their Nazi books as “an act of personal cleansing or expiation” that would convert tainted works into paper pulp and new reading matter. This idea was repeatedly raised, especially by the British, as an alternative to coercive measures.

read the article

Prospect Podcast: Veganism in the era of climate change

Veganuary; fake cheese; lab-grown meat. “Plant-based” diets have become trendier and more mainstream over the past few years. But how much can going vegan really help fend off climate change? Journalist Hephzibah Anderson joins the Prospect interview to talk about the curious history of veganism, the academic debates around its environmental promises, and the easy traps of politics based around consumer choices.

listen to the podcast

Wisecrack: Baby Yoda and the Dark Side of Cuteness

Bloomberg: What's Really Warming the World? (June 24, 2015)

What's Really Warming the World? Skeptics of manmade climate change offer various natural causes to explain why the Earth has warmed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. ... These changes have had little effect on the Earth's overall climate.

read the article and see the graphs

EURACTIV: Why are Germany’s Greens rejecting the Austrian coalition model?

The Greens were able to negotiate far-reaching and robust climate protection measures and a transparency package for public administration. At the same time, the ÖVP is implementing its tax cuts for businesses, and taking a hard line on migration and integration, something that completely contradicts the Austrian Greens’ previous party line and principles. [...]

Green co-leader Annalena Baerbock added that, in contrast to the Austrian sister party, her Green party would not accept “any coalition agreements where we exclude topics, let alone such important issues as domestic policy”. [...]

From the start, the German Greens’ top duo, Annalena Berdock and Robert Habeck, intended to drop the image of a purely eco-party. They have broadened the Greens’ thematic scope and are increasingly replacing the Social Democrats (SPD) as a major party in Germany. Such a success would be at risk if the party was only seen focusing on environmental topics.

read the article

openDemocracy: The game's afoot: scenarios of power transition in Russia

The first piece of evidence is the timing. Why did it happen now, when 2024 is still far away? American political scientist Henry Hale writes that the political calendar is significant even under authoritarian regimes, where elections, formally competitive, are hollowed out and no longer guarantee change of power. Indeed, it is precisely around election dates that different elite groups orient their expectations and plans. This is why elections themselves often throw out unpleasant surprises for regimes, whether electorally or on the streets. Despite the apparently iron-clad consensus among Russian elites over Putin, they still have reason to be dissatisfied. [...]

The second question concerns the transition’s format. The Kremlin has several options: Belarusian (removal of limits on presidential terms and re-election of Putin as president), Kazakh (reserving Putin the post of head of a new institution with unlimited powers, which the Kazakh Security Council became after Nazarbayev joined it), and, finally, Russia-2008 (moving Putin to the post of Prime Minister and elections for his successor, perhaps with a straight repeat of 2008 - a shuffle with Medvedev). For the regime, each of these options has its advantages and shortcomings. [...]

Several analysts believe that Putin won’t take the risk and, despite initial impressions of his speech, Putin will choose the Belarusian scenario – a life presidency. As Kirill Rogov has noted, the post of president, according to Putin’s speech, will also receive additional powers – for example, the right to remove judges from the Constitutional and Supreme Courts (in agreement with the Federation Council – it will be impossible to talk about an independent judiciary even formally). We can’t rule out that these new powers will be given to Putin, rather than someone else, and that during the “popular vote” on the constitutional amendments a new paragraph will appear on removing the limit on presidential terms. Besides, as Putin has already stated, Russian citizens will vote on all the changes at once, in a “packet” of laws.

read the article

Politico: The end of Italy’s 5Star Movement

After months of internal turmoil, the party's chief Luigi Di Maio, who is also the foreign minister, announced his resignation as leader on Wednesday evening while retaining his government role ahead of two crucial regional elections on Sunday where the 5Stars are expected to suffer massive defeats. [...]

In last May's European election the 5Stars won 17 percent of the vote. They've also seen serious losses in multiple regional votes across the past 18 months, plummeting to below 10 percent in the Umbria election in October. In the upcoming elections the party isn't running as part of a coalition with the PD, like in Umbria, and according to the latest available polls in both Calabria and Emilia-Romagna they are expected to score in the single digits. [...]

Whatever Di Maio's responsibility, his resignation as party leader had been expected for some time. According to members of his staff, his relationship with Grillo had deteriorated, leaving him without a strong political patron ahead of what is expected to be a major defeat in the Emilia-Romagna regional election Sunday.

read the article

Politico: Greek MPs elect first female head of state

In a rare act of unity in the usually turbulent and divisive Greek politics, the nomination by conservative ruling New Democracy was supported by both the main opposition left-wing Syriza and Socialists party. Sakellaropoulou won 261 votes, well over the 200 needed in Greece’s 300-seat parliament to be elected from the first ballot. [...]

She also listed climate change; the mass displacement of people and the ensuing humanitarian crisis; the decline of the rule of law; and inequality as international challenges that extend beyond Greece's borders and require cooperation among governments. [...]

The progressive judge is known for her sensitivity to minorities' rights, civil liberties and refugee issues, which prompted Syriza to select her for the position of the country's top judge. She has particular expertise in environmental law and has written numerous papers on environmental protection, while also chairing a society on environmental law.

read the article