Very interesting post from Brits at their Best on the contrast between Britain and Europe in the past, quoting from a book by Alan Macfarlane, who uses among other sources Montesquieu's observations when he visited Britain in 1729. Montesquieu was a French thinker who was read and admired by the Founders of our nation.

In The Origins of English Individualism, Alan Macfarlane explains that Montesquieu visited England in 1729 and plunged into a study of its political and social institutions which he clearly found alien -

"'I am here in a country which hardly resembles the rest of Europe.'

In his work on The Spirit of the Laws, he noted that the social, economic and religious situation, connected to law and politics, was different in England. The English were wealthy, enjoying a 'solid luxury'; England was a trading nation as a result of its freedom from restrictive laws and 'pernicious prejudices'."

Between the 16th and 18th centuries English travellers noticed with shock and horror that France's rural populations had a miserable diet and pathetic clothing. The French were oppressed by heavy taxes and by royal troops that regularly pillaged and beggared villages.

"The husbandman in France, 'scraped to the bones, and . . .dressed in hemp', 'never goeth to the market, to sell anything: but he payeth a toll, almost the half of that he selleth'."

In contrast, travellers in England, among them the Venetian Embassy, noted with amazement -

". . .the absence of heavy taxation, of billeted soldiers, and of internal taxes. This meant that 'every inhabiter of that realm useth and enjoyeth at his pleasure all the fruits that his land or cattle. . .or travail gaineth'.

Yeomen ate plentifully of fish and flesh, drank beer or wine, wore fine wool, had a great store of tools, and often sent their children to university.

'. . .the riches of England are greater than those of any other country in Europe. . .there is no small innkeeper, however poor and humble he may be, who does not serve his table with silver dishes and drinking cups. . .'"

Notice among the differences which gave advantage to Britain were low or no taxes enabling persons to keep the wealth they generated which in tern enabled them to start their families on a path of upward mobility.

Macfarlane also noted that de Tocqueville on his visit to England made similar observations and credited English prosperity to

'The spirit which animates the complete body of English legislation' and because 'The nobles and the middle classes in England followed together the same courses of business, entered the same professions, and what is much more significant, intermarried. . . .'
'classes which overlap, nobility of birth set on one side, aristocracy thrown open, wealth as the source of power, equality before the law, office open to all, liberty of the press, publicity of debate' (L' Ancien Regime).

Why do the Democratic party leadership want to make us look more like France, ancient and modern?

Speaking of the European Union, Brits offers this explanation and contrast:

Today, Socialists and redistributors share a weird mental delusion. They take a snapshot of the poor, the middle class and the upper class and they freeze it in time. In their vision, those who are poor will always be poor - unless the government intervenes. Those who are rich will always be rich - unless, again, the government intervenes.

This is like taking a picture of your children and thinking they are always going to be seven years old.

It is certainly true that there will probably always be individuals who are poorer than others, but over a period of years they will not be the same individuals. Socialists and redistributors do not see this because they do not see individuals. They see classes.

I would modify this assessment and exchange "familes" for "individuals" as more realistic. In our country we have seen over and over again one generation toiling on a lower rung of the ladder in order to enable the next generation to climb to a higher rung. The American immigrant experience often has been of Mom and Dad barely speak English, work hard at entry-level jobs, push their children to succeed in school, and their children move into the Middle Class.

In my first year of seminary (1980-81) I was a Youth Pastor in Kearny, New Jersey, an urban working-class Scots-Irish neighborhood. Over 80% of our congregation had been born overseas. The pastor and I joked that our youth ministry motto should be "Training Tomorrow's Leaders for Suburban Churches". Most of the "kids" of our church would go on to live further out from New York in more affluent suburbs.