Guillotines and Government Shutdowns: Warnings From the French Revolution
Guillotines and Government Shutdowns: Warnings From the French Revolution
In the later years of the French Revolution, from 1792 onward, the dream of liberty descended into a nightmare of ideological purges, paranoia, and national self-sabotage. The revolutionaries, once united in the common cause of overthrowing tyranny, soon turned their blades inward. Factions within factions demanded absolute loyalty, and any deviation was labeled counter-revolutionary treason. It was not enough to be a revolutionary; one had to be the right kindof revolutionary.
A functioning democracy relies on the concept of loyal opposition—the idea that political adversaries may disagree, even vehemently, but remain committed to the stability of the nation. In France, this concept was obliterated by 1793. The Girondins, a more moderate revolutionary faction, sought to temper the excesses of the radicals. For that, they were guillotined. This is precisely what we see playing out today. The Democratic Party once housed a diversity of views, from blue-collar moderates to urban progressives. But in the modern left’s relentless pursuit of ideological purity, there is no room for dissent. Figures like Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, and now even Schumer himself face the political equivalent of the guillotine—ostracization, public shaming, and primary threats—not for opposing progressivism, but for daring to engage in the practicalities of governance.
The Jacobins, led by Robespierre, saw enemies everywhere. Not only monarchists and aristocrats, but former allies like Georges Danton and Camille Desmoulins fell to the executioner’s blade. The revolution, in its quest for purity, devoured its own architects. Robespierre, once the judge, became the condemned. The same fate awaits any movement that prizes ideological extremism over political reality. The modern left operates on a similar logic: yesterday’s heroes are today’s reactionaries. Bill Clinton would be unrecognizable in today’s Democratic Party. Barack Obama, for all his progressive credentials, has recently been attacked for his calls for reasoned discourse. Schumer, like a Girondin of old, is simply next in line.
When a political movement refuses compromise, when it prioritizes destruction over dialogue, what follows is not a utopia but a vacuum. France’s chaos paved the way for Napoleon Bonaparte, who restored order—but at the cost of the very liberty the revolution sought to protect. The Reign of Terror did not usher in a new age of democracy. It led to dictatorship. If today’s radicals succeed in tearing down institutions in their quest for ideological dominance, history suggests a similar fate. The American system, designed with checks and balances, has survived crises before. But should the institutions be weakened enough, the door opens for something far worse than a government shutdown.
The parallels do not stop at political purges. The French Revolution was a case study in how idealism untethered from reality leads to destruction. The radicals, convinced they were the sole arbiters of justice, launched mass executions, banned religion, and attempted to remake society from the ground up. They renamed the calendar, eliminated traditional measurements, and attempted to erase history itself. But history is not so easily erased. The push to dismantle long-standing institutions in the name of progress often leads not to enlightenment but to despotism.
Today, similar forces are at work. The radical left wages cultural battles not with debate but with cancellation. Instead of the guillotine, they use public shaming, de-platforming, and economic ruin to silence dissenters. They claim to stand for democracy, yet they actively work to erode its foundations by eliminating dissent, controlling speech, and rewriting history to fit their preferred narrative. This is not a call for conservatism but for sanity—an acknowledgment that societies function best when ideas compete rather than conform to a singular ideology.
Schumer’s predicament is an old one. Does he stand firm against the radicals, knowing they will turn on him, or does he surrender, ensuring their march toward political chaos continues? History is littered with examples of moderates who failed to act before it was too late. But it is also filled with cautionary tales for those who demand total submission to an ideology. The Jacobins thought they were ushering in an age of enlightenment. Instead, they got blood, fear, and an emperor.
The lesson is simple: in any revolution, the greatest danger isn’t the enemy without—it’s the zealot within. Today’s Democrats should heed that warning before they, like Robespierre, find themselves standing before the blade of the very revolution they unleashed.
For those who want to dive deeper into this period of history, The Rest Is History podcast has an excellent series on the French Revolution:
