More handpicked essays just for you.
Alexis de tocqueville's tome on american democracy
Alexis de tocqueville's tome on american democracy
Alexis de tocqueville view on democracy in america in relitivities of slavery
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Democracy, the form of government that is emerging exponentially around the globe, does not, to the bewilderment of many, protect against tyranny (252). This notion echoes throughout Alexis de Tocqueville’s two-volume work, Democracy in America. Tocqueville is careful to explain that there is no perfect government. Consequently, the strength of freedom associated with democracy can easily be displaced; such power can be usurped by an unkind and unjust majority, resulting in tyranny, not the liberty desired by the people. While Tocqueville’s thoughts regarding this concept are flawlessly articulated, they wavered to a small effect. The tyranny Tocqueville imagines initially, the vision of despotism he concludes with, and the shift that …show more content…
However, in Volume II, he completely abandons this idea. Instead, he writes, “I think that the type of oppression which threatens democracies is different from anything there has ever been in the world” (691). Tyranny of the majority is not even tyranny at all; it has no true definition. Coinciding with its lack of tangibility, this kind of despotism is chosen by the people, and that is what is most frightening. Tocqueville states that citizens of democracies desire two contradictory conditions. Men of democracy desire someone to be the leader of the pack who holds the lantern while walking through a strange, dark forest. Yet, they simultaneously lust after freedom – a way to roam the mysterious woodlands blindly. Since the citizens are the ones who elect the rulers, they believe that they are in control of themselves. Contradicting this belief, Tocqueville writes, “they think they [the citizens] have done enough to guarantee personal freedom when it is to the government of the state that they have handed it over” (693). For this reason, they deliberately choose their own, pitiful fate by submitting to the will of the
The reasoning behind the Constitution of the United States is presented as 'based upon the philosophy of Hobbes and the religion of Calvin. It assumes the natural state of mankind in a state of war, and that the carnal mind is at enmity with God.' Throughout, the struggle between democracy and tyranny is discussed as the Founding Fathers who envisioned the Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787 believed not in total democracy, but instead saw common man as selfish and contemptuous, and therefore in need of a 'a good political constitution to control him.' Being a largely propertied body, with the exception of William Few, who was the only one who could honestly be said to represent the majority yeoman farmer class, the highly privileged classes were fearful of granting man his due rights, as the belief that 'man was an unregenerate rebel who has to be controlled' reverberated.
During Colonial America many things at the time were debated if they were democratic or undemocratic. Back then these features would be mostly undemocratic for others yet benefit others.There were also things that were a work in progress,Equality is a good example of this and was a work in progress.
Tocqueville seems to like democracy in its ideal form. However, nothing can be perfect and thus America is not a perfect democracy. Tocqueville found numerous problems with democracy and the influence it had on the populace. These problems range from their distrust of dogmatic beliefs to the imperfect equality that is in place in America. He also found the effects of these problems to be quite problematic as well. For instance, individualism, an effect of equality, is very problematic to democracy. Tocqueville enjoys considering America as an experiment in democracy, but does not find it to be faultless.
Democracy in America has been a guiding principle since the foundation of the country. Many over the years have commented on the structure and formation of democracy but more importantly the implementation and daily function within the democratic parameters that have been set. Alexis de Tocqueville was a French political thinker and historian born July 29, 1805. He is most famously known for his work Democracy in America. Democracy in America has been an evolving social and economic reform, and has continually changed since it’s founding.
Alexis de Tocqueville’s observation of the American prison system brought out several interesting facts about America and how it governs itself. He talks of the danger of greed for money, the importance of forming associations, and the power of influence in town government. Although many of his observations have since changed, many of them bring about legitimate points about American government and society.
For both Tocqueville in his “Democracy in America” and Locke in his “Second Treatise of Civil Government”, liberty holds a place of paramount importance in the pantheon of political values, specifically those in relation to democratic and republican systems (though Locke does not explicitly demand a republic as Tocqueville does) . From Tocqueville’s belief in the supremacy of liberty over equality , to Locke’s inclusion and conflation of liberty with property and life itself in his natural rights , liberty plays the crucial role of linchpin in both author’s political philosophy. Though this belief in the centrality of liberty is found in both Tocqueville and Locke, they each derivate liberty from fundamentally disparate sources, and thus hold
In Democracy in America, Alexis De Tocqueville explains the dangers of democracy and explains the virtues that temper these dangers. In this paper, I will look at two issues Tocqueville discussed extensively in late 19th century American democracy and posit what Tocqueville may say about these issues today. The points I will discuss are materialism and religion. In a democracy, such as America, the individual’s opportunity to succeed makes him more likely to become attached to material and money. However, in Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, this danger is tempered by religion, which quenches the lust for material by reducing its importance in comparison to good mores. These two elements of American democracy are a small portion of the “Habits of the hearts” of Americans; they are two ideas that complement each other to make democracy appealing and possible anywhere and everywhere. Is this the case today? Is the American’s relationship to materialism and religion similar today to what it was when Tocqueville visited America?
In this excerpt from Democracy in America Alexis Tocqueville expresses his sentiments about the United States democratic government. Tocqueville believes the government's nature exists in the absolute supremacy of the majority, meaning that those citizens of the United States who are of legal age control legislation passed by the government. However, the power of the majority can exceed its limits. Tocqueville believed that the United States was a land of equality, liberty, and political wisdom. He considered it be a land where the government only served as the voice of the its citizens. He compares the government of the US to that of European systems. To him, European governments were still constricted by aristocratic privilege, the people had no hand in the formation of their government, let alone, there every day lives. He held up the American system as a successful model of what aristocratic European systems would inevitably become, systems of democracy and social equality. Although he held the American democratic system in high regards, he did have his concerns about the systems shortcomings. Tocqueville feared that the virtues he honored, such as creativity, freedom, civic participation, and taste, would be endangered by "the tyranny of the majority." In the United States the majority rules, but whose their to rule the majority. Tocqueville believed that the majority, with its unlimited power, would unavoidably turn into a tyranny. He felt that the moral beliefs of the majority would interfere with the quality of the elected legislators. The idea was that in a great number of men there was more intelligence, than in one individual, thus lacking quality in legislation. Another disadvantage of the majority was that the interests of the majority always were preferred to that of the minority. Therefore, giving the minority no chance to voice concerns.
Doubtless, if Montesquieu were forced to choose a favorite mathematical formula, he would pick the average function. For even among the great thinkers of the French Enlightenment, the baron de Montesquieu stands out as an especially impassioned advocate for moderation. Montesquieu, of course, left his greatest mark on the philosophy of the governance through his great work The Spirit of the Laws. Though certainly his earlier work The Persian Letters sowed the seeds of many of the ideas featured in his chef d’œuvre. In particular, Montesquieu spends some time in both works examining the universe of possible governments. But he advocates not, in fact, for republicanism or, perhaps less surprisingly, despotism. Rather, Montesquieu supports the “moderate” position: a government less despotic than despotism, and yet less democratic than democracy or republicanism. He makes the case, in other words, for rule by an enlightened monarch.
Democracy in the United States became prominent in the early to mid 19th century. Andrew Jackson, the 7th president of the United States, was inaugurated in 1829 and was best known as the person who mainstreamed democracy in America. Because he came from a humble background, he was the “genuine common man.” (Foner, pg. 303) He claimed he recognized the needs of the people and spoke on behalf of the majority [farmers, laborers]. However, critics of Jackson and democracy called him “King Andrew I” because of his apparent abuse of presidential power [vetoing]. These critics believed he favored the majority so much that it violated the U.S. constitution, and they stated he was straying too far away from the plan originally set for the United States. Because of the extreme shift of power to the majority, the limiting of rights of the few [merchants, industrialists] and the abuse of power under Jackson’s democracy, the foundational documents set in the constitution was violated, and the work of the preceding presidents were all but lost.
Rousseau, however, believed, “the general will by definition is always right and always works to the community’s advantage. True freedom consists of obedience to laws that coincide with the general will.”(72) So in this aspect Rousseau almost goes to the far extreme dictatorship as the way to make a happy society which he shows in saying he, “..rejects entirely the Lockean principle that citizens possess rights independently of and against the state.”(72)
De Tocqueville’s argument was between equality versus individualism. He describes individualism as “a calm and considered feeling which disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of his fellows and withdraw into the circle of family and friends” (De Tocqueville, 506). His perspective was that individualism empowers people to become competent but also strengthens and reassures society to work with the others in the community to magnify the possibilities for humans. As stated by Professor Veugelers “De Tocqueville happened to see that the inequality between the rich and the poor became more restricted, and thought that at some point the gap will close.”
The very history of the country, a major contributor to the evolution of its political culture, shows a legacy of democracy that reaches from the Declaration of Independence through over two hundred years to today’s society. The formation of the country as a reaction to the tyrannical rule of a monarchy marks the first unique feature of America’s democratic political culture. It was this reactionary mindset that greatly affected many of the decisions over how to set up the new governmental system. A fear of simply creating a new, but just as tyrannic...
"United States can be seen as the first liberal democracy. The United States Constitution, adopted in 1788, provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties. On the American frontier, democracy became a way of life, with widespread social, economic and political equality. The system gradually evolved, from Jeffersonian Democracy or the First Party System to Jacksonian Democracy or the Second Party System and later to the Third Party System. In Reconstruction after the Civil War (late 1860s) the newly freed slaves became citizens, and they were given the vote as well." (Web, 1)
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, and Donald A. Cress. "On Democracy." Basic Political Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 1987. 179-80. Print.