Last summer I had occasion to attend a backyard barbecue at which Mayor Steve Lonegan - who a few weeks earlier had lost the Republican primary to Chris Christie - was the guest of honor. It was a most enjoyable event: the food was delicious and the company delightful. Mayor Lonegan dazzled us with his grasp of history, political science, economics - and even the fine arts.

I held my own in the discourse and even managed to contribute meaningfully to the discussion, apparently impressing one of the younger folks there sufficiently for her to contact me by e-mail today with a most unusual request:

[Dear Manly] I am in a pickle for school and I need some help. The assignment is to figure out how the French Revolution is relevant today. I was thinking about relating it to the War on Terror, but I need some help, ‘cuz I am having a hard time trying to relate the two timelines. We have two days to complete is so I was really hoping that I could get your help on this. Thanks! –Rachel

Here is my response:

My Dear Rachel,

Ignore the War on Terror and concentrate, instead, on analyzing the French Revolution from the perspective of “how not to overthrow tyranny.”

To be sure, the American Revolution was bloody in terms of the warfare and certainly had its share of atrocities as all wars do, but the outcome was positively remarkable: a peaceful, stable republic that was created to be a nation of laws and not the whims of men. It was an entirely new form of government - never before seen on the face of the earth.

For the French? Not so much. There were some crucial differences, of course. The American Revolution was fought not to overthrow the British Crown but to establish ourselves as an independent nation. The French were faced with a different set of circumstances and their culture was a much different one than ours. This can be traced back to the developments differences between Great Britain and the rest of continental Europe.

The British evolved a more democratic, parliamentary system of government with a largely mercantile economy that left room for upward mobility. True, there was still a landed aristocracy and they still wielded enormous power by the end of the 18th century, but most of the excesses of power were kept in check by British law and the restraints of their unwritten Constitution.

The French - much like the Spanish and the Portuguese - never evolved a truly democratic form of government. Instead, France continued to groan under the weight of an absolute monarchy bordering on medieval feudalism and its economy was still largely agrarian, not mercantile. Yes, there was a bourgeoisie, but mobility was restricted and an enormous peasant population still existed.

Protracted wars with Great Britain and other powers, coupled with the outrageous excesses of the nobility - especially the court of the king of France - were depleting the nation’s treasury faster than the coffers could be refilled. Sound familiar?

Taxes were raised and money wrung from the peasantry to point of trying to bleed stones. Food prices were escalating at an alarming rate. Now factor in a corrupt clergy and you can begin to understand the degree of resentment that developed among the people. It saddens me as a Catholic to relate that the Church in France at that time was wholly corrupt: bishops and cardinals spent more time playing political games and jockeying for the king’s favor than they did tending to the spiritual needs of their flocks. (cf: Cardinal Richelieu)

It reached the tipping point during the reign of King Louis XVI, who was married to the hapless Marie Antoinette, sister of the Emperor of Austria. Versailles became the focal point of royal excess and an exemplar of the image of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. There were attempts to rectify the government and introduce democratic reforms, but they were too little and too late.

The upheaval that later became known as the French Revolution commenced in 1789 and did not full settle down until 1799. During that time, tens of thousands - including the king and queen - were brutally guillotined and the Catholic Church brutally persecuted. It was anything but an orderly revolution and even then, France found itself at war with England.

Through the office of Ambassador Genet, the French appealed to the United States for assistance, citing the mutual aid treaty compacted between our nations during the American war for independence. Unfortunately, the execution of Louis XVI left that treaty no longer binding and President Washington wisely chose a course of neutrality (cf: Jay’s Treaty)

Not long thereafter, France found herself saddled with a self-proclaimed emperor: Napoleon Bonaparte who, by 1815, had brought his empire practically to ruin. France never again regained her former prestige and glory, a fact that became an historical verdict in the late 19th century after their humiliating defeat in the Franco-Prussian War.

Were I you, the approach I’d take would be to compare and contrast American and French revolutions, noting that the former created a sound republic of laws that thrived for over a century until beginning an inevitable decline while the latter created death, destruction, chaos and a nation that, to this day, is hopelessly dysfunctional.

Where the French Revolution becomes relevant, strangely enough, is right now - during the Obama Presidency, which is the closest this nation has ever come to an imperial presidency. The elites - both political and mercantile - are raking in tons of money and benefiting from extensive government influence and largess while the middle class - the bourgeoisie - are being taxed to death. Meanwhile the “poor” clamor for more bread and circuses as the government continues its expansion and takeover of the nation’s economy, all the while racking up the largest national debt in world history.

It’s a recipe for disaster and if conditions do not change the question we will have to ask ourselves will not be whether or not another revolution will take place, but which kind: American or French?

I sincerely hope this helps you.

Your humble servant,

Col. Manly Rash

And how, precisely, are we feeding the hungry maw of future revolution? Here’s a synopsis of the Man-Child’s proposed federal budget courtesy of the Heritage Foundation:

• Increase spending by $1 trillion over the next decade;
• Include an additional $250 billion placeholder for another financial bailout;
• Likely lead to a 12 percent increase in discretion­ary spending;
• Permanently expand the federal government by nearly 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over pre-recession levels;
• Raise taxes on all Americans by $1.4 trillion over the next decade;
• Raise taxes for 3.2 million taxpayers by an average of $300,000 over the next decade;
• Call for a pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) law despite offering a budget that would violate it by $3.4 trillion;
• Assume a rosy economic scenario that few econo­mists anticipate;
• Leave permanent deficits averaging $600 billion even after the economy recovers; and
• Double the publicly held national debt to over $15 trillion ($12.5 trillion after inflation).

Before the recession, federal spending totaled $24,000 per U.S. household. President Obama would hike it to $32,000 per household by 2019— an inflation-adjusted $8,000-per-household expan­sion of government. Even the steep tax increases planned for all taxpayers would not finance all of this spending: The President’s budget would add trillions of dollars in new debt.[1][2]

Yet, the President’s budget may even understate future spending and deficits. It assumes that the temporary stimulus spending provisions will be allowed to expire and that the $634 billion down payment on universal health care will not be expanded. It proposes destructive income tax increases and a new cap-and-trade energy tax that could devastate the manufacturing sector.

And here’s a report on the latest culinary excesses of what is quickly becoming Versailles-on-the-Potomac:

Since bringing their well-documented high-end appetites to the White House, U.S. President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama have broken new gourmet ground by inviting in a steady stream of the nation’s top culinary talents.

It’s an experience the chefs say they consider a career achievement.

“You work in the White House and you walk over to the tent and right across to your right, there is the Oval Office,” said chef Marcus Samuelsson, who prepared the Obama’s first state dinner in November in honour of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

“That’s not something that happens every day,” Samuelsson said.

Carl Anthony, historian with the National First Ladies Library, said that while inviting guest chefs to the White House isn’t unheard of, featuring such famous chefs is new. Anthony sees Michelle Obama using the chefs “to bring attention to the issue of nutrition, especially childhood nutrition.”

Meanwhile, more Americans than ever before rely on food stamps to supplement their grocery shopping. I suspect that sales of rice, beans and Hamburger Helper are going through the roof - and I doubt one will find much Kobe beef or arugula on those supper tables.

Whether we want to admit it or not, this nation is hurtling toward an abyss and I am becoming increasingly convinced that another revolution awaits us in our immediate future. I ask you the same question I posed to Rachel: will the next revolution be American or French?