MSM blindness to history

From Ann Althouse, "I’m not getting a very strong 'sans-culottes sacking the Tuileries' vibe here."

We cannot rely on mainstream media reporting, much if it has already been overturned by video and testimonials.  On the other hand, we cannot fully trust the enthusiast videos that are surfacing from those who were there.  

But what has been very clear from the beginning has been that this was neither a terrorist attack nor an armed insurrection.  Claims that had to be made in order to validate a Hail Mary effort for one last impeachment but devoid of evidence.  

It appears that this was one more riot that got our of hand, the only three differences from all the other riots of 2020 being that 1) it occurred in the Federal capitol rather than in State capitols where much more violent riots had been occurring all year with the support - financial, emotional and otherwise - of many of the leadership of the Democratic party and 2) that the participants in the riot seemed highly varied from middle class oglers to hard core Trump/Maga enthusiasts to Antifa false flag agitators and others.  The third difference is that it seems that a surprising portion of Capitol police were active or supportive of the demonstrators.  But it is early days and the fog of propaganda is yet thick in the opinions.  

Much of which is somewhat alluded to in Althouse's post.

But she also references something that goes to the heart of a complaint I have had since January 6th.  To wit, neither the journalists nor their editors seem to have an ounce of historical knowledge or context.  The overwrought claims of terrorism or armed insurrection carry weight based on evidence, but are especially meaningless in an historical context.  There are plenty of insurrections in western history and there is no way to mistake those for what happened on January 6th.  Edward Suarez is right, there isn't much of a "sans-culottes sacking the Tuileres" in the January 6th demonstration.

The Age of Enlightenment, on the governance front, culminated in three Revolutions which drew inspiration from Enlightenment principles.  The American Revolution of 1775, grounded in natural rights, rule of law, equality before the law, individualism, universalism, etc. launched a governance phenomenon which has demonstrated, with ups and downs, phenomenal freedom, prosperity and happiness.

The French Revolution of 1789, drew from the same inspiration but spiraled out of control into authoritarian dictatorship, costing the lives of millions.  

The Haitian Revolution of 1791, also drew inspiration from Age of Enlightenment thinking but ended in massacres, genocide and authoritarian dictatorships.  

In the French Revolution, the Insurrection of August 10, 1792 was indeed a pivotal moment on the road from Monarchy to a hoped for participative democracy, ultimately opening the door to the military dictatorship of Napoleon.  

The Insurrection of 10 August 1792 was a defining event of the French Revolution, when armed revolutionaries in Paris, increasingly in conflict with the French monarchy, stormed the Tuileries Palace. The conflict led France to abolish the monarchy and establish a republic.

Conflict between King Louis XVI of France and the country's new revolutionary Legislative Assembly increased through the spring and summer of 1792 as Louis vetoed radical measures voted upon by the Assembly. Tensions accelerated dramatically on August 1 when news reached Paris that the commander of the allied Prussian and Austrian armies had issued the Brunswick Manifesto, threatening "unforgettable vengeance" on Paris should harm be done to the French Monarchy. On August 10th, the National Guard of the Paris Commune and fédérés from Marseille and Brittany stormed the King's residence in the Tuileries Palace in Paris, which was defended by the Swiss Guards. Hundreds of Swiss mercenaries and 400 revolutionaries were killed in the battle, and Louis and the royal family took shelter with the Legislative Assembly. The formal end of the monarchy occurred six weeks later on September 21st as one of the first acts of the new National Convention, which established a Republic on the next day.

The people of Paris storm the Tuileries

Click to enlarge
 

Now that's an armed insurrection.   

An unpleasant parallel which haunts Classical Liberal thoughts but is ignored by the postmodernist critical theorists is the fate of the early supporters of the revolution, the Girondists and the Montagnards. 

The Girondins (US: /(d)ʒɪˈrɒndɪnz/ ji-RON-dinz, zhi-,[6] French: [ʒiʁɔ̃dɛ̃]), or Girondists, were members of a loosely knit political faction during the French Revolution. From 1791 to 1793, the Girondins were active in the Legislative Assembly and the National Convention. Together with the Montagnards, they initially were part of the Jacobin movement. They campaigned for the end of the monarchy, but then resisted the spiraling momentum of the Revolution, which caused a conflict with the more radical Montagnards. They dominated the movement until their fall in the insurrection of 31 May – 2 June 1793, which resulted in the domination of the Montagnards and the purge and eventual mass execution of the Girondins. This event is considered to mark the beginning of the Reign of Terror. 

The Girondists were essentially middle-class merchants, lawyers, prosperous country squires and the like.  They wanted participative democracy but in an orderly and reform fashion.

The Montagnards, in contrast 

The Mountain (French: La Montagne) was a political group during the French Revolution. Its members, called the Montagnards (French: [mɔ̃taɲaʁ]), sat on the highest benches in the National Assembly.

They were the most radical group and opposed the Girondins. The term, first used during a session of the Legislative Assembly, came into general use in 1793.[6] By the summer of 1793, that pair of opposed minority groups divided the National Convention. That year, led by Maximilien Robespierre, the Montagnards unleashed the Reign of Terror.

The Mountain was composed mainly of members of the middle class, but represented the constituencies of Paris. As such, the Mountain was sensitive to the motivations of the city and responded strongly to demands from the working class sans-culottes. The Montagnards had little understanding of the daily life and needs of the people in the cities and towns beyond Paris.[citation needed] Although they attempted some rural land reform, most of it was never enacted and they generally focused on the needs of the urban poor over that of rural France. The Mountain operated on the belief that what was best for Paris would be best for all of France.

More fundamentally, the Girondists were middle class from across France wanting moderate and continuing reform into a participative democracy under the inspiration of Age of Enlightenment principles.  The Montagnards were urban elite, almost solely Paris and more hungry for power than principle.  

It is easy to see the Girondists as parallel to the Gingrich reforms of the 1990s, the Tea Party of the 2000s and the Maga Americans of Trump.  Solid middle class traditionalists.  

By extension, the Montagnards are the left wing of the Democratic Party, the socialists, the urban Mandarin Class, protected by sinecures and closed networks of favor, interested in power rather than the prosperity of the commonweal.

I think the sturm and drang now is mainly the death rattle of an old establishment of the two parties and it will be replaced with elected politicians more interested in the welfare of all Americans rather than the power and privileges of the Washington, D.C./New York/Boston/Chicago/San Francisco Mandarin Class.

But we can't lose sight of other possible outcomes.  Would that our radical journalists had any awareness of either history or the considerations of the middle class.