Two revolutions shook the world in the late 18th century. One succeeded, and the other failed. America broke free from Britain and built a nation on liberty. France sought liberty but drowned in chaos. These revolutions offer lessons: Freedom is not enough. Without virtue and a history of governance, democracy crumbles.
America’s revolution worked because it was grounded in reality. The colonies already had local assemblies and self-rule. Leaders like Washington and Jefferson were men of vision. They used Enlightenment ideas but didn’t ignore tradition. They built on what already existed. Tocqueville saw this. He said, “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” Their success rested on a foundation of morality, religion, and responsibility.
France’s revolution was different. It tore down its past, casting aside kings, nobles, and priests. Leaders like Robespierre promised equality but delivered bloodshed. Tocqueville called it a tragedy of ambition. Burke warned it would lead to tyranny. Without virtue, the revolution became terror. The people sought freedom but lacked the cultural roots to sustain it. Napoleon’s rise proved Burke right. France traded a king for an emperor.
There’s a warning here. Making the world “safe for democracy” sounds noble, but can liberty and democracy be forced on another nation? A nation must grow into them. Tocqueville saw this, too. He wrote that America worked because its people understood freedom came with responsibility. Virtue held the system together. Democracy without virtue becomes a mob, and virtue without governance becomes oppression.
Countries must evolve toward democracy. They need a history of governance—preferably participatory—to succeed. Forcing democracy on nations unprepared for it creates chaos. Revolutions without roots are revolts. The American example shows that freedom and virtue must go hand in hand. Without both, liberty is fleeting.
There is a lesson from America’s view of democracy: it often serves as the myopic lens through which we judge other nations. Yet, all countries are peculiar to their own cultures and histories, and their choice of governance rests with their people. Our concern lies not in imposing our system of governance on any other nation but rather in addressing universal wrongs—genocide, crimes against humanity, and the actions of rogue nations that threaten global peace. When nations commit acts of terror or wage war against the family of nations, they forfeit a degree of their sovereignty. In such cases, the collective good demands someone take action, not as an imposition of one model of governance, but as a defense of human dignity and the shared stability of the world.
There can be a balance within a monarchial regime in Enlightenment theory; monarchies fit when limited by the consent of the governed, as seen in constitutional monarchies. John Locke argued that rulers, including monarchs, act as stewards of the people’s rights, and laws and institutions must balance power. Montesquieu emphasized the separation of powers, noting monarchies could function effectively if their legislatures check their abuses.
Tyranny arises when rulers ignore the social compact, placing themselves above the law. Without consent, governance devolves into oppression, as absolute monarchs violate the natural rights of the people. The Glorious Revolution (1688) and the English Bill of Rights (1689) show how limiting royal power prevents tyranny, ensuring that authority remains accountable to the governed. In this model, any government—monarchy or otherwise—that abandons consent risks becoming tyrannical.
So, where do we draw the line? China commits genocide on its Uighers and employs child labor, but we ignore them and let them build our stuff because they do it more cheaply than we can. Are we culpable for saying nothing to save a buck?
We disrupt families and nations by bringing in immigrants illegally to do our menial jobs and low wages to save a buck. We know there are over 300,000 children whose whereabouts are unknown. Reports are they are working in sweatshops or the sex industry. Yet we are doing little, if anything, about it. How culpable are we?
None are so blind as those who close their eyes to their moral responsibility to others. Yet, China is evil, and we are self-righteous.