In Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville, the author provides a comparison between a despot government and a direct democracy. Although Tocqueville begins by affirming the benefits of a despot government in administration, Tocqueville is in favor of a democratic government. Tocqueville argues that democratic liberty, although not as consistent due to its multiple inputs, will outlast and produce a political drive that is lacking within despot governments. However, although not specifically stated in the passage, Tocqueville is not in favor of a direct democracy, but rather a democratic republic, with the comparison acting as a precursor to Tocqueville’s argument for a democratic republic. Ultimately, the comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of a despot government and a …show more content…
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 contrast, a despot's government changes with the death of every leader and it is not a guarantee that the same governance of one despot will continue with the next
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.
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
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
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.
In Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, much is said on the great freedoms experienced by whites, but little does it mention the freedoms experienced by free blacks at the time. It does, however, give a small glimpse of it. In his book, de Tocqueville describes his conversation with an inhabitant of Pennsylvania. He questioned the man, asking how a state founded on Quaker principles could deny a free black to vote. When the man denied such accusation, de Tocqueville asked why no Negro was then seen at the polls that morning. The insulted man replied, “This is not the fault of the law: the negroes have an undisputed right of voting, but they voluntarily abstain from making their appearance.” It is difficult to believe that free blacks had such a right before the ratification of the 15th Amendment, but they did – surely not everywhere but in a few states nonetheless. Thus, it is reasonable to question what other rights free blacks experienced in antebellum America. More importantly it is important to look at the limitations placed on these rights and how blacks overcame them.
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
Alexis de Tocqueville discussed how he believed that majority rules in the United States. He writes about how the majority in America has control over the opinions of the masses and how people do not think for themselves. The latter part of that is true. The masses do not form many of their own opinions but these opinions are not given to them, like Tocqueville says, by the majority. These "ready made opinions" (Tocqueville 11) are given to American people by a powerful few. Tocquville's writing does not apply to the US today because several kinds of minorities wield inordinate amounts of power in modern American society.
...re importantly, it tries to give democracy a good name at a time when democracy, rule by the people, was feared in Europe and the rest of the world. Democracy in America shows us how each society has certain habits that contribute to its definition of democracy. These habits, some of which are good and some bad, check each other to a balance of normalcy in which everyone has opportunity, safety, and potential progress in society. It shows us that democracy incorporates many “habits of the heart” and aggregates them to a common equality, making it an irresistible force in the world. Conversely, the “habits” of the people change over time. So, what Democracy was in America when Tocqueville visited may not be the same as that today or in the future. However, materialism and religion still play key roles in American democracy as a passion and a temper to that passion.
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.
The Founding Fathers did not seek democratic form partially due to a fear of democracy. It was their belief that "democracy, unchecked rule by the masses, is sure to bring arbitrary redistribution of property, destroying the very essence of liberty."3 Jefferson especially feared the label of "democrat," and it can be seen in American books of the time that "democrat" was a "swear-word, by which persons were designated against their will, usually falsely, like persons falsely called communists today."4 Ideas of democracy are most like to occur among the "oppressed and discontented, disinherited aristocracy, and the rising middle class."5 Democracy does not appeal to a privileged class whose privileges are ever increasing.6
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...
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?”
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, and Donald A. Cress. "On Democracy." Basic Political Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 1987. 179-80. Print.