The Only Game Politicians Know

Reading about the five-year hit job on President Trump, detailed by Julie Kelly in American Greatness, makes you think.

What on earth did these intelligence community gum-shoes, these Democratic operatives with bylines, these Schiffs and Robert Muellers think they were doing?

I mean, isn't it a bit of a problem using the police and intelligence agencies to fight your normal political opposition, in an election year, as requested by the campaign of Hillary Clinton, Democrat?

And now we have Nancy Pelosi's latest wizard wheeze to have a January 6 committee with specially selected members, to advance the narrative that, what, Trump supporters are dangerous insurrectionists?

But, parenthetically, if the Trump supporters that broke into the Capitol and apparently wandered around taking selfies are dangerous insurrectionists, then whatabout BLM and AntiFa?

I mean, to me, BLM and AntiFa seem pretty focused on something, and that something seems to be what President Obama called "fundamental transformation." Or revolution by another name.

It makes me wonder: what am I missing here?

I am coming to think that politicians and bureaucrats aren't really that smart. The only thing they know to do is to play campaign tricks, to play their racist, their class narratives, their anti-business screeds. Because politics is division into Us and Them. But once things get beyond this narrow focus, they are all at sea.

One "tell" on this was when Democrats were all dumping on President Trump's Operation Warp Speed vaccine policy last fall. Your Joe Bidens, your Kamala Harrises were all tweeting that they didn't trust President Trump. But now...

I mean, if Democrats can't trust President Trump to have an honest get-the-vaccine-out policy that obviously helps his re-election, why should any Republican trust any of the ever-changing COVID policies of the Biden administration?

And if the health bureaucracy keeps changing its mind about masks and not-masks, vaccines and immunity, lockdowns and non-lockdowns, without really telling the whys and wherefores, and without really telling us what the all-important science says, why should we trust them?

Because they are just politicians, after all, and Narrative is All.

And they really don't know anything else.

But, I suppose, that's why we have revolutions, why we have changes of regimes: because down the ages, tribal chiefs and kings and dukes and dictators have really not been that smart. Just because they won some war, or assassinated some previous big-shot, or rallied a majority of the nobles against the current ruler, doesn't mean that they have a clue about anything else.

I mean, look at Lenin and Stalin, that threw the Russian people and its economy in the garbage can in pursuit of some crackpot economic conspiracy theory. And then, when things went wrong they decided the problem was "saboteurs and wreckers" and launched the secret police on the people to purge them.

Ditto Mao Zedong.

I mean, what's wrong with these people?

Yeah, there's a lot of talk in high places about crackpot conspiracy theories about stealing elections, about the COVID-19 epidemic.

But whatabout the biggest conspiracy of them all, Marxist economics? That the capitalists were out to screw the workers? And that the religious cult selling this narrative has been pushing it all through the biggest increase in the income of the common man in all history, what economist Deirdre McCloskey calls The Great Enrichment?

Maybe it's a good thing that politicians are really dumb, that the only thing they know, per Joseph Schumpeter in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy is how to get elected and reelected, and the fact they get any governing done at all is remarkable.

Because if they were smart, imagine the damage they could do!

Here's another thing: the pedal-to-the-metal spending binge that the Democrats are pushing right now.

I'd say that rebalancing the economy after the COVID mess is a really tricky thing to accomplish. I'd say you'd want to get people off unemployment as quickly as possible. I'd say you'd want to end mortgage and rent forgiveness as quick as possible. I'd say you'd want to put the whole de-carbonizing agenda on a 5-year hold, because you really don't want spiralling energy costs to interfere with the rebalancing of the economy. I'd say you'd want to tell all the lefty interests that, hey, we want to help you and advance all your agendas, but first we've got to put the economy to rights. 

I'd say that because the Democrats are not doing anything close to this that they are going to create an economic mess that will really upset the ordinary non-political middle-class voter and elect a Republican Congress and a Republican President that will make the amiable Trump look like a walk in the park.

That's what my Four Laws are supposed to teach:

Socialism cannot work because it cannot compute prices (Mises). The administrative state cannot work because the Man in Washington does not have the bandwidth to run the economy (Hayek). Regulation does not work because “regulatory capture” (Stigler). Government programs cannot work because you can never reform them (Chantrill).

 The first two laws deal with the fantasy that you can run an economy like a lord of the manor runs his estate. The second two laws deal with the problem that all politics and government ends up as loot and plunder.

And unless the politicians get smart and keep the lord-of-the-manor stuff and the loot-and-plunder stuff down to a dull roar they are going to create a mess that will kick them out of office.

The Bigger Problem with Defunding the Police

I've been thinking a lot about what happens downstream of "defund the police."

Obviously one downstream effect is that criminals feel emboldened. And police head for the donut shop.

But there are other things to consider, such as my maxim that if you defund the police then you get vigilantes and gangs.

Why?  Because the whole point of police forces is so you don't have vigilantes and gangs and their rather loosey-goosey attitude towards rules of engagement.

When the police head for the donut shop, then vigilantes and gangs take their place.

The vigilantes show up in middle-class areas; the gangs in lower-class areas. And I suppose in upper-class areas you get private security: hired guns, darling.

Of course, all this was mere supposition on my part, an educated guess based on years of study and reading -- and the history of the banker William T. Sherman in San Francisco during the era of the "San Francisco Committee of Vigilance." 

That was until I read about the vigilantes of South Africa arising out the the recent riots and looting that were clearly started by real insurrectionists. It started on a Monday with 

small groups of saboteurs entered the malls... [then] literally tens of thousands of otherwise quite ordinary, peaceful people poured into the malls on foot and by car and completed the looting and firing of the shops. 

Then the vigilantes kicked in.

My community’s Whatsapp groups and local news channels kept pace with the mayhem and at mid-afternoon on Monday the expected call went out for all armed citizens to gather at designated points. Our hastily appointed commander advised us that all roads had been cut off by rioters and efforts to raise support from the police, army and local ruling party civic representatives had failed. The State had gone AWOL.

Within 24 hours, a functioning operational command had been set up, barricades were erected at six access points and stickers issued to emergency workers to speed progress. A communication system operated through a mobile app with military efficiency and infrared drones surveyed the surrounding bushland, their operators trying to separate human forms from bushbuck. Pickets guarded mobile phone towers, water points, electrical substations and schools. All of this had been cobbled together in hours by local neighbourhood watch groups, policing forums, private security and businesses.

Wow: drones! Imagine trying to do this with the bureaucrats at the FBI!

Now, here's another angle, from Crane Brinton and The Anatomy of Revolution, putting together the English, American, French, and Russian revolutions.

What is weird is that in all four revolutions, when it came to the first outbreak of violence, the old regime government was caught flat-footed. Each government totally flubbed its response to the provocation. The authorities responded to the violence, of course,

but in each case with a striking lack of success. Those of the ruling class responsible for such responses in all our societies proved signally unable to make adequate use of force.

In the case of the Fall of the Bastille, numerous soldiers actually joined the rioters.

Hmm. Did I not read somewhere that some of the police at the Capitol on January 6 actually let the rioters into the Capitol?

Hey you liberals, lefties, BLMs, AntiFas, House Speakers, Democrats, Pelosi Republicans, devoted activists and all the ships at sea! A word with you.

Is it not possible that, were a real "armed insurrection" by crazed right-wing racist-sexist-homophobes to materialize in this sacred land of activism the police might do a Bartleby, and say they "would rather not" shoot on the insurrectionists? After you chaps have been dumping on them for the last year and more? And sending the poor schmuck stuck with arresting some crazed drug-addled crook to jail?

And whatabout the armed forces, whose generals are busily saluting to the CRT folks and saying to the Bidenoids, "Yes sir, how high?" Do you not realize that the ordinary rank-and-file soldiers from the hills might not in fact obey their wokist officers when the regime chips are down?

Just sayin'.

My point is that the police and the military are doing the dirty work for you politicians and ruling-class swells -- so you don't have to. All they ask is a little respect, and maybe a nod and a wink when they make a mistake in the heat of battle.

Have you liberals, lefties, Democrats, and all the ships at sea ever thought about the strategic consequence of using the police and the military as punching bags so you can strut and fret upon the stage before your wokie supporters?

Maybe it's time you did, before it's too late.

Understanding the Left's Big Push on Education

 The latest "thing" in government education is "critical race theory," in which our children are to be taught that racism is everything, and "equity," in which, well, let Keri D. Ingraham explain:

Identifying and labeling students based on their socioeconomic and ethnic or race group dominates the education conversation, with group academic performance based on these demographics the frequent focus. Any differences in academic performance between demographic groups (especially based on race) are labeled “achievement gaps,” the remedy for which is more equity.

So, the explanation of everything is racism. And the solution of everything is racism.

Meanwhile, the AP is breathlessly reporting that homeschooling is exploding. 

The rate of households homeschooling their children doubled from the start of the pandemic last spring to the start of the new school year last September, according to a new U.S. Census Bureau report released this week.

But here's the big thing.

Black households saw the largest jump in rates of homeschooling, going from 3.3% in the spring to 16.1% in the fall. 

Breitbart expands:

Charmaine Williams, a parent in the St. Louis area, said she is using the National Black Home Educators curriculum to homeschool Justin, age 10, and Janel, age 6.

“There’s no turning back for us now,” she added. “The pandemic has been a blessing — an opportunity to take ownership of our children’s education.” 

Wow. As a devoted racist-sexist-homophobe I sure do like to read about blacks getting on the homeschool train. Come right in, folks, the water's fine.

But what on earth is all the rubbish about critical race theory and equity really about? I mean, this is crazy-cakes stuff. 

The answer, of course, is trivial, but telling.

The answer is that the only warrant for government power is existential peril. Back at the dawn of public education, the peril was that millions of children were growing up unlettered. The "common school" was the idea of Horace Mann. 

The reform movement he led sought to create the virtuous republican citizenry needed to sustain American political institutions, the educated workforce required to expand the American economy, and the disciplined generation necessary to forestall the social disorders so common in American cities in the decades before the Civil War.

Mann was a Protestant and a Unitarian. Today, we call them "transcendentalists." But was there a hidden agenda? The Irish Catholics reckoned that the common school movement was all about curing them of their Catholicism, and so the Catholic Irish, inspired by John "Dagger" Hughes, developed the idea of "first build the school, then build the church." You will notice, if you drive by a Catholic church, that there is a school attached.

Yep, we couldn't have those dangerous ignorant Irish Catholics irradiating their children with crazy Catholic doctrine. So let's have a government school system where kids study the King James Bible not the Catholic Bible. That's how the whole thing started.

Now, of course, we need government schools to make sure that children are taught ruling-class ideas on race and sex and gays rather than the primitive bigoted ideas of their parents.

But it's really all about power, and the fact that no politician or bureaucrat can ever admit being wrong.

Actually, most government programs, most of the time, Make Things Worse. Of course they do, because if you strip away all the narrative and the division, government programs are about one thing, and one thing only: rewarding the supporters of the government.

So if politicians can never admit a mistake, and government is all about loot and plunder, what do you do when the public schools are persistently failing to boost blacks into the middle class.

It can't be because blacks are a standard deviation below whites in IQ.

It can't be because all government programs are loot and plunder.

It can't be because the real clients of government education are the teachers and administrators that support Democratic politicians.

It can't be because affirmative action doesn't work.

It can't be because No Child Left Behind doesn't work.

It can't be because Every Student Succeeds doesn't work.

It can't be because Common Core doesn't work.

It can't be because every Baldrick's Cunning Plan of the education blog Makes Things Worse.

Do you see that the one thing that our liberal friends cannot admit, will not admit, is that their politics is a failed politics, and their programs are failed programs?

Because if they did that then the only decent thing to do would be to retreat from politics and hand over their power to a successor regime. And they are not going to do that, because politics is their religion and power is their drug.

So, our liberal friends will always be coming up with some new dodge to marginalize and humiliate ordinary middle-class Americans and justify their continuing grip on political power.

Until we show them the door.

Nancy Pelosi's Darkest Hour

I've been wondering about our Democratic friends for a while, really going back to the 2000 election when Al Gore didn't concede a normal change election. By that I mean that it's normal for the voters to think it is Time for a Change after one party has had two consecutive terms of the presidency.

The exceptions merely prove the rule, where Michael Dukakis, he of the tank photo, lost to George Bush I.

My point is: what is their problem? Of course the other guys are going to win elections, the bums, especially after we've been in office for a couple of terms. But wait until next time. We'll show 'em, the bums.

Obviously, in 2000, and again in 2016, our Democratic friends didn't approach losing a normal change election in this quintessential male way.

My feeling is that this is explained by a deep and existential understanding in our Democratic friends that something has gone wrong in the political universe. The stars are no longer moving in their accustomed courses.

I think they are getting more and more desperate to hang onto power. Because they feel it slipping away. They don't know why. They just know that Republicans and white oppressors are evil and that Gaia wants them dead.

So now we come to Our Nance: Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker of the House of Representatives.

What's it all about Alfie Nancee? 

What's the deal with endless committee investigations of Donald Trump and two abortive impeachment efforts? What in the world do you think you are doing with these nukings of the political system, Madam Speaker?

Well, I have a few ideas, based partly on my eevil sexism, and my understanding of the difference between honor in men and women, after Honor: a History by James Bowman.

According to Bowman, honor among men is the reputation for courage, and I think it issues from the necessity for men to stick together in battle and not run for the exits.

But honor among women is the reputation for chastity, he says. You can see why. There are enormous advantages for a woman in not spreading her favors around, for any number of reasons. But I think this culture of chastity in women goes way beyond sex, and especially applies to the reluctance of women to admit when they are wrong.

Yeah, I know. Men hate to admit when they are wrong. But women are worse, in my opinion.

When women lose an argument, or are exposed as less than pure in heart, they tend to lie about it, and they tend to be vindictive towards their opponents.

Oh, sure, men do that too, but with men vindictiveness is considered "bad sportsmanship."

I have extended this into a whole philosophy, that women do not like, do not relate, and cannot thrive in the "public square." Because women do not communicate in a kind of public "open outcry" of a public meeting. They communicate one-on-one over coffee, and judge the world through "I can't believe she said/did that" of "Much as I hate to say it..."

Also, I think that women are very bad at revising their world view when it starts collapsing about them. This is because I believe that very few women have "strategic minds." They are good at the tactics of manipulating the family and the community of women in the neighborhood on a day-to-day basis. But, with some remarkable exceptions, women just don't get strategy.

So, to me, all this explains Our Nance to a tee. Nancy grew up in a Democratic world, scion of an Italian political family in Baltimore, Maryland. It just does not compute that America is now 50-50 and Democrats can't just take the white working class for granted like in the Good Old Days.

It explains all her shenanigans, especially now in the Trump era, when the white middle class (and increasingly the East Asian middle class) is rebelling against half a century of vindictive ruling-class anti-white racism. At a strategic level, I just don't think Nancy understands what to do. So she does what comes naturally to a woman, which is to say nasty things about the other women in the neighborhood and "stop talking" to the women that offend her.

Miranda Devine has some nice takes in the NYPost on this.

If anyone is to blame for the hyper-partisanship in Washington these days, it’s the spiteful House speaker.

Everyone in Congress — and, by extension, the nation — has been sullied by the spite and vitriol she has injected into the political sphere. There is no grace or Christian charity, just the barren wasteland of the zero-sum game, power for power’s sake. 

Of course, the January 6 committee is at the center of this, and the unassailable fact is that Nancy Pelosi is the boss of Congress, and she "commands" the Capitol Hill police. So, if there weren't enough police on hand to defend the Capitol, Nancy is to blame. Period, end of story, no need for a commission.

Guess what: the one person that should not be running the January 6 investigation is Nancy Pelosi!

Now, the point is that the most difficult thing for a politician to do is to admit blame and, I would say, particularly so for a woman politician for the reasons articulated above in respect of honor in women.

There is a strategic reason why it is a good thing to admit when you are wrong. It clears the decks. It lets you get on with life. It lets you say: wow, we screwed that up, so let's make sure we don't do it again.

But if you don't admit when you are wrong you are trapped using all your energy to twist the facts around to absolve yourself of guilt and blame other people when you should be figuring out how to avoid the same mistake in the future.

So really, for me as a racist-sexist-homophobe, it is a Good Thing that Nancy Pelosi is tying herself in knots with her spitefulness and vindictiveness. It means that she will lead the Democrats into the wilderness, and let the rest of us figure out how to avoid the stupid Nancy Pelosi mistakes in the future.

One thing I, as a profound racist, wonder about is what happens when the current White-as-Snow Democratic leaders retire and are replaced by the quota People of Color and Gender. Just between you and me, I don't think the next generation of Democrats are up to snuff. Can you spell K-A-M-A-L-A?

Anatomy of Revolution: Thermidor and Summary

After a revolution reaches the peak of ideological fever, writes Crane Brinton in The Anatomy of Revolution the fever breaks, and things return, relatively, to normal. This retreat from frenzy is called "Thermidor" after the fall of Robespierre, the director of the Reign of Terror, in the revolutionary month of Thermidor.

In the English Revolution, Brinton reckons that Thermidor arrived in April 1653 when Cromwell dissolved the Rump parliament and became Protector. Then,

In 1657 Cromwell became Lord Protector, half a king at least, and with the restoration of the Stuarts in 1660 the great English Revolution may be said to have ended.

In France the fall of the "incorruptible" Robespierre was brought about in 1793 by a conspiracy among apparently orthodox Jacobins that were involved in war profiteering and the like. Although the conspirators had not intended to end the Terror, the public reaction communicated to the government that the ordinary people were done with it, and the Terror slowly subsided through the Convention and the Directory, until Bonaparte's coup d'état in November 1799. 

In the Russian Revolution, Thermidor is more complex. The New Economic Policy of 1921 certainly counts as a relaxation in revolutionary frenzy, but Lenin's death in 1924 led to a rivalry between Stalin and Trotsky and a revival of revolutionary tension. But the enforcement of Five Year Plans and the Great Purge in the 1930s count not as revolutionary but as the normal acts of tyrannous rulers.

The striking commonality in the post Thermidorean period is that the establishment of the monarchical rule of a tyrant.-- even Washington was regarded as a tyrant by some -- should be regarded as normal. 

[W]hen "the "silken threads" of habit, tradition, legality are broken, men must be held together by the "iron chains" of dictatorship. 

Thus the frenzy of terror is replaced by the more reliable rule of an uncontested ruler that inherits the revolution.

As time goes on, the pressures of the Terror applied to ordinary men are relaxed: the special tribunals give place to more regular ones, the revolutionary police are absorbed into the regular police... and the block, guillotine or firing squad are reserved for more dramatic criminals.

Ordinary people can get on with their ordinary lives, and slowly the politically proscribed are amnestied, or are allowed to return, and even allowed back into public life. The new governing class tend to be "a very miscellaneous lot," but they slowly get the country some sort of normalcy, "once more working."

However, Thermidor does not mean a return to economic normalcy.

One of the most striking uniformities... notably in France and Russia, but to a certain extent in the England of the 1650's and the America of the Articles of Confederation, there was more widespread economic suffering, especially among the poorest classes, than during the Terror, or during the last years of the old regime.

Another thing: the messianic universalism of the revolution and the Terror gets replaced by ordinary nationalism, not excluding a little ordinary war and conquest.

Thermidor also means the rehabilitation of the old church. In England, France, and Russia the established church was cruelly persecuted by the revolutionaries. But in the reaction, the persecutions were relaxed, and the old religion allowed to resume its place in the national culture.

Thermidor meant a return to pleasure, especially in England and France. That is what "Restoration Comedy" was all about in England.

[I]n the frank return to the pleasure of the senses, to gambling, drinking, dancing, open love-making, to a light and cynical literature, to a frank joy in clothes and other vanities, the two countries present a very close parallel.

Even in Soviet Russia, in the New Economic Policy period, the "Nepmen" were seen as exceptionally vulgar, and prostitution and gambling returned to Moscow. Of course, Russia seems to be an exception -- even in 1964 in the revised edition of Anatomy -- in that it maintained a "continuous pressure" for decades on the individual to conform or else. There are many reasons that can be found to explain this, but Brinton worries about straying into the realm of "prophecy." Still, he suggests,

The ideas, the promises of orthodox Marxism as now embodied in Russia  may well prove in the next few years almost as embarrassing in Russian internal politics as useful in Russian external politics.

Still, despite the inevitable end of revolutionary frenzy, we cannot say that "revolution has changed nothing." Life in all the post-revolution regimes was different. But what did the revolutions change?

Some institutions, some laws, even some humans habits, the clearly changed in very important ways;

 Other institutions, etc., not so much.

In the case of France, it can be said that the revolution ended "the worst abuses, the worst inefficiencies of the old regime, that resulted from a "thousand year struggle between the centripetal forces of the Crown and the centrifugal forces of the feudal nobility." The achievement of government efficiency is the most striking common achievements of the revolutions. And the metric system. It is curious that revolutions all launched in the name of freedom ended up merely promoting the efficiency of government. All the revolutions took property from at least some of the previous upper class, and brought some new men into the ruling class, while throwing out some at least of the old ruling class.

And yet how much did the revolutions change life for the ordinary man? The revolutions had grand plans to change the family, religion, and "personal habits," but after the Thermidor the average man stands "on certain matters about where he stood when the revolution began."

What is loosely called the "Industrial Revolution" had certainly a much greater effect, forcing John [Jones] into a more difficult series of adjustments than did our revolutions.

But the revolutions turned "verbal instruments of revolt" into the new myths and rituals or their societies, a mere recitation of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." 

Finallt Brinton offers the following uniformities in the four revolutions.

First, the revolutions occurred in societies on the upswing, from the discontented who felt restraint from the old order.

Second, there were "bitter class antagonisms" in each of the prerevolutionary societies.

Third, there is the "transfer of allegiance of the intellectuals" over to the revolution.

Fourth, in a rapidly changing society the old-regime "governmental machinery is clearly inefficient... [and] laid an intolerable strain on governmental machinery adapted to simpler, more primitive, conditions."

Fifth, the old ruling class starts to "lose faith in the traditions and habits of their class". It "becomes politically inept."

Thus, Brinton ends with three major conclusions:

First, there seem to be uniformities between the four revolutions; second, that there is a difference between men's deed and words, for in the crisis they may say one thing and do another; third, that it is not easy to change society, and that the vast effort of revolution and terror fails, and that, after the Thermidorean reaction, society is "not greatly altered."

Anatomy of Revolution: Accession of the Extremists and Reign of Terror

Crane Brinton in The Anatomy of Revolution now looks at the details of the successful seizure of absolute power by the extremists and its culmination in the Reign of Terror.

The simple reason the extremists succeed is that they acquire control of a parallel, but illegal, government alongside the legal government run by the moderates. It turns out that the moderates are weak, but the extremists are strong.

The extremists are able to bring off their coup d'état because they have steadily managed to oust any and all opposition to them in the organizations they control, such as the New Model Army, the Jacobin clubs, and the various soviets throughout Russia. Typically they learned the techniques needed for this from years of secret organizations, plotting, and underground conspiracy.

And they were few. They were not leaders of a widespread movement, but conspirators in a small minority that advertised themselves as representing the Inevitable Future. And they "were very sure that they were superior to the inert and flabby many." It is also true that, as a revolution proceeds, ordinary people drop out of participation, whether in voting in elections or in keeping their heads above the parapet. Of course, the extremists encourage this non-participation, beating up notables, "starting riots at polling places and electoral assemblies;" making it difficult for the hum-drum to support and cast their votes for hum-drum moderates. The extremists are few, but "they are fanatically devoted to their cause" and put their whole energy into seizing power, "acquiring the technique of any pressure group." This even occurred in the English Revolution when a crowd of apprentices appeared at the House of Commons demanding it vote on the extremists' agenda.

The great leaders of the Terrors are fitted for their task by a genuine vocation, a vocation which in ordinary times would exclude them from political power.

And they learned their trade on the job as their pressure groups transformed into an illegal parallel government, usurping government functions and issuing administrative orders and laws as the opportunities offered.

The extremists are not, then, politically innocent or inexperienced; they have a long experience of oppression, and a briefer, but very intensive, training in actual government before they come to power.

Armed with their basic training in governance, they extremists created governments with a rough-and-ready centralization executed through a central committee, and executed through an extemporized bureaucracy and revolutionary tribunals. Plus a secret police: Cheka, comité de sureté générale, and in England through parish clergy! This centralized administration extended to the economy, whether or not self-consciously socialist. And inefficient. 

Indeed, one of the reasons why the governments of the Terror seem so tyrannical and hard to bear, even retrospectively, is precisely that they were so inefficient.

And yet there was one ray of hope: ordinary criminality seems to be reduced. Possibly because the petty thief on occasion got lynched when the normal authorities became disorganized.

With respect to the Reign of Terror the important thing is to understand its pervasiveness.

During the Terror, politics becomes as real, as pressing, as unavoidable to John Jones or Jacques Dupont or Ivan Ivanovich as food and drink, wife or mistress, his job and the weather. Political indifference, that mainstay of the modern state, becomes impossible for even the most selfish, the most unworldly.

It is all very hard on the outsider, the man who gets on the bandwagon, but then has to put up with endless celebrations of revolution -- processions, festivals of reason. Then there are the renamings, "that tend to confuse and annoy the outsider." In France it extended from renaming the Place Louis XV to the Place de la Révolution, changing the calendar and the names of the months. And you never know when "lightning is going to strike him and his household," to be haled into court as a counterrevolutionary. In France there was a concerted effort to shut up brothels, gaming houses, and eliminate drunkenness. There is a "saturation point in large-sclae, obsessive political propaganda after which such propaganda actually backfires."

For the devoted insider, the experience is close to what we call "religious," in the sense that 

men work very hard and excitedly in common to achieve here or somewhere an ideal, a pattern of life not at the moment universally -- or even largely -- achieved.

But humans cannot be transformed overnight, for human behavior changes "with glacial slowness," and so Brinton writes that

the violence... of the Terror is in some sense an overcompensation for the inability of the extremists to carry their ordinary brothers along with them. The Terror is a desperate overshooting of the mark.

Of course.

Our revolutionists are convinced that they are the elect, destined to carry out the will of God, nature, or science... The opponents... are not just political enemies, not just mistaken men... they are sinners, and must not just be beaten -- they must be wiped out.

And even though these revolutions became progressively secular, from English, to American, to French, to Russian, they all seek a heaven "here, now, on earth...to conquer evil once and for all."

But what explains the Terror? Brinton has seven explanations:

First, the "habit of violence" cultivated in the revolutionary process.

Second, most importantly, "the pressure of a foreign and civil war" that justifies the total mobilization and disciplining of the people.

Third, "the newness of the machinery of this centralized government... that works in fits and starts, and frequently jams badly."

Fourth, the "economic crisis... the shortage of the necessities of life."

Fifth, "class struggles" and the polarization between the extremists and the rest of society.

Sixth, the fact that the leaders have been selected "almost in a Darwinian sense... to push on to extremes, to use their special influence to heighten the already high tension of life in society."

Seventh, the element of religious faith shared by the extremists in each revolution.

And then it all comes tumbling down.

[L]arge numbers of men can stand only so much interference with the routines and rituals of their daily existence... The outsider in the crisis period is pushed to the limit of his endurance by interference with some of his most prized and intimate routines[.]

And so comes the Thermidorean Reaction.

Next: Thermidor. and Summary.

More In Common's "American Fabric"

The research outfit More in Common gets funding by, among others:

Luminate (UK), Social Change Initiative (UK), Robert Bosch Foundation (Germany), European Climate Foundation (France), Open Society Foundations (US/Europe) and Ford Foundation (US).

But here is its social fabric of "Hidden Tribes" in America:

Tribe Name	Percent in America
Progressive Activists	8%
Traditional Liberals	11%
Passive Liberals	15%
Politically Disengaged	26%
Moderates	15%
Traditional Conservatives	19%
Devoted Conservatives	6%

Here is how More In Common defines the Hidden Tribes (yes, More In Common is clearly Progressive Activist):

Progressive Activists are deeply concerned with issues concerning equity, fairness, and America's direction today. They tend to be more secular, cosmopolitan, and highly engaged with social media. 

Traditional Liberals tend to be cautious, rational, and idealistic. They value tolerance and compromise. They place great faith in institutions.

Passive Liberals tend to feel isolated from their communities. They are insecure in their beliefs and try to avoid political conversations. They have a fatalistic view of politics and feel that the circumstances of their lives are beyond their control.

The Politically Disengaged are untrusting, suspicious about external threats, conspiratorially minded, and pessimistic about progress. They tend to be patriotic yet detached from politics.

Moderates are engaged in their communities, well informed, and civic-minded. Their faith is often an important part of their lives. They shy away from extremism of any sort.

Traditional Conservatives tend to be religious, patriotic, and highly moralistic. They believe deeply in personal responsibility and self-reliance.

Devoted Conservatives are deeply engaged with politics and hold strident, uncompromising views. They feel that America is embattled, and they perceive themselves as the last defenders of traditional values that are under threat.

Here is how the Hidden Tribes and generations and races feel about "Pride in Being American."

Tribe Name	Pride in being American
Progressive Activists	34%
Gen Z 1997-	52%
Passive Liberals	60%
Asian	62%
Millennials 1981-96	62%
Traditional Liberals	65%
Black	70%
Gen X 1965-80	73%
Females	73%
All	74%
Politically Disengaged	75%
White	75%
Male	76%
Hispanic	76%
Baby Boomers 1946-64	85%
Moderates	87%
Silent Gen 1926-45	94%
Traditional Conservatives	96%
Devoted Conservatives	100%

Just Sayin'.