If we ignore the past, All Cycles Repeat
How many monopolies survive long-term? How many companies would succeed long-term if, when faced with competition, they only derided the competitive product and failed to learn from its benefits?
Now consider the current political climate and the political debates underway worldwide. Imagine comparing the current political dialogue and conflicts to the corporate world. While proximity to modern events makes perspective difficult, we are fortunate to have past events guide our perspective. Hopefully, we are able to learn from the past and avoid making the same self-destructive mistakes in the future. Unfortunately, lately, it doesn’t seem this way.
Comparison of the French Wars of Religion to the Current MAGA vs. Democratic Party Battles in the USA
The current political and social landscape of contemporary America is marked by significant divisions, particularly between supporters of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement within the Republican Party and the factions that comprise the Democratic Party. While both parties have factions, the MAGA movement is currently the clearly dominant wing of the Republican Party. In contrast, no one faction is in outright control of the Democratic Party agenda. Without getting into internal party minutiae but focusing on the overall Republicans v. Democrats, the current polarization bears striking similarities to the religious conflict between Catholics and Protestants during the French Wars of Religion.
If one takes an objective stance, historical and contemporary contexts demonstrate how the lack of meaningful, honest dialogue exacerbates conflicts and hinders resolution. With July 4th around the corner, I thought I would detour from regular commentary to prepare a perspective piece that explores the similarities and differences between the French Wars of Religion and current US politics. I could have chosen other periods, such as the Roman debate on Empire v Republic. Still, these two periods are extremely similar in terms of mutual distrust, political manipulation, ideological zeal, and the impact of propaganda.
Historical Context and Contemporary Parallels
Mutual Distrust and Hostility
French Wars of Religion: The early Reformation in France was marked by mutual distrust and hostility between traditional Catholics and change-minded Protestants. Each side saw the other as threatening societal stability and moral order. The deep-seated flames of animosity stoked by religious leaders using fear among their followers made dialogue nearly impossible and set the stage for violent conflict.
MAGA vs. Democratic Party: In contemporary America, mutual distrust between the MAGA movement and the Democratic Party is palpable. They are unified in their approach. MAGA supporters took over the leadership of the Republican Party and have actively encouraged views of Democrats as undermining American values and promoting socialism. At the same time, Democrats see MAGA supporters as promoting authoritarianism and undermining democratic institutions. While they trade barbs and battle each other, they are at war to gain the confidence and support of the independent voter. This mutual distrust creates a polarized environment where constructive dialogue is challenging. With us or against us is always a losing strategy. It’s akin to being a big fish in an ever-shrinking pond. Eventually, there’s nowhere to grow, and infighting consumes and destroys everything.
Political Manipulation
French Wars of Religion: The monarchy and noble families in France regularly manipulated religious tensions for political gain. For example, The House of Guise and the House of Bourbon used the conflict to enhance their family’s power and position, and the monarchy attempted to balance these factions, sometimes exacerbating tensions and creating more infighting, which they hoped would weaken others while not negatively reducing the King’s powers. In other words, they didn’t make themselves stronger or better; they just made others weaker. Short-term gain, but the monarchy was eventually overthrown (and heads cut off…!)
Religious zeal contributed to the intransigence of both Catholics and Protestants. Each side saw the conflict in existential terms, making compromise seem like a betrayal of core principles. This ideological rigidity hindered attempts at peaceful resolution.
In the United States, political leaders and parties have taken to leveraging polarization in winner behind a “winner takes it all” mantra to mobilize their bases. Both sides accuse each other of exploiting divisions for electoral gain. The MAGA movement, led by figures like former President Donald Trump, has used populist rhetoric to galvanize the support of those who feel disenfranchised. At the same time, Democrats have mobilized around issues like social justice and anti-corruption to assist other groups that also feel disenfranchised! The political manipulation is to make each group feel abused and antipathy towards their unfair oppressors. It only has the effect of deepening divisions and making what little bipartisan cooperation remains more difficult.
Ideological zeal, as opposed to religious zeal, also characterizes the current political climate in the United States. MAGA supporters are often fervent in their commitment to conservative values, nationalism, and opposition to what they see as leftist overreach. Similarly, many Democrats are passionately committed to progressive values and social justice and resisting what they perceive as threats to democracy. This ideological fervor makes compromise and dialogue difficult, as each side views concessions as unacceptable.
Propaganda and Misinformation
French Wars of Religion: Propaganda and misinformation played significant roles in perpetuating the conflict. Both sides produced materials that vilified the other, exaggerating threats and dehumanizing opponents. This mutual demonization made dialogue even harder.
In the United States, the role of media and misinformation is crucial in shaping public opinion and deepening divisions. Social media platforms, partisan news outlets, and online echo chambers amplify extreme views and spread misinformation. Both sides accuse each other of fake news and propaganda, further entrenching divisions and making constructive dialogue more challenging.
Of note: A significant beneficiary of the manipulation of information is the media, which earns all its revenue by selling ads, often to those pushing a particular narrative. As such, the media behaves like a third actor in the conflict. Unfortunately, the media’s mercenary approach to editorially skewing the information presented only serves to reinforce the toxic hostility between the active participants (just as the French monarchy encouraged battles between the nobility to the crown’s benefit). However, just like the French monarchy, while the major media companies may gain in the short term, a lack of balanced perspective will eventually cause the system to break, and the effects will be unpalatable.
Key Events and Their Modern Equivalents
French Wars of Religion: Key events like the Massacre of Vassy and the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre were pivotal in escalating the conflict. These violent outbreaks were both causes and symptoms of the deep-seated enmity and lack of dialogue between the two groups.
In the United States: While the U.S. political conflict has not reached the same level of violent mass confrontations, events like the January 6th Capitol riot in 2021 echo the early stages of intense polarization witnessed in France. While some prefer to debate the facts behind that day, the event demonstrated the potential for political conflict to escalate into violence.
Of note: conflating the basic facts as to whether an event occurred or not with reasons for it occurring and rationalizing intent is a dangerous game. No matter one’s perspective on the 2020 election, police officers who did their jobs protecting the rights of all citizens died as a result of the demonstrator’s actions that day. Somehow, these individuals’ sacrifice gets overlooked in the name-calling and blame-throwing.
Edicts and Political Decisions:
French Wars of Religion: Edicts like the Edict of Saint-Germain and the Edict of Nantes were attempts to create peace but often fell short due to a lack of genuine dialogue and trust. There existed an immature presumption on the part of the nobility and ‘leaders,’ both religious and otherwise, that people would absolutely follow them blindly. They did not consider that they would ever lose control of their followers, or that even more extreme positions might emerge.
In the U.S., legislative and executive actions, and even judicial rulings, can be seen as modern equivalents. Executive orders, Supreme Court decisions, and major legislative actions are all received and judged subjectively, reflecting deep divisions and a lack of bipartisan cooperation. Without meaningful dialogue to bridge gaps in understanding and build policies that unite differing opinions, the chasm continues to grow. Policies related to immigration, personal freedom, healthcare, and voting rights have become flashpoints, highlighting the difficulty of achieving lasting solutions without dialogue.
Social and Cultural Impact
French Wars of Religion: The wars had profound social and cultural impacts, including significant loss of life, economic disruption, and social upheaval. The lack of dialogue and the ensuing violence left deep scars on French society and influenced attitudes toward religious tolerance for generations.
The current polarization in the United States also has significant social and cultural impacts, which continue to unfold and whose impacts have not yet been felt. The deep divisions exacerbate conflicts in communities, families, and workplaces. Issues like social inequality, economic disparity, and cultural conflicts are exacerbated by the political divide. The long-term consequences of this polarization will shape American society for years to come, influencing everything from electoral politics to social cohesion.
A form of civil war is underway. The battles are fought in the media, in the corridors of government, in the schools, and the workplace. There are no winners, and there will be none. That is the tragedy of the current ‘war.’ It’s a zero-sum game being played.
Normally, when advocating for positive societal change, leaders express their views on the positive changes and policies they will implement. They talk about what society can and will become. They do not present themselves based solely on decrying how bad their opposition is.
Contemporary leadership in the U.S. and worldwide has become more divisive than unifying. Leaders on both sides have prioritized rallying their bases over fostering dialogue and cooperation.
They speak in detail about how and why the policy changes they propose will make their country better for all citizens. Today, we don’t get to hear any of those aspirational goals. We constantly hear how awful the opponent is, but the fundamental promise of leadership is to offer a vision and mission of where they will lead, and this aspect of the debate is lacking in today’s climate. Unfortunately, this is not isolated to the U.S., nor is the ambivalence to fact-based dialogue; to everyone’s loss. Effective leadership is crucial for bridging divides and promoting constructive dialogue, but it remains a significant challenge in the current political climate.
Lessons from the past for Contemporary Society
Importance of Dialogue:
Both historical and contemporary contexts underscore the critical importance of dialogue in resolving conflicts. In France, the lack of dialogue led to decades of violence and upheaval. In the U.S., the violence is approaching, the tenor of the dialogue is increasing the likelihood of it getting out of control. Fostering genuine dialogue between political opponents is essential for addressing the root causes of division and building a more unified society.
Effective leadership is vital in promoting dialogue and addressing polarization. Leaders prioritizing unity, understanding, and cooperation can help bridge divides and foster a more inclusive and harmonious society. Encouraging bipartisanship and collaborative problem-solving is essential for overcoming the challenges posed by deep political divisions.
The French Wars of Religion and the current political battles in the United States highlight the dangers of social and economic polarization and the absence of dialogue. Both contexts demonstrate how mutual distrust, political manipulation, ideological zeal, and propaganda can exacerbate conflicts and hinder resolution. By learning from history and prioritizing dialogue, leadership, and education, contemporary society can achieve a more unified and resilient future.
Of course, in today’s world, the debate is no longer isolated geographically, nor is there a lack of immediacy that allows for opinions to form over time. New information constantly bombards us, and interveners include foreign participants who sow the seeds of disinformation to confuse the discussions further. Facts are devalued as disinformation and misinformed views are broadcast at will and “I heard” quickly becomes accepted fact, as people ‘trust’ their sources. To everyone’s loss.
Perhaps political leaders and the media, fomenting deeper passions and divisions, should step back and assess political success like a business. No one wins under monopolies, and no innovation and growth happens without competition. Healthy competition makes everyone stronger. Destructive competition leaves a barren marketplace that collapses upon itself when a newcomer arrives.