Nothing makes life for a despot on the rise quite as easy as a subject population that enthusiastically embraces individualism. To understand this assertion, one must first mean what Tocqueville understood individualism to mean, since its current usage in American political discourse bears only a passing resemblance to how he used the term. According to Tocqueville, individualism “is a recent expression arising from a new idea. [democracy] Our fathers knew only selfishness.” (Democracy in America 482) Individualism springs naturally out of democracy, whose mere existence will inevitably wipe away the stabilizing influence of historical family structures and aristocratic loyalty. In particular, countries that saw their democracies established …show more content…
As Tocqueville describes it, democracy “constantly leads [man] back towards himself alone and finally threatens to confine him wholly within the solitude of his own heart.” (484) Convinced that little worthwhile exists outside of their own survival and entertainment, the individualist peels themselves away from social institutions on the whole, finding them unimportant and unnecessary. Furthermore, individualists tend to be strong proponents of the worst facets of equality, as many cannot stomach the thought that their fellow countrymen could possibly be better off than they. “Equality,” Tocqueville writes, “places men beside one another without a common bond to hold. Despotism raises barriers between them and separates them.” …show more content…
Without public participation in civics or even a will to resist, a despot has little trouble coming to power. In absence of this apathy, a despot must foster it themselves. Tocqueville cautions that “Despotism, which is dangerous in all times, is therefore particularly to be feared in democratic centuries.” (486) Cloaking their criminal intent in the trappings of democracy, the despot proclaims to the populace that some sort of nebulous outset threat puts their personal livelihood at risk, and the only means of stopping this is to grant them unconditional power. Essentially, the despot offers the people relative equality at the price of freedom. Tocqueville more eloquently expresses this sentiment, writing that the despot “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.”
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.
Alexis de Tocqueville's visit to the United States in the early part of the nineteenth century prompted his work Democracy in America, in which he expressed the ability to make democracy work. Throughout his travels Tocqueville noted that private interest and personal gain motivated the actions of most Americans, which in turn cultivated a strong sense of individualism. Tocqueville believed that this individualism would soon "sap the virtue of public life" (395) and create a despotism of selfishness. This growth of despotism would be created by citizens becoming too individualistic, and therefore not bothering to fulfill their civic duties or exercise their freedom. Tocqueville feared that the political order of America would soon become aimed at the satisfaction of individual needs, rather than the greater good of society. Alexis de Tocqueville viewed participation in public affairs, the growth of associations and newspapers, the principle of self-interest properly understood, and religion as the only means by which American democracy could combat the effects of individualism.
Alexis De Tocqueville painted a portrait of a flourishing democracy within the text, Democracy in America. Tocqueville proposed that equality was one of the fundamental tenets that aided the success of American democracy. He defined equality of conditions as the end of aristocracy: “the noble has fallen on the social ladder, and the commoner has risen; the one descends, the other climbs. Each half century brings them nearer, and soon they are going to touch” (Democracy in America, book, 6). American democracy flourishes because there is an established equality of conditions for all; American democracy enforced the absence of formal rank and the end of births into positions of power while encouraging forms of power that challenged rank and privilege. However, in his analysis, Alexis De Tocqueville recognized the presence of race based inequality and cautioned that the reinforcement of a racial hierarchy could be detrimental to American democracy. Such observations characterize Tocqueville as insightful and
Stretching from the colonial times to the present times, the people of the United States have consistently believed that their country had a particular purpose in history due to its unique constitution and founding history of the nation. Alexis De Tocqueville, a French historian of the 19th century, wrote in his book Democracy in America that “the position of the Americans is therefore quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one.” He wrote this following his explanation on how America has departed significantly from its European ancestry, diverging into a unique and unprecedented path. It is believed that he had first initiated the term today known as ‘American exceptionalism’, which
In seeing interests too varied, a ruler or executive is forced to impose domination onto the people he is supposed to serve (Montesquieu 140). This not only once again corrupts the principles of democracy, but it also weakens the entire collective of states. Such domination incites the people to rise up against those that govern them and to expel them and challenge their ability to govern and lead a free people – much as Shay’s rebellion demonstrates. Montesquieu is wise here to realize that the only way to govern large swaths of land is only through monarchy and despotism – that of which we have only so recently freed ourselves from (142). When large amounts of territory are placed under a single government, the only way it can govern itself is through coercion and force. In a mid-sized territory, failure to do so leads to the rise of an aristocracy that will, much like the aforementioned wealthy man, will see the oppression of their fellow man as the means necessary to advance their own wealth (Montesquieu 141). In a large territory, despotic command becomes necessary to ensure that the laws and powers of the government are followed quickly and immediately so that the territory can be adequately governed (Montesquieu 142). Both of these would lead to violence and the destruction of liberty and
Tocqueville opens the book with a discussion on the equality of conditions that he experienced in America and the general trend toward equality that he sees all over the world. The desires of the people and their freedom to pursue them produce a trend in which socioeconomically, the rich lose wealth, and the poor gain it, and politically, a poor man has the same ability to influence the government as a rich man. This trend toward equality of conditions leads to the system of government that Tocqueville saw in America, in which the majority holds political and social power based on the notion that “there is more enlightenment and wisdom in a numerous assembly than in a single man.” However, Tocqueville warns that the majority’s power can become tyrannical, leading to the oppression of the minority.
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, rulers adopted basic enlightenment principles, like religious toleration, freedom of speech and press, and the right to hold and maintain private property. According to Kant, in his What is Enlightenment? of 1784, “A prince who…prescribes nothing to men in religious matters but to give them complete freedom while renouncing the haughty name of tolerance, is himself enlightened and deserves to be esteemed by the grateful world and posterity.” Many rulers accepted these newfound ideas; however, when it came time to actually implement them, rulers were often too scared of losing power. This, in turn, led to the idea of an “enlightened despot,” who reflected the principles of the Enlightenment, yet continued to exercise the basic ideals of despotism.
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.
What are tyrants, one might ask. In the current sense of the word a tyrant is pejorative term, applied to an individual in power who is selfish and self preserving. A tyrant is an immoral being, ruling over those around him through force, a tax on the freedom of those he subjugates. Yet the question that one should be asking is where do tyrants come from? Plato proposed that tyrants are a product of democracy, that the liberty inherent to a democracy allows the self interested to manipulate the system(generally through appealing to the population at large) causing a system with little liberty. This paper aims to defend the claims of Plato concerning tyranny, particularly the origins of tyrants, as well as to propose the safeguards that democracy possesses to defend against tyranny. The two claims Plato makes that will be discussed here are that tyrants come from popular leaders, that tyrants require sycophants to support and protect them.
...nstead the state consists of rulers who behave like subjects and subjects who behave like rulers. The people begin to desire a strong leader, who will make the difficult decisions for them and bear the consequences: the Democracy has become a Tyranny.
Upon the second half of the paragraph Tocqueville reaffirms the strengths of a despot government, but affirms the strengths of democratic liberty over a despot. Tocqueville states democratic liberty may often lead to abandonment of objectives before reaching the fruits of their labor or chooses to take action on dangerous ones. However, in the grand scheme, Tocqueville claims that a democratic liberty outlasts a despot and although it is not as effective it produces more than a despot. The statement illustrates the weakness of democratic liberty through ever-changing goals and dangerous goals put into action by the people, but introduces Tocqueville’s argument for a democratic government. Tocqueville argues that democratic liberty outlasts a despot, as a government run by the people will continue to have people to run the government.
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
And because it is not necessary for them to voice their opinions, the public becomes uninterested and uninformed on the matters of government. This leaves people with stunted mental capacities. A good despotism is a government with no positive oppression by officers of state, but where all the interests of the public are managed for them. Mill asserts that despotism that consents not to be despotism could, in fact, be good. However, it depends on the despot. If the despot would refrain from exercising absolute power and instead, appoint a council chosen by the people, the despot could get rid of the evil elements of despotism. Mill continues to shed light on this despotic monarchy which is, in actuality, a representative government, when public opinion is allowed. Public opinion will either be for or against the despot. If it is against him, he can either put down opposition or defer to the nation. The former would cause animosity between the despot and the people; the latter would indicate a constitutional king rather than a monarch. Mill concludes by saying that the principle element behind a good government is the improvement of the
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.