Jay McCarthy's Blog - "His greatest creation is himself." - Harold Bloom

Note: I have moved new content to Blogger, consider yourself redirected.

    Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville (Volume II)

    This is a commentary for Volume II of Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville. The series began with an introduction and a discussion of Volume I.#

    (Note: There are many more subdivisions this time around. More parts, more chapters. But the size of the book is about the same, so each is shorter.)#

    Part One: Influence of Democracy on Intellectual Movement in the United States#

    Chapter 1: On the philosophic method of the Americans

    Tocqueville explains that the Americans are not all concerned with philosophy and only marginally so with religion. An interesting remark is that religion in America was wise to voluntarily separate itself from politics because then it would never be allied with a force that lost majority support. Chip Gibbons wrote something about this recently.

    Chapter 2: On the principal source of beliefs among democratic peoples

    This talks about beliefs and how societies need them because each man cannot verify everything himself. In democracies those beliefs are the opinions of the majority which each individual will dare not rebel against.

    I perceive how, under the empire of certain laws, democracy would extinguish the intellectual freedom that the democratic social state favors, so that the human spirit, having broken all the shackles that classes or men formerly imposed on it, would be tightly chained to the general will of the greatest number.

    [...] That, I cannot repeat too often, is something to cause profound reflection by those who see in the freedom of the intellect something holy and who hate not only the despot but despotism. As for me, when I feel the hand of power weighing on my brow, it matters little to know who oppresses me, and I am no more disposed to put my head in the yoke because a million arms present it to me. [pg. 410]

    Chapter 3: Why the Americans show more aptitude and taste for general ideas than their English fathers

    A nice discussion of general ideas, in general:

    General ideas do not attest to the strength of human intelligence, but rather to its insufficiency, because there are no beings in nature exactly alike: no identical facts, no rules indiscriminately applicable in the same manner to several object at one. [pg. 411]

    Chapter 4: Why the Americans have never been as passionate as the French for general ideas in political matters

    Chapter 5: How, in the United States, religion knows how to make use of democratic instincts

    Tocqueville mentions how Islam is incompatible with democracy and enlightenment:

    Mohammed had not only religious doctrines descend from Heaven and placed in the Koran, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and scientific theories. The Gospels, in contrast, speak only of the general relations of men to God and among themselves. Outside of that they teach nothing and oblige nothing to be believed. That alone, among a thousand other reasons, is enough to show that the first of these two religions cannot dominate for long in enlightened and democratic times, whereas the second is destined to reign in these centuries as in all the others. [pg. 419-420]

    Chapter 6: On the progress of Catholicism in the United States

    Chapter 7: What makes the mind of democratic peoples lean toward pantheism

    Chapter 8: How equality suggests to the Americans the idea of the indefinite perfectibility of man

    A short discussion of the idea that man can be made perfect and earth heaven.

    I meet an American sailor and I ask him why his country's vessels are built to last a short time, and he replies to me without hesitation that the art of navigation makes such rapid progress daily that the most beautiful ship would soon become almost useless if its existence were prolonged beyond a few years.

    In these words pronounced at random by a coarse man concerning a particular fact I perceive the general and systematic idea according to which a great people conduct all things.

    Aristocratic nations are naturally brought to contract the limits of human perfectibility too much, and democratic nations sometimes extend them beyond measure. [pg. 428]

    Chapter 9: How the example of the American does not prove that a democratic people can have no aptitude and taste for the sciences, literature, and the arts

    Chapter 10: Why the Americans apply themselves to the practice of the sciences rather than to the theory

    Chapter 11: In what spirit the Americans cultivate the arts

    Chapter 12: Why the Americans at the same time raise such little and such great monuments

    As in, there are no medium sized monuments. Tocqueville's general remark on monuments is notable:

    Every time any power whatever is capable of making a whole people combine in a single undertaking, it will succeed with little science and much time in getting something immense from the combination of such great efforts without anyone's having to conclude, because of this, that the people is very happy, very enlightened, or even very strong. The Spanish found Mexico City full of magnificent temples and vast palaces, which did not prevent Cortés from conquering the empire of Mexico with six hundred infantry and sixteen horses.

    If the Romans had known the laws of hydraulics better, they would not have raised all the aqueducts that surround the ruins of their cities, and they would have made a better use of their power and wealth. If they had discovered the steam engine, perhaps they would not have spread to the extremities of their empire the long artificial rock masses named Roman roads.

    These things are magnificent testimonies to their ignorance at the same time as to their greatness.

    A people that left no vestiges of its passage other than some lead pipes in the earth and iron rods on its surface could have been more a master of nature than the Romans. [pg. 444]

    Chapter 13: The literary face of democratic centuries

    Chapter 14: On the literary industry

    (This "chapter" is 8 sentences on half a page.)

    Chapter 15: Why the study of Greek and Latin literature is particularly useful in democratic societies

    Chapter 16: How American democracy has modified the English language

    Men who live in democratic countries scarcely know the language that was spoken in Rome or Athens, and they do not care about going back to antiquity to find the expression they lack. If they sometimes have recourse to learned etymologies, it is ordinarily vanity that makes them seek deeply in dead languages, and not erudition that naturally offers them to their minds. It sometimes even happens that the most ignorant among them make the most use of them. The quite democratic desire to move out of one's sphere often brings them to want to enhance a very coarse profession with with a Greek or Latin name. The more the job is low and distant from science, the more the name is pompous and erudite. Thus it is that our rope dancers are transformed into acrobats and funambulists. [pg. 454]

    Chapter 17: On some sources of poetry in democratic nations

    Tocqueville discusses poetry and what the Americans, and other democrats, have to write it about.

    Poetry in my eyes is the search for and depiction of the ideal.

    The one who, by cutting out a part from what exists, by adding some imaginary features to the picture, and by combining certain circumstances that are real but not found together in conjunction, completes and enlarges nature--that is the poet. Thus poetry will not have for its goal to represent the truth, but to adorn it, and to offer a superior image to the mind.

    Verse appear to me as the beautiful ideal of language, and in this sense they will be eminently poetic; but by themselves they will not constitute poetry. [pg. 458]

    Chapter 18: Why American writers and orators are often bombastic

    Chapter 19: Some observations on the theater of democratic peoples

    Tocqueville observes that most theater is for the largest number by default, and thus it is always a way the majority can have some control, even in some aristocracies.

    Chapter 20: On some tendencies particular to historians in democratic centuries

    Tocqueville talks about the removal of people from history and the tyranny of "ideas" and general historic movements, tools that historians use to show their laziness and illustrate the fallacy that past events could only have happened one way.

    Chapter 21: On parliamentary eloquence in the United States

    There is so to speak no member of Congress who consents to go back home without having at least one speech preceding him there, or who suffers being interrupted before having been able to include within the limits of his harangue all that one can say of use to the twenty-four states of which the Union is composed, and especially to the district he represents. He therefor parades successively before the minds of his listeners great general truths that he himself often does not perceive and that he indicates only confusedly, and very slender little particulars that he does not have much facility for uncovering and setting forth. Thus it very often happens that discussion becomes vague and embarrassed within this great body, and it seems to drag itself toward the goal proposed rather than march to it. [pg. 475]

    Part Two: Influence of Democracy on the Sentiments of the Americans#

    Chapter 1: Why democratic peoples show a more ardent and more lasting love for equality than for freedom

    I think that democratic peoples have a natural taste for freedom; left to themselves they seek it, they love it, and they will see themselves parted from it only with sorrow. But for equality they have an ardent, insatiable, eternal, invincible passion; they want equality in freedom, and, if they cannot get it, they still want it in slavery. They will tolerate poverty, enslavement, barbarism, but they will not tolerate aristocracy.

    This is true in all times, and above all in ours. All men and all powers that wish to struggle against this irresistible power will be overturned and destroyed by it. In our day freedom cannot be established without its support, and despotism itself cannot reign without it. [pg. 482]

    Chapter 2: On individualism in democratic countries

    Here, individualism refers to the desire to separate oneself from society, not to be a unique individual. This is in contrast with selfishness.

    Chapter 3: How individualism is greater at the end of a democratic revolution than in any other period

    Chapter 4: How the Americans combat individualism with free institutions

    Despotism which in its nature is fearful, sees the most certain guarantee of its own duration in the isolation of men, and it ordinarily puts all its cares into isolating them. There is no vice of the human heart that agrees with i as much as selfishness: a despot readily pardons the governed for not loving him, provided that they do not love each other. He does not ask them to aid him in leading the state; it is enough that they do not aspire to direct it themselves. He calls those who aspire to unite their efforts to create common prosperity turbulent and restive spirits, and changing the natural sense of words, he names those who confine themselves narrowly to themselves good citizens. [pg. 485]

    Chapter 5: On the use that the Americans make of association in civil life

    A nice, libertarian-ish call out against the government getting involved in things that could be done privately:

    A government could take the place of some of the greatest American associations, and within the Union several particular states already have attempted it. But what political power would ever be in a state to suffice for the innumerable multitude of small undertakings that American citizens execute every day with the aid of an association?

    It is easy to forecast that the time is approaching when a man by himself alone will be less and less in a state to produce the things that are the most common and the most necessary to his life. The task of the social power will therefore constantly increase, and its very efforts will make it vaster each day. The more it puts itself in place of associations, the more particular persons, losing the idea of associating with each other, will need it to come to their aid: these are causes and effects that generate each other without rest. Will the public administration in the end direct all the industries for which an isolated citizen cannot suffice? and if there finally comes a moment when, as a consequence of the extreme division of landed property, the land is partitioned infinitely, so that it can no longer be cultivated except by associations of laborers, will the head of the government have to leave the helm of state to come hold the plow? [pg. 491]

    Chapter 6: On the relation between associations and newspapers

    Chapter 7: Relations between civil associations and political associations

    Chapter 8: How the Americans combat individualism by the doctrine of self-interest well understood

    Chapter 9: How the Americans apply the doctrine of self-interest well understood in the matter of religion

    Chapter 10: On the taste for material well-being in America

    Chapter 11: On the particular effects that the love of material enjoyments produces in democratic centuries

    Tocqueville describes the very popular vice of Americans, then and today:

    The taste for material enjoyments does not bring democratic peoples to [excesses similar to aristocrats]. There, the love of well-being shows itself to be a tenacious, exclusive, universal, but contained passion. It is not a question of building vast palaces, of vanquishing and outwitting nature, of depleting the universe in order better to satiate the passions of a man; it is about adding a few toises to one's fields, planting an orchard, enlarging a residence, making life easier and more comfortable at each instant, preventing inconvenience, and satisfying the least needs without effort and almost without cost. These objects are small, but the soul clings to them: it considers them every day and from very close; [pg. 508-509]

    Chapter 12: Why certain Americans display such an exalted spiitualism

    Chapter 13: Why the Americans show themselves so restive in the midst of their well-being

    Talks about how the American can never be satisfied and will always try to conquer the next hill once the first is taken, but before it can be enjoyed.

    Chapter 14: How the taste for material enjoyments among Americans is united with love of freedom and with care for public affairs

    Tocqueville talks about how this love can diminish the strength of democracy:

    When the taste for material enjoyments develops in one of these peoples more rapidly than enlightenment and the habits of freedom, there comes a moment when men are swept away and almost beside themselves at the sight of the new goods that they are ready to grasp. Preoccupied with the sole care of making a fortune, they no longer perceive the tight bond that unites the particular fortune of each of them to the prosperity of all. There is no need to tear from such citizens the rights they possess; they themselves willingly allow them to escape. The exercise of their political duties appears to them a distressing contretemps that distracts them from their industry. If it is a question of choosing their representatives, of giving assistance to authority, of treating the common thing in common, they lack the time; they cannot waste their precious time in useless work. These are games of the idle that do not suit grave men occupied with the serious interests of life. These people believe they are following the doctrine of interest, but they have only a coarse idea of it, and to watch better over what they call their affairs, they neglect the principal one, which is to remain masters of themselves. [pg. 515]

    Find a better description of people who can be bothered to be involved in politics.

    Chapter 15: How religious beliefs at times turn the souls of Americans toward immaterial enjoyments

    Chapter 16: How the excessive love of well-being can be harmful to well-being

    Chapter 17: How in times of equality and doubt it is important to move back the object of human actions

    Chapter 18: Why among the Americans all honest professions are reputed honorable

    This is in contrast with aristocrats who find all work beneath them, or at least most types of work.

    American servants do not believe themselves degraded because they work; for everyone around them works. They do not feel themselves debased by the idea that they receive a wage, for the President of the United States works for a wage as well. He is paid to command just as they are to serve. [pg. 526]

    Chapter 19: What makes almost all Americans incline toward industrial professions

    Chapter 20: How aristocracy could issue from industry

    Tocqueville warns that an aristocracy could arise from the wealth and social state created by types of industry:

    The territorial aristocracy of past centuries was obliged by law or believed itself to be obliged by mores to come to the aid of its servants and to relieve their miseries. But the manufacturing aristocracy of our day, after having impoverished and brutalized the men whom it uses, leaves them to be nourish by public charity in times of crisis. This results naturally from what precedes. Between worker and master relations are frequent, but there is not genuine association.

    I think that all in all, the manufacturing aristocracy that we see rising before our eyes is one of the hardest that has appeared on earth; but it is at the same time one of the most restrained and least dangerous.

    Still, the friends of democracy ought constantly to turn their regard with anxiety in this direction; for if ever permanent inequality of conditions and aristocracy are introduced anew into the world, one can predict that they will enter by this door. [pg. 532]

    Part Three: Influence of Democracy on Mores Properly So-Called#

    Chapter 1: How mores become milder as conditions are equalized

    Chapter 2: How democracy renders the habitual relations of the Americans simpler and easier

    Chapter 3: Why the Americans have so little oversensitivity in their country and show themselves to be so oversensitive in ours

    This talks about what happens when Americans travel...

    When an opulent American lands in Europe, his first care is to surround himself with all the wealth of luxury; and he has so great a fear of being taken for a simple citizen of a democracy that he twists himself in a hundred ways to present you with a new view of his wealth every day. He ordinarily finds lodging in the most conspicuous quarter of the town; he has numerous servants who constantly surround him. [pg. 544]

    Chapter 4: Consequences of the preceding three chapters

    Chapter 5: How democracy modifies the relations of servant and master

    This talks about how freedom to decide where and how one will be employed makes the American servants treat much differently than in England or France:

    An American who had traveled for a long time in Europe said to me one day:

    "The English treat their servants with a haughtiness and a peremptory manner that surprise us; but on the other hand, the French sometimes use a familiarity with them or show a politeness with regard to them that we cannot conceive of. One would say that they fear to command. The attitude of superior and inferior is poorly kept." [pg. 546]

    Chapter 6: How democratic institutions and mores tend to raise the price and shorten the duration of leases

    Chapter 7: Influence of democracy on wages

    Chapter 8: Influence of democracy on the family

    Chapter 9: Education of girls in the United States

    Chapter 10: How the girl is found beneath the features of the wife

    Chapter 11: How equality of conditions contributes to maintaining good mores in America

    These last few chapters are all talking about the effect of equality between men and women and how women in America are much better educated and independent than women from Europe. Here is a particularly interesting note:

    In aristocratic peoples, birth and fortune often make man and woman such different beings that they can never come to be united to one another. Passions bring them together, but the social state and the ideas it suggests prevent them from bonding in a permanent and open manner. Hence a great number of passing and clandestine unions necessarily arise. Nature compensates itself in secret for the constrain that the laws impose on it.

    One does not see this same thing when equality of conditions has brought down all the imaginary or real barriers that separate man from woman. Then these is no girl who does not believe she can become the wife of the man who prefers her, which makes disorder in mores before marriage very difficult. For whatever the credulity of passions may be, there is scarcely a means by which a woman may be persuaded that you love her when you are perfectly free to marry her and do not do it. [pg. 568, my emphasis]

    Chapter 12: How the Americans understand the equality of man and woman

    Chapter 13: How equality naturally divides the Americans into a multitude of particular little societies

    Chapter 14: Some reflections on American manners

    Interesting presentation of the idea that democracies only create manners with great difficulty, and when they are created they are much smaller and go more often unnoticed, unlike those rules of "social grace" that live in an aristocracy.

    Chapter 15: On the gravity of the Americans and why it does not prevent their often doing ill-considered things

    Chapter 16: Why the national vanity of the Americans is more restive and more quarrelsome than that of the English

    Chapter 17: How the aspect of society in the United States is at once agitated and monotonous

    Chapter 18: On honor in the United States and in democratic societies

    In aristocratic peoples all ranks differ, but all ranks are fixed; each occupies a place in his sphere that he cannot leave, where he lives in the midst of other men around him attached in the same manner. In these nations, therefore, no one can hope or fear not to be seen; he encounters no man place so low that he has no theater, who will escape blame or praise by his obscurity.

    In democratic states, on the contrary, where all citizens are confused in the same crowd and constantly act on each other, public opinion has no hold; its object disappears at each instant and escapes it. Honor will therefore always be less imperious and less pressing there; for honor only acts in public view, differing in that from simple virtue, which lives on itself and is satisfied with its own witness. [pg. 598]

    This seems to suggest to me that people in a democracy are more honest in their actions towards each other because the payback is negligible, and this shows itself as dishonor, because people are not inclined to honor as many people as aristocracy requires.

    Chapter 19: Why one finds so many ambitious men in the United States and so few great ambitions

    Tocqueville talks about the problems inherent with testing and giving everyone an equal chance--it destroys motivation and the magnitude of ambition when progress is so slow through ranks.

    By hatred of privilege and embarrassment over choosing, one comes to compel all men, whatever heir stature might be, to pass through the same filter, and one subjects them all indiscriminately to a multitude of little preliminary exercises in the midst of which their youth is lost and their imagination extinguished; so they despair of ever being able to enjoy fully the goods that are offered to them; and when they finally come to be able to extraordinary things, they have lost the taste for them. [pg. 602]

    "Embarrassment over choosing" reminds me of so many situations in life it is sad. There seems to be a great taboo over preferring one person or thing over another, unless it is incredibly trivial, like a preferred soft-drink brand.

    Chapter 20: On the industry in place-hunting in certain democratic nations

    Chapter 21: Why great revolutions will become rare

    One encounters, in fact, few idle men in democratic nations. Life goes on in the midst of motion and noise, and men are so busy acting that little time remains to them for thinking. [...]

    I think that it is very difficult to excite the enthusiasm of a democratic people for any theory whatsoever that has no visible, direct, and immediate relation to the daily practice of its life. Such a people does not easily abandon its old beliefs. For it is enthusiasm that precipitates the mind of man beyond beaten paths and that makes great intellectual revolutions as well as great political revolutions.

    Thus democratic peoples have neither the leisure nor the taste to go in search of new opinions. Even if they come to doubt those they posses, they preserve them nonetheless because they would need too much time and examination to change them; they keep them not as certain, but as established. [pg. 614]

    Chapter 22: Why democratic peoples naturally desire peace and democratic armies naturally [desire] war

    First, I want to point out that Tocqueville writes that the hardest things for a democratic people are "beginning a war, and ending it."

    Secondly, I want to quote Tocqueville's warning against the power of war.

    There is no long war that does not put freedom at great risk in a democratic country. It is not that one must precisely fear to see winning generals take possession of sovereign power by force after each victory, in the manner of Sulla and Caesar. The peril is of another sort. War does not always give democratic peoples over to military government; but it cannot fail to increase immensely the prerogatives of civil government in these peoples; it almost inevitable centralizes the direction of all men and the employment of all things in its hands. If it does not lead one to despotism suddenly by violence, it leads to it mildly through habits.

    All those who seek to destroy freedom within a democratic nation ought to know that the surest and shortest means of succeeding at this is war. There is the first axiom of the science. [pg. 621]

    Think of this next time you ponder the War on Terror will standing in rope lines with your shoes in your hands.

    Chapter 23: Which is the most warlike and the most revolutionary class in democratic armies

    Chapter 24: What makes democratic armies weaker than other armies when entering into a campaign and more formidable when war is prolonged

    A thought that tells a great deal about history and American movie tastes:

    Men of democracies naturally have a passionate desire to acquire quickly the goods that they covet and to enjoy them easily. Most of them adore chance and fear death much less than trouble. In this spirit they lead commerce and industry; and this same spirit, transported by them onto the battlefield, brings them willingly to expose their lives so as to be assured, in a moment, of the prizes of victory. There is no greatness that satisfies the imagination of a democratic people more than military greatness--brilliant and sudden greatness obtained without work, by risking only one's life.

    Thus, whereas interest and tastes turn the citizens of a democracy away from war, the habits of their souls prepare them to fight it well; they easily become good soldiers as soon as one has been able to tear them from their business and their well-being.

    If peace is particularly harmful to democratic armies, then war secures advantages to them that other armies never have; and these advantages, though hardly felt at first , cannot fail to give them victory in the long term.

    An aristocratic people that, in conflict with a democratic nation, does not succeed in ruining it on the first campaigns always takes much risk of being defeated by it. [pg. 629]

    Chapter 25: On discipline in democratic armies

    Chapter 26: Some considerations on war in democratic societies

    Part Four: On the Influence That Democratic Ideas and Sentiments Exert on Political Society#

    Chapter 1: Equality naturally gives men the taste for free institutions

    Yet I am convinced that anarchy is not the principal evil that democratic centuries will have to fear, but the least.

    Equality produces, in fact, two tendencies: one leads men directly to independence and can drive them all at once into anarchy, the other conducts them by a longer, more secret, but surer path toward servitude.

    Peoples easily see the first and resist it; they allow themselves to be carried along by the other without seeing it; to show it is therefore particularly important. [pg. 640]

    Chapter 2: That the ideas of democratic peoples in the matter of government are naturally favorable to the concentration of powers

    Chapter 3: That the sentiments of democratic peoples are in accord with their ideas in bringing them to concentrate power

    Chapter 4: On some particular and accidental causes that serve to bring a democratic people to centralize power or turn it away from that

    Chapter 5: That among European nations of our day sovereign power increases although sovereigns are less stable

    Chapter 6: What kind of despotism democratic nations have to fear

    I want to imagine with what new features despotism could be produced in the world: i see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Each of them, withdrawn and apart, is like a strange to the destiny of all the others: his children and his particular friends from the whole human species for him; as for dwelling with his fellow citizens, he is beside them, but he does not see them; he touches them and does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone, and if a family still remains for him, one can at least say that he no longer has a native country.

    Above these an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, regular, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object o prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep the fixed irrevocably in childhood; it like citizens to enjoy themselves provided that they think only of enjoying themselves. It willing works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that; it provides fro their security, foresees and secures their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances; can it not take way from them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living? [pg. 663]

    Chapter 7: Continuation of the preceding chapters

    Equality isolates and weakens men, but the press places at the side of each of them a very powerful arm that the weakest and most isolated can make use of. Equality takes away from each individual the support of his neighbors, but the press permits him to call to his aid all his fellow citizens and all who are like him. Printing hastened the progress of equality, and it is one of its best correctives. [pg. 668]

    Chapter 8: General view of the subject

    Many ideas are bubbling in my head. All I can say now is that my understanding of the effects of democracy is better now and this book will be an invaluable resource.#

    Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville (Volume I)

    This is a commentary for Volume I of Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville. The first part of this series is an introduction.#

    Part One - Primarily on the institutions and written laws of the United States at the time of Tocqueville.#

    Chapter 1: External configuration of North America

    Chapter 2: On the point of departure and its importance for the future of the Anglo-Americans

    Tocqueville makes the interesting point in this chapter that no other country so easy knows and understands its origins as the United States. This was our "point of departure." The details of this were also important to the democracy that was formed: it was formed by self-exiled lower classes in search of freedom, people who were unlikely to establish a hierarchy of birth or wealth and were willing, as they had to be, to be involved with the governance and success of their colony.

    Chapter 3: Social state of the Anglo-Americans

    Part of what Tocqueville talks about here is how estate law can be a very powerful tool for establishing equality. When families are forced to divided their property evenly amongst children, rather than giving all to the eldest son, wealth dissipates into the air very quickly.

    Tocqueville remarks on what laws like this say about a democratic people:

    There is in fact a manly and legitimate passion for equality that incites men to want all to be strong and esteemed. This passion tends to elevate the small to the rank of the great; but one also encounters a depraved taste for equality in the human heart that brings the weak to want to draw the strong to their level and that reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom. It is not that peoples whose social state is democratic naturally scorn freedom; on the contrary, they have an instinctive taste for it. But freedom is not the principal and continuous object of their desire; what they love with an eternal love is equality; they dash toward freedom with a rapid impulse and sudden efforts, and if they miss the goal they resign themselves; but nothing can satisfy them without equality, and they would sooner consent to perish than to lose it. [pg. 52]

    One naturally sees in this paragraph a description of the attitudes of a socialistic people, whether in the extreme (or should I say successful?) case of a communist country, or the weak case of the welfare state.

    Freedom and Equality. You can maximize one of these quantities, but remember that when you increase equality, freedom WILL decline; whereas increasing freedom only ALLOWS equality to decline. This will be a recurring idea.

    Chapter 4: On the principle of the sovereignty of the people in America

    The inevitability of universal suffrage in a democracy is explained.

    Chapter 5: Necessity of studying what takes place in the particular States before speaking of the government of the Union

    This is a discussion of the township system as well as some of the principle divisions of power. There is a strong tendency in this chapter to address the differences from what readers in France will know.

    On the lack of a hierarchy of officials:

    The right to direct the official presumes the right to discharge him if he does not follow the orders that one transmits to him, or to raise him in grade if he zealously fulfills all his duties. Now, one can neither discharge an elected magistrate nor raise him in grade. It is of the nature of elective offices to be irrevocable until the end of the mandate. In reality, the elected magistrate has nothing to expect or to fear except from the electors when all public offices are the product of election. A genuine hierarchy among officials therefore cannot exist, since one cannot unite in the same man the right to order and the right to suppress disobedience efficaciously, and since one cannot join to the power of command that of rewarding and punishing. [pg. 70]

    This is one of the many moments of this book were I reflect on how wonderful the United States used to be before the right of States and local government were taken away and many of this statements were very much true. Tocqueville talks about these people being very involved in theirs towns and governments, and the governments having less centralized administration, but it seems like he's talking about some ideal system, not something that ever existed.

    It leads me to think about what kinds of things that Tocqueville warned about actually happened, and makes me wonder about how it could be healed.

    Although more will come, Tocqueville identifies many dragons beneath the surface of democracy:

    We have seen that in the United States administrative centralization does not exist. One hardly finds a trace of hierarchy there. Decentralization has been carried to a degree that no European nation can tolerate, I think, without profound unrest, and which even produces distressing effects in America. But in the United States, governmental centralization exists to the highest point. [...] Not only is there only a single body in each state that makes the laws; not only does there exist only a single power that can create political life around it; but in general they have avoided gathering numerous district or county assembles for fear that these assemblies be tempted to go outside their administrative prerogatives and impede the working of the government. In America, the legislature of each state has before it no power capable of resisting it. [pg. 84]

    Chapter 6: On judicial power in the United States and its action on political society

    This explains the judicial system primarily and takes care to point out the legislative power of declaring laws unconstitutional.

    Chapter 7: On political judgment in the United States

    Chapter 8: On the Federal Constitution

    This long chapter explains many things about the Constitution and the political system of the United States. It seems mostly to serve as an introduction to the system and a convenient place to reference back to when referring to some particular office.

    In one section, Tocqueville explains why the President is so flawed and unable to do anything right.

    To this effect, they concentrated all the executive power of the nation in a single hand; they gave the president extensive prerogatives and armed him with the veto in order to resist the encroachments of the legislature.

    But in introducing the principle of reelection, they destroyed their work in part. They granted a great power to the president and took away from him the will to make use of it.

    Not reeligible, the president would not be independent of the people, for he would not cease to be responsible to them; but the favor of the people would not be so necessary to him that he had to bend to their will in everything.

    Reeligible (and this is true above all in our day, when political morality is relaxed and when great characters are disappearing), the president of the United States is only a docile instrument in the hands of the majority. He loves what it loves, hates what it hates; he flies to meet its will, anticipates its complaints, bends to its least desires: the legislators wanted him to guide it, and he follows it. [pg. 129-130]

    Near the end of the chapter, Alexis explains about how great wars always either destroy a country because it loses, or destroy it because it compels people to centralize power and administration. What does this mean for the United States?

    The great happiness of the United States is therefore not to have found a federal constitution that permits it to sustain great wars, but to be so situated that there are none for it to fear. [pg. 160]

    This idea anticipates General Franks' comment and any observation about the damage war has done to the country.

    Part Two - This talks about the people of the United States, the true ringleaders of the country.#

    Chapter 1: How one can say strictly that in the United States the people govern

    Chapter 2: On parties in the United States

    Tocqueville makes distinctions between "great parties" and "small parties." The great ones have ideas contrary to the fundamental ideas about the country, while the small ones bicker over smaller issues. He says that America swarms with small parties.

    Chapter 3: On freedom of the press in the United States

    Many of Tocqueville's famous quotes come from this chapter and the few following it, but my favourite, perhaps, is this one:

    I avow that I do not hold that complete and instantaneous love for the freedom of the press that one accords to things whose nature is unqualifiedly good. I love it out of consideration for the evils it prevents much more than for the good it does. [pg. 172]

    This sentiment will be frequently referenced by me in the future when talking about some controversial thing which I support.

    And you may be interested in some of the evils of the press:

    Peoples in whom this freedom exists are attached to their opinions by pride as much as by conviction. They love them because they seem just to them, and also because they are their choice, and they hold to them not only as something true, but also as something that is their own. [pg. 179]

    Chapter 4: On political association in the United States

    This is a very thoughtful and astute comment:

    But of all the causes that cooperate in the United States to moderate the violence of political association, perhaps the most powerful is universal suffrage. In countries where universal suffrage is accepted, the majority is never doubtful because no party can reasonable establish itself as the representative of those who have not voted. Associations know, therefore, and everyone knows, that they do not represent the majority. This results from the very fact of their existence; for if they represented it, they themselves would change the law instead of demanding its reform. [pg. 185]

    Chapter 5: On the government of democracy in America

    Another clever nugget, this time about taxation and voting:

    Countries where the poor were charged exclusively with making the law therefore could not hope for great economy in public expenditures; those expenditures will always be considerable, either because taxes cannot reach those who vote them or because they are assessed in a manner so as not to reach them. In other words, the government of democracy is the only one in which he who votes the tax can escape the obligation to pay it. [pg. 201]

    I don't know if taxation was as crazy as it is now back then, because Tocqueville doesn't seem to put a lot of stress on how ridiculous this idea is.

    One of the other things that Tocqueville talks about in this chapter, with regards to taxation, is how by looking at what the people spend their money on, one can tell their values. He gives as an example the absence of "public festivals" in America which shows that "the people do not like to enjoy themselves." [pg. 205] This was particularly interesting to note while in Italy, looking at all the beautiful public spaces.

    A golden one on corruption:

    In democracies, on the contrary, those who crave power are almost never wealthy, and the number of those who concur in giving [power--ie, voting rather than aristocratic appointment] is very great. Perhaps in democracies there are no fewer men for sale, but one finds almost no buyers there; and besides, one would have to buy too many people at once to attain the goal. [pg. 211]

    Although, it doesn't take much to meditate on the relevance of this comment now. This chapter is full of such things that show how much America has fallen:

    In America conscription is unknown; they enroll men there for money. Forced recruitment is so contrary to the ideas and so foreign to the habits of the people of the United States that I doubt that one would ever dare to introduce it into the laws. [pg. 213]

    Chapter 6: What are the real advantages that American society derives from the government of democracy

    Among these are the rights and freedoms that America offers. An interesting one, is what Tocqueville calls "patriotism of all"...

    There is nothing more annoying in the habits of life than this irritable patriotism of the Americans. A foreigner would indeed consent to praise much in their country; but he would want to be permitted to blame something, and this he is absolutely refused.

    America is therefore a country of freedom where, in order not to wound anyone, the foreigner must not speak freely either of particular persons, or of the state, or of the governed, or of those who govern, or of public undertakings, or of private undertakings; of, finally, of anything one encounters except perhaps the climate and the soil; and still, one finds Americans ready to defend both as if they had helped to form them. [pg. 227]

    This may be the referenced cause of being politically correct.

    Chapter 7: On the omnipotence of the majority in the United States and its effects

    Here Tocqueville describes how the majority can do anything in the United States, because it wields the power of the government which has been granted the ability to do anything, and in addition to this it is seen as always right because its might defines morality. This, of course, is a potentially dangerous position. (This section scores major libertarian points.)

    What there fore is a majority taken collectively, if not an individual who has opinions and most often interests contrary to another individual that one names the minority? Now, if you accept that one man vested with omnipotence can abuse it against his adversaries, why not accept the same thing for a majority? Have men changed in character by being united? Have they become more patient before obstacles by becoming stronger? As for me, I cannot believe it; and I shall never grant to several the power of doing everything that I refuse to a single one of those like me.

    [...]

    Omnipotence seems to me to be an evil and dangerous thing in itself. Its exercise appears to me above the strength of man, whoever he may be, and I see only God who can be omnipotent without danger, because his wisdom and justice are always equal to his power. There is therefore no authority on earth so respectable in itself or vested with a right so sacred that I should wish to allow to act without control and to dominate without obstacles. Therefore, when I see the right and the ability to do everything granted to any power whatsoever, whether its called people or king, democracy or aristocracy, whether it is exercise in a monarchy or in a republic, I say: there is the seed of tyranny, and I seek to go live under other laws. [pg. 240-241]

    Chapter 8: On what tempers the tyranny of the majority in the United States

    Among the things that make the tyranny of the majority weaker is the lack of administrative centralization and the power of the courts and the lawyer class. But one problem with this solution is that the lawyers create a kind of aristocracy in a democracy, especially in a law system based on precedent.

    Our written laws are often difficult to understand, but each man can read them; there is nothing, on the contrary, more obscure for the vulgar and less within his reach than legislation founded on precedents. The need one has of a lawyer in England and the United States, the lofty idea that one forms of his enlightenment, separate him more and more from the people and serve to put him in a class apart. The French lawyer is only a learned man; but the English or American man of law resembles in a way the priests of Egypt; like them, he is the lone interpreter of an occult science. [pg. 255]

    Chapter 9: On the principal causes tending to maintain a democratic republic in the United States

    The strongest: material well-being and economic prosperity, due to the boundless continent and lack of limits for growth of wealth. Another important thing mention in this chapter is the propensity of democratic peoples to refrain from general ideas or theoretical discoveries, but at the same to do hang on to them for dear life if it ever grasps one.

    Chapter 10: Some considerations on the present state and the probably future of the three races that inhabit the territory of the United States

    This very long chapter discusses the Indians and the Blacks, and how they have and will effect the United States. Tocqueville talks about slavery is bad for the Southerners who practice it but also explains why it is very difficult to get rid of it. He predicts the death of the Indians, maybe survived by a few children of mixed familes; as well as a war over slavery, perhaps between the Blacks and the Whites.

    On how the Native Americans are treated:

    The conduct of the Americans of the United States toward the natives, on the contrary, breathes the purest love of forms and legality. Provided that the Indians stay in the savage state, the AMericans do not mix at all in their affairs and treat them as independent peoples; they do not permit themselves to occupy their lands without having duly acquired them by means of a contract; and if by chance an Indian nation can no longer live on its territory, they take it like a brother by the hand and lead it to die outside the country of its fathers.

    The SPanish, with the help of unexampled monstrous deeds, covering themselves with an indelible shame, could not succeed in exterminating the Indian race, nor even prevent it from sharing their rights; the Americans of the United States have attained this double result with marvelous facility--tranquilly, legally, philanthropically, without spilling blood, without violating a single one of the great principles of morality in the eyes of the world. One cannot destroy men while being more respectful to the laws of humanity. [pg. 325]

    This discussion evolves into ways that the Union will be preserved or ways that it may fall apart. There is a good deal of reflection on the lessons of America:

    A republic, according to some among us, is not the reign of the majority, as has been believed until now, it is the reign of those who are strongly for the majority. It is not the people who direct these sorts of governments, but those who know the greatest good of the people: a happy distinction that permits one to act in the name of nations without consulting them and to claim their recognition while riding roughshod over them. A republican government is, furthermore, the only one in which one must recognize the right to do everything, and which can scorn what men have respect up to the present, from the highest laws of morality to the vulgar rules of common sense.

    Until our time, it had been thought that despotism was odious, whatever its forms were. But in our day it has been discovered that there are legitimate tyrannies and holy injustices in the world, provided that one exercises them in the name of the people. [pg. 380]

    And the last paragraph has an erie prediction that shows Tocqueville was actually from the future:

    There are two great peoples on the earth today who, starting from different points, seem to advance toward the same goal: these are the Russians and the Anglo-Americans.

    [...]

    To attain his goal, the first relies on personal interest and allows the force and the reason of individuals to act, without directing them.

    The second in a way concentrates all the power of society in one man.

    The one has freedom for his principal means of action; the other servitude.

    Their point of departure is different, their ways are diverse; nonetheless, each of them seems called by a secret design of Providence to hold the destinies of half the world in its hands on day. [pg. 395-396]

    Please continue with Volume II.#

    Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville (Introduction)

    While in Italy, I read the book Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville, as translated by Harvey C. Manfield and Delba Winthrop. I have been procrastinating a bit on writing up a commentary, but I had the opportunity today, so I will take it.#

    First, I will explain the structure of the book, and the translation. Then, I will comment briefly on Tocqueville's style. Then, I will comment on the translator's introductory essay. And finally, I will comment on the book.#

    The physical book I have is divided into three parts--a one-hundred page introductory essay from the translators, and then volume one and two of Tocqueville's work. These volumes were originally published five years apart.

    Each volume is divided into parts, two and four respectively, which are then divided into many chapters--some chapters are very small, only a page; while others are many tens of pages. Each chapter is then, often, divided into components--essays?--that deal with a particular aspect of the subject of the chapter. Another interesting thing about the chapters is that each is headed by a small "abstract" paragraph that outlines what it is about.

    (Although I will not indicate where my quotes come from this way, as it will be obvious by context, the translators reference parts of the book by "(DA Volume Part.Chapter)", so "(DA I 2.10)" is Democracy in America, Volume I, Part 2, Chapter 10.)

    And, Tocqueville has footnotes that are often longs and a few ten longer Notes that are referenced by the translators. The translators also add their own footnotes to explain things such as: the significance of certain names; how they translated a word; how Tocqueville quoted something; etc.

    On quoting, Tocqueville seemed to paraphrase a great deal, as I can scarcely remember a single quote that was not noted to have some error in it by the translators. I thought this odd.

    Tocqueville's writing, at a literary level, is uncanny. His descriptive muscle could bench press a Buick, and often times you will find yourself dazed and distracted by the poetry of his prose. Hopefully, this will show through in the sections I have chosen to excerpt.

    Another thing I feel I should point out if it is not clear, the two volumes came out in 1830 and 1835, respectively. Obviously, things have changed.

    Introduction by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop#

    The translators define the purpose of the book and what they believe was the primary objective for Tocqueville in creating DA.

    In one regard, the book is a description of America from every angle that is interesting--politically, geographically, economically, etc. But also, the book is a comparison between France and America--or more generically between the idea of democracy and the idea of aristocracy, the more general versions of what is displayed in America and France, respectively.

    This struggle to define democracy and to defend it from aristocracy is, to say the least, very interesting and left me with many ideas floating in my head and many assumptions out the window.

    Here is the translator's summarization of part of this:

    By avoiding the contest over causality between politics and society--one cannot say which comes first--Tocqueville enables the social state to appear and serve as a whole. It is not the product of a part, and a part does not rule the whole, as Aristotle says. Tocqueville does describe the aristocratic social state, to be sure. But although an aristocracy may enjoy unquestioned legitimacy from its subjects, it rests ultimately on force, not consent, on a part, not the whole. Aristocracy is less of a society that democracy, and that is why it is less equitable (DA I 2.10, II 3.1). Its social state is curtailed and clouded over by lack of mutual understanding, despite the responsibility that nobles may feel for their dependents. Its social state, therefore, is less explicit than the democratic, based as it is on implication and unstated obligation. It is less a social state than the democratic social state. Since the social state is now revealed to be a quintessentially democratic concept, it is no surprise that it belongs to the political science of the altogether new democratic world. [pg. xliv-xlv]

    Here, I shall note that throughout the text are many small points like this were I could point out that it is not true being read from a libertarian point of view, ie, a democracy is just as coercive as an aristocracy. But, in general, I will not do this.

    Part of this, I think, comes from Tocqueville's influence. He does not think that democracy is perfect or that aristocracy is completely wrong either. What he does think is that democracy is the future whether we like it or not, so it is important to understand its costs and benefits. With these costs and benefits in mind, he can warn us when democracy leads to despotism and when we steer dangerous back to aristocracy.

    So, because Tocqueville warns, I feel less compelled to warn when he does not.

    The new mild despotism, as Tocqueville refers to it, will not be oppressive. It will care for citizens, ever attentive to the obvious needs of all and responsive to various pressures to satisfy unfulfilled desires. But be relieving individuals of the necessity of thinking and acting on their own, it gradually "rob[s] each of them of several of the principal attributes of humanity" and finally "reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd" (DA II 4.7). [pg. lxx]

    Please continue with Volume I.#