More handpicked essays just for you.
The role of the media in politics
The role the media plays in election essay
The role of the media in politics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
As it turns out, Alexis de Tocqueville had a great many ideas and views on the different aspects of democracy in America. Everything from political parties in the United States to freedom of the press and the principal causes of maintaining a Democratic Republic were on the table for discussion. It must have been quite shocking for the American of the time to read Democracy in America after it was translated. Tocqueville had many opinionated views that directly clashed with the ideals of the typical American’s feelings of exceptionalism. Though not every thought he expressed issued concern, many of his observations call and the question the intricate workings of democratic America.
“A great division must be made between parties. Some countries
…show more content…
are so large that the different populations which inhabit them have contradictory interests, although they are the subjects of the same government; and they may thence be in a perpetual state of opposition” (Tocqueville 2007, p. 142). Tocqueville styled political parties in two categories: great and minor. The parties that held fast to their principles over consequences, sought a general view of things and ideas as opposed to man were fashioned great parties. “These parties are usually distinguished by a nobler character, by more generous passions, more genuine convictions, and more bold and open conduct than the others” (Tocqueville 2007, p. 143). Great parties exhibited great principles. Tocqueville fashioned minor parties as deficient in political faith but displaying a surplus of egotism. “They glow with a factitious zeal; their language is vehement, but their conduct is timid and irresolute. The means they employ are as wretched as the end at which they aim.” (Tocqueville 2007, p. 143). In other words, minor parties were the troublemakers, per se. At the time Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America, America had already seen two parties collide. The Federalist party aimed to limit the power the people and apply its doctrines to the Constitution. The Republican Party championed the cause of liberty. While the Federalist party was minor in nature, after many years the Republican Party gained power of the government. Thomas Jefferson was elected president and the weight of his fame helped to increase the stretch of Republicanism. Even at the time that Tocqueville was researching his work, the Federalist party had already dissolved. The first of many political parties to rise up and fall short in the future to come. The creation of political parties was tedious and no easy task and according to Tocqueville, the absence of such great political parties created less controversies but public opinion was divided over everything in every different way possible. Regardless, whether it is a plea for centralized government through the Federalists or a plea for less federal interference with the rights and powers exerted by the states as with the Republicans, opposition always exists and will continue to do so. The important thing to remember in a democratic society is how easy it is to succumb to the tyranny of the majority whether it be an opinion or a vote, and to respond with moderation and intelligence. Another issue Tocqueville discussed was freedom of the press in America.
The freedom of the press is a central component of American democracy and in fact no citizens of the United States had at that point opposed the level of liberty given to free speech. A person could write whatever they felt like, whether it highly criticized the president or it was just an opinion. The level of freedom that the press exhibited caused some turmoil in the form of adversely affecting people who wrote articles and how the public perceived them. In some situations, it could be dangerous. “It cannot be denied that the effects of this extreme license of the press tend indirectly to the maintenance of public order. The individuals who are already in possession of a high station in the esteem of their fellow-citizens, are afraid to write in the newspapers, and they are thus deprived of the most powerful instrument which they can use excite the passions of the multitude to their own advantage” (Tocqueville 2007, p. 152). Men were afraid of the reaction of their fellow man to their exposed …show more content…
opinions. Another important aspect of American Free Press was the sheer number of periodicals and publications that existed, to the point of excessiveness. The weight publications carried in other countries did not exist in American press. Every township, every city, every nook and cranny had a newspaper or publication and every publication had its own opinionated editor. The people as a whole were allowed to form their own opinions and maintain those opinions without being told what to think, but in the course of this, they were allowed to disregard and disrespect those same opinions formed by their neighbor. It seems that during Tocqueville’s time, Americans seemed to lack the drive to seek the truth of what they were reading. The majority of the masses appeared to be concerned with the material and relative interests of themselves. Allowing the liberty of Free Press meant that people could be aware of what was going on around them in the world, politics, economics, and so on, but it also meant that the spread of despotism had a potential foothold. One must stop and ponder whether there is not such a thing as too much freedom. Nowhere else in the world does anyone exercise their right to public assembly like Americans do and political associations are no exception. The right to associations was a powerful tool to keep tyranny in check, but one which possessed the potential to turn dangerous. The benefits of political associations however outweigh the dangers due to the safeguard they provide to the potential overwhelming views of the majority that have the ever-present possibility of turning tyrannical. An association can only represent a minority and cannot claim to represent a majority. Tocqueville said it best: “The most natural privilege of man, next to the right of acting for himself, is that of combining his exertions with those of his fellow creatures, and of acting in common with them. I am therefore led to conclude, that the right of association is almost as an unalienable as the right of personal liberty” (Tocqueville 2007, p. 159). As with all other aspects of American life and politics, where there is good there can also be bad and the right to political associations must also be kept in check. Through Tocqueville’s studies of democracy in America, a few parts of American democracy really stand out. Universal suffrage is something that Tocqueville comes back to repeatedly. He did note that universal suffrage was alive in all of the states in America and was spread out over the varied social classes. It almost seems as if Tocqueville was surprised that universal suffrage in America did not produce “either all the good or all the evil consequences” (Tocqueville 2007, p. 161) with which it existed in Europe. The inclination of Americans regarding selecting a ruler tended to lean towards rejecting the most distinguished citizens. It was not a case of the population being disposed to hate this so-called superior classes, but there was no love lost on them either. To back up this sentiment, Tocqueville stated in Chapter XIII, “It is indeed probable that the men who are best fitted to discharge the duties of this high office would have too much reserve in their manners, and too much austerity in their principles, for them to be returned by the majority at an election where universal suffrage is adopted” (Tocqueville 2007, p. 163). Tocqueville took an interest in the mannerisms of Americans of his time. Religious enthusiasm and patriotism oftentimes went hand-in-hand. Patriotism itself, for the American, almost worked as a sort of religion. The way Americans thought about patriotism is not very different from the way it thought about today. It is almost lifted on a pedestal and worshiped. The United States was still in its infancy when Tocqueville wrote of its democracy. The Revolutionary war was still fresh in everyone’s mind and no one wanted to see a monarchy back in place. The American democracy was established with the great ideals of liberty and as such most Americans of the time had a great respect the law. Entire communities took up the mantle to ensure that the laws of the land were being adhered to and held their neighbors accountable. Once again though, the government runs the risk of not having enough safeguards in place to guard against tyranny. With a powerful democracy comes the potential for instability, and steps must be taken to guard against the injustice that despotism can bring. The saving grace of the democracy in America is that though the government is centralized, the administration of the government is decentralized.
Centralized government has a limited range of reach. The possibility of a tyrannical majority is also limited to the reach of the centralized government and as a result, the majority does not carry the administrative power to impose its convictions everywhere. Lawyers possess an almost aristocratic demeanor, and along with judges, they help temper the democratic government through the court system. The problem here though is that the laws that limit the power of the judicial branch and the frequency with which judges, being elected officials, are subjected to reelection is a direct danger to democracy. The efficiency of a jury is also called into question. The process of being a juror instilled good mores and to the populace. These particular mores helped to establish and maintain a lawful and just
mentality. “What force can there be in the customs of the country which has changed, and is perpetually changing its aspect; in which every act of tyranny has a precedent, and every crime an example; in which there is nothing so old that it’s antiquity can save it from destruction, and nothing so unparalleled that his novelty can prevent it from being done?” (Tocqueville 2007, p. 267). When Tocqueville went to America, the country was still very young. At that point there were already 12 amendments made to the Constitution that had only been put in place some 50 years prior. The Constitution was never meant to stay as it is and even within those short 50 years, the changes of time were already evident. Tocqueville could see it. He feared a tyrannical overthrowing of the democracy, all with valid reasoning. “Nothing is so irresistible as a tyrannical power commanding in the name of the people, because, while it exercises that moral influence which belongs to the decisions of the majority, it acts at the same time with the promptitude and in a city of a single man.” (Tocqueville 2007, P. 184). At this very moment, is American not going through some of those very same concerns Tocqueville had for American democracy?
In the Supreme Court case of the New York Times Co. vs. United States there is a power struggle. This struggle includes the entities of the individual freedoms against the interests of federal government. It is well known that the first amendment protects the freedom of speech, but to what extent does this freedom exist. There have been instances in which speech has been limited; Schenck vs. United States(1919) was the landmark case which instituted such limitations due to circumstances of “clear and present danger”. Many have noted that the press serves as an overseer which both apprehends and guides national agenda. However, if the federal government possessed the ability to censor the press would the government restrain itself? In the case of the Pentagon Papers the necessities of individual freedoms supersedes the scope of the national government.
In today’s society, American citizens tend to believe that America has been, “American” since the day that Christopher Columbus set foot in the Bahamas. This is a myth that has been in our society for a multitude of years now. In A New England Town by Kenneth A. Lockridge, he proves that America was not always democratic. Additionally, he proves that America has not always been “American”, by presenting the town of Dedham in 1635. Lockridge presents this town through the course of over one hundred years, in that time many changes happened as it made its way to a type of democracy.
Tocqueville was a Frenchman who was interested in America and its democratic design. He spoke of his observations about America in his book, Democracy in America. Tocqueville’s attitudes towards Americans seem to be very appreciative. He saw democracy as a perfect balance between freedom and equality. Yet, while he is appreciative, he is also quite critical of some of the effects of democracy in America. Tocqueville believed that there were some faults with democracy and states them in his book.
Tocqueville, a foreigner, came to the United States to study American prison reform, but was so disgusted with the way our society was and how our government functioned under Jackson that he changed the focus of his study to an analysis of democracy. He saw democracy by our example as “far from accomplishing all it projects with skill” and that “Democracy does not give people the most skillful government.” Jackson’s example of democracy was horrible.
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
But roughly a century later a change in this mindset was given evidence by the French nobleman Alexis de Tocqueville’s sociopolitical work, Democracy in America, which identified the need for and unavoidability of the abolition of slavery and that it was America’s greed that was keeping this from happening. Both Wheatley and Tocqueville show the changing view of slaves and slavery in America within a
“When a country does experience major conflict, such as civil wars or major regime-challenging protests, press freedoms are more closely associated with nonviolent conflict compared to violent conflict” (Why Freedom of Speech Matters). Freedom of expression gives people the chance to speak out toward their government, and express their issues. This makes it simpler for the government to respond to them, decreasing the risk of violence. “I found that when comparing instances of major nonviolent conflict (think Tunisia protests during Arab Spring) and violent conflict (think Syrian civil war), higher levels of press freedoms were strong predictors of nonviolent conflict over violent conflict” (Why Freedom of Speech Matters). With this in mind, there could be more violence toward the government or between the people of the United states, if freedom of expression did not exist.
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.
Dahl conducted his study on the decision making of the Supreme Court and whether the Court exercised its power of judicial review to counter majority will and protect minority rights or if it used the power to ratify the further preferences of the dominant “national law making majority.” From the results of Dahl’s study he builds numerous arguments throughout his article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker”. In what follows, I will thoroughly point out and explain each of the arguments that Dahl constructs in his article.
The political culture that defines American politics shows that despite this compromise, America is still very much a democratic society. 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... ...
Coates, R. E. (1995-99). Freedom of the Press . Retrieved November 12, 2010, from http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1600.htm
The American Court System is an important part of American history and one of the many assets that makes America stand out from other countries. It thrives for justice through its structured and organized court systems. The structures and organizations are widely influenced by both the State and U.S Constitution. The courts have important characters that used their knowledge and roles to aim for equality and justice. These court systems have been influenced since the beginning of the United State of America. Today, these systems and law continue to change and adapt in order to keep and protect the peoples’ rights.
America over time has adopted and organized 27 amendments to regulate people’s actions as legal or illegal. The word “amend” literally means to change; therefore, the government is based off of amended rules and changes. Without activists, it is likely that America’s government would not have been amended to the ideals society follows today. However, these activists make it difficult to establish a national character without conflict. In the Stranger, Meursault becomes momentarily agitated with his lawyer saying, “He didn’t understand me, and he was sort of holding it against me. I felt the urge to reassure him that I was like everybody else, just like everybody else” (Camus 66). Meursault briefly feels pressured to conform; his lawyer persuades him to abandon his own ideas to better the outcome of his trial. Since the 1950s cultures have become accustomed to mass media and mainstream middle class, encouraging conformity. Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America, wrote, "I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America” (Barone). Tocqueville utilizes a negative connotation to emphasize his support for individualism over conformity. Supported by the first amendment, the freedom of speech is given to all American citizens; however, conformist ideals have oppressed individuals for many years. Americans are afraid to speak their mind or stand out, because they are condemned for it. Barone characterizes America by saying, “not only did insistence on a strict self-reliance soften as the 20th century progressed, but many came to fear our rugged individualism was melting into a mediocre conformity.” It is important for society and the individual that the focus transitions back to individual freedom so America, once a great prospering nation, is not characterized as “mediocre” in every day society.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, and Donald A. Cress. The "On Democracy" - "The 'Republican'" Basic Political Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 1987. 179-80.
Americans look to the press to provide the information they need to make informed political choices. How well the press lives up to its responsibility to provide this information has a direct impact upon Americans: how they think about and act upon the issues that confront them.