Guest Essayist: Elizabeth Amato

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 673 (start at chapter 8 heading) – 676 of this edition of Democracy in America.

In the final chapter of Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville says that he has one task left—to provide a summative judgment on how democracy, or the equality of conditions, will help or hinder “the lot of man.” In so doing, he provides a robust account of democratic greatness and offers cautious hope for the future of democracy.

Before giving his opinion, De Tocqueville hesitates. He says “I feel my sight becoming blurred and my reason wavering.” He is less confident about this final remaining task.

What prompts this circumspection? New democratic societies, De Tocqueville points out, are “only being born” and so “[t]ime has not yet fixed its form.” Here De Tocqueville revisits (and gently revises) a metaphor he used at the beginning of his book in which he compared newborns and nations. There he boasted that the best way to understand the habits, passions, and characteristics of a man’s maturity was to study him as a child. The whole man was “in the swaddling clothes of his cradle” (1.1.2). Likewise, nations always feel the effect of their origins. The problem that De Tocqueville admits here is that if the “whole” is contained in the beginning, then there’s no room for human freedom to play a role. 

To some extent, the future of democracy is open ended. Much will depend on what Americans choose to do. The character of American democracy could be resentful and small-minded. Or it could be generous and magnanimous. It will be up to particular peoples and statesmen to pursuit the advantages and resist the weaknesses of democracy. 

The principle effect of democracy on society, De Tocqueville observes, is to reduce all extremes. Most people will be of the “middling” sort in terms of wealth, fortune, education, arts, and ambition. Most people will be lifted up but at the cost of lowering the few at the top. The rise of democracy means less individual excellence but much less cruelty and injustice. Education will be more widely diffused throughout the population. Manners and mores will be “mild” and “legislation humane.” 

De Tocqueville makes a confession. He laments this brave new world in which humanity is an “innumerable crowd” of mediocrity; he regrets the passing of aristocratic brilliance. He recognizes that his view is partial and that it is a “weakness.”

In order to correct his limited point of view, De Tocqueville adopts the perspective of God whom he credits as being able to see “the whole human race and each man.” From this divine vantage, De Tocqueville says that democracy is more just and “its justice makes for its greatness and its beauty.” 

The grandeur and nobility of aristocracy that delights De Tocqueville personally, he concedes, comes at the expense of justice. In a democracy, more people get what they merit. Moreover, it is enough for democratic peoples to strive “to be honest and prosperous.”

De Tocqueville turns to consider what should be done. In his own time, reactionaries against democracy and liberalism, out of nostalgia, strove to preserve aristocracy and inequality. Aristocracy, he firmly says, is not coming back.

The political goal, De Tocqueville says, isn’t to cling to the benefits that aristocracy produced but to pivot to “securing the new goods that equality” offers. De Tocqueville’s moderate and humane liberalism teaches the weaknesses of democracy—not to scorn democracy—but in order to guard against them and to obtain the benefits that equality of conditions makes possible. As he prudently advises, “we ought not to strive to make ourselves like our fathers, but strive to attain the kind of greatness and happiness that is proper to us.” 

De Tocqueville is “full of fears and full of hopes” for the future of democracy. Rival ideologies to democracy will emerge that will introduce new and brutal justifications for inequality. With great prescience, De Tocqueville warns against pseudo-scientific justifications for the superiority or inferiority of peoples based on history, race and ethnicity, and geography. He warns his readers against such doctrines and calls them “false and cowardly.” These ideologies will not mark a return to the brilliance and nobility of aristocracy. Rather, they will produce “weak men and pusillanimous nations” as the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century and various racial supremacy doctrines demonstrate.   

De Tocqueville saves his best argument for democracy for the very end. Democracy is not only more just but more accurately mirrors the human condition. Aristocracy is based on an exaggeration of human freedom for a very few and exaggeration of human dependence for the many. The truth is in the middle. Individuals (as well as nations and peoples) are caught in the middle—neither wholly free nor wholly dependent. Every person lives within a “fatal circle” but that circle is expansive. De Tocqueville says “within its vast limits man is powerful and free.” It is up to individuals and nations to reach for the greatness within their grasp. 

Elizabeth Amato earned her B.A. at Berry College and her M.A. and Ph.D. at Baylor University in political science. She is the author of The Pursuit of Happiness and the American Regime: Political Theory in Literature (Lexington Books, 2018). She is currently an Associate Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at Gardner-Webb University.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Philip Bunn

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 666 – 673 of this edition of Democracy in America.

In Chapter 7 of Part 4 of the Second Volume of Democracy in America, Tocqueville rounds out a thought he has been developing in preceding chapters. In Chapter 6, De Tocqueville has told us that democracies have to fear a particular kind of despotism. While the language of “despot” and “despotism” recalls the Caesars and oppressive tyrants, De Tocqueville says that “if despotism came to be established in the democratic nations of our day… it would be more extensive and milder, and it would degrade men without tormenting them” (662). In other words, in a democracy, the despotism most likely to emerge is one of a schoolmaster-like despot, exercising “tutelary power” over a mass of people “who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls” (663). The democratic spirit risks creating a mass of disconnected individuals, each pursuing petty pleasures, and in so doing opening the door for a “paternal power” that “seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood” (663). 

It is important to retread this ground going into chapter 7, because as De Tocqueville tells us, “I believe it is easier to establish an absolute and despotic government in a people where conditions are equal than in any other, and I think that if such a government were once established in a people like this, not only would it oppress men, but in the long term it would rob each of them of several principle attributes of humanity” (666). This introduces two questions: Why are democratic societies particularly vulnerable to despotism? And what are these “principal attributes of humanity” that are lost under such a thoroughgoing despotism? 

Chapter 6, as a preface to Chapter 7, helps us understand the vulnerability of democracies, where conditions are equal: the mass of people are incentivized to pursue petty pleasures at the expense of civic engagement. A political leader in such a circumstance can make his people happy simply by efficiently providing those petty pleasures that they desire, while slowly taking over the reigns of civic life from the people. “So it is,” De Tocqueville says, “that every day it renders the employment of free will less useful and more rare; it confines the action of the will in a smaller space and little by little steals the very use of free will from each citizen” (663). This “free will,” then, seems to be part of the “principal attributes of humanity” that De Tocqueville fears democratic citizens will be robbed of, echoing his earlier concerns from Volume two, Part Two, Chapter 20 on the mental harms done to industrial laborers. 

This process of encroachment by a democratic despot, described in Chapter 6, illuminates De Tocqueville’s concern over a centralized political leadership described in Chapter 7: “It results from the very constitution of democratic nations and their needs that the power of the sovereign must be more uniform, more centralized, more extended, more penetrating, and more powerful in them than elsewhere” (666). In the absence of great persons taking up civic leadership, such as De Tocqueville expects aristocracies to produce, the government takes a more heavy and thoroughgoing administrative hand to ensure the peace and safety of the people. This naturally opens the door for the “absolute and despotic government” that De Tocqueville fears. 

What can be done to both resist tyranny and preserve the “principal attributes of humanity” in such a condition? If hereditary aristocrats are anathema to the democratic condition, perhaps, De Tocqueville reasons, one could “artificially create something analogous” to an aristocratic person (667). Perhaps a pseudo-aristocratic person could be constructed through voluntary association of democratic individuals. De Tocqueville writes, “I firmly believe that one cannot found an aristocracy anew in the world; but I think that when plain citizens associate, they can constitute very opulent, very influential, very strong beings—in a word, aristocratic persons” (668). 

De Tocqueville’s reasoning here mirrors the reasoning Aristotle employs in the Politics when discussing the advantages of rule by the many. True, Aristotle and De Tocqueville together concede, any one person chosen at random may lack the high virtues we might hope for from an educated aristocrat. However, in combination, the weaknesses of any given individual may be buoyed up by the strengths of the many, and the advantages of combined resources will become evident, like everyone pitching in financially for a dinner party better than any one person could purchase. These voluntary associations bring with them a kind of political strength: “A political, industrial, commercial, or even scientific and literary association is an enlightened and powerful citizen whom one can neither bend at will nor oppress in the dark, and who, in defending its particular rights against the exigencies of power, saves common freedoms” (668). This is thus some ground of hope for readers in a generally pessimistic section of the text: associations act as bulwarks against democratic despots, replicating the “greatest political advantages of aristocracy without its injustices or dangers” (668). 

Philip D. Bunn is an assistant professor of political science at Covenant College in Lookout Mountain, Georgia. His research has been published in Political Research Quarterly and American Political Thought, and his reviews and essays have appeared in The Review of Politics, Plough Quarterly, Current, and The University Bookman, among other publications.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayisy: William Duncan

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 661 (start at chapter 6 heading) -665 of this edition of Democracy in America.

Alexis de Tocqueville is known as the most perceptive observer of the United States in the 19th Century, but at the end of volume two of Democracy in America, he demonstrates another, and perhaps even more remarkable, gift—foresight.

Specifically, while in the United States, De Tocqueville observed some tendencies that he thought could lead to a form of government that then seemed confined only to the past, despotism. Despotism is a loaded term. It refers to a government system where a single person or group exercises all power but usually indicates an arbitrary and oppressive system characterized by violence and repression.

De Tocqueville’s unique insight was that a form of despotism was possible even in democratic societies where people choose their own leaders.

In fact, ancient despotisms, like the Roman Empire, had natural limits on their power. Though a Caesar could exercise arbitrary power, the actual scope of the ruler’s power would be limited by differences in the groups of people he ruled and the wide scope of the territories they administered. They could make life miserable for some people or groups but others could exist without much direct interaction with the ruler.

By contrast, the despotism that arose in democratic nations “would be more extensive and milder and it would degrade men without tormenting them.” More people would be impacted by centralized authority but those who exercised that authority would usually not do so in the violent and extreme ways that we would usually associate with despotic government like Hitler’s Germany.

Democratic nations could “penetrate the sphere of private interests more habitually and more deeply” than ancient tyrants could. In other words, the variety of different institutions that provide identity and purpose to individuals—like family, community, and religion—would become less important as people become more alike. This would allow government more direct access to its citizens, but it also meant governments would shy away from extreme forms of repression, at least most of the time.

Citizens of democracies, De Tocqueville believed, would themselves become less likely to have extreme aspirations and habits. Thus, the new centralization of power they experienced would be unlike any that had existed before. What would it look like? 

In the then-future democratic society, people would be interested largely in pursuing their own self-interest. Though they live around many others, they would largely be isolated, except perhaps for immediate family and a few close friends.

Above these citizens, however, would be an “immense tutelary power” or as we might say a “nanny state.” The government would promise to ensure citizens could enjoy what they wanted and would look after them. To do so, its power would be highly centralized: “absolute, detailed, regular, far-seeing.” Unlike a parent preparing children to become adults, “it seems only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes citizens to enjoy themselves provided that they think only of enjoying themselves.

In exchange for securing the happiness and security of citizens and providing for their needs, it would exercise complete authority over everything they did. Thus, individual choice would be more constrained and less relevant because government would regulate all of society “with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform roles.”

This allows government to shape citizens without force, but it also means people will have less significant responsibilities for themselves so that they all become “nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.” 

This does not require doing away with elections of the forms of self-government. In fact, it will be more effective if people believe they are choosing their own “schoolmasters” and thus absolute, centralized power is really a manifestation of their choice.

This is still, however, a despotism because the way absolute power is exercised, De Tocqueville argues, is not as important as the fact that government demands total obedience. It is still better than a crude dictatorship, of course, but those who are subject to a mild despotism are still servants to a centralized state. 

As an aside, De Tocqueville explains that the consequence of relinquishing big choices is that citizens lose their capacity to wisely exercise choices about whom will govern.

It has now been almost two hundred years since De Tocqueville shared his prediction. How has it held up?

Some aspects of his analysis seem remarkably prescient: many people feel more isolated, traditional supports like family and community are weaker, and centralized government affects our lives far more than it did in his time. 

So, are we less free? Is our government a soft despotism?

These are important questions. If the answer is yes, we face a stark choice. De Tocqueville framed it at the end of the chapter—we can “create freer institutions” or “return to lying at the feet of a single master.” 

 

Mr. Duncan has worked as an adjunct professor teaching family law and has published dozens of articles in legal journals. He has filed briefs in constitutional cases in the U.S. Supreme Court, most of the U.S. Courts of Appeal, and state appellate courts. He is a graduate of the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Robert Elder

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 651 – 661 (stop at chapter 6 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

Nearly two centuries after he wrote it De Tocqueville’s conclusion about the democratizing states of Europe in his day— “each step they take toward equality brings them closer to despotism”—still crackles with provocation. De Tocqueville claimed that he was only observing the phenomenon he described, not passing judgment, and yet his description is tinged with the same apprehension that colors the rest of the second volume. 

De Tocqueville described two seemingly contradictory trends that were transforming the nineteenth century world, or at least the United States and Europe. On the one hand, European monarchies and the aristocratic societies that supported them were being dismantled by the forces of equality and democracy rippling out from the Atlantic Revolutions at the end of the eighteenth century. The central ideal of this historical sea change, De Tocqueville argued, was equality. To achieve this end nations across the western hemisphere were busy reconfiguring their governments and societies in ways that made their citizens more alike in rights and responsibilities but which also and necessarily increased the centralized nature and power of the governments that secured this sameness. Instead of the archipelago of special rights, privileges, and administrative duties that characterized the aristocratic society of the eighteenth century, in which the local lord, the church, or the city council had authority over discrete geographies and narrow areas of life, but no one authority (even the monarch) could claim authority over all, in the new reality a centralized state took responsibility everywhere and over everything, reaching unmediated into the most mundane areas of each individual citizen’s life. “Everywhere the state comes more and more to direct the least citizens by itself,” De Tocqueville wrote, “and alone to conduct each of them in the least affairs.” Already states had taken responsibility for the education of their citizens, De Tocqueville observed, and even charity, long the province of private associations, the church, or individual largesse, was now coming to be seen as a responsibility of the state. 

While these developments undoubtedly furthered equality, they did not necessarily further individual freedom, and De Tocqueville saw in them the possibility of a creeping authoritarianism. “Most of our princes,” he wrote, “not only want to direct the people as a whole; one would say that they judge themselves responsible of the actions and the individual destinies of their subjects, that they have undertaken to guide and enlighten each of them in the different acts of his life and, if need be, to render him happy despite himself.” To accomplish this, governmental bureaucracies were growing at a frightening pace, becoming both more efficient and more intrusive. Even what De Tocqueville called “industry,” especially engineering, construction, and manufacturing, was developing a reciprocal and dependent relationship with these new democratic governments since economic development accessible to all demanded “roads, canals, ports, and other works of a semipublic nature” in addition to the materials of war on a massive new scale. “Thus it is that in each realm the sovereign becomes the greatest industrialist,” De Tocqueville wrote.

Taking all this in, De Tocqueville believed that in pursuit of equality the citizens of the democratic nations in the nineteenth century were unwittingly creating more powerful, more centralized, and potentially more despotic governments than the ones they had overthrown. The result of this process, he feared, would be that “the same men who from time to time overturn a throne and ride rough shod over kings bend more and more without resistance to the slightest will of a clerk.

Was De Tocqueville right about the changes in his world, which is now ours? From the vantage point of nearly two hundred years, he seems both prescient and overly pessimistic, depending on where we look. 

De Tocqueville’s fear that centralization in pursuit of equality would actually decrease individual freedom has sometimes proven wrong. For instance, with the passage of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments in the years immediately following the Civil War, the United States government undertook to directly guarantee the rights and freedoms of people recently freed from slavery, bypassing the local and state governments that had traditionally granted rights in the American system. In this case, at least, it seems that centralization and a pursuit of equality unquestionably produced more individual freedom, not less.        

On the other hand, the twentieth century apotheosis of De Tocqueville’s fears can be seen in Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union, where the ideological pursuit of perfect equality curdled into cold bureaucratic tyranny. Or in Dwight Eisenhower’s famous warning about the threat of a military-industrial complex after World War II, which echoed De Tocqueville’s observation about the growing interdependence of government and industry, especially weapons manufacturing, in the new states of his day. Over-regulation and under-regulation are evergreen issues in American and European politics, and we refer dismissively to “red tape” in some areas of life and work while we demand more government regulation in others. Considering these examples, De Tocqueville seems remarkably farsighted about the direction of the trends he described, which is why we keep reading him. 

Dr. Robert Elder is an associate professor of history at Baylor University, specializing in the American South, the Civil War era, and intellectual and religious history. He is the author of The Sacred Mirror: Evangelicalism, Honor, and Identity in the American South (UNC Press, 2016) and Calhoun: American Heretic (Basic Books, 2021). He is currently working on a book about the Nullification Crisis. 

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Andrew Bibby

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 646 – 650 of this edition of Democracy in America.

 

Introduction 

American federalism is often seen as one of the great innovations of American Constitution writing. It has often been observed that the United States system of decentralized federalism is the key to understanding American freedom. But federalism is not merely an institution, or a set of procedural power sharing agreements. 

According to De Tocqueville, it is also a cultural phenomenon, a way of life. Federalism grew out of a complex interplay of factors, including history, accident, and the legislative genius of the American framers. American decentralized federalism is therefore both an object of political science (because it can be studied empirically) and political culture, because it involves the habits and mores of a democratic culture. It involves  “thinking federal,” as the federalism scholar Daniel J. Elazar would say. In Part Four of Volume Two, De Tocqueville looks at the main threats to American federalism, both as an institution and as a way of life. 

The Danger of Centralization 

De Tocqueville’s insights on the dangers to American federalism appear in Chapter 4, titled “On some particular and accidental causes that serve to bring a democratic people to centralize power or turn it away from that.” 

According to De Tocqueville, centralization is a danger to all democratic societies. But it is not equally dangerous in all ways. “If all democratic peoples are instinctively drawn toward the centralization of powers, they tend to it in an unequal manner” (II.4.4. P. 646). 

Some democratic peoples tend to “rush toward the center” from an early period in their transition to an equal social state (II.4.4). Others resist the centralizing pull longer. Why do some countries fall faster toward the temptations of a single state apparatus, while others are able to resist that temptation? To answer that question, De Tocqueville provides a summary account of five causes of centralization. 

The Causes of Centralization 

De Tocqueville lists four main “accidents” and one “primary” cause of democratic centralization. The first four causes are: 1) violent revolution; 2) a lack of aristocracy or “intermediate powers”; 3) a lack of general education (in De Tocqueville’s words, a lack of Enlightenment); 4) war. The “primary cause” is a love of equality. 

Revolution

Not all revolutions are equal. Some revolutions, De Tocqueville observes, lead to extreme centralization (a “rush towards the center”). This can happen if the people are not accustomed to political freedom and basic liberties, as was the case in the English colonies: 

“The English who came three centuries ago found a democratic society in the wilderness of the New World…had all been habituated in the mother country to take part in public affairs; they knew the jury; they had freedom of speech and of the press, individual freedom, the idea of right and the practice of resorting to it. They transported these free institutions and virile mores to America, and these sustained them against the encroachments of the state.” 

France, by contrast, experienced a rapid onset of equality – without having first gone through the trials of modern freedom. If we were to translate De Tocqueville’s argument into modern political science jargon, we would say that the English went through a process of liberalization previous to its experiment with democratization. By contrast, the French Revolution is an example of extreme democratization without liberalization. 

Voluntary Associations

Extreme centralization can occur when there is a lack of voluntary associations, an independent middle class, and a respect for certain kinds of intermediate powers (see p. 647). De Tocqueville is especially critical of class warfare, which springs from the desire to eliminate rival factions. This desire to eliminate all class differences in society is harmful because it weakens local institutions, while tending to transfer administrative rule from “all points of the circumference to the center.” The desire to eliminate inequality, in all its forms, also sets up a master-slave dynamic between friends and neighbors. The obsession with equality trains citizens to “dread and hate one another.” In modern social science language, De Tocqueville  is describing what is now called “affective polarization.” Centralization is more likely in highly polarized societies because rival factions fear and loathe the other side, and thus feel more compelled to “call in the sovereign” to take over the (messy) details of local and provincial or state government. 

Education and Ignorance

De Tocqueville also links ignorance, or a lack of education, to centralization (see p. 649). A society that values intelligence, science, and art (p. 648) is one that will have more independent thinkers. More independence of thought is necessary for the creation of “secondary powers.” These “free associations” resist centralization and are useful to a society because they are “in a position to struggle against tyranny without destroying order.” 

War

Finally, De Tocqueville mentions war. De Tocqueville does not deny that extreme centralization is useful in some circumstances. Indeed, the main advantage of highly unitary states is that they are capable of “great undertakings” (p. 649). And that is the problem. Societies that are highly centralized are able to bring “all of one’s resources rapidly” to bear on a certain point. But success in war tends to lead to more centralization. In De Tocqueville’s memorable phrase: 

“It is principally war that people feel the desire to“increase the prerogatives of the central power. All geniuses of war love centralization, which increases their strength, and all centralizing geniuses love war, which obliges nations to draw tight all powers in the hands of the state.” 

Summary

De Tocqueville’s analysis of the causes of centralization are compelling, and should receive more attention than it does. However, De Tocqueville ends with a caveat. The four causes of centralization are “accidental” and circumstantial. Today we would say, probabilistic. Over-centralization and tyranny are not certain, but only more likely, if these causes are present. No single cause will set a nation on a path-dependent trajectory to administrative despotism. 

The most important concept to understand, De Tocqueville concludes, is the love of equality.  A nation that loves equality must face the fact that the pull of centralization and authoritarianism is often stronger than the pull of decentralization and freedom. In the long run, the temptations of centralization may be impossible to resist, especially in times of war or emergency; in an era of high social polarization; when the habits of liberty are taken for granted or forgotten; and when a nation ceases to place a premium on intelligence and education.

Andrew Bibby is an Assistant Professor in the Political Science and History Department at Utah Valley University. He serves as Associate Director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at Utah Valley University and is the director of the Federalism Index Project.

He has published in various outlets, including the Wall Street Journal. Andy has taught classes in classical and modern political philosophy, American literature, and American political thought. He has research interests in modern political theory, political economy, and American federalism. He is the author of Montesquieu’s Political Economy and Rival Visions: How Jefferson and His Contemporaries Defined the Early American Republic.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Randolph May

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 643 (start with chapter 3 heading) – 645 of this edition of Democracy in America.

Perhaps more than anything else, De Tocqueville is remembered for his observation that early Americans were inclined to participate in many voluntary associations. In one of the most oft-quoted passages from Democracy in America, De Tocqueville reported that “Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions constantly form associations.” These include “not only commercial and manufacturing companies, in which all take part, but associations of a thousand other kinds – religious, moral, serious, futile, general or restricted, enormous or diminutive.

For De Tocqueville – at least for the traveling reportorial De Tocqueville – this proclivity to engage in all manner of voluntary associational activity created an optimistic cast for the future of democracy in America. Not only would such “habits of the heart” satisfy what De Tocqueville considered to be an innate need of individuals to lead fulfilling lives, but they ought to reduce the need for the government to play as large a role in supporting the populace as would otherwise be the case.

But De Tocqueville the political philosopher painted a distinctly different, darker picture. While acknowledging the positive mediating role of associational activity, De Tocqueville predicted, presciently, that modern democracies inevitably would tend towards a centralization of power that would threaten individual liberty. In this chapter, “That the Sentiments of Democratic Peoples Are in Accord with Their Ideas in Bringing Them to Concentrate Power,” De Tocqueville starkly proclaimed that, in the future, “Centralization will be the natural government.

Why did De Tocqueville boldly predict that government power would become ever more centralized? The answer lies in the opening to this chapter: “If, in centuries of equality, men easily perceive the idea of a great central power, one cannot doubt, moreover, that their habits and sentiments predispose to recognize such power and lend it a hand.” Here, and in other chapters too, De Tocqueville highlighted man’s natural striving, especially in democratic societies, to achieve ever greater degrees of what he called “equality of condition.”

But he understood – and this is key – that human nature is such that some men, by virtue of their greater innate personal pride, will always seek to gain an advantage that will allow them to surpass others, to rise above the common line of equality.

And, for De Tocqueville, it is this inexorable, yet natural, tendency in democracies for men to struggle for equality of condition that inevitably will lead to centralization of government power. For only a strong government, De Tocqueville claimed, will possess the power, through imposition of what he called “a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules,” (II, 4, 6) to restrain those who seek to rise above the uniformity of the crowd. So, to enforce the uniformity that the “equality principle” encourages, the citizenry will call for ever more centralized government. And, concomitantly, the central government favors equality, for it “singularly facilitates the action of such a power, extends it, and secures it.” 

Here is how De Tocqueville, in this chapter, explains the willingness of the populace to cede power – and concomitantly a measure of individual freedom – to the government: “The sovereign, being necessarily above all citizens and uncontested, does not excite the envy of any of them, and each believes he deprives his equals of all the prerogatives he concedes to it.” And so “every central power adores uniformity,” because it “spares it the examination of an infinity of details with which it would have to occupy itself if it were necessary to make a rule for men, instead of making all men pass indiscriminately under the same rule.”

It’s not difficult to discern the relevance of De Tocqueville’s views regarding “equality” and centralization of power to the reality of contemporary America. De Tocqueville, in referring to “equality of condition,” did not explicitly distinguish, as we often do today, between “equality of opportunity” and “equality of outcome.” There are many individuals and special interest groups advocating for the latter, of course. And their success has led governments at all levels to adopt various forms of “affirmative action” programs and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, many of which, in efforts to achieve “equality of outcome,” naturally depend on government compulsion for enforcement.

My purpose in this essay is not to debate the merits of any particular government program whose objective is to achieve “equality of outcome” rather than “equality of opportunity.” Rather it is to say that I think De Tocqueville, were he alive today, would not be surprised that the powerful “equality” imperative that he foresaw has been responsible, at least in part, for the increasing centralization of power in America at the expense of individual liberty.

But I suspect De Tocqueville would suggest that a counter to such centralization lies in nurturing and supporting private voluntary associations such as those he observed on his travels through America in 1831 and 1832. Elsewhere in Democracy in America (II, 2, 5), he asked, “what political power would ever be in a state to suffice for the innumerable multitude of small undertakings that Americans execute every day with the aid of an association?

I bet De Tocqueville would answer his rhetorical question: “None!”

Randolph May is President of the Free State Foundation, a free market-oriented think tank in Rockville, MD. 

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Edward Lee


Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 640 (start at chapter 2 heading) – 643 (stop at chapter 3 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

In 1831, twenty-six year old Alexis de Tocqueville found the United States to be a nation of 13,000,000 inhabitants, experiencing the early years of the Age of Jackson. As he surveyed the democratic character of America taking root in a land of considerable natural wealth,  the young Frenchman reached several conclusions about democratic peoples and their government. 

Coordination of power and authority should be exercised by competent, trustworthy, and confident leadership. De Tocqueville explains his belief that such efficiency will create an effective government “in which all the citizens resemble a single model and are directed by a single power” (640). The government will be lean and well-disciplined, with unity among its people. Slothful bureaucracy will be resisted in favor of responsive action. 

At the core of such a democratic model, however, is the requirement that government must wield its authority equally and fairly, impacting everyone without partiality or bias. De Tocqueville warns that “unfair rule equally imposed on all members of the social body is foreign…to the human mind in aristocratic centuries. It does not receive it or it rejects it” (641). Thus, concentrated governmental power must not be dictatorial or laced with favoritism. Rather, “its duty as well as its right is to take each citizen by the hand and lead him”(641). Trust is essential.

Democratic peoples deserve governments which display this adherence to fairness and objectivity. Patience and uniformity in the exercise of power are necessary because “governments exhaust themselves to impose the same usages and the same laws on populations that do not yet resemble each other” (641). Among democratic peoples, De Tocqueville suggests, “privileges of society” (641) overshadow individuals, who become “lost in the crowd” (641).  Common goals, society’s goals, are supreme because they strengthen everyone and promote collegiality. 

Democratic peoples adhere to and accept their governments’ mandates because there is a widespread realization that the people, ultimately, remain supreme, willfully endorsing and accepting displays of power by governments. De Tocqueville notes, “all conceive the government in the image of a lone, simple, providential, and creative power” (642). Positive results are produced by this arrangement because it yields tangible energy, efficiency, fairness, and allegiance to democracy’s tenets. Our French visitor stresses that “the government and those governing are in accord in pursuing it with the same ardor; it comes first, it seems innate” (642). A partnership, favorable to all, is established among the democratic peoples and their governments. 

This power partnership operates well because the people realize and accept that concentration of power in governmental hands strengthens society. Security, responsiveness, sensible use of resources, progress, and adherence to democracy become inter-related by such a beneficial arrangement. Our visitor concluded optimistically that this sleek governmental model “is a natural condition of the current state of men” (642). It displays long term benefits for both government and the governed. 

Dr. Edward Lee is a 40 year veteran of the university classroom. He has won several awards for his exemplary teaching, including a Presidential Citation in 1996 for his pioneer work with distance education. He is the author or co-author of 21 books, including 4 about America and the conflict in Vietnam. His commentary has appeared on Fox News, CNN, NBC News, and National Public Radio.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Benjamin Slomski

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 639 – 640 (stop at chapter 2 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

Today’s chapter begins the last part of Democracy in America. To conclude, De Tocqueville will reflect on the practical effects that the doctrine of equality produces in human government. The chapter begins with a restatement of De Tocqueville’s assessment of the promises and dangers of equality: “Equality, which renders men independent of one another, makes them contract the habit and taste of following their will alone in their particular actions.” Under equal conditions, individuals are completely independent and become suspicious of all forms of authority. This fact of independence “suggests to them the idea and love of political freedom.” The natural result of equality is that people come to cherish political freedom on an instinctual level. If a random person from democratic society is placed in a state of nature outside government, he will first think of and favor a government that he can elect and control.

De Tocqueville is not entirely sanguine about the desire for political freedom. This love of independence, out of the many political effects of equality, “most frightens timid spirits, and one cannot say that they are absolutely wrong to be so.” These timid spirits are not absolutely wrong to be frightened because independence can lead to anarchy, which has worse results in democratic countries. De Tocqueville describes the process by which independence can result in anarchy:

As citizens do not have any influence over one another, it seems that disorder will immediately go to the limit at the instant when the national power keeping them all in place happens to fail, and that, as each citizen strays off in his own direction, the social body is going to be reduced to dust all at once.

Two qualifications are needed for the possible situation De Tocqueville lays out. First, what he describes is not a fact, a guaranteed outcome that cannot be avoided, but only seems to be a potential result. Second, De Tocqueville’s claim seems only to be that citizens do not have a direct political influence over each other. This says nothing about the social influences citizens can exert over one another.

De Tocqueville is indeed less concerned about the tendency of independence to produce anarchy. He declares that “I am convinced that anarchy is not the principal evil that democratic centuries will have to fear, but the least.” There is of course something frightening if anarchy like the French Revolution is the least of the evils that democratic centuries must fear. Yet it is the least of the evils because it is the least likely to occur. There are two distinct tendencies caused by equality. The first is the previously identified one that leads people to independence and can produce anarchy. The second “conducts them by a longer, more secret, but surer path toward servitude.” This second tendency is the new, democratic version of despotism that develops out of individualism that De Tocqueville has foreshadowed throughout the work and will discuss in this final section. It is not hard for people to recognize the tendency toward anarchy, with its extreme conditions, and to defeat it. The tendency toward soft despotism, however, is less perceptible and can move people until it is too late, making it more dangerous. Citizens can be swept along by the growth of centralized administration until they have lost the will to govern themselves.

De Tocqueville concludes this chapter with a passage that could serve as an interpretive key to the whole work:

For me, far from reproaching equality for the intractability it inspires, I praise it principally for that. I admire it as I see it deposit that obscure notion and instinctive penchant for political independence at the bottom of the mind and heart of each man, thus preparing the remedy for the evil to which it gives birth. It is on this side that I cling to it.

To read De Tocqueville as a critic of democracy is to read him wrongly. He is searching for workable solutions to the new problems that will arise in a new type of regime. The love of political freedom created by equality imparts a seed in citizens that can be used to resist the soft despotism that threatens their independence. The notion for independence can become obscure over time and buried deeply, yet it remains almost like a raw instinct. This instinct to love free institutions is the best answer to the problem De Tocqueville raises. Equality is a providential fact that cannot be avoided, but produces possible dangers. In order for democracy to work, the tendency toward independence must be cultivated in a healthy manner that forever guards against the tendency toward democratic despotism. Equality gives people the gift of loving political freedom, which can be used to promote the best tendencies of democracy.

 

Benjamin Slomski is an Assistant Professor of Political Science and Campus Pre-Law Advisor at Purdue University Fort Wayne. He earned his PhD from Baylor University and his teaching and research focus on American political thought, constitutional law, and political institutions. He previously taught at Ashland University, Tarleton State University, and Baylor University.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Paul Schwennesen

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 626 – 635 of this edition of Democracy in America.

Alexis de Tocqueville is most famous (in America anyway) for his observations on our democratic republic, and for good reason—he was especially gifted in observing the nuances of social evolution and those of the American experiment in particular. But America, per se, was not the center of his attention – rather, he was more interested in the evolution of Old-World culture as “democracy” dragged it from its traditional aristocratic past, and he looked to America as a kind of case study for aspects of what Europe might reasonably expect.

One subject upon which this evolution touched was that most venerable of European activities—Warfare. Carl von Clausewitz’s On War, published in 1832, preceded Democracy in America by only a few years and it touched on many of the same themes—in particular the changes Europe faced from the democratic revolutions springing from France, and the subsequent military imperialism of Napoleon Bonaparte.

War was (and is) a convoluted subject to be sure, and was certainly not confined to the Old World, but Alexis believed that American democracy offered a distinct vantage point with which to assess ancient military traditions. He felt that differently structured societies approached war in fundamentally different ways. In aristocracies (of which he was intimately familiar), war was the purview of the landed class with its rigid hierarchical structures. In democracies, however, he believed that war tended to be a less professional but ultimately more sustainable enterprise, since winning or losing had greater implications for a democratic society accustomed to greater equality and broader wealth distribution. One might loosely say that war in aristocratic regimes was the purview of the rich, while war in democracies was the purview of the middle class (the poor, of course, suffered equally).

He observed that democratic armies possessed less “natural obedience” compared to the slavishly docile soldiers of an aristocratic army which, though it was a “very formidable animal trained for war,” lacked essential staying power.  “Democratic peoples,” on the other hand, “must despair of ever obtaining from their soldiers the blind, minute, resigned, and always equable obedience that aristocratic peoples impose on theirs without trouble.” Aristocratic armies had an advantage in short, overwhelming campaigns while democratic armies had an advantage in long campaigns that required a strong economic base. Democratic armies, he wrote, tended to be filled with “intelligent troops, who know what they are fighting for” and their troops, he noted, will “stiffen with resolve when they understand the threat.”

Nearly a century after he drafted these observations, one could see elements of this at play in the First World War which pitted the aristocrat-heavy ranks of the German Wermacht against the famously unruly Americans. “The prevailing opinion in Germany before our entry into war,” wrote Karl Finkl von Bolingen, “was that America was a money hunting nation, too engrossed in the hunt of the dollar to produce a strong military force. But since our troops have been in action, the opinion has changed…[we] would be victors in a war with any nation in the world with the exemption of the United States.” Walter von Minderlittgen wrote that, “the attitude of the American officer toward enlisted men, is very different than in our army in which officers have always treated their men as cattle.”

The phenomenon can even be observed in the Ukraine conflict today. Ukrainian society has evolved in a considerably more democratic direction than its autocratic Russian cousin, which, while technically not aristocratic, retains many of its heavily hierarchical elements. In the Russian army, soldiers are considered expendable and sent to the front lines in semi-suicidal “meat waves” –treated by their commanders every bit like the “cattle” of an aristocratic regime. The Ukrainian army, meanwhile, while trying to shed the last vestiges of Soviet-style tactics, is markedly more egalitarian and less reliant on “blind, minute, resigned” obedience. 

De Tocqueville was on to something: the structure of a society enormously influences the structure of its military, with important implications on a nation’s ability to sustain defensive and offensive operations. Some of his observations, applied in the American context today, might rightly cause us pause: he says, for instance, that “in democratic nations, in times of peace, a military career is little honored and ill pursued.” This is clearly no longer the case, where today the military is one of the most highly regarded national institutions. Does this mean that De Tocqueville’s observations on democratic armies were flawed in some way? Or does it mean, more provocatively, that America has strayed from its earlier democratic forms? There is good reason to think the latter, and De Tocqueville himself points out just how such a thing comes to pass: 

There is no long war that does not put freedom at great risk in a democratic country… 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 inevitably 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.

And yes, America has had its share of long wars, and it seems appropriate to wonder aloud whether the military success enjoyed by our “democratic armies” since World War II has not, in some deep and lasting way, altered the trajectory of the republic itself.

Dr. Paul Schwennesen is an environmental historian and military affairs analyst. His major research interests are in the geopolitics of liberty and the environmental and transatlantic history of the 16th century, with special focus on the entradas of De Soto and Coronado into North America, 1539-1542. He holds a PhD from the University of Kansas, a Master’s degree in Government from Harvard University, and degrees in History and Science from the United States Air Force Academy. Paul served ten years in the US military in weapons-systems acquisition, foreign area intelligence, and flightline operations which included deployments to Central America and Afghanistan. In 2022 he volunteered in Ukraine to provide civilian aid and combat training on the frontlines against the Russian invasion. He was presented with the Verhkhovna Rada medal by the Ukrainian Parliament for “Merit to the Ukrainian People.” He is a regular contributor to the American Institute for Economic Research, and his writing has appeared at the New York Times, American Spectator, Claremont Review, and in textbooks on environmental ethics (Oxford University Press and McGraw-Hill).

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: James Robbins

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 617 (start at chapter 22 heading) – 625 of this edition of Democracy in America.

In Chapters 22 and 23 of Part 2 of Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville addressed the proper role of military affairs in a democracy. In his time as today, the limits of military power in politics are an important concern. De Tocqueville was born during the rule of Napoleon Bonaparte, a General who had overthrown the French First Republic and made himself Emperor. When De Tocqueville was still a child, he saw Napoleon’s downfall and the restoration of a constitutional monarchy in France. His experience helped shape his views on how a democracy can be undermined by the ambitions of men in uniform.

In Chapter 22, De Tocqueville noted that democracies are generally interested in living at peace with their neighbors. He wrote that “amongst civilized nations, the warlike passions will become more rare and less intense in proportion as social conditions shall be more equal.” Ideas such as this would later evolve into concepts like the democratic peace theory, i.e., since democracies seldom go to war with each other, a more democratic world will necessarily be more stable and peaceful.
However, since “war is nevertheless an occurrence to which all nations are subject,” even peaceful democratic nations “must hold themselves in readiness to repel aggression” with some form of standing military force. This force can pose problems for democratic governments.

De Tocqueville writes that in some cases ambition among officers may create a desire to go to war to seek promotion through acts of valor. And while such wars may have advantages, they can also be dangerous. Wars can endanger freedom in democracies by increasing the power of government, and protracted wars in particular are a threat to maintaining liberty. “There are two things which a democratic people will always find very difficult,” De Tocqueville writes, “to begin a war, and to end it.”

In Chapter 23, De Tocqueville notes that these tendencies can be compounded by the character of democratic armies, which are fundamentally different from those in aristocracies. In aristocratic societies, with their firm class divisions, officers are typically drawn from the nobility, who have important interests in maintaining the status quo. In democracies, officers often come from the middle or lower classes, who may have more ambition to improve their station in life. This ambition makes them more likely to support revolutionary changes that could improve their opportunities and status. As noted above, this may mean support for war as a vehicle for achieving fame, honor, and promotion, things which can be elusive in peacetime.

The remedy for these challenges, De Tocqueville says, “is not to be found in the army itself, but in the country.” That is, the citizen-soldiers who make up the largest part of the military are also those who are most habituated to freedom, and who want to maintain it. “Upon them the habits of the nation have the firmest hold,” De Tocqueville writes. Through them “it may be possible to infuse into a democratic army the love of freedom and the respect of rights” which reflect the country as a whole.
The United States of the 1830s was less threatened than some European states by these power dynamics. De Tocqueville notes that America had the benefit of being removed from European affairs, bounded by vast oceans and having (with some exceptions) generally peaceful relations with its neighbors. This meant that the United States did not require a vast standing army to secure its borders. Only a small regular force was needed, and in time of emergency the county could quickly mobilize the type of citizen militias that were most sympathetic to maintaining freedom.

Like De Tocqueville, the Founding Fathers were also concerned about the potential threat from a large standing military. In the Constitution they provided a variety of checks and balances on military power to keep control firmly in civilian hands. This included making the President the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, giving Congress control over military appropriations, and also reserving to Congress the power to declare war.
There was also the example of George Washington, who represented the ideal of the American citizen-soldier. He had left his farm at Mt. Vernon to take command of the Continental Army during the American Revolution, after which he returned to civilian life, and later to the presidency. Washington set an example of service and conduct for an American officer, who was expected to be professional, capable, and apolitical. This ethos became a guiding spirit in the American military that has persisted to the current day.

De Tocqueville’s analysis of civil-military relations in a democracy continues to offer valuable perspectives on the interplay between politics, military service, and social mobility. While the United States has been able to maintain its democratic character even with the vast growth of its military and responsibilities for global leadership, the corrosive power dynamics that De Tocqueville wrote about remain a challenge to free countries. Constant vigilance is required to ensure that the forces needed to defend freedom do not become the means to undermine and destroy it.

 

Dr. Robbins is a former special assistant in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and in 2007 was awarded the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Meritorious Civilian Service Award.

He is also the former award-winning Senior Editorial Writer for Foreign Affairs at The Washington Times. His work has also appeared in The Wall Street Journal, National Review, and other publications. He appears regularly on national and international television and radio.

Dr. Robbins holds a Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and has taught at the National Defense University and Marine Corps University, among other schools. His research interests include terrorism and national security strategy, political theory and military history.

Dr. Robbins is the author of five books, including The Real Custer: From Boy General to Tragic Hero, This Time We Win: Revisiting the Tet Offensive, and the critically acclaimed Last in Their Class: Custer, Pickett and the Goats of West Point.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Gary Wolfram

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 606 (start at chapteer 21 heading) – 617 (stop at chapter 22 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

As Rosenberg and Birdzell discuss in their book, How the West Grew Rich, over the course of centuries the economic structure of Western Europe gradually moved from a feudal system to what is essentially market capitalism. De Tocqueville’s observation of how economic and political systems are related leads him to the observation that a society that has made the transition to a market-based economy, where individuals are able to escape poverty and become wealthy, will be politically stable and that in the America of his time, which had made this transition, democracy will surely not be overthrown through a violent revolution.

De Tocqueville notes that “almost every revolution that has changed the shape of nations has been made to consolidate or destroy inequality.” When talking about inequality he is referring to a political and economic system where the impoverished masses do not have a mechanism to improve their economic condition without a revolution to overthrow the aristocracy.

It is interesting that the Civil War was in a sense a revolution that attempted to “consolidate inequality” of the black population. De Tocqueville notes that if there is a revolution in America it will be due to the inequality of blacks.

The American economy of De Tocqueville’s time had evolved into a market capitalist system. Because such a system is based on voluntary exchange, you cannot force anyone to buy your product or service. When any exchange happens both parties must be better off. It also requires property rights.  I need to know that when we make an exchange, the property we are exchanging belongs to the person we are making the trade with. Property rights also establish a sphere of free action for the individual where government cannot interfere. An example is the 4th amendment of the American constitution which prohibits unlawful search and seizure. 

A market system requires a government that can enforce property rights. However, the government will be limited to the protection of property rights.  The condition of the rule of law is that there must be certainty regarding what government can do and there must be a sense of justice with the law.

De Tocqueville makes the point that violent revolutions become rare when the people are able to obtain property, and that trade (or voluntary exchange) “is the natural enemy of all violent passions.” The more property is widely held and distributed the less likely there is to be a revolution, since a revolution is likely to threaten the average person’s property holdings. 

Ludwig von Mises in his 1927 book, Liberalism in the Classical Tradition, explained that capitalism is the only economic system that can produce wealth for the masses. This system that allows people to escape poverty is what De Tocqueville observed in the America of the mid-19th century.

The Fraser Foundation has an annual Index of Economic Freedom where countries are ranked according to how supportive they are of economic freedom. In the countries that are in the top 25% of the rankings, the income of people in the bottom 10% of the income distribution is eight times greater than those in the bottom 10% of the income distribution in countries in the bottom 25% of the index. Following Tocqueville’s logic, we would not expect revolutions to occur in countries such as Canada, the U.S. or Switzerland, whereas we might expect them in places like Sudan or Libya.

There is a good deal of mobility of wealth in market capitalism. An American Enterprise Institute paper found that 73% of Americans are in the top 20% of the income distribution for at least a year. Thus, if you are at the bottom of the income distribution, you will still be opposed to a violent revolution. As De Tocqueville put it in discussing that the effect of trade on individuals: “it leads them to want to manage their own affairs and teaches them how to succeed therein. Hence it makes them inclined to liberty but disinclined to revolution.” 

Democracy is a relatively inexpensive way to change governments. No government can survive if it does not have the support of the people. Democracy provides a way to change governments that does not require the enormous costs of revolution. The connection between a market economy, democracy, and a peaceful society that De Tocqueville observed still holds today.

Dr. Gary Wolfram serves as the William E. Simon Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Hillsdale College and President of Hillsdale Policy Group, a consulting firm specializing in taxation and policy analysis. He received his Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley in 1976. His writings have appeared in numerous publications, including National Review, Real Clear Markets, Investor’s Business Daily, and American Thinker. Dr. Wolfram has been named Hillsdale College Professor of the Year and received the Emily Daugherty award for teaching excellence.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: James Pinkerton

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 604 (start at chapter 20 heading) – 606 (stop at chapter 21 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

If the government is small, ambitious people, seeking economic opportunity, will tend to go where the action is: to the private sector. They will, in a phrase, follow the money. However, if the government is big, ambitious people are more likely to seek out careers in the public sector.

This point is made in the second volume of Alexis de Tocqueville’s classic work, Democracy in America. As with so many of De Tocqueville’s insights, it’s common sense, informed by first-hand observation—he spent nearly a year traveling through the U.S. in 1831-32—and armored further in erudition. As he wrote, “In the United States as soon as a man has acquired some education and pecuniary resources, he either endeavors to get rich by commerce or industry, or he buys land in the bush and turns pioneer.” The author notes a distinctly American characteristic: “All that he asks of the State is not to be disturbed in his toil, and to be secure of his earnings.” In other words, Don’t tread on me.

However, Europe was different. As De Tocqueville wrote of the ambitious European, “The first thing that occurs to him is to get some public employment.” In Europe, public employment didn’t just mean an income, it also meant power and privilege, the ability to lord it over others while perhaps wheedling a special favor out of some crowned head.

De Tocqueville, himself a classical liberal, clearly preferred the American approach of small government, too poor to do favors for the connected. He contrasted “public employments [that] are few in number, ill-paid and precarious,” to “different lines of business [that] are numerous and lucrative.” That, the Frenchman said, was a key difference between small-government America and big-government Europe.

To De Tocqueville, the freedom to get into business for oneself was the key to equality as he defined it. That is, equality of opportunity, as opposed to equality of result (sometimes today called “equity”).

Back in the 1830s, American government was small. The federal government’s share of economic output, what we now call GDP, was perhaps three percent. And the state’s regulatory footprint was small as well, to the point of non-existent. In most places, if you wanted to start farming, well, you just started farming. No permit needed.

By contrast, European governments were much larger, not just as a share of the economy, but as a share of the national mindset. Europe was, after all, the land of feudalism and centralized empire; by contrast, the U.S. was about republicanism and expansion on the western frontier—it was always even freer over the next hill.

De Tocqueville was ever loyal to France, and yet he wrote Democracy in America with an eye toward encouraging a new spirit of liberty in his homeland.

Meanwhile, today, the U.S. has a much larger government; the federal government’s share of the economy is more than seven times what it was in De Tocqueville’s era, around 23 percent of GDP (and state and local governments are much larger, too). Moreover, what’s called the “administrative state” has grown huge, too, in its ability to affect the economy, the workplace, the schools—even school bathrooms.

Has life for Americans improved amidst this government expansion? Is our Constitution stronger? These are matters for debate. But it does appear that America has become more like Europe. So now, plenty of Americans are able to make good careers for themselves as “activists” and “public-sector entrepreneurs.” That’s what Big Government buys you. (And of course, we must pause to distinguish the ambitious from those motivated by a spirit of public service; De Tocqueville wrote elsewhere about good patriots, and we all know plenty of good civic hearts today.)

To be sure, many Americans still flock to the private sector, even knowing that they must brave ever-increasing tax and regulatory burdens. Happily, our free economy is so strong that the rewards of private-sector entrepreneurship can be fantastic.

So we’re in a different place than we were in De Tocqueville’s time: We have a big public sector and a big private sector. What does this mean for today? What does it portend for the future? For answers, we might benefit from the visit of another sage foreigner to help give us insight and perspective.

Or, of course, we can look to our own traditions and history—starting with the U.S. Constitution.

James P. Pinkerton served as a domestic policy aide in the White Houses of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. He also worked in the 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, and 2008 presidential campaigns. From 1996 to 2016, he was a contributor to the Fox News Channel.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Eric Sands

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 599 (start at chapter 19 heading). – 604 (stop at chapter 20 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

In this section of Democracy in America, De Tocqueville elevates his analysis from just focusing on America to discussing democracy in the abstract. He begins by observing that most everyone in America aspires to be nothing more than middle class. “There are no Americans who do not show that they are devoured by the desire to rise, but one sees almost none of them who appears to nourish vast hopes or aim very high. All want constantly to acquire goods, reputation, power; few envision all these things on a grand scale.” In other words, Americans are highly ambitious people, but they do not have great ambitions. They work tirelessly to achieve little more than a comfortable self-preservation.

What causes this? De Tocqueville points out that democratic revolutions create great ambitions because during them nothing seems impossible. Ambitions will show themselves to be great so long as the revolution continues. The passions of revolutions will extend for several generations and keep ambitions elevated. But, as Lincoln pointed out in his famous Lyceum Address, the passions of revolutions fade with time. What replaces these passions is normalcy, which in democracy means ambition that is “ardent and continuous but cannot habitually aim very high…and life is ordinarily passed in eagerly coveting petty objects that one sees within one’s reach.” In short, what turns democrats away from great ambitions is the sheer amount of time and effort they put into improving their station in life. They “compel the soul to employ all its strength in doing mediocre things.” But the problem, as De Tocqueville points out, is that “one does not gradually enlarge one’s soul like one’s house.” In democracy, “ambition is therefore ardent and continuous, but it cannot habitually aim very high; and life is ordinarily passed in eagerly coveting petty objects that one sees within one’s reach.”

The other thing that keeps democrats from aspiring to greatness is the amount of time required just to “make” it in life, never mind being great. Few people in democracy come to greatness quickly since the rules make advancement slow and tedious. As men become “more alike and the principle of equality penetrates more peacefully and more deeply into institutions and mores, the rules of advancement become more inflexible and advancement slower; the difficulty of quickly reaching a certain degree of greatness increases.” People, therefore, do not aspire to great things in the future, instead living for the moment or immediate profit (bottom of pg. In the end, democrats give up aspiring to greatness at all, lacking the pride and self-confidence required to accomplish great things. Thus, for De Tocqueville, pride in the pursuit of greatness is no vice, and humility focused on the pursuit of material gain is no virtue. Democracy does not directly suppress greatness, but it places a myriad of hurdles and obstacles in a person’s way that discourage great ambition and great ideas. The laws do not stifle ambition; the people subdue it.

De Tocqueville’s greatest fear is that democracy will choke out ambition, at least great ambition, and leave behind the rule of mediocrity. De Tocqueville says, “I avow that for democratic societies I dread the audacity much less than the mediocrity of desires; what seems to me most to be feared is that in the midst of the small incessant occupations of private life, ambition will lose its spark and its greatness.” All political societies require the presence of great men and women to lead and help regimes progress. In democracy, these great people must come from the people. But how will they distinguish themselves? Given that they are likely engaged in their own self-preservation, what is to orient them towards politics?

Yet beyond this De Tocqueville identifies an even greater danger with this lack of greatness. What greatness requires to distinguish itself is pride because pride is the spur to the actions required for liberty. Moralists, De Tocqueville says, are constantly condemning pride as one of the greatest of human vices. This, De Tocqueville remarks, misses the mark on what constitutes dangers to democracy. Without pride, human beings see themselves as only worthy of enjoying “vulgar pleasures.” It is not that such a person lacks the ambition to pursue lofty undertakings, but that people cannot even envision what such undertakings are. Therefore, modernity needs to recognize that a certain measure of pride is important for the maintenance of human liberty.

Eric Sands is Associate Professor of Political Science at Berry College in Rome, GA. He teaches a wide range of courses in American government and political theory. Dr. Sands is also a professor in Ashland University’s MAHG program.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Edward Lee

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 589 – 599 (stop at chapter 19 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

During his nine month tour of America, De Tocqueville analyzed the virtue of honor and how it strengthens a democratic society. He observed, “honor…rules the will more than belief….” It towers over the mortal human, infusing the spirit with energy and purpose. He reminds us that all people are united by their quest for honor: “The human race feels permanent and general needs that have given birth to moral laws; all men have naturally attached in all places and all times the ideas of blame and of shame to the nonobservance of them.” The pursuit for honor evolves, but it remains a potent force which beckons constantly to all people as they strive “to do good.”

Focusing his attention on honor in the antebellum South during his 1831 visit, De Tocqueville attempts to dissect honor in the relationship between slave owners and enslaved people. Tensions and pressures are spewing worth as ethnic groups interact. He tells us, “to debauch a girl of color hardly harms the reputation of an American; to marry her dishonors him.” Omitted, unfortunately, is concern for the debauched female’s predicament but clearly defined is the preservation of the southern elite’s position of personal honor. His honor must always be maintained.

Our visitor ventures into questions of “feudal honor” during the Middle Ages. Since “national power” did not exist in the Middle Ages, power and honor were intertwined. The lord, with his military strength, was the source of power and authority, possessing the unquestioned allegiance of his people. The lord was supreme, demanding “fidelity to the political chief.” To disobey or question the lord’s dictates was dishonorable. Such gestures of independence were not tolerated. Unity of purpose is required.

De Tocqueville detects remnants of this European honor code in America. He comments, “One still encounters, scattered among the opinions of all Americans, some notions taken from the old aristocratic honor of Europe.” He labels this characteristic: “American honor.” He sees its foundation rooted in commerce, industry, trade, and economic activity. It “distinguishes the American people from all others.” He explains this vitality by writing, “passion for wealth… is honored” in America because it illustrates the importance of entrepreneurship.

During his time in America, De Tocqueville asserts that the United States is “full of inexhaustible resources.” If a person falls victim to bankruptcy or unwise economic ventures, failure is only momentary because the quest for honor and success can be regained. This quest regroups and resumes even if it temporarily stumbles. The key ingredient, in De Tocqueville’s view, is that “everyone works and work leads to everything.” He notes that in America potential success is aided through mobility: “[t]hat has turned around the point of honor and directed it against idleness.” People should not hesitate as they surge forward.

De Tocqueville concludes his analysis by commenting that in aristocracies honor is stagnant because social ranks are stagnant and do not allow movement. In America, “ranks are mixed, privileges are abolished.” This quality energizes honor, making it fluid, and fuels numerous opportunities for unlimited success in the United States.

Dr. Edward Lee is a 40 year veteran of the university classroom. He has won several awards for his exemplary teaching, including a Presidential Citation in 1996 for his pioneer work with distance education. He is the author or co-author of 21 books, including 4 about America and the conflict in Vietnam. His commentary has appeared on Fox News, CNN, NBC News, and National Public Radio.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Kirk Higgins


Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 587 (start at chapter 17 heading) – 588 of this edition of Democracy in America.

In his masterpiece, Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville interrogates the currents that shape American democratic society. One feature he investigates concerns how American society can simultaneously appear monotonous and agitated.

De Tocqueville describes the agitation as a constantly changing landscape of shifting laws, fortunes, and ideas. It is a society constantly in motion and seemingly unsettled, driven by a restless pursuit of something else, something more. This shifting is so constant that, in the long term, it becomes rather predictable and, in De Tocqueville’s words, boring.

It is freedom that leads to this predictable restlessness. And the shared engagement in this restlessness makes men alike in their habits, values, and actions. 

This differs from an aristocratic society. Nothing changes in an aristocratic society grounded as it is on accidents of birth, not of individual choice. Life is dictated by tradition, inheritance, and family rather than opportunity or choice. However, all men in it are different, pursuing individual passions, interests, and ideas that have no material impact on society.

The agitation and similarity of democratic people emerge from their pursuit of wealth. Individuals must constantly pursue material gain because, De Tocqueville argues, monied transactions are the only way to obtain cooperation in a free society. This, along with the diminishing value of birth or profession, means the pursuit of wealth is the most significant distinguishing characteristic amongst a democratic people. This pursuit causes the restless motion of American society.

At the same time, this drive to accumulate wealth to advance and achieve status means people act in particular ways to succeed. These actions drive change but also paint the monotonous picture of American society that De Tocqueville describes. The pursuit of wealth drives men toward industry. Success in the industry is found through regular habits and long, uniform actions, which men see in others and seek to emulate.

Over time, this pursuit creates a constantly changing society while simultaneously creating a monochromatic populace—in other words, a simultaneously agitated and monotonous society.

The moral philosopher Adam Smith also examined the motivations behind people’s actions. Smith was keenly interested in what drives individual actions and shapes interactions between people. His two most famous works, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS) (1759) and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (WoN) (1776), focus on these actions.

One of Smith’s most famous lines from WoN states, “it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

This is commonly read as a self-interested argument: that individuals’ actions are only motivated by selfish interests and greed. However, if read in the context of the Theory of Moral Sentiments, this statement can be read in the framework of sympathy. In other words, to get what we want, we naturally anticipate the needs, feelings, wants, and desires of others. So, individualism is closely tied to community.

This idea is reflected in the opening line of TMS, “How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it.”

This interest in others drives our actions and shapes our worldview. It helps us identify what we see as good and noble actions and shapes our opinion of what we see as detrimental, harmful, or evil actions. We then try to emulate those things that are good while avoiding and shunning those things and people we think are bad.

If we use this understanding to examine De Tocqueville’s claims about American society, we see something interesting. De Tocqueville’s interpretation can appear to be an argument, claiming that Americans have a myopic pursuit of wealth, which creates a boring and, at worst, greedy monoculture that promotes personal gain over community benefits.

Viewed another way, De Tocqueville’s observation is a harmonizing one. The opportunity to participate in a shared pursuit of wealth, or material gain, is leveling. This shared pursuit bonds people by encouraging shared values and producing shared beliefs. These mores bond society together, creating the stability of monotony while maintaining its agitated character.

In De Tocqueville’s own words the people are, “like travelers dispersed in a great forest in which all paths end at the same point.” In this way they are, “insensibly brought nearer to one another.” He further argues that, “All peoples who take for the object of their studies and imitation, not such and such a man, but man himself, will in the end encounter each other in the same mores, like these travelers.

 

Kirk Higgins serves as the Senior Director of content at the Bill of Rights Institute. There, he has led several major curricula and content projects, including the Institute’s comprehensive U.S. history resource, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. In addition to BRI’s curriculum development, Kirk manages the Institute’s video content and scholar network.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Heather Yates

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 585 – 587 (stop at chapter 17 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

Alexis De Tocqueville’s mission to North America was to study the new case of American democracy.  De Tocqueville analyzed the living standards and conditions of individuals with particular attention to their relationship to the new political state.  In volume 2, part 3, chapter 16, De Tocqueville examined how an individual sense of pride, fashioned by the absence of a heredity-based aristocracy, formulated a new collective identity. Fundamentally, De Tocqueville observed that the Americans’ intense love for country is restless because it has a tendency to be forward, public, out loud, and indefatigable, which some international observers and allies find to be exhausting. While De Tocqueville’s observations might be interpreted as a criticism toward American hubris, he also explains why it reflects the exceptional nature of the American experience. 

De Tocqueville’s analysis of a new American, yet restless, national identity contributes to the notion of American Exceptionalism. The idea asserts that the American experience is an exceptional one and that the American institutions and practices are distinctive, and in this case, are distinctive from England. What is purportedly unique about the American experience can be traced to its political and ideological origins. Very few nations have simultaneously invented themselves both politically (physical territory, borders, and institutions) and conceptually in the manner that the United States did. Furthermore, the exceptional American experience is also attached to notions of “newness” meaning the novel aspects of the lived experiences in the new America. 

When deconstructing the layers of American national identity as an exceptional experience, De Tocqueville identifies a significant reason for distinctions between the Americans and their ancestral England.  De Tocqueville identifies how the absence of an American aristocracy empowers a unique, individualistic national pride. De Tocqueville writes that people who live in democracies “love their country in the same manner that they love themselves”.  According to De Tocqueville, the significance of democracies is that they cultivate fluid conditions (unlike the conditions of heredity in England) by which ambitious and motivated people are enabled to achieve and acquire their own “advantages.”  Here, such advantages can be considered any object (or institution) which offers protection of freedoms and the private ownership of property. An exceptional experience for Americans is that they are empowered to earn their own advantages, property, and achievements through their own labor instead of through heredity.  De Tocqueville details that Americans are equally conscious of the fragile status of their achieved advantages, which makes the new American more restless about losing their achievements. Americans are keenly aware of their fluid stations and that they can lose their lives, liberty, freedoms, and properties just as quickly as they secured them. As De Tocqueville writes, “and as it can happen at any instance that these advantages may escape them, they are in constant alarm and strive to make one see that they still have them.” While the absence of heredity makes for remarkable opportunities in the new American society, it also contributes to the individualistic and boastful nature of its national vanity. De Tocqueville is familiar England’s aristocracy as France’s elites also functioned within an established system inherited privilege and protection as well and where national identity is not as boastful because, to De Tocqueville, heredity is a mechanism that perpetuates the stability of goods and privileges for the aristocracy. Without the replication of such a system in America, individuals felt mostly free to earn and boast of their statuses.  

De Tocqueville’s observations of Americans are that they are individually eager and ambitious while soliciting praises from outside observers about their American experience. De Tocqueville emphasizes that while seeking praise, Americans are also seeking validation for their political experiment.  When compared to their English counterparts, De Tocqueville observes that English pride tends to be a solitary enjoyment of advantages (perceived or real), they do not solicit praise nor are they motivated to critique other nations. Unlike Americans, the English possess a reserved, stoic disposition. However, there is an embedded critique, since de Docqueville accounts for the role that economic class and a sense of social superiority has played in the development of English national identity.  De Tocqueville reminds his readers that when England’s aristocracy conducts public affairs—all other classes imitate it.  In England, the aristocracy assume they are significant and entitled to visibility, which perpetuates their advantage. Whereas, in America, when the least advantaged gain importance, while pride may become demanding and indefatigable, it is not invalid. De Tocqueville has also observed elsewhere that the advantages and privileges earned by Americans are revered as being earned through individual and collective sacrifice that’s given rise to America’s notable and exemplary civic culture.   

Dr. Heather E. Yates is a professor of American politics at the University of Central Arkansas. She has published books and articles on regional and national politics with emphasis on the American presidency, political campaigns, and voting behavior. Her political analysis has been featured in national and regional print and broadcast media. She also speaks to community forums and events about the significance of electoral politics and civic engagement.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Erin Brooks-Hindman

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 582 – 584 of this edition of Democracy in America.

This section of De Tocqueville’s Democracy in America highlights a unique paradox in how democratic peoples, generally, and Americans in particular, approach their daily economic and political lives. De Tocqueville makes two critical observations about our very American frenetic energy. First, he observes that Americans spend their days in business and politics more fervently than in an aristocratic or monarchial society. However, he secondarily notes that this fervency leads to quick and constant changes that may render us more foolish in our judgments than in these other political systems. 

In the first sense, De Tocqueville argues that Americans are always busy but attentive, moving constantly from one serious task to another. Accordingly, our American approach to government and economics prioritizes productivity over frivolity and wasted time. Even today, many of our leisure activities mix satisfaction of our goals with enjoyment. In short, we combine our “side hustles” with our hobbies. De Tocqueville notes this saying: “[M]en who live in democratic countries do not prize the sorts of naïve, unruly, and coarse entertainments that the people give themselves over to in aristocracies […]; they must have something more productive and substantial in their pleasures, they want to mix satisfaction with their joy. Democratic institutions inspire citizens to believe their involvement can improve their lives and country. Since citizen activity can impact policy and one’s financial well-being, Americans consider all their activities in this light. They choose how they spend their time and seek to maximize its productivity rather than waste it. De Tocqueville notes that they “want to mix satisfaction with their joy” because they know production comes with both good effects and pleasure. He argues here that people who live under democratic systems want to see productive, positive results from how they spend their time.

As a direct result of this first observation, De Tocqueville secondarily shows that Americans can stumble into foolish choices. On first pass, this makes little sense. How can a population that takes everything seriously so frequently go down an unwise path? For De Tocqueville, though, this is not a true paradox. He argues that both the serious and the foolish originate from the same place – our frenetic energy. Americans are constantly being pulled from one task to the next. Democracies devolve the power of governing to the whole population. Thus, everyone must be more serious. De Tocqueville observes that “one encounters an infinite number of people in all classes who are constantly preoccupied with the serious affairs of government, and those who do not think of directing the public fortune are left wholly to the cares of increasing their private fortunes. In such a people gravity […] becomes a national habit. Politics is always serious, but in aristocracies, only one part of society must focus on that work. In America, freedom and equality among fellow citizens mean that everyone is incentivized to stay engaged in one productive activity after another. We engage in such a wide range of activities that we avoid specialization and frequently improvise solutions to problems as we go. The constant activity from one improvisation to the next causes the country to get caught up in mistakes and miscalculations as we move too fast.  

In democracies, people confront so many “grave and serious activities” competing for attention that they cannot pay sufficient attention to any one task to develop a deeper understanding of it. In short, De Tocqueville observes that Americans become generalist-improvisers: a “jack of all trades, master of none.” Thus, the combination of having only a cursory knowledge of a variety of topics but the ability to be involved in meaningful and substantive activities has the potential to lead to mistakes in both business and policy. He points out that “in democracies men are never settled; a thousand accidents make them change place constantly, and there almost always reigns something unforeseen and so to speak improvised in their lives. Thus, they are often forced to do what they have learned badly, to speak of what they scarcely understand. Thus, various competing demands prevent Americans from developing a depth of knowledge that would lead to consistently wise decisions.  Instead, frequently forced to act as generalists with little expertise, they inevitably stumble.  

Ultimately, though, De Tocqueville holds that American flexibility in the face of all the activities that compete for their attention becomes an asset. Accordingly, the people will recover well from isolated instances of folly. De Tocqueville points out elsewhere that the same individual can take risks, fail, and then move into something new multiple times within a lifetime and society will not think less of him for his errors. The principle applies to the whole population as well. Constant activity will likely help the country move beyond any single miscalculation. Frenetic optimism remains.

 

Erin Brooks-Hindman earned her B.A. in Politics from Hillsdale College in 2008 and continued her graduate education at Regent University and Claremont Graduate University, where she earned her Ph.D. in 2022. Specializing in Western and American Political Thought, her recent research is on civilian-military relations and the need for character-based officer education. While at Holy Cross, she has taught various courses, including introductory courses in both political philosophy and American government, as well as upper division courses on the American national security infrastructure and American Political Thought.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Troy Kickler

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 578 (start at chapter 14 heading) – 581 of this edition of Democracy in America.

Alexis de Tocqueville was a French aristocrat and historian who endeavored to understand more concerning the United States of America’s distinct culture. The Frenchman wrote Democracy in America, rather it was published, in 1835. Remaining true to his noble identity, he traveled to America and traveled its landscape and observed its sub-cultures. To him, the experience was intellectually inspiring yet challenging.

His beginning question, more or less, was the following: Are people born refined or taught to be so? It was a conundrum for him. Some people are born so wealthy that they don’t care for others with less economic means. Those not at the “foremost” of society yet have means of wealth continually strive to move up the social ladder. Therefore, their public manners often include nothing more than envy of the higher level and contempt of the lower class.

De Tocqueville is an observer of his near past and current time. To him, manners were cultivated within the aristocracy and became hereditary. A monarchy, to be sure, can be overthrown, but De Tocqueville wonders what will replace an aristocracy’s manners. His concern reminds me of two sayings. G.K. Chesterton advises, “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.” A Bantu proverb warns, “If a man . . . throws away his good customs, he had better first make certain that he has something of value to replace them.”

Democracies have more individualistic manners. There is not an “ideal model” to follow. Manners are based on the “feelings and notions of each individual.” If an aristocracy disappears, De Tocqueville writes that “one still remembers that a precise code of politeness existed,” but a “common law of manners” no longer exists.

According to De Tocqueville, outsiders consider American manners to be the same for all Americans. Not true, the Frenchman counters. If one has ever traveled across the nation, one observes differences within an overall subscription to American ideas. In other words, one can notice peculiarities. Think of America as Niccolo Paganini’s “Variations on a Theme.” It is the same song, yet expressed in various passionate ways. 

De Tocqueville’s statement reminds me of a book, There Are Many Souths. When people say the “South,” for instance, they think of a monolithic place. Yet, it is a diverse region with various dialects and colloquialisms and even barbecue preferences.

De Tocqueville counters British criticisms of American manners by pointing out that the English of his time needed to look at themselves. In many cases, they are what they criticize. The American problems, De Tocqueville claimed, were projections of what existed in Britain.

A benefit to a democracy with American manners, writes the French aristocrat, is that people can be themselves. Actions and social customs (or lack thereof) might not be as refined, yet manners tended to be more sincere: In De Tocqueville’s words, “in democratic peoples, manners are neither so learned nor so regular; but they are often more sincere.”

When comparing an aristocracy with a democracy, De Tocqueville makes a poignant observation. Although good manners are appreciated, actions can be a façade and a cover for cruel intentions. He writes, “great external appearances can often hide very base hearts.” In contrast, an unrefined person can have the best and most sincere intentions.

In short, De Tocqueville appreciates a uniform code of manners yet hopes it is constantly infused with genuineness.

 

Troy Kickler is Founding Director of the North Carolina History Project and Editor of northcarolinahistory.org. He holds an M.S. in Social Studies Education from North Carolina A&T State University and a Ph.D. in History from the University of Tennessee.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Former Speaker of the House John Boehner

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 567 (start at chapter 11 heading) – 578 (stop at chapter 14 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

As a regular guy who once had a big job, I’m grateful to have this opportunity to once again take part in Constituting America’s 90-Day Study, with this year’s focus on Alexis De Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. It was the honor of my life to serve as Speaker of the House of Representatives; a position that required me to serve simultaneously as my party’s leader and as leader of the institution itself. The direct and frequent election of our representation in the lower chamber makes it unique in that it allows for more engagement and responsiveness to the will of the electorate. It’s why we call it the People’s House, as our Founders believed it should have “an immediate dependence on, and intimate sympathy with, the people.” 

In Volume 2, Part 3 of De Tocqueville’s book, morality and equality take center stage in Chapters 11 through 13. His foresight on the gradual journey for equality as it applied to women’s rights was profound, and was likely met with skepticism by the society of his time, but his prediction was based on the laws and how our Founders described our rights. As you’ll recall, the Founders wrote that every individual possessed fundamental rights, even before these rights were ever put into writing. They were described, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, as ‘unalienable’ and their existence was a ‘self-evident’ truth. This notion affirmed this equality De Tocqueville is discussing, as well as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While the societal times may not have shown us to be there yet, the truth was clear and thus, our gradual growth to reach equality would continue as long as we the people continued to support this grand experiment in democratic governance.

To do so, we must have a level of trust in our fellow citizens to take their civic duties seriously and to act in good faith for the betterment of the country–not solely for their personal benefit. And it’s here where De Tocqueville seemed to struggle with his understanding of this concept: in his view, how could man not be selfish in his endeavors to acquire more power, higher standing in society, etc? And that is one of the challenges we face. Our democracy is a living, breathing entity and our Founders had the smarts to make it so that limits would be placed on our elected leaders. Our Founding Fathers knew that the power would always reside with the citizens to make changes where necessary–both in our representation and with the foundational documents of our democracy. For example, the threshold to amend the Constitution is expectedly high, but it is a privilege and a right afforded to We the People.

And while the questions of morality may not be central to our political discourse today, it has always been a core principle of mine and so many others who enter public service. And it’s here where De Tocqueville starts to question the self-serving motives of some and how that could impact the overall effort of growing our democracy to where it could go and would eventually become. 

Throughout my life, I always believed — and still do — that if you do the right things for the right reasons, the right things will happen. And I brought this ‘Boehnerism,’ along with many others, to Congress as I worked to uphold the oath I took to serve and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Governing is not easy, which may seem like an incredible understatement. But it’s true. Governing is not about doing the impossible, but at its core, it is the art of the possible–it requires us to look for common ground where it can be found, all without compromising on our principles or conflicting with our moral compass. 

My greatest worry about our system is that we will lose the ability to distinguish between finding common ground and compromising, which has become a sign of weakness and defeat. I firmly believe you can find common ground with those who subscribe to a different party affiliation or ideology, and you can do so without abandoning your core beliefs. In fact, our democracy requires it from time to time. And our system of government would break down completely if not for people on both sides of the fence who understand that distinction and work to find those opportunities to work in bipartisan fashion.

Our work to create a more perfect union, as our Constitution instructs us to do, will continue as long as we the people stay engaged in the process, never take for granted our freedom to choose and forge our own paths in life, and remain steadfast in our pursuit of the values and ideals our Founders established for each of us. 

John Boehner, the 53rd Speaker of the House, led the US House from January 2011 to October 2015, a time during which he navigated some of the most difficult legislative challenges of the modern era and forged strong relationships with business and government leaders throughout the world. An Ohio-native and former small businessman who entered public service because of his desire to remove barriers to economic growth and private-sector job creation, Speaker Boehner is respected on both sides of the political aisle for his efforts to find common ground on major policy matters without compromising on principle, and for his belief that individuals of competing viewpoints can “disagree, without being disagreeable.” After leaving Congress, Speaker Boehner joined Squire Patton Boggs—a full-service international law firm—to serve as a senior strategic advisor to the firm’s clients in the US and abroad, focusing on global business development.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Dorothea Wolfson

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 563 (start at chapter 9 heading) – 567 (stop at chapter 11 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

Nearing the end of his brilliant study of American democracy, in which De Tocqueville has shared an account of the many strengths of American democracy and its national character, De Tocqueville tells his readers that if they want to know which factor most accounts for America’s success, for its “singular prosperity and growing force of this people, I would answer that it is to the superiority of its women.” De Tocqueville’s acknowledgment of women as the source of America’s strength may come as a surprise. How could women – who back in the 1830s were not considered citizens, and were not allowed to hold jobs, speak in public meetings, inherit property, or go to college, be the decisive factor explaining the flourishing of America? 

De Tocqueville’s praise of American women needs to be considered within the context of his political science. De Tocqueville thought that America was such a successful democracy chiefly because of its unique ‘mores’ which he defines as “habits of the heart.” (275) Mores are the habits and practices that constitute American culture – how Americans think, feel, and interact not only with each other but with the rest of the world.  The mores De Tocqueville observed in the US – its religiosity, innovation, strong marriages, enterprise, high levels of civic engagement, and overall freedom-loving disposition – served to stabilize  America’s democratic polity.  But where did these mores come from? De Tocqueville stressed that in the United States they are cultivated primarily by women: “There have never been free societies without mores, and…it is woman who makes these mores. Therefore, all that influences the condition of women, their habits, and their opinions has great political interest in my eyes.” 

Education of Girls

So, while women in America were not on the frontlines of politics (they would have to wait until 1920 for the 19th Amendment to give them the right to vote), they played a huge role behind the scenes in supporting American political institutions.  The historian Linda Kerber coined the phrase, “republican motherhood” to capture the political role women played in cultivating civic virtue in the early years of America.  Kerber called the family “the fourth political branch” for the important role women played in shaping citizens.   

De Tocqueville believed women’s role of shaping mores was so central to the success of American democracy that he devoted separate chapters in his book to their education and to their roles as wives.  In contrast, De Tocqueville does not devote an entire chapter to the education of boys or to their roles as husbands.

It’s important to keep in mind that in nineteenth-century America the democratic revolution was unravelling the customs and traditions that once served as the cornerstones of civilized society. De Tocqueville observes that Americans appreciate that the aristocratic safeguards governing courtship between men and women have been weakened. Parental authority is weaker too. The erosion of these former protections creates “perils” towards women in particular. Thus, Americans have decided rather than try to “cloister” the American girl, as the French do, it is better to give her freedom to see the world and an education that will strengthen her reasoning powers so that she can navigate her own freedom. This education starts early and is gradual. Before she hits adolescence, she already “thinks for herself, speaks freely, and acts alone.” The education she receives equips her with “a precocious knowledge of all things” and does not seek to hide “the corruptions of the world” from her. The American girl looks firmly upon the world and goes out into it, armed with reasoning powers and “confidence in her own strength” to protect herself “from the perils with which the institutions and mores of democracy surround her.”  

The American Wife

The striking aspect of the American girl’s education is the amount of freedom with which she is entrusted.  Her parents’ home is one of “freedom and pleasure,” De Tocqueville writes.  Yet this carefree, independent girl becomes a different creature as a wife.  The independent spirited young girl marries and becomes a submissive helpmeet, limiting herself to the chores and responsibilities of the domestic sphere. De Tocqueville argues that this is not a contradiction – that the education she had as a young girl prepares her for her role as wife in large part because she is aware of the perils of freedom and the role she must play in building and safeguarding the future.  The future of America is moving westward, and American women, because of their early education, possess an “internal force” and the “courage” to face any hardship that may arise. (see also Tocqueville’s important note, 699-701).  The sacrifices women make in an age of individualism and freedom stand out all the more for De Tocqueville. De Tocqueville reminds us that America’s greatness rests as much on, if not more, on American women as it does on their enterprising husbands.  Since the time De Tocqueville wrote, much has changed, and women are no longer limited to the domestic sphere. But this also raises the question of who is shaping the mores that De Tocqueville believed were necessary for the perpetuation of American democracy. 

 

Dr. Dorothea Wolfson is the Program Director and a senior lecturer for the Masters in Government program at Johns Hopkins University. Her research and teaching interests center on democracy and civic engagement, American political thought, and family policy. Dr. Wolfson has published articles on Alexis de Tocqueville, Thomas Jefferson, Abigail Adams, John Locke, and children’s literature. She has collaborated on a book, Our Sacred Honor, with William J. Bennett, and her essays and reviews have appeared in The Claremont Review of Books, The American Interest, and Perspectives on Political Science. Dr.

Wolfson has taught at Johns Hopkins University since 1995. She also serves as a thesis adviser.

Before joining Johns Hopkins, Dr. Wolfson was a policy analyst at Empower America. Dr. Wolfson holds a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Chicago and a PhD in government from Cornell University.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Jon D. Schaff

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 553 – start at chapter 6 heading) – 563 (stop at chapter 9 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

Alexis De Tocqueville came to America in the 1830s. At that point industrialism had already made significant progress in Europe. In the United States, industrialization would not really explode until after the Civil War in the 1860s. In the first two chapters considered here De Tocqueville seems to be anticipating American industrialization. De Tocqueville ponders how, as a democracy, America’s economy will develop differently than that of aristocratic Europe. 

Economically, America was distinct from Europe in two important ways, according to De Tocqueville. First, America had vast expanses of undeveloped land. Land was relatively easy to acquire. Also, America had rejected the aristocratic practice of primogeniture, the notion that all land is inherited by the eldest son. Put these two notions together, you get an America without enormous estates that pass undivided from one generation to the next. Any grand estates in America get divided amongst all children (at the least the males, in this era) and anyone seeking land can acquire it cheaply. 

America simply did not have the entrenched wealth that existed in Europe. Entry into agriculture or industry was relatively easy, De Tocqueville argues. He channels James Madison’s arguments Federalist 10 wherein Madison argues that the commercial society of America will produce a diversity of economic interests. In America there will not be the landed few against the landless many. America is the land of entrepreneurship, we might say. 

For this reason, De Tocqueville thinks wages will be high in America. With many employment opportunities available to laborers, employers have to treat employees well or the employees can simply leave for another job. In De Tocqueville’s time there was an emerging economic vision in America called “free labor”. The free labor ideology held that the best economy was one where each person could easily set to work on his own, essentially becoming a small business owner. This might be a small farm, a small shop, a small factory. Free labor thinkers opposed slavery as they saw it as an institution that favored large landowners over more modest operations. The mantra of the free labor movement was “Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men.” 

De Tocqueville does warn against the dangers of centralization of economic power. Anticipating American industrialism of the late nineteenth century, De Tocqueville worries that most laborers will simply be wage earners, i.e., they will work for someone else. This is contrary to the free labor idea that most people will work for themselves. Those who work for wages lose some of the habits of self-government. Also, as economic power consolidates, it gives employers more power to dictate wages. Workers may have to band together to press their case. In this sense, De Tocqueville foresees the rise of labor unions. 

This discussion of economics dovetails in a peculiar way with one of the most provocative chapters in all of Democracy in America, namely his chapter on the democratic family. De Tocqueville, in his discussion of economics, has suggested a fluidity in American circumstances that stands in stark contrast to aristocratic Europe. In America, life is in constant motion, what De Tocqueville sometimes calls an “inquietude” or a kind of unsettled state. Family is not exempt from such forces. 

The aristocratic family is governed by tradition and usually affiliated with a particular place. Aristocratic families are typically dominated by a father, a patriarch whose family has lived in the same house for many generations. Being first born son offers definite privileges. Familial relations are often cold and formal. Even as children reach adulthood, the father still rules over them. 

None of this is so in the democratic family. Think of the typical family in a television comedy show. This is essentially what De Tocqueville sees coming for the democratic family. Democracy is uneasy with tradition, established forms, authority that does not arise from consent. De Tocqueville describes the democratic family as being less hierarchical, less formal, more naturally affectionate. We might think of American families today. How many of us call our father and mother “sir” or “ma’am”? We usually use informal terms such as “dad” and “mom.” When American children grow older, they set out on their own. They now view themselves as equal to their parents. The idea that grown adults would still be subservient to their father strikes us as odd. 

De Tocqueville is uncertain whether the democratic family represents a gain or a loss. While he is sure that as individuals we benefit from a more loving, affectionate family, he speculates that society may be worse for this change. The “inquietude” of democracy leaves Americans adrift, unable to find steady sources of meaning. It is just this divorce from traditional sources of meaning such as religion and family that makes De Tocqueville fear that democracies are more, not less, susceptible to despotism. While we may have more affection in our lives, the breakdown of family may leave us democrats looking to the government as a substitute parent. 

 

Jon D. Schaff is Professor of Political Science at Northern State University in Aberdeen, South Dakota, where he has taught since 2001. He teaches classes in American political thought, American political institutions, as well as politics in literature and film. He is author of multiple articles and book chapters as well as two books: Abraham Lincoln and the Limits of Liberal Democracy and Age of Anxiety: Meaning, Identity, and Politics in 21st Century Literature and Film (co-authored with Anthony Wachs). He co-edited Humanitas History of America II: From Revolution to Reconstruction, 2 Vols for Classical Academic Press.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Jonathan Den Hartog

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 546 – 553 (stop at chapter 6 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

De Tocqueville in this chapter continues his investigation of social customs and mores in America, but he uses his description to support his larger point about the contrast between aristocratic society and democratic society. His analysis here reinforces his on-going contention that democracy in America means much more than simply having large numbers of citizens voting. When it comes to employment and working for others, De Tocqueville asserts, “Democracy does not prevent these two classes [masters and servants] from existing; but it changes their spirit and modifies their relations.

In describing the aristocratic view, De Tocqueville describes a society in which servants accept and endorse hierarchy of both authority and social standing. Because servants are permanently in a lower class, they cannot change their standing. They accept the commands of their master and often come to identify their interests with their master’s interests. They also accept a hierarchy amongst themselves. De Tocqueville observes, “Whoever occupies the last step in a hierarchy of valets is base indeed.” This reality has been captured for Americans by depictions of service in the period drama Downton Abbey. While all those in service acknowledge the superiority of the Grantham family, there exists “downstairs” among the servants a rigid hierarchy that extends from the Butler Mr. Carson all the way down to the newest footman. The youngest footman can dream of nothing more than over many years ascending within this household hierarchy.

De Tocqueville then contrasts this aristocratic, European view with the American reality. Put simply, “Equality of conditions makes new beings of servant and master and establishes new relations between them.” Rather than forming a separate or permanent class, servants saw themselves as undertaking a temporary role, in the confidence that they would shortly rise in their conditions. “At each instance,” De Tocqueville observes, “the servant can become a master and aspire to become one; the servant, therefore, is not another man than the master.” What binds the two together is the existence of a written contract, freely entered into by both sides.

De Tocqueville then has to modify his description. He acknowledges that he is talking about the labor conditions among whites in the North and the West. The existence of slavery in the South made for totally different conditions there. For De Tocqueville, however, “particularly in New England, one encounters a fairly large number of whites who consent to submit temporarily to the will of those like themselves in return for a wage. I heard it said that these servants ordinarily fulfill the duties of their state exactly and intelligently, and that without believing themselves naturally inferior to whoever commands them, they submit without trouble to obey him.” (551)

De Tocqueville’s description of New England employment echoes other testimonies. In an early American play, The Contrast by Royall Tyler, we see a New England youth named Jonathan. He is serving as a footman for a Revolutionary War veteran named Manly. When described by a European-trained valet as “a servant,” Jonathan objects strenuously. He insists, “I am Colonel Manly’s waiter.” The word choice is significant, as it justifies his status and the dignity of his employment. Jonathan then protests that he is “a true blue son of liberty,” and he could not be a servant because “no man shall master me.” He emphasizes his equal status and insists that his family’s farm was just as good as that of his employer.

De Tocqueville would immediately grasp the import of this exchange. The status of servanthood—such as a “waiter”—is temporary. It would last only as long as the contract lasted and would not extend one step beyond the contract.  It also did nothing to change the intrinsic equality of both employer and employee as humans and as citizens. Each carried within himself the same political and social weight, just as their votes would be equal at the next election.

A generation after De Tocqueville, the rising Illinois politician Abraham Lincoln pointed to a very similar conviction in the West. Addressing the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society, Lincoln praised the American approach of freely accepting to work for wages as a first step in a long career. He rejected the “mud-sill theory” that expected a permanent class of workers mired in drudgery. In contrast, Lincoln praised the free labor ideal which encouraged young men to sell their labor but maintained multiple routes by which they could rise in society.

For contemporary readers, then, De Tocqueville’s chapter on servants and masters can reaffirm a long-standing American attitude to employment. Many work for others—often quite closely. That labor, however, should be such that it doesn’t prevent them from rising economically—and perhaps eventually hiring others. Further, no matter the job, each individual bears inherent dignity as a citizen and so deserves society’s respect.   

Dr. Jonathan Den Hartog is Professor of History and the Chair of the History Department at Samford University. He is the author of Patriotism and Piety: Federalist Politics and Religious Struggle in the New American Nation and the co-editor of Disestablishment and Religious Dissent: Church-State Relations in the New American States.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Frank Garmon Jr

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 535 – 545 of this edition of Democracy in America.

One of the running themes throughout Democracy in America is De Tocqueville’s contention that the equality of conditions exerts a moderating influence on American culture. Compared to the various European powers with entrenched social hierarchies, vast wealth disparities, and undemocratic political systems, Americans appeared egalitarian in their social relations, material prosperity, and politics. 

In these chapters De Tocqueville asks a series of questions: Why do customs become milder as conditions become more equal? Why are Americans excited when they encounter their fellow citizens when travelling overseas? Why are Americans so difficult to offend at home yet easily insulted abroad? 

The first chapter builds upon his earlier arguments by proposing that as conditions become more equal, tastes and preferences become milder. Whereas a huge gulf existed between elite culture and peasant culture in nineteenth-century Europe (between ballet and boxing), Americans generally preferred simple and popular entertainment. 

De Tocqueville argues that this homogenization of tastes cultivates a greater capacity for empathy in democratic countries. When the ranks of society are almost equal, he argues, everyone can quickly judge the feelings of others by imagining themselves in another’s shoes, emphasizing that “he casts a rapid glance at himself; that is enough for him … imagination immediately puts him in their place”.

Empathy is more difficult to cultivate in aristocratic nations, De Tocqueville argues. Aristocracies are very good at connecting individuals through mutual obligations, but each class has difficulty sympathizing with one another. He reasons that genuine sympathy can only arise when individuals see themselves in others. In an aristocracy, then, sympathy can only materialize between members of the same class. 

At the close of the chapter De Tocqueville contrasts the compassion Americans feel toward their fellow man with the insensitivity exhibited by slave masters. Here the absence of equality prevents the slaveholder from forming any common bond that could engender empathy. 

The next chapter considers why Americans seek out their fellow countrymen abroad, while Europeans hold their compatriots at arm’s length. 

Englishmen abroad routinely avoid socializing with one another whenever it can be prevented. De Tocqueville emphasizes that “Not being able to judge at first glance what is the social situation of those whom he encounters, he prudently avoids entering into contact with them”. The Englishmen find the entire conversation to be unnerving. Each man worries that they will misjudge the other’s status, or that their own rank will be misperceived. 

When Americans meet one another outside the United States, by contrast, they become fast friends. The absence of a class system allows Americans to associate freely. They fear no social repercussions from a chance encounter.  

In the third chapter De Tocqueville explains how difficult it is to offend an American at home, but how easily they feel slighted when travelling in Europe. To illustrate his point, De Tocqueville describes his efforts to end an unwelcome conversation:

“I contradict an American at every turn in order to make him feel that his discourses fatigue me; and at each instant I see him make new efforts to convince me; I keep an obstinate silence, and he imagines that I am reflecting deeply on the truths that he presents to me; and when finally I suddenly escape his pursuit, he supposes that a pressing affair calls me elsewhere. This man will not comprehend that he exasperates me without my telling him, and I cannot save myself from him without becoming his mortal enemy”

In aristocratic countries, De Tocqueville notes, etiquette is elevated to a science. One must strike a delicate balance to avoid offending the sensibilities of others or acting in a manner unbecoming of one’s social station. Too little courtesy, or too much undeserved praise, can lead to embarrassment. 

In democratic nations, by contrast, social customs are more fluid. The rules of etiquette are not universally agreed upon, and Americans care more about the intentions behind an action than the action itself. Consequently, De Tocqueville argues that it is very difficult to offend Americans at home. 

Yet in Europe the same American who would normally brush off minor slights becomes suddenly obsessed with them. The ranks of European class systems are difficult for him to perceive and fully comprehend. The American wonders where exactly he fits in this hierarchy, and how exactly he should present himself. His lack of awareness causes him to advance with a certain clumsiness, highly attuned to perceived slights. De Tocqueville notes that “he proceeds always like a man surrounded by ambushes”. 

Through each of these observations, De Tocqueville illustrates how equality shapes not only the structure of society, but also the behaviors and attitudes of individuals within it. 

Frank W. Garmon Jr. is assistant professor of American Studies at Christopher Newport University where he specializes in American political economy. His first book, A Wonderful Career in Crime: Charles Cowlam’s Masquerades in the Civil War Era and Gilded Age, was published by Louisiana State University Press in July.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Melissa Matthes

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 526 (start at chapter 19 heading) – 532 of this edition of Democracy in America.

It has been remarked several times that industrialists and men of commerce are possessed of an immoderate taste for material enjoyments, and commerce and industry have been blamed for that; I believe that here the effect has been taken for the cause.” 

In this rather remarkable chapter, What Makes Almost All Americans Incline Toward Industrial Professions, Alexis de Tocqueville offers a sociology of homo economicus. Conditions of equality he asserts make men industrious. Equality makes him “active, enlightened, free, at ease, full of desires” and thus he begins to conceive “the taste for material enjoyments.” Industry and commerce, De Tocqueville insists, are democratic man’s natural inheritance. In addition, because man’s natural inclinations make him restless, appetitive, and fearful these qualities, too, turn him toward commerce and industry as well as its corollary – wealth accumulation.

Agriculture, on the other hand, is static and more often the purview of those who already have wealth and can tolerate the slow process of accumulation it provides, “one is enriched by it only little by little and with difficulty.” For De Tocqueville, this explains, as well, why aristocratic societies, the landed gentry, so to speak, are agrarian rather than industrial.

There is a psychology as well to De Tocqueville’s homo economicus. Although there is no mention of families, or of women (not wives, sisters, or mothers) it is the relationship between fathers and sons which also animates the industrial impulse: men work because they are both competitive with their fathers and fearful for their sons, “In democratic countries a man, however opulent one supposes him, is almost always discontented with his fortune, because he finds himself less wealthy than his father and he fears that his sons will be less so than he. Most of the rich in democracies therefore dream constantly of means of acquiring wealth.” 

Commerce fills “the imagination of the crowdThose who live amid democratic instability constantly have the image of chance before their eyes, and in the end they love all undertakings in which chance plays a role.” Because democracies make everything or anything possible (De Tocqueville calls it instability) democratic citizens are enthralled by all things in which chance is involved. Perhaps, De Tocqueville was right. It is one way to account for the American obsession with lottery tickets, with draft kings and all other forms of gambling. He elaborates, it is not just the gain that it promises, it’s the “emotions that it gives them.” Taking chances, then, is a democratic impulse. 

These paragraphs are quickly followed by a celebration of the rapid progress that Americans have made, “they form the second maritime nation in the world…the greatest industrial enterprises are executed without difficulty…Americans arrived only yesterday on the soil they inhabit, and they have already overturned the whole order of nature to their profit.” In notes on this chapter, De Tocqueville cautions that because of this focus on industry, “their minds become accustomed to substituting in everything the idea of the useful for that of the beautiful.” (pg. 978, Yale Manuscript) * And, it is this critique which begins to help explicate the rather unexpected, next chapter.

Chapter 20 How Aristocracy Could Issue from Industry seems to unravel what the previous chapter so enthusiastically commended. 

It is a warning for how democratic equality can become undone. Echoing Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, De Tocqueville notes how economies of scale are a font of freedom for the worker “the general production of the work comes more easily” as well as the source of inexpensive goods. Yet, there is a cost to the worker, as Smith notes as well, “that the man in him is degraded as the worker is perfected.” Ironically, it is also like what Karl Marx will name alienation, “he no longer belongs to himself, but to the profession he has chosen.” As the worker is diminished, so the master as De Tocqueville names him, is extended and he becomes the “administrator of a vast empire.” 

The cheapness that puts these inexpensive objects within the reach of “mediocre fortunes” becomes a greater impetus in striving for success by  the master. Thus, more opulent and more enlightened men devote their wealth and their science to industry while the multitude of workers remain trapped in their dependence; it is an aristocracy that develops by “a natural effort from within the very heart of democracy.”  

This aristocracy is different than the European model, according to De Tocqueville, because it has no common spirit or object, no shared traditions or hopes. “There are then members, but no corps.” De Tocqueville notes this aristocracy founded by trade is not interested in governing the worker, only in making use of him. Further in contrast to the European model which felt obliged by mores and sometimes law to come to the aid of its servants and to relieve their miseries, “the manufacturing aristocracy of our day, after having impoverished and brutalized the men whom it uses, leaves them to be nourished by public charity in times of crisis.” 

  De Tocqueville ends the chapter with a rather prescient alarm, “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.” This analysis dovetails with De Tocqueville’s well-known anti-materialism. It is a worry that the focus on wealth will also cause the gradual loss of traditional religious faith – another important bulwark in democracy, as De Tocqueville details elsewhere in Democracy. It is a worry also embedded in his assessment of the ideal democratic statesman as one who will show how what is just can also be useful rather than merely that the useful can be right. It is a wise recommendation in our time, as well. 

*Note: In 1954 Yale University acquired the quasi- totality of De Tocqueville’s manuscripts as well as the final draft of Democracy in America. This collection holds original manuscripts as well as copies of lost originals. Of interest to readers of the edition used for this short essay, the Yale manuscript also includes drafts of the second part of the Democracy, to which De Tocqueville gave the title “rubish” (referring to the English rubbish, meaning debris, remnants; notably misspelled by De Tocqueville throughout) A full chronicling of the manuscripts’ loss and retrieval and piecing back together can be found in the Foreword to the Democracy in America edition edited by Eduardo Nolla and translated by James T Schleifer.

 

Dr. Melissa Matthes is a full professor in the Department of Government at the United States Coast Guard Academy in New London, CT.  She teaches courses in religion and politics, ethics, and the history of political philosophy. She is the author most recently of When Sorrow Comes: The Power of Sermons from Pearl Harbor to Black Lives Matter, published by Harvard University Press in 2021. She holds a PhD from the University of California and a Masters of Divinity from Yale Divinity School. 

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Jeff Scott

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 525 – 526 (stop at chapter 19 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

Alexis de Tocqueville made detailed observations about the American work ethic in his travels through America. De Tocqueville noted during his time studying democracy in America, that rich people, maybe not all, found that work was owed by them to the general public. This is largely because heredity wealth wasn’t prevalent during the early American era. Today, heredity wealth is more prevalent in our society and has possibly altered the attitudes toward some “honest occupations” as being always honorable or worthwhile. However, Americans generally have kept the attitude of “giving back,” especially in times of emergencies, travesties, and holidays. 

In Democracy in America, De Tocqueville brings to light how honest work is viewed in America compared to Europe. He notes the idea of profit and work being seen as separate identities in Europe, but openly connected in America. This may be obvious as to why for many readers, but as one looks to the beginnings of America, work, often farming, led to regular citizens being able to create wealth that was handed down from one generation to the next in Europe. It took Americans a few generations to create “old money.” Since many of our country’s early American founders and builders, from Stephen Girard to John D. Rockefeller to Henry Ford, among others, built their fortunes mostly from the ground up, it was a given that honest professions would be an accepted path to upward mobility in America.

Hence, “honest” occupations and work ethic have become part of the American civic duty and identity. Unlike most European powers of the time or before, the harder you worked, the more you could move up in status, respect, and quality of life. Your place or status in society was no longer preordained. This attitude gave hope to the commoner of America that he could, through persistence, taking advantage of opportunities, grit, and American individualism, rise above his lot in life. De Tocqueville, knowing or unknowing, was marking the evolution of a new era not only of human existence but of human hope. 

Near the end of the chapter, De Tocqueville finishes by stating, “In the United States professions are more or less onerous, more or less lucrative, but they are never high or low. Every honest profession is honorable.” It raises the question, is this still true today, or was the aspect of “every honest profession is honorable,” ever really true? Was De Tocqueville able to get the “honest” impressions of the citizens or was it, as sometimes happens in our time, comments made to make people look good? There is possibly truth to be found in both lines of thinking. 

From the day-to-day observations I’ve seen from people throughout the country, most people do look at honest, hard work as worthwhile and honorable. It has been ingrained into the American psyche. However, over time, when individuals or groups of people pull far ahead in particular fields financially, some fields begin to be looked down upon. When De Tocqueville toured America, the farmer was the quintessential image of the hard-working American, being that civic warrior, and gaining wealth. As the 19th century progressed, the farmer was replaced by the industrial giants of the factory, steel, and railroad industries. Farmers began to be looked down upon. Then, as we moved into the 20th century, World War I was thrust upon society. During this time, the farmer once again became essential in the American eye in terms of feeding the mass of soldiers. It was the American farmer who saved our troops by providing food that others couldn’t. 

Thus, as De Tocqueville observed, honest professions give credence to one’s life as well as self-respect and determination that are often passed down from generation to generation in the American way of life. As we near the 250th anniversary of the birth of the United States, there is no doubt hard work, honest endeavors of improvement, service to one’s community and family, and being able to follow dreams of success, are all still with us. This does come with caution, however. As technological advances continue, this often has the effect of “honest” professions being less attainable for the working person. America will continue to thrive as long as opportunity continues to present itself and citizens continue to stay hungry. The American citizen must keep the inner hope that what one does for occupation matters as much as the “honest” occupations of our forefathers. I have the greatest hope for our future because of the regular citizen who still thrives on hard, honest professions that will continue to strengthen a foundation we can all build our lives upon. 

 

Dr. Jeff Scott serves as Executive Director of Academic Operations at Troy University. Jeff has taught and led at every level of education In his current role, Jeff develops and oversees programs designed for students and teachers that promote civic education through the lens of history. Dr. Scott has presented nationally at several conferences, including the National Council for the Social Studies and AP Conference. He was the keynote speaker for the Florida Council for the Social Studies in 2024.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Tony Williams

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 522 (start at chapter 17 heading) – 524 of this edition of Democracy in America.

 

In his 1796 Farewell Address resigning from the presidency after two terms, George Washington advised his fellow Americans to understand the link between religion, virtue, and self-government. Washington wrote, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” 

Washington continued to elaborate, explaining with a syllogism that, “It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.” He reasoned, along with most other founders, that religion was the basis of virtue and morality, and that virtue and morality were necessary foundations of republican self-government. This is because republics needed citizens and leaders who practiced patriotic self-sacrifice, moderation, self-control, and the public good over private interest. 

During the 1830s and 1840s, the Second Great Awakening was a time rife with religious revivalism and expansion of Protestant denominations focusing on a personal and emotional relationship with Christ. The Second Great Awakening had profound social effects as it promoted widespread moral and social reforms including abolitionism, temperance, prison reform, and women’s suffrage. 

This was the America that Alexis de Tocqueville visited in 1831-1832, and described in his book, Democracy in America. It should hardly surprise us that De Tocqueville offers his views on the important role of religion played in the American republic. 

De Tocqueville notes that religious faith provides the means for suppressing human inclinations for sin by exercising self-control over a “thousand little passing desires.” He argues that humans without God easily give into their “desires without delay.” Greed, gluttony, immoderation, and recklessness are the inevitable result in his estimation. 

De Tocqueville advises that a society without virtue is characterized by “the instability of the social state” as citizens easily give themselves to the passions and desires of human nature. He warns that for a self-governing people, “The danger I point out is increased.” In a monarchy, people have to be good subjects; in a republic, the people have a duty to be good citizens. A republic rooted in sin and vice would quickly become unworkable and collapse.

In a republic, the citizens must practice the civic virtues that knit and bind society together. Citizens must govern their passions and practice virtues to make self-government possible. Much like Washington in his Farewell, De Tocqueville writes that civic virtue leads to true happiness and a thriving polity.  

For De Tocqueville, leaders are just as responsible, if not more so, for practicing virtue as are the citizenry. This is because representatives in a democracy “by their example…also teach particular persons the art of conducting private affairs.” In other words, they are important exemplars of character. 

For De Tocqueville, one of the roles of government is supporting the institutions of civil society in “habituating citizens to think of the future.” He states that even if society is not very religious, government encouragement of practicing civic virtue in a republic will turn the eyes of the people toward heaven and permanent things. It would “lead the human race by a long detour back toward faith.” 

De Tocqueville concurred with the American founders that religious practice promotes virtue and that virtuous citizens are necessary to a healthy and well-functioning republic. We would be wise to remember this logic as we prepare for the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. We can abide the principles of the Declaration when we practice moderation and work together with a common purpose and spirit for the common good as Americans. Religion and civic virtue supports this mission. 

 

Tony Williams is Senior Teaching Fellow at the Bill of Rights Institute; a Constituting America Fellow; author of Washington and Hamilton: The Alliance that Forged America, and Hamilton: An American Biography.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: William Reddinger

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 521 (start at chp. 16 heading) – 522 (stop at chap. 17 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

In the preceding chapter, De Tocqueville argued that religion serves to moderate materialism in democratic societies. Here in chapter 16, he again explored the social utility of religious beliefs, but it almost seems that he wished to give a word of caution to the reader, as if to say that while democratic cultures have a natural drift toward materialism, material goods are still desirable and necessary.

We may summarize the argument of the chapter as follows.  De Tocqueville explains that the ability to promote the goods of the body is closely connected to the health of the soul. Indeed, human beings differ from the lower animals in that we use our souls and our rational faculties to create material goods. We do not use only instinct, as with beasts.  Moreover, with the soul, we multiply these enjoyments of the body. One can provide for the needs of the body in proportion as the soul is strong; as the soul is weakened, it is less able to provide for the needs of the body.  In a healthy political community, the souls of citizens must remain strong, if only to put its force behind the necessary activity of providing for the needs of the body.

What De Tocqueville stated somewhat abstractly, we can try here to make somewhat more concrete and more succinct: if, as De Tocqueville feared, democratic citizens sometimes are consumed with the pursuit of more and more material things, it can dry up and wilt the moral aspects of our nature. But this could paradoxically erode the ability to produce the goods that we need or at least want, for production is not an activity unrelated to our moral qualities.

To understand a healthy economy, it may be necessary to look beyond aggregate data like unemployment rates, gross domestic product, or consumer spending. While government policies and aggregate data may be helpful metrics, a healthy economy and political community emerge also from the habits of people who live their daily lives in healthy cultures in which they have a sense of responsibility, a willingness to help others charitably, the discipline to use thrift and hard work when necessary, and sufficient courage to take the kinds of risks necessary to start a business and to grow it.  (De Tocqueville addressed a few of these themes in his fascinating little book Memoirs on Pauperism.)

In the chapter for essay 77, De Tocqueville returned once more to a thread running through the entire book, and it is one which he will elaborate more in the concluding chapters of Volume II: a healthy political order is one in which citizens govern themselves, not only through political actions like voting, but also in a broader way that involves the exercise of those habits of life that make it possible for a community to secure those things necessary for a good life (even if they are not the point of a good life) rather than relying for that provision upon some distant and often impersonal government.

Bill Reddinger is Associate Professor of Government at Regent University in Virginia Beach, VA, where he teaches courses in political philosophy and American politics.  He directs the Lincoln Program in America’s Founding Principles, an educational initiative that offers seminars and lectures related to America’s founding principles and history for Regent University students, for teachers, and for others in southeastern Virginia.  He is author of Political Thinkers for Our Time, forthcoming from NIU Press.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Zachary German

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 517 (start at chapter 15 heading) – 521 (stop at chapter 16 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

While generally positive, De Tocqueville’s analysis of the relationship between religion and democracy contains both complexity and tensions. He notes that religion will be shaped by a democratic society and that it must be so shaped in order to be sustainable and suitable for a democratic age. At the same time, he maintains that a democratic society should be shaped by religion in order to thrive. In Vol. 2, Pt. 2, Ch. 15 of Democracy in America, De Tocqueville outlines one sense in which he thinks that religious belief improves both the lives of democratic individuals and democratic societies. 

Just two chapters earlier, De Tocqueville describes how intensely Americans pursue material well-being. On the one hand, they are so obsessed with material goods that one would think that they must believe that their earthly existence will never come to an end. On the other hand, they are in such haste to acquire and enjoy as many of those goods as possible that it appears as though they live constantly driven by a fear of imminent death. To illustrate this characteristic of Americans, De Tocqueville remarks, “In the United States, a man carefully builds a dwelling in which to pass his declining years, and he sells it while the roof is being laid.”    

Yet De Tocqueville is struck by a routine exception to this fixation on material well-being. As he puts it in another part of Vol. 2, Americans are “people who spend every day of the week making a fortune and Sundays praying to God”. Each Sunday, one finds them engaged in religious observances, not commercial or industrial activities. They head to church rather than to the market or their place of work. They read their Bibles rather than their business reports.

De Tocqueville has an emphatically favorable judgment of this American phenomenon. That judgment is not grounded in religious beliefs regarding salvation or divine commands. However, his assessment is also notably different from common secular arguments for leisure. Today many would stress that time off from work is conducive to mental and physical health. They would highlight that it allows individuals to rest, to engage in hobbies and recreation, or to be with their families and friends. Reasoning along these lines forms the justification, for instance, for the U.S. Supreme Court upholding Sunday closing laws against a First Amendment challenge in McGowan v. Maryland (1961). It is possible to attribute a secular benefit even to the practice of attending religious services; after all, people find a meaningful source of community, or human connection, through religious membership. 

In contrast, it is important to De Tocqueville that Americans do not merely pause commercial and industrial activity on Sundays while participating in some form of community. He especially cares that, in doing so, they reinforce a foundational belief about reality, a belief in “the immortality of the soul”. On Sundays, Americans fortify their conviction that they are immortal beings, higher than brutes and more than mere matter. This conviction elevates their souls. 

De Tocqueville makes the case that the absence of such a belief in a democratic society would lead to the degradation of human beings and to materialistic pursuits characterized by “an insane ardor”. In subsequent chapters, he draws out the economic and political drawbacks of materialism. For the good of individuals and for the good of democratic societies, De Tocqueville urges leaders to make an effort to prevent materialism from taking root. He directs them to seek means of “raising up souls and keeping them turned toward Heaven”.  

Despite the importance which he assigns to this task, De Tocqueville gives a somewhat cryptic prescription for the maintenance (or rehabilitation) of “belief in an immaterial and immortal principle”. He begins with an unequivocal restatement of his commitment to a separation between church and state, before concluding the chapter with a perplexing remark. He writes, “I believe that the only efficacious means governments can use to put the dogma of the immortality of the soul in honor is to act every day as if they themselves believed it”.

In 2024, does commerce screech to a halt on any weekend day? Does the quest for material pleasures take a breather then? Do ennobling beliefs about humanity fend off the impression “that all is nothing but matter”? De Tocqueville prompts us to ask such questions, and he presses us to reflect on what we might learn today from his case for a soul-elevating democratic society. 

Zachary K. German is an assistant professor in the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership at Arizona State University. His research focuses on American political and constitutional thought, along with early modern thought, on questions of statesmanship, political culture and civic character, constitutional design, civic education, and politics and religion. He teaches courses on political thought, leadership, and constitutionalism, largely but not exclusively in the American context. He also contributes to K-12 civic education efforts, including teacher workshops and summer seminars for high-school students.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Joey Barretta

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 514 – 517 of this edition of Democracy in America.

In Democracy in America, the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville provides a comprehensive account of the nature of democracy based on observations made while in America. He examines the qualities of the American people that enable its free society to persist, and he describes what could lead to its decline. He argues that a movement toward democracy is inevitable in a commercial society, and this is borne out in the industrial growth that enabled the foundation of America. The development of industry enabled a greater diffusion of material goods among the mass of the people. In a democracy the people rule, and the institutions of government and manners of the people must both be ordered in a way that is conducive to a free society.

In this particular chapter, De Tocqueville describes how a free society is uniquely suited to long-term prosperity. While a monarchy ruled by a king with the elevation of the few initially enables material prosperity for a small group, De Tocqueville argues it would not endure. It is free societies which continue to prosper throughout history. He concludes that freedom and prosperity are intertwined, most particularly within democratic nations.

The character of the people in a democratic regime is rooted in equality of the individual, and it is shaped by the people joining into associations with their fellow citizens. De Tocqueville famously explains that associations promote a community that enables individual freedom under limited government. In this chapter, he speaks of associations in light of material concerns. In “centuries of equality,” there is a need for associations to enable one to acquire goods. Political freedom, he argues, enables the production of wealth, and despotism is destructive to it.

Democratic people long for certain goods, and freedom will enable them to attain the “material enjoyments for which they constantly sigh.”

However, an excessive longing for material enjoyment will disturb the spirit of liberty promoted by associations. The focus on accumulating wealth can be so extreme that it will lead an individual away from caring for the society as a whole. A person who solely focuses on wealth does not have the civic spirit necessary to see beyond himself, and it makes civic engagement a chore that distracts from his selfish pursuit. The desire for material enjoyments must be ordered by the cultivation of “habits of freedom.” De Tocqueville argues that the maintenance of self-government is the principal interest of every democratic citizen, and the attachment to wealth leads one to misjudge his primary interest to be the accumulation of wealth at the expense of freedom.

There needs to be a certain disposition in the democratic citizen, and De Tocqueville believes Americans have a unique combination of seeking individual interest while actively engaging in civic affairs. The individual needs to perceive that freedom furthered in the social and political realms is most beneficial for material enjoyment in private life. De Tocqueville warns that if the mass of the people is dedicated to “private affairs” they are prone to be ruled by a few which will enable the rise of despotism. Americans have been able to avoid this, and “in that genuinely deserve to be admired.” The character of the American people lets individuals both seek material enjoyments but also remain engaged in civic activities required for the maintenance of freedom. This does not mean that Americans have no concern for material enjoyment. Rather, they are directed by their capacity of reason instead of being blindly ruled by passion alone.

Americans, De Tocqueville explains, appear to be guided primarily by selfish motivations, but their conduct reveals something more noble. He writes, “An American occupies himself with private interests as if he were alone in the world, and a moment later, he gives himself over to the public as if he had forgotten them.”  Americans see freedom as the “greatest guarantee of their well-being.” In other words, they do what De Tocqueville says is necessary for democratic people: recognize that freedom is the key to prosperity.

Joey barretta received his B.A. in Political Science and History as an Ashbrook Scholar at Ashland University. He went on to earn an M.A. and Ph.D. from the Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College. His academic training is in political philosophy and American political thought, and he has published widely on the political thought of Frederick Douglass.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Wilfred M. McClay

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 511 (start at chapter 13 heading) – 514 (stop at chapter 14 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) was a Frenchman, and one of the most important European social and political thinkers of the nineteenth century. Yet his most famous work was about America, which he visited for nine months in 1831, and then analyzed in his book Democracy in America (1835-40). He saw the United States as a pioneering nation moving in the front ranks of human history. In America, one could gaze upon “the image of democracy itself, of its penchants, its character, its prejudices, its passions”—and having so gazed, could perhaps take away lessons that would allow leaders in his own country to deal more intelligently and effectively with the democratic changes coming to Europe. 

He was firmly convinced that the movement toward greater social equality—which is what he meant by the word “democracy”—represented an inescapable feature of the modern age. And he was in favor of it. There would be no going back. But he also saw some downsides to democracy and insisted on pointing them out. His chapter on “Why the Americans Show Themselves so Restive in the Midst of Their Well-Being” is a perfect illustration of his position. 

The chapter revolves around De Tocqueville’s contrast between aristocratic societies and democratic societies. For De Tocqueville, an aristocratic society was one governed by inequality, with a small, privileged class at the top of the social pyramid. It was a society in which one’s social status was assigned at birth and kept for life, a status bound up in the place of one’s family. 

In the democratic society, however, matters were quite different. There was a general “spirit” of equality; the people are sovereign, and the right to vote is widely extended; hierarchies are abolished, and any legal status or privilege extended to the well-born few is abolished; rights are universal, or tending toward universality, as is literacy and access to education; families are comparatively weak and changeable, even ephemeral; there a constant pressure toward the scattering of inherited wealth, with the breaking-up of large estates and large fortunes; and a resulting tendency toward social and economic fluidity, the fading of class distinctions, leading to universal sameness. 

It would be our natural tendency, wouldn’t it, to choose the democratic society over the aristocratic one. We like the idea of individual opportunity, of going our own way. But De Tocqueville opens this chapter with a paradox that might cause us to think twice. 

In remote parts of the Old World, he observes, there were ignorant and impoverished people who were nevertheless happy and contented. But in America, where prosperity and liberty were widely enjoyed, there was unhappiness. “It seemed to me,” he says, “that a sort of cloud habitually covered [the Americans’] features; they appeared to me grave and almost sad.

Why the difference? He has an explanation. The residents of the Old World are locked into an unchanging social structure, so one’s standing in the world is unlikely to change. 

Families remained in the same place for centuries, every man remembered his ancestors and anticipated his descendants, and strove to do his duty to both. The individual person was so enmeshed in the fabric of society that it was impossible to imagine him or her apart from it—as implausible as swimming in the air, or breathing beneath the waves. 

In democratic societies, however, it was completely different. The principle of equality reigned, such duties and fixities were lost. Aristocracy had made of all citizens a long chain that went from the peasant up to the king; democracy breaks the chain and sets each link apart. The word for the latter condition is “individualism.” 

We greatly prize individualism, don’t we? Is it possible, though, that our individualism is a source of the restlessness that De Tocqueville describes? That’s what De Tocqueville thought. The reason the isolated peasants are more content is because they accept the negative aspects of their lives, since they can’t imagine anything better would be possible for them. But the democratic souls do not accept inequality. They are ambitious, and “dream constantly of the goods they do not have.” 

But here comes the downside: “men will never find an equality that is enough for them.” And this: “When inequality is the common law of a society, the strongest inequalities do not strike the eye; when everything is nearly on a level, the least of them wound it. That is why the desire for equality always becomes more insatiable as equality is greater.” 

Which is why, he says, the Americans are restless in the midst of their prosperity. It seems that there is a price to be paid for any social system, including ours. Much of the rest of De Tocqueville’s great book is devoted to considering how we can lessen that price, and keep the pursuit of equality from crowding out all other values, including the spirit of liberty. 

Does De Tocqueville’s analysis ring true to you? Many scholars and thinkers believe that it does, even though Democracy in America was written almost two centuries ago. 

Wilfred M. McClay is Professor of History at Hillsdale College, and the author of Land of Hope: An Invitation to the Great American Story. He served for eleven years on the board of the National Endowment for the Humanities, and is currently is a member of the U.S. Commission on the Semiquincentennial, which has been charged with planning the celebration of the nation’s 250th birthday in 2026. He has been the recipient of fellowships from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the National Academy of Education, and received the Bradley Prize in 2022. He is a graduate of St. John’s College (Annapolis) and received his Ph.D. in History from the Johns Hopkins University.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Kevin Vance

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 510 – 511 (stop at chapter 13 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

De Tocqueville frequently draws attention to the ways in which American religion has conformed itself or been conformed to the habits of thinking and acting within the democratic social state. In general, one would expect American religion to support bourgeois virtues and to inoculate the people against fanaticism that would draw them too far away from the goods of this world. At the same time, a sharp-eyed observer of American religion could not help but be struck by the proliferation of small and zealous sects that constituted a contrast with the dominant religious ethos. In this chapter, De Tocqueville tries to make sense of these paradoxical phenomena.

In the preceding chapters, De Tocqueville considers the passion for material well-being, which he takes to be a general and even dominant passion among the American people. Despite the public advantages of this passion, De Tocqueville nevertheless expresses regret that it entirely absorbs Americans and distracts them from more noble or leisurely pursuits that are praiseworthy for a human being. In Chapter 12, De Tocqueville notes that the “taste for the infinite” is an instinct grounded in the “immovable foundation” of human nature. Though it is weakened, it has not been extinguished by the advent of the democratic social state. It is therefore quite understandable that as the general American population narrows its focus on material goods, some will rebel against that circumscription of human life. “There are moments of respite,” says De Tocqueville, “when their souls seem all at once to break the material bonds that restrain them and to escape impetuously toward heaven.”

If Americans are a religious people, and if religion is the first of our political institutions, why doesn’t mainstream American religion sufficiently quench this universal thirst for the infinite? In the preceding chapters, De Tocqueville shows how American religion had lowered its gaze to temporal goods. Moreover, American religion had even made peace with the dominant taste for material enjoyment. In Chapter 11, De Tocqueville points out that the industry fostered by this taste is “combined with a sort of religious morality.” While some goods are forbidden as the objects of desire, Americans’ hearts are “delivered without reserve” to those goods that are otherwise permitted by religion and morality. American religion functioned as an imprimatur as it simultaneously restrained the commercial and acquisitive spirit of the American people. It is little wonder, then, that Americans in search for the infinite might feel compelled to seek out what De Tocqueville regards as “bizarre sects” that often teach “follies.” American religion that merely fostered and channeled desires for temporal goods would have little appeal to those gazing beyond the goods of the body.

Some early American statesmen, such as John Adams, regarded the proliferation of zealous sects as a threat to republican self-government, and for that reason tolerated state alliances with moderate religion to help avert those dangers.

De Tocqueville’s treatment of this phenomenon does not evince a similar alarm. De Tocqueville is confident of the unrelenting power of the democratic social state to nudge Americans toward the practical concerns of this world. Moreover, majority opinion within America exercises a kind of tyranny over the American mind. Within the horizons of the democratic social state, it is almost inconceivable that any small enthusiastic sect would gain sufficient proponents to unsettle the habits of mind of the American people. This is due to the propensity of the greater number to focus their energies on obtaining and preserving the goods of this world. Moreover, some liberal thinkers and statesmen were worried that religious enthusiasms would deprive the people of the necessary critical judgment that they would need to act responsibly as democratic citizens. De Tocqueville, on the other hand, recognized that in America, the people generally excused religious matters from the critical personal evaluation to which they subjected political matters. In America, religion has remained entirely separate from the political order. The population has “accepted the principal dogmas of the Christian religion without examination,” which suggests that any irrationality or lack of critical judgment in the religious sphere need not affect an American’s judgment in the political sphere.

In Part I, Ch. 5 of this volume, De Tocqueville explains that religion—even absurd ones—can provide a useful limit for theoretical and political life. The absence of religion, he worried, would leave people confused and unable to act in a reasonable way and fearful to think through the great human questions. Such a people, lacking all limits on religious speculation, would be inclined to accept political servitude. In this chapter, De Tocqueville’s treatment of what he called “bizarre” sects again raises the question of how long a purely civil religion can prove useful to the democratic social state if it cannot satisfy the spiritual instinct of the people.

Kevin Vance is Director of the Center for Constitutional Liberty at Benedictine College. He received his PhD and MA in political science from the University of Notre Dame and his BA from Claremont McKenna College. His research focuses on law and religion, constitutional law, and American political thought. His scholarship has appeared in the Journal of Church and State, the Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, and the Journal of Law and Courts.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Jon Schaff

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 506 (start at chapter 10 heading) – 509 of this edition of Democracy in America.

Starting roughly in the 17th century, Europe found itself moving from an agricultural economy to one based on trade, banks, and industry. Aristocratic society consisted of a few wealthy, aristocratic landowners and the many who worked the land. In the emerging commercial society, there were various avenues of access to a comfortable living. In short, we were starting to see the rise of the middle class. Wealth went from being based on family and landownership to something that one could gain from hard work, knowledge, and thrift. 

Many people connect the rise of the middle class to the ascent of democracy. The essential notion is that if people of a non-aristocratic background could acquire wealth, which included paying taxes, they deserved some say in how government operates. Government was not the plaything of people who happened to come from the right family. Free markets and a budding commercial class promoted various democratic principles such as the rule of law, the notion of consent, the right to property, and basic liberties.

America was no different. If anything, America’s democratic ethos was more advanced than in Europe as aristocracy never really had a hold in America. We might think of Ben Franklin’s famous essay “The Way of Wealth” and his aphoristic advice regarding how to get ahead in the world.  “A penny saved is a penny earned” and “Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise” put gaining material comfort at the heart of happiness. In the early 19th century Americans developed the idea of the “self-made man,” the notion that through hard work, sound habits, and frugality a person could rise from meager circumstances to relative success. The biographies of Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln illustrate this theory well.

These concepts undergird De Tocqueville’s discussion of American “taste for well-being” and “the love of material enjoyments”.  As is typical of Tocqueville’s style, he makes a distinction between aristocratic and democratic times. Throughout Democracy in America, De Tocqueville notes that aristocratic times tend to be characterized by the love of virtue, an appreciation of beauty and grandeur, an elevation of mind, and building things of enduring value. Democracy, by contrast, tends to aim for what is useful. It elevates the notion of material comfort to a key virtue, to the neglect of public affairs and noble enterprises. 

In these two chapters, De Tocqueville posits that aristocrats do not generally focus on deriving pleasure from material things. Recall that what makes an aristocrat is not the possession of great wealth. The key features of aristocracy are the possession of inherited wealth, especially land, and the fact that the aristocrat is at leisure, i.e., does not work for a living. He uses his leisure to pursue goals more elevated than mere money making. Businessmen may have great wealth, more even than some of the nobility, without being members of the aristocracy.

However, De Tocqueville notes that some aristocrats do find immoderate pleasure in worldly goods. In his other major work, The Ancien Régime and the Revolution, his meditation on the French Revolution, De Tocqueville criticizes the pre-revolutionary French aristocracy. He argues that French nobility had all the trappings of aristocracy, namely wealth and privilege, without serving a public function. They were merely decadent. The resentment of the people toward such an aristocracy is one of the causes of the Revolution, De Tocqueville claims. In these two chapters, one encounters De Tocqueville’s description of such a corrupt aristocracy. 

In these chapters De Tocqueville is a friendly critic of democracy. He believes democratic citizens are too materialistic. Because fortune is uncertain in America, regularly gained and lost, everyone thinks more about material things. The wealthy know their riches may be evanescent while the poor have sufficient examples to believe that wealth just might be within their grasp if they work hard enough and get a little lucky. The rigid class structure of aristocracy causes rich and poor alike to think less about money, as the aristocracy knows it cannot lose it and the poor know they cannot gain it. In contrast, the fluid nature of democratic society causes nearly everyone to think about money and well-being, i.e., acquiring relative comfort. 

The concern for well-being amongst democrats undermines virtue. Unlike virtue, De Tocqueville argues, well-being can be purchased. This makes well-being attractive to democratic people; anyone can make enough money to be comfortable while only some are able to be truly virtuous. Money-making is more democratic than moral excellence. Further, the love of comfort may render democratic people complacent. If they have material well-being, they may forget about defending their liberty. As long as I can afford various pleasures, why do I care if I have the right to vote or free speech? A despot may take advantage of a lack of virtue and the peoples’ lack of vigilance to subvert democracy. 

Jon D. Schaff is Professor of Political Science at Northern State University in Aberdeen, South Dakota, where he has taught since 2001. He teaches classes in American political thought, American political institutions, as well as politics in literature and film. He is author of multiple articles and book chapters as well as two books: Abraham Lincoln and the Limits of Liberal Democracy and Age of Anxiety: Meaning, Identity, and Politics in 21st Century Literature and Film (co-authored with Anthony Wachs). He co-edited Humanitas History of America II: From Revolution to Reconstruction, 2 Vols for Classical Academic Press.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Kevin Vance

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 504 – 506 (stop at chapter 10 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

De Tocqueville has already explained the danger of individualism in the democratic social state as well as the likelihood that these dangers are mitigated in America by the doctrine of self-interest well understood. Why does De Tocqueville now apply the doctrine of self-interest well understood to matters of religion? He has already emphasized the importance of religion in America, and the reader can easily begin to imagine the potential utility of religion in further protecting the people from individualism. De Tocqueville’s framing of this chapter suggests that his contemporaries often regarded religion as a support for duty, which they pitted against utility or interest, so it may have been important to show how religion and self-interest are harmonized. De Tocqueville also raises the possibility that a conventional understanding of self-interest sans religion would fail to sufficiently remind those tempted to timidity or motivated only by self-preservation that death is not the worst outcome.

In the first part of the chapter, De Tocqueville reconciles the doctrine of self-interest to religion, or, rather, he shows how Christianity has long reconciled itself to the doctrine as a means to bring the mass of people into its ranks. For the adherent, according to De Tocqueville, it would satisfy self-interest well understood to persevere in belief despite doubts, as “he will judge that it is wise to risk some of the goods of this world to preserve his rights to the immense inheritance that he has been promised in the other.”

In the second part of the chapter, De Tocqueville considers how Americans’ practice of religion is actually guided by the doctrine of self-interest as they calculate that the risks of eternal punishment outweigh the “hindrances” imposed by their religion. They are not ashamed to admit as much. Although the American believer might be more inclined than a believer in an aristocratic age to tie religion to a calculated risk analysis rather than practice religion out of “love of God,” that is not where the most striking difference is to be found between Americans and the aristocratic age’s pursuit of religion. What is especially unique about American religion and the doctrine of self-interest well understood is that American preachers often situate the “interest” in this world rather than the next. According to De Tocqueville, they “constantly come back to earth and only with great trouble can they take their eyes off it.” Instead of focusing on a pure love of God, or even an eternal reward that could satisfy self-interest well understood, American preachers emphasize the temporal benefits of religion to supporting freedom and public order.

De Tocqueville had earlier noted this propensity of American preachers to speak “so often of the goods of this world” as well as the “invincible” distaste of Americans for the supernatural in their philosophic method. While friendliness to religion was a notable attribute of the American people during De Tocqueville’s visits, the religious practice that De Tocqueville encountered had largely been tamed to emphasize worldly goods either as a direct cause of the democratic social state or as a defensive measure to maintain relevance in the democratic age. De Tocqueville’s treatment of religion in this chapter again emphasizes the malleability of American religion to the “intellectual empire” of the majority in a democracy.

Given that within this chapter De Tocqueville mentions the utility of religion in helping citizens acquire virtue by offering a horizon beyond death, De Tocqueville’s decision to highlight once again the adaptability and worldliness of American religion raises at least one interesting problem. If religion is continually pulled back down to earth in America, does it eventually lose its efficacy at pointing Americans beyond mere survival, which has many temporal benefits in De Tocqueville’s account? Does it therefore, in a strange twist, lose its appeal to those Americans most interested in its benefits in this life? The religious practices which most consistently go with the grain of the democratic social state seems to be the kind that would continually leave unchallenged the prejudice of Americans to shy away from the supernatural and look only toward the practical, thus depriving it of what might actually be most useful in mitigating the negative effects of individualism and buttressing a Tocquevillian understanding of freedom.

Kevin Vance is Director of the Center for Constitutional Liberty at Benedictine College. He received his PhD and MA in political science from the University of Notre Dame and his BA from Claremont McKenna College. His research focuses on law and religion, constitutional law, and American political thought. His scholarship has appeared in the Journal of Church and State, the Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, and the Journal of Law and Courts.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: John D. Wilsey

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 500 (start at chapter 8 heading) – 503 of this edition of Democracy in America.

 

Virtue, Individualism, and Self Interest Rightly Understood

Much could be said about the prescience of Alexis De Tocqueville, reflected especially in his classic work, Democracy in America. De Tocqueville’s two volume work is not called the most insightful work on American political culture and institutions ever written by a foreigner for nothing. One of the key reasons why historians and political theorists have placed De Tocqueville’s Democracy in such a lofty position is that the book is more than just political science. De Tocqueville based his political insights on human nature itself.

De Tocqueville saw human nature as complex, yet as being broadly two-fold. On the one hand, persons were self-centered, prone to concentrating and abusing power, and greedy for material wealth. On the other hand, persons yearned for freedom, were disposed to direct their thoughts and actions toward virtue and the eternal world, innately religious, and communal. Persons were always looking to secure the common good. 

Thus, De Tocqueville saw a conflict in human nature between the tendency toward individualism (which fed greed, isolation, and despotism) and the longing for virtue (which fed public spirit, religious faith, and freedom). 

The founders of our republic are well-known for insisting on the indispensability of virtue for the success of a republic. Republics cannot survive if the citizenry lacks virtue, that is, moderation, courage, justice, and wisdom. When De Tocqueville came to America in 1831, he did not consider Americans a virtuous people. However, he did think they had mastered the art of channeling the vice of selfishness in a virtuous direction. He thus described Americans as having l’interêt bien entendu, or self interest rightly understood. 

De Tocqueville saw that Americans had a strong tendency toward individualism—selfishness and greed that isolated citizens from their communities resulting in the concentration of power in government. Such a concentration of power led to majorities who would then be in position to tyrannize minorities, limiting their freedom of speech and exercising a form of tyranny he called democratic despotism. Nevertheless, Americans were able to counteract that individualistic tendency by securing public goods by means of advancing their private interests. While Americans were not necessarily virtuous, they did carefully consider how they could make small sacrifices that would benefit themselves as well as the rest of their communities.

Consider an example from our own day. When we make charitable contributions, we write the combined value of our yearly contributions off on our income taxes. Thus, we as citizens are encouraged to give to charitable causes generously because we receive something of great benefit. In this way, both public and private goods are obtained. Writing off your charitable contributions each year when you prepare your taxes is an ordinary example of self-interest rightly understood.  As De Tocqueville wrote, “American moralists do not claim that one must sacrifice oneself because it is great to do it; but they say boldly that such sacrifices are as necessary to the one who imposes them on himself as the one who profits from them” 

The effect of self interest rightly understood, as De Tocqueville saw it, was that it “turns personal interest against itself” thereby mitigating the power of individualistic tendencies. American citizens were not paragons of virtue, but in the practical, ordinary behavior in public and private, they achieved a balance between public and private interests. The power of self interest rightly understood could be seen in how citizens nurtured their local communities. De Tocqueville described such nurturing as public spirit. With public spirit, citizens understood that they had a personal stake in the success or failure of their localities. If their town flourished, the individual citizens would flourish; if their town deteriorated, then citizens would also find their fortunes sinking with their town. 

Since Americans enjoyed religious freedom, religion thrived in America as in no other country De Tocqueville had ever seen. Self interest rightly understood was a product of religion. Christianity taught that love for God and love for others brought great rewards, and Americans were religious (at least in part) because they had their eye on eternity. Religion formed the basis for the mores, what De Tocqueville thought of as the moral character of the nation. Religion was essential to freedom, and self interest rightly understood was part of Americans’ understanding of the practical meaning of religion.

Americans associated together for a wide variety of causes, some national and some local. In associating together, Americans avoided isolation and selfishness, but they got together not merely in the name of the public good. Citizens associating together knew that they received benefits also, so in advancing a public cause, they found their freedoms secured against any threat from democratic despotism.

Self interest rightly understood plays a key role in a society that is based, not on hereditary privilege, but on basic human equality. As Americans, we can still find ways to balance public and private interests to protect our freedom.

John D. Wilsey is Professor of Church History and Philosophy and Chair of the Department of Church History at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is also a Senior Fellow at the Center for Religion, Culture, and Democracy, an initiative of First Liberty Institute.
Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Robert John Burton

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 496 – 500 (stop at chapter 8 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

Imagine living in a community with the following problems: the senior living center needs $1 million for updates, Main Street needs to be revitalized, and debates need to be organized to elect a new mayor. Now imagine a community where these problems are solved, not by government, but by the voluntary association of citizens: the chamber of commerce organizes local business owners to invest in the senior living center, churches of various denominations hold a day of service to revitalize Main Street, and delegates from both political parties form a debate commission.

According to De Tocqueville, communities like this are not only good because they may be effective at addressing political and civic problems (in truth, one can imagine that such “free labor” comes in various degrees of quality). Far more important is that the citizens in such communities are, through association with their fellows, developing the skills and habits necessary for democracies to remain happy, prosperous, and free.

In considering chapter 7, it may be helpful to step back and recall one of the major questions De Tocqueville is asking and the thesis he proposes in response: Question 1: When all citizens are free and equal, how do they learn to self-govern in exercising liberty, putting aside their own good for the common good?

Thesis 1: Through governing and associating directing with their fellows, democratic citizens both a) see the effects of exercising their liberty on others and b) develop the skills and habits (or virtues) that free democratic societies require. Chapters 1-7 of the current section constituting the evidence for De Tocqueville’s thesis. In Chapters 1-4, De Tocqueville has warned his readers regarding the danger of individualism: self-absorbed citizens focus on their own good and are isolated and weak. If unchecked, individualism increases the relative strength and opportunities of would-be despots. In Chapters 4 and 5, De Tocqueville proposed voluntary associations as a remedy to the problem of individualism because associations draw citizens outside themselves and into community with others; in doing so, citizens are also empowered politically. 

Here in Chapter 7, De Tocqueville continues his evaluation of associations as an antidote to individualism and a bulwark against despotism by addressing the relationship between political associations on the one hand, and the civic associations on the other. In particular, De Tocqueville will argue that civic associations and political associations have an interdependent relationship: as citizens associate to solve local, common problems, they are (perhaps, unwittingly) developing the skills and habits for addressing great political problems in the future.

Conversely, the character of political associations is such that they are peculiarly situated to “develop” and “perfect” civic associations (496). While citizens may “fancy” themselves independent and self-sufficient in civil life, they must see that political associations are necessary for getting things done in politics. Individually, citizens are simply too weak; it takes political associations filled with many individuals to accomplish political aims. Thus, political associations both foster “[a] desire to unite” and teach “the art of doing it.” When practiced, they develop the “habit of association.”

Seen in this light, a principal good of political associations is that, because they are more immediately or obviously necessary in a democracy, they are the most natural first exposure of democratic citizens to the skills and habits of associational life: an association draws “a multitude of individuals outside themselves at the same time… [and] brings them together.” These relationships then serve as catalysts for future associations: “They meet each other once and learn to find each other always”.

Finally, underlying De Tocqueville’s discussion in Chapter 7 is an important second-order question about possibilities and limits of freedom of association: Question 2: Can the freedom to associate be permitted in some cases, such as economic endeavors, while being prohibited in others, such as political ones, without losing “all the goods” that associational life can offer?  

[Footnote: In applying this to our world in the first quarter of the 21 st Century, one cannot help but think of the People’s Republic of China, where the Communist Party has sought to do just this. Despite the Chinese Constitution guaranteeing that “Citizens… shall enjoy freedom of… association,” the Party has, in practice, encouraged some economic associations while prohibiting political ones that do not toe the party line.” According to De Tocqueville, civic associational life will not thrive in China until political associations are permitted.]

Thesis 2: Political associations and civic associations are interdependent, and limiting some associations, such as political ones, will have a detrimental chilling effect on associational life and the development of the civic habits they engender.

While the prospect of limiting the freedom of association may seem foreign, even reprehensible to us, we must recall that even in contemporary America we see association as a right with proper limits: associating for criminal purposes, such as a gang or terrorist organization, is clearly beyond the pale. In Germany today, neo-Nazi political parties are still banned. How much more may De Tocqueville, situated as he is in the aftermath of the French Revolutions of 1789 and 1830 and at the cusp of further political unrest in 1848, should consider the deleterious necessity of imposing some restrictions on freedom of association.

Yet despite his circumstances, De Tocqueville’s response is stark. While extreme circumstances may necessitate limiting some political associations, it comes at a cost: less political associations, less civic associations, and less virtues.

 

Robert J. Burton is the Tocqueville Assistant Professor of Civic Thought and Leadership within the Department of History and Political Science and director of the Civic Thought and Leadership Initiative (CTLI) within UVU’s Center for Constitutional Studies.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: John Bicknell

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 493-495 of this edition of Democracy in America.

Modern readers who turn to any number of media options other than newspapers might find De Tocqueville’s focus on print to be archaic. But his thesis remains valid today when applied to those alternative forms of news and information gathering.

“Only a newspaper can come to deposit the same thought in a thousand minds at the same moment,” he wrote in the 1830s.

He wrote at the very moment when newspapers were beginning to boom, and just before the revolution in communication and transportation that accompanied the invention of the telegraph and the spread of railroads.

De Tocqueville tied the importance of newspapers in developing and fostering associations to his work’s main focus, the centrality of civil society to American culture.

Where groups of ordinary but active citizens matter more than elites, their ability to communicate with each other – in dependable forums with regular publication and an agreed upon idiom – was essential.

For him, this was not simply a matter of politics – of being a critical voice in defending the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Newspapers, De Tocqueville asserted, “maintain civilization.”

In the classic construction, newspapers have never been very good at telling people what to think, but have been quite successful in telling people what to think about. “If there were no newspapers,” he wrote, “there would almost never be common action.”

In the 1830s – and, indeed, until the birth of the Yellow Press in the latter half of the 19th century — newspapers were typically party organs.

Again, De Tocqueville was writing at an opportune time, just as the Second Party System featuring the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs was forming. Newspapers chose sides and reported the news from the point of view of their sponsor party. (One could argue that we have come full circle on that account, with blatantly partisan media choosing sides rather than straining to maintain objectivity.)

What differentiated the United States from the aristocratic countries of Europe was the level of participation in public affairs by the common man. “The principal citizens who live in an aristocratic country perceive each other from afar,” he wrote, “and if they want to unite their forces, they move toward one another carrying a long a multitude in their train.”

Not so in America. Common people, “all being very small and lost in the crowd,” do not all know or know of each other as the elites usually do. They have to seek each other out. The avenue for doing so was the newspaper.

Today, that purpose is often better served by social media than by newspapers or television news. But the process described by De Tocqueville almost 200 years ago remains much the same, even as the medium has changed.

“Up comes a newspaper that exposes to their view the sentiment or the idea that had been presented to each of them simultaneously but separately,” he wrote. “All are immediately directed toward that light, and those wandering spirits who had long sought each other in the shadows finally meet each other and unite.” It is perhaps a romanticized view of X, Facebook, or TikTok to think of users as wandering spirits seeking each other in the shadows before finally uniting. But in essence, that’s what’s happening, on a much grander scale, just as it did with party-affiliated newspapers in the 1830s.

And scale matters.

“In democratic nations… it is always necessary that those associating must be very numerous in order that the association may have some power” De Toccqueville wrote.

When historians write about the “revolution” in communication and transportation, they are not overstating the case. Until the 1840s, time and distance restricted the ability of Americans to travel and communicate quickly with anyone more than a few dozen miles away.

The invention of the telegraph in 1844 and the rapid expansion of railroads – track mileage soared from 1,000 miles in 1835 to 3,000 miles in 1840 to 30,000 miles by 1860 – altered the landscape in ways de Tocqueville and few of his contemporaries could imagine.

The telegraph spread news almost instantaneously. Railroads carried ever more newspapers – from 900 in 1830 to 3,000 in 1860 – into every corner of the country. Suddenly what happened in New York or Washington could be read about within days in virtually every small town east of the Mississippi.

This resulted in a better-informed populace and provided greater opportunities for like-minded citizens to communicate and organize.

But it also began the process of nationalizing the media, a trend that continues today. The concentration of information resources in Washington and New York divorced large segments of the population from the unifying spirit of mass media, creating the need for a social media that gathers De Tocqueville’s “wandering spirits” in search of each other.

John Bicknell was a journalist for 30 years, as a reporter, editor, columnist, and opinion writer in Florida and Washington, D.C. He is the author of three books – America 1844: Religious Fervor, Westward Expansion and the Presidential Election That Transformed the Nation, Lincoln’s Pathfinder: John C. Fremont and the Violent Election of 1856, and The Pathfinder and the President: John C. Fremont, Abraham Lincoln, and the Battle for Emancipation –and was a senior editor of the 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022 editions of The Almanac of America Politics.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Robert E. Wright

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 489 – 492 of this edition of Democracy in America.

This is the part where De Tocqueville famously argued that Americans of all types voluntarily associated to carry on “commercial and industrial” enterprises and also a “thousand” other types of endeavors “religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small.” Over twenty years ago, I set out to put quantitative bones on his insight and concluded that he did not exaggerate.

A decade ago, I published in Corporation Nation detailed data regarding the formation of for-profit corporations in each of the U.S. states, territories, and District of Columbia from the formation of the nation until the outbreak of the Civil War. The “commercial and industrial” enterprises given legal life by special act of incorporation numbered over 23,000 and included banks, bridges, canals, ditch drainage companies, insurers, lumber companies, manufacturers, mining companies, railroads, telegraphs, tunnels, and turnpikes. Many thousands more chartered under general incorporation laws but could not be counted as comprehensively due to records destruction and bureaucratic barriers to access in states like New York and Michigan.

Last year, I published in Liberty Lost detailed data regarding the formation of nonprofit corporations in each of the U.S. states, territories, and District of Columbia from the formation of the nation until the outbreak of the Civil War. Those “religious, moral, grave” organizations given legal life by special act of incorporation numbered over 14,000 and included abolition societies, asylums of various types, charities, churches, fraternal, maternal, and sororal organizations, lyceums, militias, missionary societies, museums, musical institutions, schools of many types, and various social reform movements from socialist communes to temperance societies, among many other endeavors. Many thousands of additional associations chartered under general incorporation laws but, as with for-profit corporations, extant records proved too costly to access, fragmentary, and scattered to review as systematically as the special charters printed in state statute books.

Moreover, only the largest organizations obtained formal charters. Many other voluntary associations, from for-profit partnerships to nonprofit social clubs, formed by means of personal agreements, trusts, or informal articles of association without the imprimatur of any district, state, or territorial government. Many general references to them, in addition to De Tocqueville’s, point to their existence but even when every extant source, including every letter and diary entry, is machine readable, the names and purposes of many of America’s “very small” early voluntary associations will remain forever hidden from our view.

What those voluntary associations did for America, however, endured long after the organizations themselves disbanded, with results globally palpable. America came to be seen as a “free country” because it relied largely on voluntary efforts. As De Tocqueville argues in this section, Americans learned to cooperate without coercion, following the lead not of government officials, as in France, or rich aristocrats, as in Britain, but of anyone with commitment, verve, and a good idea or two about how to improve society and the people composing it.

De Tocqueville was also quite right to note that “Americans of all ages, all conditions” involved themselves in voluntary associations. Although men of European ancestry dominated the leadership of for-profit corporations, women were often shareholders and free blacks were not excluded from share ownership either. Moreover, women and free blacks often chartered their own nonprofit organizations. Some have been written about, but I discovered hundreds of others neglected by historians more interested in making politically motivated gross generalizations than in studying what America was once really like, not a perfect meritocracy but also not a place where social or commercial innovation was suffered to be stymied by class, gender, or government strictures.

De Tocqueville ends this part with the warning that civilization itself requires perfection of “the art of associating … in the same ratio as equality of conditions increases.” That prediction led me to call my book on nonprofits Liberty Lost because it seems that as Americans push for greater “equality of conditions” today, they look too much to the government for it, and not enough to voluntary association. The diminution of voluntarism portends a cultural communism in which the government mishandles social policies as poorly as it commands economies. As De Tocqueville put it, “a government can no more suffice on its own to maintain and renew the circulation of sentiments and ideas in a great people than to conduct all its industrial undertakings.”

The billions currently spent on politicking to control the government, De Tocqueville thus suggests, might better be spent directly ameliorating undesirable social conditions, not via grandiose top-down “programs” and “plans” designed to garner votes, but by means of grassroots organizations led by able volunteers with intimate knowledge of local conditions and needs.

Robert E. Wright is a lecturer in economics at Central Michigan University. He previously taught economics at the University of Virginia, New York University, and Augustana University. He is the (co)author of 25 books, including, most recently, FDR’s Long New Deal: A Public Choice Perspective (Palgrave, 2024) and Liberty Lost: The Rise and Demise of Voluntary Association in America Since Its Founding (AIER, 2023)

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Benjamin Slomski

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 485 (start at Chapter 4 heading – 488 of this edition of Democracy in America.

De Tocqueville continues his discussion of the effects of equality. The great vice promoted by equality is individualism, the idea that one can withdraw from society and only tend to himself. Equality, when misunderstood, can make people think that they have no need of each other. De Tocqueville is offering a friendly warning so that democracy can be made to work. In this chapter, he points to an answer to the challenges posed by the doctrine of equality. It turns out that Americans have found a very American solution to a very American problem.

The danger is that individualism, the vice bred by equality, is the lifeblood of despotism. Individualism allows despotism to thrive because isolated individuals do not care what the government does as long as they can remain isolated. Despotism asks people to abstain from public life. The natural meaning of words becomes inverted in a despotism. The good citizen keeps to himself while bad citizens want to work together for the common good. De Tocqueville is not necessarily speaking of the classic despotism of a cruel tyrant, but is foreshadowing the possibility of a new, “soft” despotism that can develop in democracies. Democratic despotism is less obvious but more dangerous as all it requires is for citizens to ignore public affairs.

De Tocqueville sees an answer to curb individualism and impede despotism in the American practice of free institutions. America’s free elections force individuals to look beyond themselves and to the concerns of their community. Once people realize that there are public affairs that can only be handled on the community level, they learn that they are not as independent as they thought. De Tocqueville describes the change in the human soul that results from free institutions: “Several of the passions that chill and divide hearts are then obliged to withdraw to the bottom of the soul and hide there. Haughtiness dissimilates; contempt does not dare come to light. Selfishness is afraid of itself.”

America’s free institutions force individuals to care about the community because they have free elections. The most ambitious individuals who aspire to public office realize they must depend upon their fellow citizens for support. The virtue of free elections leads De Tocqueville to declare that “Americans have combated the individualism to which equality gives birth with freedom, and they have defeated it.” It is not enough to have free elections on the national level. America’s founders knew that it was insufficient to have national representation but instead created a political need in every part of the nation for citizens to work together and depend on each other. De Tocqueville writes that “[t]he general affairs of a country occupy only the principal citizens.” These principal citizens, most obviously the representatives in Congress, only meet occasionally and struggle to form communal bonds. National affairs are too distant and abstract for the normal citizen to worry about. The local affairs of a particular place, however, concern the people who live there and lead them to know each other.

People are forced to care about local affairs because it directly impacts their own interests:
Only with difficulty does one draw a man out of himself to interest him in the destiny of the whole state, because he understands poorly the influence that the destiny of the state can exert on his lot. But should it be necessary to pass a road through his property, he will see at first glance that he has come across a relation between this small public affair and his greatest private affairs …
Local affairs have an unavoidable effect on one’s life and livelihood. The pursuit of one’s interest on the local level brings people together in a community: “Local freedoms, which make many citizens put value on the affection of their neighbors and those close to them, therefore constantly bring men closer to one another, despite the instincts that separate them, and force them to aid each other.” Personal interests lead individuals to pay attention to their neighbors and eventually cause them to care about their community.

De Tocqueville describes a process where self-interest leads people to get involved in their community, ultimately overcoming individualism and leading citizens to transcend their self-interest to make real sacrifices: “One is occupied with the general interest at first by necessity and then by choice; what was calculation becomes instinct; and by dint of working for the good of one’s fellow citizens, one finally picks up the habit and taste of serving them.” For De Tocqueville, “[i]t is not the elected magistrate who makes American democracy prosper; but it prospers because the magistrate is elective.” Local elections drive Americans out of their homes and into their community. The necessity of electing offices guards against despotism by causing Americans to see their place within a larger community.

Benjamin Slomski is an Assistant Professor of Political Science and Campus Pre-Law Advisor at Purdue University Fort Wayne. He earned his PhD from Baylor University and his teaching and research focus on American political thought, constitutional law, and political institutions. He previously taught at Ashland University, Tarleton State University, and Baylor University.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Jack Barlow

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 484 (start at Chapter 3 heading – 485 (stop at Chapter 4 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

De Tocqueville turns his sights to France in the third chapter. In this discussion, he notes that Americans had “the great advantage” of “being born equal instead of becoming so.” Because of this advantage, he thinks, the U.S. was able to escape some of the childhood diseases of the democratic condition. In particular, the American institutions that help to check the results of individualism are more likely to be successful than those in Europe.

Yet this chapter is not really written for or about Americans. It gives us an important clue, however, to the political science and political psychology that De Tocqueville is describing in the book. Classical political philosophy taught that each form of government – monarchy, aristocracy, and so on – created a distinct psychology in the citizens. The classical ideal was an aristocracy composed of liberally educated, moderate gentlemen who provided the solid base of virtuous citizens. In the middle ages, the ideal was the beneficent prince. De Tocqueville (along with J.S. Mill and Ralph Waldo Emerson, among many others) thought that the changes created by “equality of conditions” demanded a new psychology. “Individualism” is a key finding of this new psychology. The democratic citizen is hard working, practical, and concerned with the well being of himself and his family, but he lacks the concern for others born of aristocracy.

In Europe, the aristocracy remains. But what to do with them? They are not truly welcome in the new society or comfortable in it. How does one move from a society where status is fixed at birth, and where classes are rigidly distinct, to a society where status is earned and classes are fluid? America never had to make the transition, so it provides a good case study of Europe’s destiny.

It came as no surprise to De Tocqueville that American literature often featured stories where people re-invent themselves. Examples would come to include Emerson’s Essays, Whitman’s poetry, or Twain’s Huckleberry Finn.

When self-invention is the social norm, everyone is invited to try their hand at it. But this game is unknown in Europe. How does one play the game without knowing the rules or when the rules are changing quickly? This is a particular problem when society changes within a generation. Those who were at the top cannot forget their lost status, and cannot help but see their new equals “as oppressors whose destiny cannot excite their sympathy.” Meanwhile, they see their former peers as no longer sharing a common bond or purpose. Those who were at the bottom of the hierarchy, meanwhile, feel no kinship with the former aristocrats. The result is that at the beginning of a democratic society “citizens show themselves the most disposed to isolate themselves.” The factors that help control individualism are not yet powerful enough to do their job.

The result of this desire to isolate is to shrink the citizens’ social inclinations. People no longer feel any connections with others, and just after the revolution society has not yet had a chance to create or support institutions that might encourage them to think of their fellows. Citizens become victims of the illusion that all that is needed is to take care of themselves and their family, and the society will look after itself. This is powerful enough to keep people apart if allowed to take hold, and so newly democratic societies must take special care to combat it.

Americans are fortunate, again, because they were “born equal.” The nature of American society, for this reason, has always accepted the need to create one’s own place in the world. Moreover, the American government, by nurturing the habits of social cooperation, keeps Americans from falling victim to the idea that they do not need anyone else. In particular, the moral method of Americans – self-interest rightly understood – reinforces the idea of social bonds as necessary in society.

De Tocqueville does not offer any guidance to Europe on how to merge democratic social conditions with democratic government. He simply says that Americans have done it, and that the diseases of democratic social conditions are most likely to show themselves at the beginning.

Democratic citizens are prone to certain virtues, but also subject to certain vices. Americans can be self-reliant, skeptical, cooperative, and religious. But they can also be indifferent to others, superstitious, competitive, and dogmatic. Democracy threatens to separate individuals from each other in a way that makes them forget that they depend on each other. The ease with which they can reinvent themselves allows them to think that the invention was completely their own.

De Tocqueville will go on to show how America’s free institutions help to combat individualism. In these two short chapters, he has identified the issue that will most powerfully threaten the democracy that Americans have been born to.

Jack Barlow is Charles A. Dana Professor of Politics, Emeritus, at Juniata College, where he has been on the faculty since 1991. He teaches courses on public law and political theory, and has written on Cicero and American political thought, most recently on Gouverneur Morris. In 2012, he published a collection of Morris’s writings, To Secure the Blessings of Liberty, with Liberty Press.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Jack Barlow

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 482 (start at Chapter 2 heading) – 484 (stop at Chapter 3 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

Individualism is an idea that was not known in the English speaking world until Democracy in America, and De Tocqueville’s first translator is credited with the first use of the word in the English language. The new word is a part of the new politics ushered in by the spread of democracy, and is one ground of De Tocqueville’s claim that America demonstrates the need for a new science of politics. The society created by the first generations of Americans resulted in this entirely new social condition, and De Tocqueville sets out to document its nature and its progress.  

The first thing he makes clear is that individualism is not selfishness, even though it looks like selfishness and can lead to selfishness. Selfishness is not confined to democratic society, in the way that individualism is, but is a vice that affects humans in general. A selfish person does not concern himself with society and its standards, but measures all social relations by his own desires.  This can happen anywhere. Individualism comes from the structure of democracy.  Aristocratic societies lead people to consider the needs and desires of those around them, but rarely think about humankind. Democracy leads people to care about mankind, but lose a sense of obligation to the particular people nearest them.  

Aristocratic society offers a natural way of combating selfishness, by visibly connecting everyone with his ancestors and descendants. Democracy “breaks the chain” of connection between people and generations and “sets each link apart.”  Individualism is the condition of people who recognize their duties to mankind but allow their connections to individuals to deteriorate.  

In aristocratic society, people recognize their duties because they are born to them. Status is inherited rather than chosen, and one’s place in the social hierarchy is fixed.  A democratic society puts all social relations in flux – status must be negotiated anew with each person or in each setting. But this negotiation becomes a mere necessity, and people soon tire of the need for constant bargaining.  

This leads to separation – each citizen wants to move “to one side with his family and friends.” Individualism means making one’s own club with a few like-minded people, and then controlling the membership so no one needs to bargain and no one feels uncomfortable. Without a care for the past or future, everyone can think of themselves as responsible to themselves alone. They need not care about the needs or interests of anyone who might be affected by their activities. Each person imagines that they are responsible for themselves, and that so long as each one looks out for themselves, society will go on without them. 

This is a nursery of bad habits, De Tocqueville believes, encouraged by the social and political conditions of democracy. Fortunately, as he emphasizes elsewhere, the American system has a cure for individualism. The first element is decentralization — people in local communities are required to work with their neighbors to define and solve common problems. 

The second element is religion, which qualifies Americans’ natural skepticism. It is restrained by the need to accept certain moral truths simply on trust.  This sets limits to the range of possible beliefs in American society and thus brings people closer to a common way of thinking.  

The third factor limiting the damage caused by individualism is the use of associations. From the time that Benjamin Franklin advocated the first public library and first volunteer fire company, Americans have recognized that people – without government – can work together to make their community better. Thus there are dozens of such civic associations in every community, from service clubs such as the Lions or Rotary to special purpose societies such as volunteer fire companies. The presence of these organizations means that even in their social life, Americans’ thoughts are being led outside of themselves. They are almost accidentally led to think about public issues.  

The final element is what De Tocqueville calls Americans’ philosophical method, and will later call “self-interest rightly understood.”  It leads Americans to recognize that common interests and needs affect them personally. Thus they are required to work with others to accomplish things that benefit everyone – the origin of the association. This prevents individualism from becoming isolating.  Americans might understand that they are attached to mankind, but self-interest leads them to work with the people in their own community.  

Americans have found ways of breaking the isolation and selfishness brought by individualism, but De Tocqueville seems to doubt that the correction can be permanent.  He ends the chapter on a note of doubt, which he will reinforce in the next chapter.  In his observation, Americans have – for the moment – managed the trick of making equality work in a dynamic society.  Since this book is aimed at Europeans, however, he turns to the question of what happens to bring about democratic social conditions.  

 

Jack Barlow is Charles A. Dana Professor of Politics, Emeritus, at Juniata College, where he has been on the faculty since 1991. He teaches courses on public law and political theory, and has written on Cicero and American political thought, most recently on Gouverneur Morris. In 2012, he published a collection of Morris’s writings, To Secure the Blessings of Liberty, with Liberty Press.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Jonathan Yudelman

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 479 – 482 (stop at Chapter 2 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

“Why Democratic Peoples Show a More Ardent and more Lasting Love for Equality than for Freedom” is a short, vital chapter with a long title. It exposes the basic thought behind many of De Tocqueville’s various fears for the future of democracy. Democratic citizens have a great passion for both freedom and equality, De Tocqueville argues. But their love for equality threatens always to become exclusive and excessive, eclipsing and destroying freedom.

In making this argument, De Tocqueville implies that over the long-run democratic order is threatened far less by its failures to live up to democratic ideals, than by an excessive or one-sided attachment to one of those ideals. This was surely an unwelcome lesson for the French and American democrats of De Tocqueville’s day, and it’s scarcely likely to be more easily accepted today. Human beings generally have an understandable predisposition to resist the notion that their ideals could be a source of danger. If one fails in realizing one’s ideal, one can simply do better next time. But if one’s ideal is to blame, one must take on the more difficult and daunting work of changing direction.

Perfect equality together with perfect freedom “is the ideal toward which democratic peoples tend.” Perfect freedom and perfect equality, however, is logically possible only under the very unlikely circumstance that “all citizens concur in the government and each has an equal right to concur in it.” De Tocqueville means that the democratic ideal of perfect freedom and equality is contradicted by democratic experience; in reality, dispute characterizes democracy, a voting majority decides, and the rest must follow whether they like it or not. The only way of achieving true equality and perfect freedom would be the fundamental sameness of everyone. If, for instance, everyone voted the same way, then everyone would be politically equal and everyone would likewise be free to live just as they like.

Since in reality the combination of perfect freedom and perfect equality fails through the fact of political differences, these two ideals remain distinct and undermine each other. An increase of freedom endangers equality, while imposed equality cancels freedom. A dual love of both freedom and equality might well be the secret formula to democratic success. But De Tocqueville feared that this balancing act is precarious and that democracy itself rigs the contest. Equality is democracy’s “principle passion” and “mother idea.” “Do not ask what unique charm men in democratic ages find in living as equals,” De Tocqueville muses, “equality forms the distinctive characteristic of the period they live in.” The problem is that when forced to choose, democratic peoples are strongly tempted to choose equality over freedom and become, unintentionally, the authors of their own unfreedom and servitude.

De Tocqueville gives additional reasons rooted in human nature why love of equality has the advantage over love of freedom. Equality is easier to grasp and maintain than freedom. Too much freedom leads to obvious problems, such as disorder and license. Whereas the problems produced by too much equality, such as poor leadership or lack of innovation, are more obscure and distant. At the same time, freedom requires time and exertion before it leads to good things, whereas equality appears to provide good things immediately and without effort.

In the best case, a healthy democracy institutes measures to hold in check the democratic preference for equality over freedom. But the very opposite– an unrestrained and excessive love of equality – can occur in times of change and unrest when “the old social hierarchy… is finally destroyed after a last internecine struggle.” In other words, the most extreme and dangerous form of the love of equality is not aroused by the sight of inequality, but rather by vast social change and uncertainty in general.

Then men rush at equality as at a conquest… The passion for equality penetrates all parts of the human heart; there it spreads and fills it entirely. Do not say to men that in giving themselves over so blindly to an exclusive passion, they compromise their dearest interests; they are deaf. Do not show them that freedom escapes from their hands while they are looking elsewhere; they are blind, or rather they perceive only one good in the whole universe worth longing for.

Democratic citizens love freedom, 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.”

To survive and thrive, a democracy must find means of teaching people to love equality in freedom while detesting equality in slavery. To observe and know which is which, there can be no better guide than De Tocqueville himself.

Jonathan Yudelman is Assistant Professor of Political Theory in Intellectual Foundations at UATX. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from Boston College and from 2020-2024 held postdoctoral positions at Princeton, Harvard, Baylor, and Arizona State University. His current research focuses on early modern political theory, the idea of progress, sources of political authority, and the intersection of politics and religion.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Eric Wise

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 472 (start at Chap. 21 heading) – 476 of this edition of Democracy in America.

Modes of political behavior run along the grooves of the larger habits of the social organism. Call it culture, if you will. De Tocqueville, in his chapter on political eloquence in the United States, compares the European aristocratic mode to the  American democratic mode. Before we examine De Tocqueville’s discussion, two digressions.

Eloquence conventionally means “fluent or persuasive speaking” and is used today to indicate objective oratory talent. If now we say “The Congressman spoke eloquently” we tend to mean finely. But the origin of the word is the Latin “e” for out [as in “exit”] and “loqui” to speak. The French word is “éloquence”, and the English word is borrowed from this mother language. In French, “éloquence” can also mean raw loquacity and volubility. I take De Tocqueville’s meaning to be mainly the method of speaking out rather than the finer quality of it.

In the 1986 hit comedy “Back to School” the protagonist, Thornton Melon, fumbling for words to ask his professor — who at least sounds European — out on a date, says “Call me sometime when you have no class.” This joke is funny precisely because America, in its prohibition of titles of nobility, is, in more ways than one, a classless society. 

Few things show this more clearly than a common American method of fraud, which is to assume the air of European class structure to gain some advantage. A fine illustration of this comes from Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn. 

After one fraud introduces himself to Jim as the Duke of Bilgewater, his companion ups the ante: “Bilgewater, I am the late Dauphin!” Hilarity ensues as the Duck and the Dolphin carry out various fraudulent schemes as Jim and Huck make their lives in America great again by floating their way to Cairo and freedom, the essence of America that until then has eluded them both, Jim as a slave and Huck as a minor in the custody of a violent drunkard.

Returning to our main discussion, De Tocqueville observes that in the European parliaments a member of an assembly draws his station from the aristocratic structure. This creates a habit of subordination which quietly informs a politician how to behave. Particularly, it causes him to subordinate to party claims rather than to the direct interests of those he represents and have elected him. He cares only a little about the loss of his seat because his sense of himself and his worth is bound up in his station which exists independent of his elected political life. For the most part he says little of interest, and has little interest in saying much.

The American politician De Tocqueville describes has an entirely different view of himself. The American representative depends upon those who elected him for his status. He is self made by virtue of his election to office and is unmade by the loss of his office. As a consequence, party is secondary to the American politician, and his outspokenness is directed towards impressing his constituents and towards fighting for his constituents’ narrow, often openly selfish, interests.

The curiosity of the American politician about his constituents is perhaps only exceeded by his constituents’ curiosity about him. According to De Tocqueville “The population of a district charges a citizen with taking part in the government of the state because it has conceived a very vast idea of his merit. Since men appear greater in proportion as they are surrounded by smaller objects, one may believe that the opinion held of the agent will be higher as talents are rarer among those he represents.” Ouch.

In short, De Tocqueville’s opinion of most American constituents is little higher than Mark Twain’s view of the townspeople along the river who pay to see Jim painted blue and exhibited as a “sick Arab” or to see the thoroughly fraudulent play, The Royal Nonsuch, produced by Bilgewater and the late Dauphin. 

It’s not flattering. American electors, De Tocqueville says, expect that their representative will be an orator, and that he will speak not just on behalf of the country but zealously on behalf of their interests. This is his eloquence and the essence of his outspokenness.

He will speak often if he can, and that in case he is forced to refrain, he will strive at any rate to compress into his rare discourses an examination of all the great affairs of state joined to an exposition of all the little grievances they themselves have to complain of,” says De Tocqueville. Emphasis is my own.

The words of the Frenchman wound but it is hard to escape notice that such behavior is the epitome of today’s more talented members of the House of Representatives. 

But all that De Tocqueville says is not insulting. He closes by noting the inferiority of the deliberations of aristocratic nations, which focus on “particular times” and “the rights of a particular class.” Debates in the democratic assemblies of America somehow through all the aforementioned defects are more interesting than those of Europe.

“I see nothing more admirable or more powerful than a great orator discussing great affairs within a democratic assembly. As there is never a class that has charged its representatives with asserting its interests, it is always to the whole nation in the name of the whole nation that one speaks. That enlarges thought and elevates language.”

From De Tocqueville’s low estimation of American outspokenness comes high praise indeed.

As the French say, C’est bon!

J. Eric Wise is a partner in the law firm of Alston & Bird.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Trevor Shelley

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 469 (start at Chp. 20 heading – 472 (stop at Chp. 21 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

Vol. II Part 1 Chapter 20: On Some Tendencies Particular to Historians in Democratic Centuries
The second volume of Democracy in America is divided into four parts, the first of which is devoted to the “Influence of Democracy on Intellectual Movement in the United States.” De Tocqueville is here interested in understanding the ways democracy shapes and forms the minds, and so the mental activities, of democratic peoples.

In chapter 20 he takes up the topics of historians, who are often intellectuals, and the writing of history (or historiography), an important exercise of the intellect, which influences how people perceive themselves and their times. There is no single or definitive account of the past; nor is the best method of historiography a settled matter. The way historians approach the facts of the past is itself affected by factors beyond the individual historian, including the social state and period in which they write. One of the most intellectually influential activities of the human mind is itself subject to influences outside the intellect. Thus, in this chapter De Tocqueville discusses the kinds of causes in history and the different practices in writing history, while he likewise provides guidance to historians about intellectual errors of grave social and psychological consequence. The chapter is therefore both descriptive and evaluative of the tendencies of historians in aristocratic and in democratic ages.

Aristocratic historians tend to focus on small or particular causes at the expense of great or general ones. They attribute tremendous importance to individuals, or to “a very few principal actors,” who steer the course of history. They are enamored of great deeds and individual actions, around which their narratives turn. This gives them, De Tocqueville writes, “an exaggerated idea of the influence that a man can exert and naturally disposes them to believe that one must always go back to the particular action of an individual to explain the movements of the crowd.” Aristocratic historiography, therefore, says little about the lives and opinions of the many. Focusing almost exclusively on leaders, warriors, and other grand actors, it ignores the rest of society and other social facts; consequently, the broader “sequence of events eludes” these historians.

De Tocqueville argues by contrast that democratic historians neglect, or even deny, the influence of individuals as they focus instead on things like “the nature of races, the physical constitution of the country, or the spirit of the civilization.” By obscuring particular persons and facts, democratic historians draw sweeping conclusions and “make a system” or “a methodical order” out of general causes. Democratic historiography is therefore more self-conscious about method and system-building; it tends to become less beautiful and more abstract. De Tocqueville’s real concern, however, is, “When any trace of the action of individuals on nations is lost, it often happens that one sees the world moving without discovering its motor.” This tempts people to believe there are large, inevitable, and irresistible forces at work in history, against which the human will is powerless.

While the tendencies of both types are prone to exaggerations and pitfalls, the assumption of democratic historians that all are subject “either to an inflexible providence or to a sort of blind fatality” is, for De Tocqueville, a dangerous view; an idea that “does not save human freedom.” For, the “doctrine of fatality” adopted by democratic historians does not remain confined to schools of history, or to the world of historians, but eventually “penetrates the entire mass of citizens” and shapes “the public mind.” The fatalism of historians leads individuals to doubt free will itself. In opposition to this doctrine, De Tocqueville writes, “it is a question of elevating souls and not completing their prostration.” People are ennobled by a sense of the soul’s capacity for judgment and action, and historiography ought to reflect—or better yet, encourage—this fact, so that citizens cultivate an appreciation for freedom, which is both a prerequisite for, and an effect of, self-government.

Readers will wonder whether De Tocqueville is himself more of an aristocratic or democratic historian. Near the chapter’s midpoint he writes, “I think that there is no period in which it is not necessary to attribute one part of the events of this world to very general facts and another to very particular influences. These two causes are always met with; only their relationship differs.” While Democracy in America makes so much of the general (or “mother”) cause of “equality of conditions,” De Tocqueville’s comparative approach helps him avoid succumbing to the spirit of either age, or to the tendencies toward excess of either historiographical approach. The very fact that he speaks of “tendencies” indicates that the minds of historians (as with all individuals) are always free in important respects. Strong doubt to the contrary results from a corrupting that demands spirited resistance.

The chapter here under discussion is valuable for thinking about history and historiography, but also for evaluating De Tocqueville’s own project, as well as the writings of others in our democratic age—to measure and assess the ways different works may contribute either to the elevation or the prostration of souls.

 

Trevor Shelley is Assistant Teaching Professor and Associate Director of Graduate Studies at the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership, at Arizona State University. He is author of Liberalism and Globalization: Montesquieu, Tocqueville, and Manent (Notre Dame, 2020), co-editor of Citizenship and Civic Leadership in America (Lexington, 2022) and of Renewing America’s Civic Compact (Lexington, 2023), and author of various book chapters and articles on political theory.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Matt Van Hook

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 458 – 469 (stop at Chp. 20 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

Democracy in America, Vol II, Part II, Chapter I – “Why Democratic Peoples Show a More Ardent and more Lasting Love for Equality than for Freedom”
By the time De Tocqueville’s readers arrive at his chapter on the sources of poetry in democratic nations, he has already passed his preliminary judgment that “Up to the present, America has had only a very few remarkable writers; it has not had great historians and does not count one poet.” The few American writers known to Europeans, such as Washington Irving and James Fenimore Cooper, were read because they stoked fascination for those trying to understand America and its revolution. The “poems of democracy” might hold similar explanatory power and purpose, but they fall short of De Tocqueville’s definition of true poetry as “the search for and depiction of the ideal.” In America he searches for the poetic instead of true poetry.

Poetry aimed at the ideal “will not have for its goal to represent the true, but to adorn it, and to offer a superior image to the mind.” In democratic social states, however, the true and ideal are wrapped up together in “material enjoyments” that spark only a certain kind of limited imagination—Gatsby’s fabulous and conspicuous wealth, the savvy monopolists’ conquering of a system from railroads to software, the investigative journalists’ takedown of these sorts. They represent only the “ideal” of real people doing practical things well without the assistance of aristocratic position, divine intervention, or magic. Democratic social states pull the poets’ imaginations down from the clouds and confine them to “the visible and real world.” So it should not surprise De Tocqueville’s readers then or now that, like the relentless sun over the great American desert, equality has dried up the old sources of poetry. New sources of poetry must emerge from a world entirely new, and De Tocqueville describes this occurring in two phases.

When estates that span centuries no longer survive a single generational split, and names and titles are scarcely known even as historical artifacts, the democratic poets first turned toward “inanimate nature” to fill the void. The Mississippi River and Appalachian Mountains replaced the lost objects of aristocratic imagination. This temporary turn, however, was only the brief transition to the true democratic turn inward. De Tocqueville is “convinced that in the long term democracy turns the imagination away from all that is external to man to fix it only on man.” This inward turn toward the human race has great potential for the poetic, but only if it can be made to think of humanity’s shape and future. Can such a turn be expected from Americans living in a social state of equality? As De Tocqueville explains, “One can conceive of nothing so small, so dull, so filled with miserable interests, in a word, so antipoetic, as the life of a man in the United States.” Enter Emily Dickinson stage left. One can almost imagine a ten-year-old Dickinson picking up the newly released second volume of Democracy in America, reading this chapter, and determining to fulfill the author’s expectations for distinctively American poems. These examinations of small souls are not poetry proper but there is still something poetic to be found in them.

While De Tocqueville seems to predict the arrival of Dickinson, Whitman, Frost and other democratic poets willing to mine the mundane for transcendent ideas, he fears a more extreme future. He expects that the bombastic language, already so prevalent in American writing, will saturate poetry as well, and “the works of democratic poets will often offer immense and incoherent images, overloaded depictions, and bizarre composites in imaginations that depart from reality rather than adorn the ideal.” He finds this already taking place in the theaters where spectacle rules, though admittedly still bounded in his time by a remnant of Puritan cultural restraints and township laws. De Tocqueville’s theater chapter provides a fitting bookend to his discussion of poetry because his readers can imagine the democratic poetry of America combining spectacle, passions, and ideas with the smallness of a single democratic soul longing for achievable human greatness. When searching for the democratic poetry of the present, one need only look to the spoken word poetry, music of the blues, and other distinctly American sources that come together on stage in Lin Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton!

Matthew Van Hook received his doctoral degree in political science from the University of Notre Dame with a focus on political theory, constitutional studies and American political thought. He also holds a master’s degree in security studies from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Prior to joining the Torrey Honors College faculty, Van Hook served on active duty as an Air Force pilot and political science professor at his alma mater, the US Air Force Academy. His research and published work ranges from the statesmanship of Abraham Lincoln to politics and law in the novels of Harper Lee.

Matthew Van Hook received his doctoral degree in political science from the University of Notre Dame with a focus on political theory, constitutional studies and American political thought. He also holds a master’s degree in security studies from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Prior to joining the Torrey Honors College faculty, Van Hook served on active duty as an Air Force pilot and political science professor at his alma mater, the US Air Force Academy. His research and published work ranges from the statesmanship of Abraham Lincoln to politics and law in the novels of Harper Lee.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Zachary German

 

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 450 (start at Chap, 15 heading) – 458 (stop at Chapter 17 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

What kind of education should people receive in a democratic society like the United States? Tocqueville has a characteristically nuanced answer to this question. One part of that answer reflects his understanding that Americans, as democratic citizens, are educated—or formed—by various sources beyond formal schooling. A second element derives from his willingness to tailor his prescriptions to the circumstances and character of a democratic people. A third piece exemplifies his commitment to pushing back against the regrettable tendencies of democratic life and thereby channeling it in salutary directions.

We might be initially surprised that, in Vol. 2, Pt. 1, Ch. 15 of Democracy in America, Tocqueville makes no mention of civics—education for citizenship—in his brief commentary on education in a democracy. That surprise will dissipate, though, if we remind ourselves that Tocqueville observes an array of sources of civic formation at work in the United States in the 1830s. Local political institutions, he says, “are to freedom what primary schools are to science,” habituating citizens to self-government; the institution of the jury is akin to “a school, free of charge and always open,” wherein jurors are the students; and political associations amount to “great schools, free of charge” for “all citizens” to learn about associational life. Religion fosters a sense of moral limits on democratic majorities, and Americans grow accustomed to a peaceful and orderly way of life. through their families In short, Tocqueville contends that all of these aspects of Americans’ lives contribute to an education for self-government.

With civic education supplied in this manner, Tocqueville indicates that education in a democratic society ought to aim predominantly at what he describes as a “scientific, commercial, and industrial” education. He would not be taken aback by our contemporary preoccupation with STEM fields, business majors, and vocational programs.

If democratic individuals received only an education in fine arts, he warns us that we “would have very polite but very dangerous citizens; for every day the social and political state would give them needs that they would never learn to satisfy by education.” Liberally educated, economically insecure, discontent students are unhappy individuals and destabilizing forces in a democracy. It seems that Tocqueville might echo the question that so many parents ask their college-aged children: “What are
you going to do with that degree?”

However, even in a democratic age, Tocqueville is not willing to abandon a different and arguably nobler kind of study. He tells his readers at the outset of Democracy in America that the equality of conditions “modifies everything it does not produce.” To the dismay of some, those modifications include linguistic alterations of the English language. Yet, while Tocqueville yields significant ground to the force of equality to reshape a society, he also strives to avoid some of its unnecessarily negative potentialities. Cultivated in aristocratic soil, classical literature, he argues, possesses admirable qualities that democratic literature lacks: “Thus there exists no literature better suited for study in democratic centuries.”  Only a few individuals need to or should engage in this study; hence, only a few institutions need to facilitate it. Tocqueville explains that “a few excellent universities would be worth more than a multitude of bad colleges where superfluous studies that are done badly prevent necessary studies from being done well.”

Tocqueville’s analysis encourages us to consider students as democratic citizens with civic roles to fulfill, as individuals with economic needs and aspirations, and as human beings, more generally, with the capacity for excellence. With nearly two hundred years having passed since he visited the United States, our approach to education today should likely exhibit a greater emphasis on preparation for citizenship, given that the informal sources of civic formation that Tocqueville highlighted may be insufficient in the contemporary United States. We should also take seriously the evidence that a liberal arts education, well understood, equips students to be productive in our twenty-first century economy in ways beyond what a narrow technical degree or training provides; studying classical literature—and great books more generally—has more applications than what we may immediately recognize. Finally, following Tocqueville’s lead, we should not lose sight of how education might remedy undesirable tendencies of democratic culture and promote human excellence in its multifarious splendor.

 

Zachary K. German is an assistant professor in the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership at Arizona State University. His research focuses on American political and constitutional thought, along with early modern thought, on questions of statesmanship, political culture and civic character, constitutional design, civic education, and politics and religion. He teaches courses on political thought, leadership, and constitutionalism, largely but not exclusively in the American context. He also contributes to K-12 civic education efforts, including teacher workshops and summer seminars for high-school students. 

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Jack Fitzhenry

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 445 – 450 (stop at chapter 15 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

Literature hews to standards outside of the democratic logic. A canonical work does not attain that status by majority consent. Claims of merit do not require a reader’s consent to be authoritative. And the pursuit of sublimity, literature’s proper object, reveals that men have always been created unequal in their intellectual endowments.

Literary excellence is not inherently political, and its claims need not raise a direct challenge to democracy. Yet in a society that exalts equality and promotes self-expression for its own sake, literature stands uneasily at the margins—tolerated, perhaps ignored.

As part of his seminal survey of America, Alexis de Tocqueville lingers for a few chapters on the reciprocal influences running between democracy and literature. By the time he reaches literature, De Tocqueville has toured through adjacent subjects such as Americans’ pursuit of arts and sciences. He has been critical, but the professed friend of democracy takes pains to convince readers that the “irresistible” democratic revolution does not trail cultural poverty in its wake.

Yet honesty compels De Tocqueville to acknowledge the tensions between American democracy and literary achievement—tensions that are only sometimes fruitful. De Tocqueville observes that America is a civilized nation where “people are least occupied with literature.” Americans of that era often mistake literature for a trade. Thus, they pursue it, if at all, in the same commercial and practical spirit animating all their undertakings. Commerce and politics exert on literature more influence than literature does on either. American book vendors are glutted with rudimentary treatises and pamphlets on topical political concerns.

American verve for commerce extends material prosperity, and the newly prosperous develop a certain inclination towards literature. But the sources of that prosperity undermine the nascent interest by making it insensible to subtler intellectual joys. American readers buy works that “one can enjoy at that instant,” and they crave subjects that are “new and unexpected.” They wish, in short, to be entertained.

The country’s great men, devoted to politics, make literature their diversion, not their vocation. Still, on the edges of the nation’s dark frontier, Americans tend small flames of literary devotion. When De Tocqueville muses how he first read Shakespeare’s Henry V in an American “log house,” the play’s presence in that setting is more revealing than accidental. More than tragedies, romances, or comedies, Shakespeare’s tale of martial triumph, of men rallied to great acts against long odds, captivates the American reader whose energies are bent on securing his precarious existence.

In De Tocqueville’s time, not only cabin-dwellers, but America’s cultivated set satisfy their literary appetites with English fare. Their forefathers reviled English writers like Samuel Johnson for Tory-ism, but De Tocqueville observes that Americans still rely on English authors to supply their literary wants, they mimic English literary fashions, and they defer to English judgment even of American writers. The reason is not just a common tongue—England remains “aristocratic,” resisting the democratic winds blowing from across the Atlantic and across the English Channel.

Aristocracy, because of its inequality, produces certain literary greatness. De Tocqueville warns that aristocracies’ tendency towards isolation could deprive them of power both literary and political. But aristocracies relieve the few of harrying commercial cares, enabling the acquisition of that “profound” knowledge of “literary arts” that eludes most among the “agitated multitude” of the world’s new democracies.

De Tocqueville, though, retains hope for a truly American literature. He explains that as societies move between conditions, there comes a period, maybe brief but fecund, when democratic virility and aristocratic sensibility “reign in accord over the human mind.”

Have De Tocqueville’s observations on American’s relation to literature fared well? America, though rarely lacking oligarchs, has never been aristocratic. But across two-and-a-half centuries, America has produced her own great writers. Whitman, Melville, Eliot, Hawthorne, Faulkner, and Hemingway are read, translated, and admired the world over. Several were Nobel Laureates.

And yet today there is cause for pessimism, much of it traceable to the same tendencies De Tocqueville identified in early 19th century America.

The fixation on equality has overcome the academy with demands for representation based on authorial characteristics having nothing to do with the quality of their work. Literature faculties retreat from standards faster than their students depart for other disciplines. American love of novelty and commerce brought us large-language model “artificial intelligence” to write for us about books we have not read. Democratic desire for narratives that agitate the emotions produces a digital universe of content broad in array but shallow in depth.

Americans understand the ills that stem from democratic excesses. In the Constitution, they tempered democratic politics with republican forms. Because the cultivation of literature relies on influences “alien or even contrary to equality,” a similar recognition and restraint are required. For Americans who still aspire to a literary life, the answer may be that ancient maxim: to be in the world, not of it.

 

Jack Fitzhenry is a Legal Fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.
He previously served as a law clerk for the Hon. Madeline H. Haikala on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama and for the Hon. Patrick E. Higginbotham on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Between clerkships, he litigated a variety of commercial disputes as an associate with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP. Fitzhenry received his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School and his bachelor’s degree in English Literature from Williams College.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: David L. Schaefer

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 439 (Chp. 11 and below) – 444 of this edition of Democracy in America.

A friend once remarked to me that he disliked visiting our nation’s capital because it had come to remind him of imperial Rome. He had in mind the plethora of massive office buildings most constructed to house the large Federal bureaucracies that developed owing to the expansion of the government’s domestic responsibilities beginning in the 1960’s. Through the comparison with the Roman Empire, he was suggesting the incompatibility between massive government and the spirit of genuine republicanism, or self-rule.

This, precisely, is De Tocqueville’s point in his chapter on “Why the Americans at the Same Time Raise Such Little and Such Great Monuments.” Despite having observed in the previous chapter that in democratic times “the monuments of the arts tend to become more numerous and less great,” he immediately adds the exception to that rule. In democracies the size of public monuments tends towards the gigantic, reflecting the fact that while “individuals are very weak …. The state, which represents all” of them and “holds all in its hand, is very strong.”

As evidence De Tocqueville cites Americans’ having laid out “the precincts of an immense city” to house their national capital, even though in De Tocqueville’s time it held only a tiny population. With remarkable foresight, Americans had “uprooted trees for ten leagues around” so as not to obstruct the future expansion of the capital’s population to as many as a million. And not only had they “raised a magnificent palace” to house Congress, they had “given it the pompous name of Capitol” – imitating the Roman title, despite America’s falling far short of the Roman Empire in size and power in 1830. De Tocqueville adds that America’s state governments also engage in “prodigious” architectural undertakings that “would astonish … the great nations of Europe.”

Hence De Tocqueville concludes that while democracy “brings men to make a multitude of minute works,” as noted in the preceding chapter, “it also brings them to raise a few very great monuments,” albeit leaving “nothing” in between. But he denies that a nation’s capacity to build a few grand monuments tells us anything about the people’s “greatness, enlightenment, and real prosperity.” He cites, for instance, the Spanish conquistadores having “found Mexico City full of magnificent temples and vast palaces,” which did not prevent Cortes (Core-tez) “from conquering” the Mexican empire “with six hundred infantry and sixteen horses.” (Of course, Cortes’s success owed something to his superior weaponry, but De Tocqueville’s point remains: the fact that his small army was aided by thousands of indigenous people rebelling against the oppressive rule of the Aztecs can be taken to signify a certain rottenness at the empire’s core.)

De Tocqueville’s point about the disparity between the size of Americans’ public buildings and that of their “narrow” private dwellings reflects his deeper concern: the need to fortify people’s sense of their individual capacities, in opposition to the tendency of a bureaucratized “nanny state” to reduce them to a condition of servility (the central theme of Part IV of Volume II), in which all their needs are cared for by “experts” with little real accountability to the ostensibly sovereign people. Against that threat, De Tocqueville has endorsed such devices as decentralized administration, which leaves the governance of people’s purely local concerns in their own hands; a free but decentralized press, which encourages the circulation of diverse opinions based on empirical experience rather than abstract ideology; the “science” of voluntary association, brought to a pinnacle by Americans; and religions that teach people that they possess immortal, individual souls – in opposition to the endeavor of pantheism to destroy any sense of individuality.

As we look back on De Tocqueville’s concerns from the perspective of almost two centuries since he made his observations, we cannot avoid being struck both by the sagacity of his fears, and the good sense of his recommendations. The population of the national capital has multiplied vastly beyond even what seemed to De Tocqueville to be Americans’ exaggerated expectations – and with it national and state bureaucracies more extensive than what even he may have anticipated. Yet thanks to our federal system, opportunities for Americans to have a say in their governance remain more extensive than they are in France (where dissenters from national policy regularly resort to crippling strikes and obstructionist tactics to have their say). On the other hand the decline of regular religious observance, often supplanted by an extremist “green” worship of nonhuman nature, is eerily reminiscent of pantheism.

It remains to be seen whether Americans will retain a sufficient spirit of individual enterprise and downright stubbornness (“Don’t Tread on Me!”) to resist the dominance of those who claim effectively unlimited power to act on behalf of the people’s “will,” as signified by those grandiose buildings. As a start, De Tocqueville might favor the Trump administration’s endeavor to have new public buildings constructed in the inspiring classical style.

David Lewis Schaefer is professor emeritus of political science at the College of the Holy Cross. He has written and edited numerous works on political philosophy in general, as well as on American political thought. His most notable works include The Political Philosophy of Montaigne (second edition 2019) and Illiberal Justice: John Rawls vs. the American Political Tradition (2007).

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Antonio Sosa

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 433 (Chp.10 heading & below – 439 (2 lines & 2 complete paragraphs at top) of this edition of Democracy in America.

In this chapter, De Tocqueville gives an account of the problem of science in democratic times. Science, he says, may be divided into three parts: the first and most fundamental is the purely theoretical part, which “contains the most abstract notions, those whose application is not known or is very distant.” The second part contains “general truths” that are derived from pure theory but which “lead by a direct, short path to practice.” The third and least fundamental part contains “the processes of application and the means of execution.”

America, which De Tocqueville takes for his model of democracy left to its natural instincts, shows that democracy strongly favors practice over theory. There is no leisured nobility or propertyless peasantry in a democracy. In a democracy, nearly everyone works for a living and nearly everyone can lose what wealth they have. Everyone is therefore striving for material wellbeing. Science is therefore prized not for its power to reveal the most fundamental truths of nature but for its power to conquer nature. Not knowledge for its own sake but for the sake of relieving man’s estate, not the satisfaction of the mind but the comfort of the body, is the goal of science in democratic times. De Tocqueville singles out the steamboat as a representative example of what human intelligence aspires to achieve in democratic times. In our own time, we may say this aspiration looks to the next generation of computers, rocket ships, and medical therapies. These projects doubtless require a monumental effort of theoretical intelligence. De Tocqueville would not deny this. But he would stress that only such theory as is required to achieve the next leap in technology will be regarded as an object of high intellectual concern in democratic times. There is ample room for theory in democratic times, but it is the type of theory that corresponds to the middle part of science. It is not pure theory. It is theory in the service of application, rather than theory for the sake of contemplation.

The preceding view stands in sharp contrast to the aristocratic view of science. The defining product of the aristocratic view of knowledge is not technology but the knower himself, the theoretical man that Pascal so beautifully epitomizes in the brief portrait De Tocqueville gives of him in this chapter. De Tocqueville cannot conceive of Pascal as having been driven by “some great profit” or “glory alone,” given the extraordinary effort of will and intellect he mustered in order “to discover the most hidden secrets of the Creator.” The Platonic resonance of this description is worth remarking upon. For just as De Tocqueville earlier gave a rank order of the three kinds of knowledge, he here implicitly gives a rank order of the three kinds of desire. The order corresponds with that given in Plato’s Republic. The human soul is described near the end of the dialogue as being composed of a gain-loving part, an honor-loving part, and a wisdom-loving part. These parts form an order, with love of wisdom occupying the highest place. This order enables Plato’s Socrates to argue that the human beings in which the highest desire predominates are the highest human types. The coming into being of the best regime depends on such types coming to absolute power. It is of course not De Tocqueville’s style to speculate about utopias in an attempt to show the nature of political things. But he does here show an awareness of the classical view of the rank order of desires and men. And he seems to affirm that view through his strong praise of Pascal. The problem of science in democratic times may thus be formulated as follows: democracy will not provide an intellectual atmosphere in which men like Pascal are likely to arise and set the tone of intellectual life. This entails a diminution of the intellectual horizon of democratic man, a diminution of man’s awareness of what man is and what his perfection requires. Though a modern thinker who welcomes the broad material prosperity democratic times will bring, De Tocqueville is well aware that things essential to man’s humanity, the “rare and fruitful” passions of a Pascal, are unlikely to be “born and developed as easily in the midst of democratic societies as within aristocracies.”

De Tocqueville is not one to spell out definitive solutions to the problems he articulates. But he does point to at least three dimensions of the problem that give democratic man reason for hoping that the Pascalian peaks of intellectual endeavor will not be totally obscured by the overcast sky of a democratic climate.

To begin with, democracy enables many more human beings to partake in scientific enterprises of all sorts. Even if most human beings are concerned with application, there is a unity of knowledge that connects the most concrete technical application with the most abstract theories. It is highly unlikely, De Tocqueville claims, that with so many people engaging in scientific activity, and making such a variety of technological discoveries, that some great theoretical discoveries will not be made from time to time. Indeed, a certain regard for theory is necessary to the success of application and especially of innovation. The desire for better and more labor-saving technology may therefore be expected to nourish a certain degree of concern for theory.

Secondly, and arguably more crucial than any other factor, is the power of human nature, which endures unchanged regardless of changes in the political and social order. Some individuals have always been and always will be born with high intellectual vocations. This type “will strive to penetrate the most profound mysteries of nature, whatever the spirit of his country and his times should be” [emphasis added]. However much democracy may make practice reign over theory, nature will make theory reign over practice within certain select souls. Let us not forget that in the immediately preceding chapter, De Tocqueville writes the following with reference to the natural inequality of men: “the legislature, it is true, no longer grants privileges, but nature gives them.”

Finally, De Tocqueville gives a cautionary account of the civilizational risk posed by the loss of pure theory by way a brief account of the decadence of 16th Century China. The Europeans who landed there found an industrial and technologically developed country, “but science itself no longer existed” there, and a “singular kind of immobility” characterized “the minds of its people.” They knew how to use the scientific teachings their fathers had left them but did not understand the reasoning underlying those teachings. They could therefore not improve upon them. They “could not change anything” and so “had to renounce improvement.” This state of affairs was wholly compatible with the peace and reasonable degree of material prosperity that the Europeans found there. And yet De Tocqueville finishes this description, and closes the chapter, by comparing it to a state of barbarism. He suggests that science in democratic times, with its vast power to conquer nature in the service of human comfort, may lull democratic peoples into a false sense of security, leading them to believe that “the barbarians are still far from us.” For a society that has stifled what he earlier in the chapter calls “the transcendent lights of the human mind” is one in which the barbarians are already inside. By showing democratic man how the neglect of theory can lead to an inability to innovate, i.e., to make further technological progress, De Tocqueville cleverly uses democratic man’s natural passion for practice to foster his concern with theory.

Antonio Sosa is associate director and lecturer at the School of Civic Leadership. In this capacity, he oversees the development of fellowships, conferences, and courses that invite students to reflect on the principles of a liberal society. Prior to joining School of Civic Leadership, Antonio was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught classes on classical political philosophy, the American Founding, modern European history, and the history of liberal arts education. He is primarily interested in the political thought of De Tocqueville, Ortega y Gasset, and Leo Strauss.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Frank Reilly

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 428 (Start at chapter 9 heading) – 433 (Stop at chapter 10 heading) (Stop at “Importance of what Precedes”) of this edition of Democracy in America.

In Volume 2, Chapter 9 of Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville challenges the beliefs of some European cynics of democracy that America’s equal political system suppresses or destroys interest in, and indeed the development of, sciences, literature, and arts.

De Tocqueville opens with the presumption “that among the civilized people of our day there are few in whom the advanced sciences have made less progress than in the United States, and who have furnished fewer great artists, illustrious poets, and celebrated writers.” The presumption, based on his observations in 1840, warrants additional scrutiny.

The presumption glosses over the then-contemporary and significant contributions of Americans such as Benjamin Franklin and Samuel Morse to science; Edgar Allan Poe, James Fenimore  Cooper, and Washington Irving to literature; and Morse, Gilbert Stuart, Charles Wilson Peale, and John Trumbull to art.

Second, the presumption ignores the fact that the population of the U.S. was then only about seventeen million people, about 10 percent of Western Europe’s population, and less than 2 percent of the world’s population.

Finally, the United States was then a young nation. 1840 was only 64 years after the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, which formed the basis of the democratic federal government, was just 51 years old. Europe had centuries over which to develop its arts and sciences, which, as De Tocqueville notes, build upon each advance.

Regardless of De Tocqueville’s presumption’s accuracy, his analysis of the factors contributing to America’s limited presence in the arts, sciences, and literature are rational. Further, history supports his prediction that this limitation would be short-lived.

De Tocqueville’s basic argument was that democratic ideals were not at fault. Instead, he notes that America’s unique place in the world in 1840 was the reason for its intellectual deficiencies. He set forth several explanations of the uniqueness.

His first observation was that America’s puritanical roots were not conducive to intellectual endeavors. He also believed America’s expanse and individual opportunities to build new fortunes diverted attention away from arts and sciences. Lastly, he noted that Americans were already enlightened and had and could avail themselves of Europe’s “celebrated scholars, skillful artists, and great writers” without the need to cultivate their own intellectual class.

De Tocqueville next explained why he believed equality alone could not explain America’s lack of enlightened undertakings. He rationalized that despots might want to make all persons equal but deprive them of enlightenment which would leave “them ignorant … to keep them more easily as slaves.” He also noted that forced equality proposed by socialist theories of a central power which distributes goods “to all persons according to merit,” would be dangerous and devoid of enlightenment. These socialist ideals underly the governments of China, Cuba, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union.

De Tocqueville writes that when people “Who live in the heart of a democratic society are enlightened, they discover without difficulty that nothing limits or fixes them and forces them to content themselves with their present fortune.” The free people then seek to increase their fortunes, but natural inequality due to differing enlightened intelligence and diligence better rewards, some over others. After society has met its material needs, De Tocqueville suggests that the people will, in varying degrees, engage in “the works and pleasures of the intellect.” Over time, “[t]he number of those who cultivate the sciences, letters, and arts becomes immense.” While these works may be imperfect and individual efforts may be small, the sheer volume of the works will amalgamate into a great result.

After more than 180 years have passed since De Tocqueville’s writing, the freedom and enlightenment he discussed has resulted in a vast number of Americans engaged in “the works and pleasures of the intellect.” In turn, this engagement has yielded enormous gains in arts, literature, and sciences. The number of Nobel Prize awards in its six categories: physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, peace, and economic sciences, is a simple metric that validates De Tocqueville’s postulation. The United States has received about 411 Nobel Prizes since the awards began in 1901, and the United Kingdom comes in a distant second with 137. Further, De Tocqueville’s belief that despotic or socialist societies are not conducive to the arts and sciences is substantiated by the fact that China, even with a population about 4 times that of the United States, falls way behind with only 8 Nobel laureates.

The freedom of equal opportunity that the United States offers is an incubator for advances in the arts, literature, and the sciences, and as Alexis de Tocqueville would say, Americans have both the aptitude and the taste for the sciences, literature, and the arts.

Frank M. Reilly is a partner in the Texas law firm of Potts & Reilly, LLP, a Texas judge, and teaches law related political science courses for Texas Tech University.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Eric Schmidt

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 426 (Starting at chapter 8 heading) – 428 (Stop at chapter 9 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

Volume Two of Democracy in America is divided into four parts: how democracy shapes the intellectual movement, sentiments, mores, and ideas of Americans. Chapter Eight is of unique importance to the whole of Volume Two because it offers an account of what seems to be American democracy’s most hopeful intellectual movement, a belief in “indefinite perfectibility” or progress.

De Tocqueville tells us that the notion of indefinite progress is a product of the equalization of conditions, which is central to democracy’s “irresistible revolution.” Equality, displayed by the leveling of social hierarchy and the rise of economic or material equality, suggests new intellectual currents to democrats, which De Tocqueville contrasts with those of the previous regime. For aristocratic nations with definite stratifications, man could progress definitively toward a limited ideal. The clarity with which aristocratic nations could view the limits of politics prevented them from “judg[ing] [perfectibility] to be indefinite.” The idea of indefinite perfectibility belongs to democratic peoples who are “mixed tumultuously” by equalizing conditions so that “the image of an ideal and always fugitive perfection is presented to the human mind.” In the tumult, man sees repeated success and failure in all his efforts to progress—never can he be satisfied that anyone has the absolute truth. The democrat is thus someone who “tends ceaselessly toward the immense greatness that he glimpses confusedly at the end of the long course that humanity must still traverse.” The democratic revolution overturns aristocratic practice and establishes new modes and orders that befit this restless pursuit of perfection.

Accordingly, the aristocrat builds for greatness and endurance, hoping to extend their definite grasp of a limited perfection as far into the future as possible. The democrat, on the other hand, is enamored with what is new. De Tocqueville makes much of an encounter with an American sailor who, when asked why Americans build ships that do not last, states simply that progress is so rapid that “the most beautiful ship would soon become almost useless if its existence were prolonged beyond a few years.” In the words of this sailor De Tocqueville, “perceive[s] the general and systematic idea according to which a great people conducts all things.” De Tocqueville concludes that “aristocratic nations tend to contract the limits of human perfectibility too much” while democratic nations “extend them beyond measure.” Here, De Tocqueville attempts to make sense of the aristocratic past and discern the course of the democratic future. How will a people so moved by progress come to regard enduring values? Where will they find limits to their quest for newness?

Further confounding Americans’ relationship with progress are their other intellectual movements. Chapter Eight is a counterpoint to the previous chapter on pantheism. Pantheism, the idea that all, creator and creation, is a single whole, forecloses the possibility that man can extend himself beyond nature—pantheism admits no possibility of human progress because man is not distinct from the rest of creation. However, in Chapter Eight, De Tocqueville argues that though democracy tends toward pantheism, equality suggests just as strongly a notion of indefinite perfection, which diametrically opposes the fatalism of pantheism with an unbounded capacity for man to improve his estate. Pantheism embellishes the democrat’s tendency to generalize by reducing all to sameness, and progress demands that the democrat be exempted from those generalizations so that he might progress beyond what is. Progress is indispensable to Americans because it balances the pantheistic intellectual movement, which would otherwise be deeply enervating. This apparent opposition points beyond Chapter Eight to more profound questions about how the idea of progress affects American life and culture.

Because Americans are so wed to this notion of progress, much of the rest of Volume Two should be read with regard to this view. Our view of progress has important implications for human liberty and historical self-understanding. If we must progress, to what do we progress? Is there a historical endpoint towards which indefinite perfectibility directs us? Might American liberty be endangered if such a historical endpoint appeared to exist? De Tocqueville writes in his conclusion that “[providence] traces, it is true, a fatal circle around each man that he cannot leave; but within its vast limits man is powerful and free; so too with peoples.” He seems to suggest that a historical endpoint is destructive of the inner freedom of the human soul, which is essential to human greatness. If we must encourage progress to resist other intellectual movements endemic to democracy, such as pantheism, then the task for American statesmen is to reconcile indefinite perfectibility with individual freedom, protecting the latter from theories and historical accounts that would motivate attempts to constrict it.

Dr. Eric Schmidt is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Kentucky Wesleyan College, specializing in political philosophy and American political institutions. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science and a Master’s in Philosophy from Louisiana State University. His current research focuses on the intersection of political philosophy, civics, and the digital transformation. As head of the Political Science and Legal Studies programs at KWC, Dr. Schmidt enjoys serving as an advisor to students interested in law and public service careers. He resides in Owensboro with his wife and daughters.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Jacob Wolf

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 417 – 426 of this edition of Democracy in America.

On The Benefits of Religion to Democracy

Upon visiting the United States, De Tocqueville was enamored of the fact that lovers of liberty and democracy were not enemies of religion, but rather its sincere friends. This was not the case in France, where religion was so bound up with the aristocracy and the monarchy that the French revolutionaries sought to topple the church along with disfavored hereditary institutions. In America, religion and liberty—faith and democracy—found themselves on the same team.

This is important because De Tocqueville believes that religious beliefs are profoundly determinative of human action. Such beliefs influence nearly everything about a person’s conduct: “There is almost no human action … that does not arise from a very general idea that men have conceived of God, of his relations with the human race, of the nature of their souls, and of their duties toward those like them.” For De Tocqueville, politics is downstream from theology.

Americans’ religiosity is boon to their political life, according to De Tocqueville, because religion counterbalances some of the innate problems of democracies. For example, De Tocqueville says that Americans are Cartesian skeptics, prone to doubt all that is not the product of their individual reason. Yet, one cannot be a thoroughgoing skeptic because one cannot consistently doubt everything without achieving large-scale “disorder and impotence,” so there must be a bedrock of ideas resistant to the corrosive acid of skepticism.

By providing individuals with good, ready-made answers to primordial and perennial questions, religion can neutralize doubt’s corrosive effects and provide this bedrock. Absent these fundamental convictions, one would find a society composed of “enervated souls”—individuals paralyzed by “doubt,” “limitless independence,” and “perpetual agitation.” For, if all is thought to be in flux, then nothing is stable and individuals lose their sense of human agency; however, in a world of fixed first principles, individuals have the stability necessary to be responsible moral agents capable of citizenship and self-government.

Not only does democracy precipitate doubt, it can also generate in individuals a tendency to isolate themselves from their fellow citizens (“individualism”) and promote a love of material well-being (“materialism”). Here too religion has a role to play: “There is no religion that does not place man’s desire beyond and above earthly goods and that does not naturally raise his soul toward regions much superior to those of the senses…. Religious peoples are therefore naturally strong in precisely the spot where democratic people are weak.” In other words, religion turns one’s eyes upward and outward—towards eternal verities and the well-being of the community.

But, De Tocqueville warns, religion should be careful to content itself with furnishing metaphysical beliefs and moral principles and not venture into “political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and scientific theories.” For this reason, De Tocqueville approves of the American institutional separation between church and state (even if he thinks it impossible to separate religion and politics). In this situation, religion can preserve its moral authority without engaging in partisanship.

Because De Tocqueville approves of American religion, he has some tips for preserving its influence in America:

First, religion should be careful not to needlessly multiply the “external forms” of religion—i.e. the rituals, ceremonies, and aesthetic elements of faith. For a democracy, the moral and dogmatic core of religion is more important than its particular presentation or its secondary doctrines. Catholicism, Tocqueville thinks, might take hold in democracies if it focuses on the central moral aspects of religion and downplays the formal elements. Second, while religion must rein in “materialism,” it should not seek to destroy it. The love of well-being is an “indelible feature” of democracies; one can temper it, but never “subdue it entirely.” If religion should ever seek to eradicate acquisitiveness, one should not be surprised to find individuals ridding themselves of religion rather than their material goods. Third, because democracy so depends upon common opinion, religion should only infrequently inveigh against it. Of course, religion must be able to call people to account; however, if religion presents itself as the enemy of public opinion or the exclusive province of the few, it will forfeit its broad public authority.

In all these things, one sees a fine line: religion must combat the defects of democratic society, but not too intensely. Religion must preserve the best of democracy, subtly rebuke its excesses, and somehow maintain public approval. Such is the delicate balance in which every church, pastor, and congregation in America still find themselves.

De Tocqueville famously predicted that American Protestants would inevitably gravitate towards opposite poles: Catholicism or Unitarianism. Here, De Tocqueville was wrong. However, his error in prediction actually proved his deeper analysis to be true, for Protestantism—especially Evangelical Protestantism—exploded in the years after De Tocqueville’s visit to the United States precisely because it could affirm democracy and yet combat its excesses.

In the final analysis, a religion is good for democracy if it can elevate the human spirit, incline individuals to fulfill their moral and civic duty, and forestall materialism. De Tocqueville is fairly confident that most Christian denominations fulfill these goals; however, one “religion” conspicuously does not: pantheism. Because pantheism conflates creator and creation, it can offer no transcendence, only immanence. There is nothing in pantheism to elevate the human spirit to a higher level, and therefore De Tocqueville urges all good people “to unite and do combat against it.”

 

Jacob Wolf is Assistant Professor of Politics and a Founding Faculty member of the University of Austin (UATX). He was previously the 2020-2021 Barry Fellow of the James Madison Program at Princeton University. He received his PhD in Political Science from Boston College. His scholarly and popular writings have appeared in The Political Science Reviewer, Perspectives on Political Science, Interpretation, Public Discourse, VoegelinView, and Modern Age Online.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Michael Greve

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 411 – 416 of this edition of Democracy in America.

Any society, De Tocqueville explains in Part I of the Second Volume of Democracy in America, must be “brought and held together” by some shared ideas. This implies that people must accept a great many ideas on the authority of others. Intellectual authority there must be; the questions concern its source, its extent, and what one might call its tenor or tone.

The answers, De Tocqueville writes, will depend on political conditions. Members of aristocratic societies—England’s “ancient constitution,” pre-revolutionary France—will be drawn to the opinions and prejudices of their own class or estate. Not so in democratic societies, whose members suppose that no one is very different from, let alone better than, anyone else. Folks will want to make up their own minds. But they cannot do so all the time, and on everything, for sheer lack of time. There is something liberating about thinking for oneself, but also something dangerous. “As citizens become more equal and alike, the penchant of each to believe blindly a certain man or class diminishes.” Correspondingly, “the disposition to believe the mass is augmented.” Public opinion—what the mass of citizens believes and propounds without much thought—will rule. What begins as man’s liberation from “self-inflicted immaturity” (Kant, not De Tocqueville) may prove a “new face of servitude.”

The important Chapter 3 of De Tocqueville’s characteristically paradoxical, ambivalent inquiry begins on a startling sentence: “God does not ponder the human race in general.” He perceives, “at a single glance,” all members of humanity in all their similarities and differences. Mortals, in contrast, must order a messy world with the aid of “general ideas.” That general condition is a weakness in one way because unlike God, we must resort to generalizations; it is a strength in another way, because we can do so. However, people’s propensity to think and converse in generalities will depend on varying social conditions. Americans, De Tocqueville avers, have more “aptitude and taste for general ideas than their English fathers.” But they are far less “passionate” about those ideas than the French when it comes to “political matters.”

The notion that the “aptitude and taste” for general ideas should differ so greatly even among enlightened nations is sufficiently heterodox to “astonish” even De Tocqueville himself. He traces it to aristocratic or democratic conditions. Under aristocracy, what we now call “class consciousness” will block people’s sight of “the general bond that brings all together in the vast bosom of the human race.” By way of dramatic example, even the most “profound geniuses” of antiquity could see nothing wrong with slavery.

Aristocratic societies share the scorn for abstractions; democratic societies do not. Just as equality of conditions will prompt “each to seek the truth by himself,” so it will “imperceptibly make the human mind tend to general ideas.” Other factors also produce among democratic peoples a taste and passion for general ideas. Some such ideas are the “slow, detailed, conscientious work of intelligence.” Others, though, are the products of intellectual laziness or distraction; and in democratic societies, those ideas will tend to prevail. People’s lives are “so agitated, so active that little time remains to them for thinking.” Thus, while aristocratic societies shortchange general ideas, “democratic peoples are always ready to abuse these sorts of ideas and indiscreetly to become inflamed over them.”

How inflamed? The passion for incendiary ideas, De Tocqueville writes, is much more pronounced among the French than in America because it will prevail “only in matters that are not habitual and necessary objects” of one’s thoughts. Businessmen, for example, readily accept facile ideas on politics, philosophy, or the arts—but not on commercial concerns. Likewise, people will be thoughtful and moderate about politics to the extent that they are actively engaged in it. Thus, unlike France’s notoriously centralized system, America’s “democratic institutions, which force each citizen to occupy himself practically with government, moderate the excessive taste for general theories.”

De Tocqueville’s analysis and his reassuring conclusion may leave many contemporary Americans somewhat uneasy. De Tocqueville warned of a great, homogenous mass of people gravitating mindlessly to a single, stifling “public opinion.” In contrast, our public debate is deeply fragmented; and, just as in De Tocqueville’s aristocracy, large numbers of people propound “their” truths and -isms in accordance with their identity as members of one group or another. Many citizens would surely welcome a bit more cohesion and common sense.

One wonders, moreover, whether Americans drift toward general ideas of the wrong, lazy kind because they are just too busy with their quotidian concerns—or whether the disturbingly numerous venues that amplify ideological abstractions (TikTok, say, or certain college campuses) are practically built for people with way too much time on their hands. And is it really (still) true that our democratic institutions force us to engage with politics at a practical level—or has the nationalization of our politics triumphed over a localized, parochial but practical politics that would teach engaged citizens a healthy distrust of grand schemes and ideological cant? Could these things be related, such that an excess of leisure, coupled with a lack of meaningful opportunities to engage with the humdrum tasks of making public affairs work, pulls otherwise sensible people into enthusiasms and half-baked “general ideas”?

Michael Greve is the author of The Upside-Down Constitution (Harvard UP, 2012), as well as several other books and numerous law review articles, editorials, book reviews, and blog posts. He is a frequent speaker for professional and scholarly organizations and has made many appearances on radio and television. Before joining the law school faculty, Professor Greve served as John G. Searle Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he specialized in constitutional law, courts, and business regulation. Prior to joining AEI, Greve was founder and director of the Center for Individual Rights, a public interest law firm specializing in constitutional litigation.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Michael Johnson

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 403-410 of this edition of Democracy in America.

Democracy in America: What We Learned from a French Aristocrat Long Ago

“I think there is no country in the civilized world where they are less occupied with philosophy than the United States.”

Alexis de Tocqueville, Volume II Chapter 1, Democracy in America

Alexis de Tocqueville, the son of French aristocracy, journeyed to America at the ripe old age of 25 originally to assess its prison system that was considered a new progressive approach to criminal justice. His real interest, however, was in America itself, the birth of the new Republic, how it was faring and what distinguished it from the events in European nations.

A man of frail voice, fragile body but clearly of expansive mind and taste for adventure traveled to America with Gustave de Beaumont, described as his best friend, who he met at the Court of Law at Versailles. That’s where he also met his future wife, Mary Motley. The French political scientist, sociologist and historian and his friend Beaumont stayed in America for six months on their first visit in 1834 and four months on their second a year later.

“He was shocked by what he saw,” Pete Peterson of Pepperdine University, recently told a Constituting America audience. Peterson also says he found freedom, equality of conditions, people starting from nothing, gaining wealth and back again, opportunities to improve their station in life. De Tocqueville, he said, was impressed by American individualism but also by the sense of good that comes from collective enterprise. Americans were joining together to build roads and schools, join civic organizations, establish churches and aid one another, without the intrusion of government.

What came of the journey was a two-volume tome entitled Democracy in America published in 1835 and 1840. The first volume is mostly about the land itself, the people, how they lived and collaborated in the governance of their larger cities and small towns. The second volume is more a study of the cultures and philosophies underpinning the new Republic and the unique character of the people and their application of democratic rule, using Europe as the base of comparison.

It was an important literary achievement in the 19th Century. More than another century later, it is considered a masterful, panoramic view of the new nation, its culture, social order and its people. The new nation’s boundaries then stretched East to West from the Atlantic to the Mississippi River and North to South from Maine to Florida.

The adventure took the traveling duo as far west as Saginaw, Michigan along crude and rugged, at times impassible roads, untamed wilderness and bad weather, sometimes requiring Indian guides. American settlers were still carving a new life out of the wilderness. They were taken by the dichotomy of Eastern cities and Western wilderness. They had similar observations first exploring the Northern states and later crisscrossing the rural South, where they were disturbed by slavery.

De Tocqueville’s observations of political life are especially poignant. The colonists who planted the seeds of democracy had rare and expansive opportunities to experiment with forms of government and social order without the baggage of old-world Europe’s deeply embedded monarchial rule, caste systems, dogmatic religious orthodoxy, and staid and constrictive family traditions. The Founding Fathers borrowed a good deal from Europe’s period of enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries, and, as De Tocqueville observed, brought the the new ideas of Voltaire, John Locke, John Stuart Mill and other philosophers to the drawing table as they formed their own philosophy for establishing the new nation.

Yet De Tocqueville said what he discovered to his surprise 60 years after the founding was little pre-occupation with philosophy. Let him explain:

“The Americans have no philosophic school of their own and they worry very little about all those that divide Europe; they hardly know their names. It is easy to see, nevertheless, that almost all the inhabitants of the United States direct their minds on the same manner and conduct them by the same rules; that is to say, they possess a certain philosophic method, whose rules they have never taken the trouble to define… [they] take traditions only as information, and current facts only as a useful study for doing otherwise and better; to seek the reason for things by themselves and in themselves alone, to strive for a result without letting themselves be chained to the means…these are the principal features that characterize what I shall call the philosophic method of the Americans.”

What De Tocqueville found in America was a system of governance founded on the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the virtues of individualism, egalitarianism, secularism, Lassez-Faire, and populism. He saw those precepts manifested in limited, representative government, civil liberties, the protection of individual rights, general ownership of property, and what he called “self-interest rightly understood.”

Self-interest is not selfishness, according to De Tocqueville. His references indicate that individuals exercising reason can determine what is in their best interests when dictated by virtue and that rightly understood, self-interest encompasses the good one can do for another and the binding good that comes from social interaction, charity, fellowship and mutual security.

Virtues, he cautioned, can be turned into vices if abused and misapplied. In America he believed there is that risk if, for example, majority rule becomes the tyranny of the majority or if citizens through the dereliction of their civic inclination toward interdependence become too dependent on government for their needs.

So much of what De Tocqueville saw in America is still America today yet so much is different.

That may be a simplistic observation, but it has profound meaning. It speaks to the genius of the Founding Fathers who created a government and inspired a way of life that did not just endure, but became a catalyst for change around the world. It was an experiment that has never stopped being experimental, always changing, always unleashing more of the promise of people who have the freedom to pursue their self-interest, rightly understood.

Johnson is a former journalist, member of the White House staff under President Gerald Ford, Chief of Staff to House Republican Leader Bob Michel. He has been active in a number of non-profit organizations and served as a media consultant, lobbyist and co-author of two books: Fixing Congress and Surviving Inside Congress. He is married to Thalia Assuras, has five children and four grandchildren.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Tony Williams

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 379 (Start at heading “On Republican Institutions”) – 384 (Stop at heading “Some Considerations…”) of this edition of Democracy in America.

French aristocrat and government official, Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States for a nine-month period during 1831-1832. He traveled with his companion, Gustave Beaumont, to study penal reform. 

The United States during the 1830s and 1840s was experiencing a democratic revolution with the rise of universal male suffrage for white men in most states. Moreover, De Tocqueville visited toward the end of the presidency of Andrew Jackson. Jackson symbolized the rise of the “common man” and democracy, though the democratic currents were caused by more than just who occupied the White House. 

The democratic ethos was spreading throughout America in countless ways. The republican institutions guaranteed greater political participation than anywhere in the world at the time. They engaged in self-governance primarily in small towns and communities as farmers and artisans. The Second Great Awakening was characterized by intense religious ferment and led to the rise of new Christian denominations, the democratization of religion, and strong streaks of religious individualism and emotional religiosity. Americans were enjoying the prosperity of a growing market economy, equal opportunity, and social mobility. They were also geographically mobile, moving further westward in search of land, new opportunities, and often, a new start. 

Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that when De Tocqueville wrote his two volumes of his masterpiece, Democracy in America, published in 1835 and 1840 respectively, he focused on both American institutions and the American character. 

In his “Note” to Volume II in Democracy in America, De Tocqueville describes the purpose of the first volume in a nutshell. “The Americans have a democratic social state that has naturally suggested to them certain laws and political mores.” As a result, he studied American institutions, popular sovereignty, and the geography of the United States in shaping the political practices and beliefs of Americans. 

In the “Note,” De Tocqueville further explains his purpose in Book II by giving readers a small taste of its themes. He states that democracy has “given birth to a multitude of sentiments and opinions” among Americans that differ from the aristocratic societies of Europe. In the second volume, he will be examining those democratic sentiments and opinions that exist in America especially in forming voluntary associations. 

De Tocqueville states that, “I thought that many would take it upon themselves to announce the new goods that equality promises to me, but that few would dare to point out from afar the perils with which it threatens them. It is there principally at those perils that I have directed my regard.” 

Therefore, De Tocqueville will make observations on the ideas and effects of the principle of equality to which Americans are drawn and the equality of condition that Americans experienced to a much greater degree than Europeans. However, as he notes above, he is interested in the promise and the perils of equality. 

The dark side of that egalitarianism is a passion for equality, especially an equality of outcomes that endangers liberty. In other words, Americans may too willingly surrender their freedoms for equality. We can observe many examples in the modern world from how progressive taxation threatens freedom of property, the regulatory state can endanger liberty, and DEI aims of equality of outcomes or equity over equal opportunity. 

De Tocqueville grappled with the complexities of American democracy and the American character in a thoughtful and lasting manner that is still relevant today. Perhaps he and his masterpiece can be a guide to examining ourselves and the relationship of liberty and equality in America.  

Tony Williams is Senior Teaching Fellow at the Bill of Rights Institute; a Constituting America Fellow; author of Washington and Hamilton: The Alliance that Forged America, and Hamilton: An American Biography.

 Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Troy Kickler

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 379 (Start at heading “On Republican Institutions”) – 384 (Stop at heading “Some Considerations…”) of this edition of Democracy in America.

Democracy in America, Conclusion 1

A political scientist, historian, and politician, Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) traveled the United States in 1831. He and fellow traveler Gustave de Beaumont spent nine months traversing the expanse of the 1830s United States. They wanted to learn more concerning the young nation. Their observations were published in two volumes titled Democracy in America. The first volume was published in 1835 and the second in 1840.

Even though De Tocqueville identified America as a “republican government,” he remained impressed by the nation’s democratic features; that is, America had more equal, social conditions than its European counterparts. Although more than a few modern-day Americans might disagree, De Tocqueville remarked that all had a “similar condition” and held onto common “customs and opinions to which that social condition has given birth.”

The Frenchman begins his Conclusion to Volume 1 by reminding readers not to let the particulars distract from the whole. In other words, some people cannot see the forest because of the trees.

For starters, he considers the United States a “magnificent inheritance,” and he regrets that his native country did not establish a significant stronghold in North America.

In his first volume, De Tocqueville was somewhat prophetic. Almost a decade and half before the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), he predicted conflict between the two countries. There was a lot of what De Tocqueville described as “uninhabited land” in the west. He anticipated the “Anglo-Americans” to take “possession of the soil and establish such institutions” that newcomers and legal owners would eventually find the land “quietly settled.” Americans were what De Tocqueville called “swift pioneers.” In particular, he discussed the American settlement of Texas. He erroneously thought that all Mexicans would be removed from Texas. The Tejano existence, for one, did not occur to him.

He also predicted disagreements between America and Russia, even before the Cold War and current events. In 1831, the two nations, to him, were sleeping giants who had remained off of Europe’s radar. A lengthy quote is illustrative. Remember, this viewpoint was expressed in the 1830s.

There are two great peoples on the earth today . . . the Russians and the Anglo-Americans. Both of them have grown larger in obscurity; and while men’s regards were occupied elsewhere, they have suddenly taken their place in the first rank of nations, and the world has learned of their birth and of their greatness almost at the same time.

De Tocqueville believed most other nations’ growth had stopped—not so, for the United States and Russia. According to the Frenchman, the nations achieved greatness by different means. The Americans struggled against nature’s obstacles while the Russians confronted men. In De Tocqueville’s estimation, the American conquest was via the plowshare while the Russians conquered by the sword.

Although De Tocqueville foretold that both nations would eventually “sway the destinies of half the globe,” America and Russia had different means to greatness. The Atlantic Ocean divided England from the United States. With a French perspective, De Tocqueville refers to “Anglo-Americans,” yet he did so in a positive way. De Tocqueville is redundant during the last few pages of his Conclusion, though, but in essence, he writes:

The [Anglo-American] relies on personal interest and allows the force and 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 principle means of action, the other servitude.

Remember, De Tocqueville observed American culture in 1831. His report (the first volume) was published in 1835.

The Atlantic Ocean divided England from the United States. De Tocqueville believed (and hoped) Anglo-Americans would identify with those across the ocean as more similar than different. In sum, despite prior differences between the two nations, resulting in prior actual and diplomatic wars, he forecasted that industrialization and technology and transportation improvements would unite rather than divide the two countries.

Troy Kickler is Founding Director of the North Carolina History Project and Editor of northcarolinahistory.org. He holds an M.S. in Social Studies Education from North Carolina A&T State University and a Ph.D. in History from the University of Tennessee.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Andrea Criswell

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 379 (Start at heading “On Republican Institutions”) – 384 (Stop at heading “Some Considerations…”) of this edition of Democracy in America.

A Few Reflections On The Reasons For The Commercial Greatness Of The United States Influenced by their Commerce

“Hope deferred makes the heart sick” states the Psalmist, “but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life”. This sound wisdom states the human need for opportunity, advancement and productivity. All humanity yearns forward, organic in nature. Immobility is a death sentence to the human race. Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, described American commerce related to its organic nature as one that is always moving forward. Commerce in America, as a factor of American exceptionalism, demonstrated unique qualities birthed out of the very nature of those called Americans. He found that geographic advantages, intellectual superiority and moral people were the three great winds blowing on the exceptional nature of Americans and commerce.

Undeniably, the American continent has geographic advantages unseen in the world. “There is no people in the world that can offer to commerce deeper, vaster and safer ports than the Americans.” Risking danger, American ships “neglected precautions” and pushed their sailors further without creature comforts at the prospect of commercial gain. This was one dynamic De Tocqueville recognized as an “American trait” in the colonies before and after Independence. Living in a temperate zone, American colonies doubled in population in nearly twenty-two years. Population growth mirrors hope. The American Dream was realized and taken advantage of by common people. For the American, navigable rivers, a climate for agricultural diversity, and fertile soil allowed for expansion. The limitless opportunities afforded by nature were embodied in the hearts and minds of the American. For the one willing to learn, to risk, and to work hard, the North American continent had endless possibilities.

European industry, in De Tocqueville’s time, far advanced American output, but was lacking what the individual American held in intellectual superiority. He witnessed that the American’s production capacity was more general, but the sphere of his intellect was more extensive. The American was not held to prejudices in profession nor by lag in progress, but was motivated by his sheer will to survive in the world that he built. This created, “an irresistible impulse on the national character.” Therefore, the mentality of private industry, of self motivation, was seen in every task of the American. No ceiling existed for the Americans. He further elaborated, “I think that nations, like men, almost always indicate the principal features of their destiny in their youth. When I see the spirit in which the Anglo-Americans carry on commerce, the opportunities that they find to do it, the success that they obtain in it, I cannot prevent myself from believing that one day they will become the first maritime power on the globe.” What De Tocqueville was recognizing was American grit. As the new colonists gave way to cultivators of the land, the “taste of well being and the spirit of enterprise” became a key characteristic of those called Americans. The independent, problem solving nature of the American, rivaled any he had seen. He called it intellectual superiority because it represented a person who could do many things. De Tocqueville honored it as intelligence, but understood that its fuel was morality.

Moral steadfastness. This grit found in the American people was a reflection of the transformation required by the opportunity in front of them. Never before had a people been given an opportunity quite like the American people and they embodied the time. They had already created political doctrines that other nations were borrowing. They “exerted a great moral influence over all the peoples of the New World.” This tilled the soil for enlightened thinking, or personal advancement among individuals. All people, created equal, while not in full practice, were stirring in the hearts and minds of Americans. This enlightenment was reflected in commerce, allowing Americans to participate in not only the wealth of their own land, but also that of Europe and beyond. Morality, in this light, referred to a person, who was willing to give all they had for the hope of success. “Skin in the game” combined with hard work in America was a harvest for all.

Commerce, forward motion, a successful organic movement, described America to a “t”. When the perfect soil, climate and worker collide, commerce is a natural progression. The soil and climate offered in America, both literally and figuratively, could only be taken advantage of by the one whose moral compass directed him towards hard work. Commerce would be birthed out of this mentality. Take what is available and sacrificially give all you have for the possibility of more. The hope of the American was void of victimization, but rather full of effort and an undying grit to succeed. What Europe did “piercing the darkness of the Middle Ages with its own efforts,” America did in the river valleys, plains, deserts and mountains of the North American continent, and all peoples, both north and south of its boundaries, were influenced by their commerce.

 

Andrea Criswell is a wife, mother, and homeschool teacher in the northwest Houston area. Graduating from both Texas Tech University and Asbury Theological Seminary, she teaches Christian Worldview classes. Her passion is helping high school students become responsible young adults who critically think and learn how to solve problems.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Joerg Knipprath

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 379 (Start at heading “On Republican Institutions”) – 384 (Stop at heading “Some Considerations…”) of this edition of Democracy in America.

What Is The Difference Between the U.S. Republic and Others? 

There is an intriguing passage in this essay about the difference between the American understanding of republican government and the European approach. De Tocqueville describes contrasting assumptions about the nature of rights and political accountability and affirms the connection between republican government and permanent and transcendental norms. Americans of his time defined a republic as based on majority control. This is the classic “republican principle” of the vote and rule by the majority. Of course, the delicate question is “majority of whom”? This is where republics over the millennia have differed, often profoundly.

That majority control is typically not exercised directly, as might occur in a townhall meeting, but through designated bodies of representatives.
“What one understands by republic in the United States is the slow and tranquil action of society on itself. It is a regular state really founded on the enlightened will of the people. It is a conciliating government, in which resolutions ripen for a long time, are discussed slowly and executed only when mature.”
James Madison, among many other supporters of the Constitution, had offered a similar description of American republican government during the ratification debates in the late 1780s.

Presumably addressing his remarks to the intellectual and political heirs of Rousseau and of various radicals of the French Revolution, De Tocqueville acidly describes the European version of republicanism. “But we in Europe have made strange discoveries. 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 ….”

Note the difference. American republicanism manifests itself in gradual change, based on the people’s felt needs. The process starts organically with the reality of life’s conditions experienced by many people at the time and is realized and refined through a deliberate and consensus-seeking political structure. It is broad-based, practical, and incremental, befitting the American character as DeTocqueville appraised it in various essays.

European, here meaning French, republicanism is that of a gnostic elite or a collection of individuals which arrogates to itself the legitimacy to represent and speak for the people. “It is not the people who direct these sorts of governments, but those who know the greatest good of the people …” That political elite rules and decrees in the name of the people but is driven by ideology to remake society. It is a top-down government. As has been said mockingly, in such a system, if reality conflicts with ideological orthodoxy, it is reality which is in error.

American republicanism starts with the rights and dignity of the individual, as professed in the Declaration of Independence. Even a political majority must stay within certain limits. “What one calls a republic in the United Statuses is the tranquil reign of the majority. The majority, after it has had the time to recognize itself and to certify its existence, is the common source of powers. But the majority itself is not all-powerful. Above it in the moral world are humanity, justice, and reason; in the political world, acquired rights.” Such limits are expressed in the federal Bill of Rights and its counterparts in state constitutions. More significantly, these limits are part of a cultural patrimony that was passed through generations, having been forged in the genesis of the various colonies and refined by the experience of life in a new world far from Europe. Self-government within the British constitution, the transition to independence, and the post-Revolutionary War constitutional turmoil produced vigorous and intellectual disputations about the nature and role of government and the protection of individual rights.

While they disagreed about some important particulars of economic and political policies, American republicans, whether New England Puritan, Southern Agrarian, or National, shared a belief in certain, to them self-evident, points about what makes republics successful. As De Tocqueville accurately details “Republicans in the United States prize mores, respect beliefs, recognize rights. They profess the opinion that a people ought to be moral, religious, and moderate to the degree it is free.” Not only sermons of well-known preachers, but speeches of political leaders and letters and other writings even of ordinary citizens, attested to those convictions.

Not so European republicans. De Tocqueville derides their sophistries, such as the people’s “general will” represented in an all-powerful legislative body controlled by a small coterie of demagogues, as 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. [For, elitist European republicans, 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 reported up to the present, from the highest laws of morality to the vulgar rules of common sense.”

The term republic has long defied easy definition, and De Tocqueville provides no simple resolution. However, the contrast between the essence of American republicanism and his description of the First French Republic and its ideological heirs rings true. Those heirs include the former USSR, in which acronym the “R” signified it as a union of “republics.” Communist China styles itself a “People’s Republic.” When even a cultish regime as totalitarian as that in North Korea can assume the designation of “republic,” one has traveled far from the American founding generation’s understanding of the term. At least some Americans sense unease at the direction American culture and politics have taken over the past decades and wonder whether their republic is moving towards the elitist European conception. It is, in the end, not the self-applied label which makes a republic, but a culture of morality, religion, and political moderation, along with a nurtured spirit of liberty among the people.

An expert on constitutional law, and member of the Southwestern Law School faculty, Professor Joerg W. Knipprath has been interviewed by print and broadcast media on a number of related topics ranging from recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions to presidential succession. He has written opinion pieces and articles on business and securities law as well as constitutional issues, and has focused his more recent research on the effect of judicial review on the evolution of constitutional law. He has also spoken on business law and contemporary constitutional issues before professional and community forums, and serves as a Constituting America Fellow.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Christopher Burkett

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 348 (heading and 2 lines) – 379 (top paragraph) of this edition of Democracy in America.

American Union Will Last? What Dangers Threaten It?

Near the end of Volume One of Democracy in America, De Tocqueville discusses the possible dangers that might, in the future, lead to the dissolution of the American federal Union. If the amount of time De Tocqueville takes to discuss this topic is an indication of its importance, he must have taken this issue very seriously, as it is one of the longest chapters in the book. In fact, it had been an issue of utmost concern to President George Washington in his “Farewell Address” (1796), and of a young Abraham Lincoln in his 1838 address titled “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions,” delivered shortly after the first volume of Democracy in America was published.

De Tocqueville begins by observing that, in the long run, the survival of the Union depends heavily on how long the delicate federal balance of powers and responsibilities between nation and states can be maintained. If that balance tips too far toward the national government, the states might become irrelevant; if it tips too far toward favoring state sovereignty over the national authority, the states might disassociate and thus break up the Union. This problem seems unavoidable because of the very nature of the federal Union, which sought to combine thirteen mostly sovereign and independent states into one nation under a national government.

The framers of the Constitution, De Tocqueville notes, “had not been charged with constituting the government of a unitary people, but with regulating the association of several peoples.” In other words, the founders faced the challenge of creating a single nation comprised not of a unitary people but of confederated peoples distinguished by several distinct characteristics. The problem is this: “Unitary peoples are therefore naturally brought toward centralization” (or strengthening the importance of the nation), and confederations toward dismemberment.” Or, to put it differently, a unitary people feels a kind of “patriotism” toward the nation, whereas confederated peoples tend to feel more “patriotism” toward their particular state, region, or section of the Union.

What makes the peoples in the American Union so different and, therefore, inclined to identify more as members of their state or section, rather than as Americans in the larger sense? Tocqueville points out many of the same differences that were emphasized by the Antifederalist Brutus in his essays opposing ratification of the Constitution in 1787-88. De Tocqueville notes the number of diverse commercial interests among the states and sections of the Union, especially between the Northern and Southern states, but also between the original Eastern states and the newer states of the West. De Tocqueville, however, seems to place more stress on different ideas, opinions, and passions among the states and sections – especially those that shape the mores, in fact the very character of the peoples inhabiting those sections.

To illustrate this potentially disruptive difference of character, De Tocqueville writes on how the institution of slavery “has modified the character of the inhabitants of the South and given them different habits.” Raised to be both self-reliant but needing the voluntary cooperation of his fellow citizens, the “American of the North” is more “patient, reflective, tolerant, slow to act, and persevering in his designs.” He is “more active, more reasonable, more enlightened, and more skillful.” The American of the South, having been raised with the benefit of slaves serving his material needs, “loves greatness, luxury, glory, noise, pleasures, above all idleness,” and is “more spontaneous, more spiritual, more open, more generous, more intellectual, and more brilliant.” The man of the North has the characteristics of the middle class, whereas the man of the South “has the tastes, prejudices, weaknesses, and greatness of all aristocracies.” De Tocqueville’s point is that these powerful differences in character tend to divide rather than unite citizens as one American people. “Slavery therefore,” De Tocqueville writes, “does not attack the American confederation directly by its interests, but indirectly by its mores.”

The localization of slavery in the South does, however, potentially threaten the survival of the Union in a political sense. With westward expansion, the centers of influence shift from the original states of the East (both North and South) to the new states of the West. With the addition of new states – and therefore new representatives in Congress – the delicate balance of political power between free and slave states is jeopardized. The people of the South especially see how this affects the institution of slavery in their states in the future. The South, De Tocqueville observes, “knows that federal power is escaping it, that each year sees the number of its representatives in Congress diminish and those of the North and West grow – the South, populated by ardent and irascible men, is irritated and restive.” In this De Tocqueville sees the tendency of the Southern states to tend more and more toward asserting the importance of states’ rights or sovereignty, as evidenced by the nullification crisis in South Carolina in 1832. Thus De Tocqueville predicts that if the Union is dissolved, it will likely be by one of two means: either by the abrupt secession of states from the Union, or by a gradual reversal over time toward complete state independence.

Christopher Burkett is Associate Professor of Political Science at Ashland University and Academic Director of the Ashbrook Scholar Program and Academies. He is editor of Ashbrook’s 50 Core American Documents, and has written on the American Founding, Progressivism, and American Foreign Policy. He holds a B.A. from Ashland University, and received his M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Dallas.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Horace Cooper

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 326 – 348 (almost the entire page down to the next heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

De Tocqueville’s View On Race Relations In The United States

Alexis de Tocqueville uses his keen insights and talents for observation to focus on the question of slavery and blacks in the newly created United States of America.

Near the end of his essay on this topic he once again demonstrates the prescience and perception that he has revealed throughout the book “Democracy in America”. In this essay, he predicts slavery’s demise.

He explains at the end of the essay, “… whatever the efforts of Americans of the south to preserve slavery, they will not succeed at it forever….in the midst of the democratic freedom and enlightenment of our age [slavery] is not an institution that can endure.”

Indeed, slavery ended in the US. It proved incompatible with the remarkable ideas of our founders including the foundational principle that “All Men are Created Equal.” The end came about as the result of the most consequential war that this nation had ever experienced. Greater and more deadly for Americans than World War I and World War II. Certainly, greater than the losses of the Revolutionary War. The Civil War cost more American lives than any war the US has ever been involved in.

Ultimately, freedom and abolition came at a very high price. 160 years later we’d all be well served to remember that cost. After WWI and WWII America made peace with her enemies. Particularly after the evils committed by Japan, Germany and Italy our nation’s reconciliation abilities are quite pronounced. Today Japan is a leading trading partner. Germany and Italy are too. In fact, many Americans proudly proclaim their desire for German and Italian automobiles as a sign of their financial success in life.

After armed conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, America poured 100s of billions of dollars to help rebuild.

But ironically, today there is a growing movement to foment discord over a military conflict that occurred more than a century and a half ago – the Civil War. This wrongheaded approach isn’t just antithetical to who we are as Americans, but it hinders our efforts to progress as a nation.

Reconciliation is who we are. It is part of the American identity. And in fact, the American identity is the focus of De Tocqueville’s Democracy in America.

Notably, De Tocqueville doesn’t take on the persona of an abolitionist in this essay. He attempts to do what he had done in the other essays. Observe and report.

When he wrote this essay, De Tocqueville sought to explain the curious phenomenon of the existence of a “free” North and a “slave” South. One of De Tocqueville’s most trenchant observations is that the race of slaves in the 18th and 19th century created one of the biggest challenges to ending it.

He explains that as a concept slavery imposed on any and all races would be easier to abolish precisely because it so directly attacks the notion of the humanity of man – all of them. A slave could be your brother or sister. But having slavery focused on blacks however, while it still denigrates the notion of the equality of man, it doesn’t do so in the same broad manner. He further observes that as a consequence of singling out the slave by race the notion that there is something unique about whites being free and blacks being slaves is easier to maintain. He says by only using blacks for slaves in America, “they made a wound in humanity less large, but infinitely more difficult to heal.” De Tocqueville adds, “the remembrance of slavery dishonors the race and race perpetuates the remembrance of slavery.”

But to De Tocqueville the harm of slavery in America was obvious to even the casual observer. He argued that it explains the culture of industry in the north and the culture of indolence in the South.

Showing just how remarkable the differences in lifestyles are for the North and the South, De Tocqueville describes the dissimilarity of life on both sides of the Ohio river. He explains that the Ohio River – named by native Americans – translates to “Beautiful.”

And indeed, it was.

The climate on both sides of the river he reports was “temperate” and the soil on each side offered “inexhaustible treasures” and yet on one side was Kentucky a “slave” state and the other Ohio a “free” state.

The two sides of the river reveal to De Tocqueville a significant difference in economic and productive activity. Ohio was more prosperous and active. Kentucky was less populated, less developed and more causal about economic activity. This difference provided a practical reason to oppose slavery.

For De Tocqueville, this prosperity and productivity difference is endemic to the existence or lack thereof of slavery. He even suggests that the scope of government activity can be explained by the presence of slavery. For instance, in Ohio, he notes that the state government established a canal between Lake Erie and the Ohio River allowing commerce all the way from Europe to New Orleans.

By contrast, he explains that residents of Kentucky have “neither zeal nor enlightenment” and consequently state activity reflects a more lackadaisical response.

Thus, in De Tocqueville’s theorizing, the existence of slavery is the primary reason why those who lived in the South languished in economic stagnation and those who lived in the North prospered.

On the Ohio state side of the river free men had to exercise agility and use willpower to provide for themselves and their family. And since they could keep the benefits of their efforts, they were more inclined to do so. On the Kentucky side it was the responsibility of slaves to provide for their owners and the owners family. The slaves worked but not with the zeal that comes from personally benefiting from their labors.

He concludes that separate and apart from the morality and dignity of all humans being free, his practical observation was that free men would be more prosperous overall and society would be better served by that prosperity.

But mere practical benefits De Tocqueville feared would not be sufficient to cause the South to end its reliance on slave labor. Cultural mores might be too hard to overcome. He feared that the physical appearance of blacks would mean that integration into the broader society would be a real challenge even if the South considered ending slavery.

In the end, America did live up to its founding principles and ended slavery. This wouldn’t be a shock to De Tocqueville.

De Tocqueville often spoke of America being a melting pot – a place where intermarriage and nonsegregated living became commonplace – but he was apprehensive as to whether that could work to resolve the issue of race relations caused by the existence of race-based slavery.

Indeed, there are those today who are “racialists” who use the physical appearance of people to divide Americans – some for financial gain and others for political gain.

Notwithstanding these efforts, here in the 21st century De Tocqueville might be quite impressed with the ability of Americans of all races to live together in harmony.

Today in a country by size the 3rd largest on the planet, nearly 20% of all US marriages are interracial. The US is among the more diverse nations on the planet. According to the US Census Bureau, Asians were the fastest growing ethnic group last year. And as of 2017 some 15% of all children born were mixed-race. On the whole America has demonstrated quite the ability to thrive together despite the existence of large ethnic groups.

In conclusion, De Tocqueville recognized the ills of slavery and how it contradicted the values of our founders. He saw both practical and philosophical rationales for it to end. He takes care to note that his traveling companion Gustave de Beaumont (Goose-tav DE Boo-mon) was preparing a book on the status of blacks in the US which De Tocqueville heartily recommended.

America was created by the adoption of an amazing concept – the equality of all men and self-government by its citizens. So fascinated was De Tocqueville he traveled to America to study it. Even while seeing the evils of slavery, De Tocqueville could see so much of the wonder of this magnificent plan of a republic governed not by rulers but by citizens. His hopefulness ultimately has been borne out.

We have a remarkable and enduring republic. But, as Benjamin Franklin warns – only if we keep it.

Horace Cooper is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research and chairman of Project 21 – the black leadership network

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Robert Pence

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 302 (bottom half) – 325 of this edition of Democracy in America.

Democracy in America recounts Alexis de Tocqueville’s reflections on his extensive travels in America. In the chapter under discussion (Volume 1, Part Two, Chapter 10), he considers the present and probable futures of the three races [the white man, the Negro and the Indian] that inhabit the territory of the United States. De Tocqueville found the three races to be naturally distinct and inimical to each other. Fortune had gathered them together and mixed them without the ability to intermingle, to the end that each pursued its own destiny. My focus is De Tocqueville’s answer to the question, vis a vis the Indian, “What is to be the future of the Indians?” He saw it as bleak. Very bleak. To the point of extinction.

Before the arrival of the white man in North America, the Indians lived tranquilly in the woods. “The Europeans, after having dispersed the Indian tribes far into the wilderness, condemned them to a wandering and vagabond life full of inexpressible miseries” (305). The author laments that many of the Indian tribes that formerly inhabited New England no longer exist. As Indian nations were forced further into the interior of the continent, large populations of colonists grew in their place. Such dispersal obscured their traditions, interrupted their memories, changed their habits, and increased their needs beyond measure. They became “more disordered and less civilized than they already were” (305). When the Indians lived alone in the woods, they hunted or made what they needed. Such self-sufficiency could not last: hunting alone could no longer satisfy their needs. The more remote tribes living beyond the Mississippi could still hunt the buffalo herds whose migrations could be followed. Famine forced migration. Before them is war. Misery is everywhere.

In 1831, De Tocqueville found himself on the Mississippi River. He saw a large number of Choctaws arrive; they had left their country and sought to cross the Mississippi where they thought they would find the refuge that the American government promised them. Alas, the government very rarely kept them. Half-convinced and half-compelled, the Indians had to move again, and again, to inhabit new wildernesses, where the whites would hardly leave them in peace for ten years (312). Thus, North American Indians had only two options for salvation: war or civilization (312-3). In the South, the “Cherokees and the Creeks, have found themselves almost surrounded by Europeans who, disembarking on the shores of the ocean, descending the Ohio, and traversing the Mississippi, arrived all around them at the same time. They were not chased from place to place, as were the Northern tribes, but, little by little, they were pressed together within narrowing limits” (315). When the Indians succeeded at farming, their white neighbors offered them prices that seemed high to them, but they took the money and moved on.

“President Washington had said…We are more enlightened and more powerful than the Indian nations; it is to our honor to treat them with goodness and even with generosity.’ This noble and virtuous policy has not been followed. “The tyranny of the government is ordinarily added to the greed of the colonists” (320). For sure, many states failed to recognize Indian tribes as independent peoples. [A series of Supreme Court cases in the 1830’s confirms such conduct.]

Unable to protect the Indians, the Federal government transported them to other places and maintained them there; in territory that had already been guaranteed to them. Today [i.e., the 1830’s], the American government does not take their lands away from them, but it allows them to be invaded. In a few years, doubtless, the expanding white population will again be on their heels; then they will again meet the same ills without the same remedies. Thus, the states, by their tyranny, force the savages to flee; the Union, by its promises and with the aid of its resources, makes flight easy. These are different measures tending to the same end.

De Tocqueville opined that the Indians’ right to their lands was never ceded, nor forfeited. The author questions whether the tribes’ troubles began when they were hostile to the United States, and sided with Great Britain during the struggle for independence. [My note: in the Declaration of Independence, the last charge made against the English King recounts “the long train of abuses and usurpations” against the colonists. “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.”]

Pushed westward by the white man’s quest for more land and his increasingly frequent breaches of treaty after treaty, the Indians lost their culture, language, and security, their very way of life. De Tocqueville foresaw the inevitable: “the Indian race of North America is condemned to perish” (312).

 

Robert Pence - WikipediaRobert Pence is a Washington D.C. native who attended Maryland University as an undergrad, American University for J.D. and two M.A. degrees, and Yale University from which he received a M.Phil. degree in Italian Language and Literature. President Donald Trump appointed Bob to serve as the American ambassador to Finland; he served in Helsinki from May, 2018 until January, 2021. He served for years on various educational, artistic and philanthropic boards including The Kennedy Center, the Wolftrap Foundation, the World Affairs Council and American University. The is currently a member of boards of George Mason University (VA) and The Gary Sinise Foundation.

He is particularly proud to serve on Gary Sinise’s board where he joins with other equally committed citizens in support of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States, police, and first responders.

Mr. Pence’s wife Suzy serves on the National Advisory Board of Constituting America.  The  Pences are generous contributors to Constituting America, and their support has helped make our Online De Tocqueville Study possible. We thank you, Mr. Pence! 

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Will Morrisey

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 298 (bottom half of page) – 302 (top half of page) of this edition of Democracy in America.

 

WHAT AMERICAN DEMOCRACY MEANS FOR EUROPE

Founding a democratic republican regime is one thing. The American founders had done that. Maintaining it is another, as Benjamin Franklin famously remarked upon emerging from the final session of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, and as a sober young American attorney named Abraham Lincoln saw and considered in his “Address to the Young Men’s Lyceum” in Springfield, Illinois in 1838, some two generations later.

Writing a couple of years before Lincoln, Alexis de Tocqueville understood that his fellow Europeans hesitated to found democratic republics because they did not see how such regimes could sustain themselves in Europe, where geopolitical, constitutional, and civil-social circumstances differed substantially from those prevailing in North America. By then, Americans faced no formidable enemies, needed to fight no major wars, and consequently afforded no opportunities for a native Napoleon to hunger for military glory and move against republicanism. The American capital was no Paris, no Rome; a centralized government can fall prey to mobs, with ‘the democracy’ threatening the government, whether monarchic, as in 1789 and again in 1848, or republican, as the Romans had seen in the military coup of Julius Caesar. And North America is much bigger than Europe; on a large continent, “nature itself works for the people,” giving them an outlet for their restless ambitions. Dissatisfied with your lot in life? If you’re an American, go West, young man; set yourself up as a farmer, not as a revolutionary.

Europeans enjoyed none of these advantages. Politically, they enabled the American Founders to constitute their national government as a federation, not a centralized state. Their strong township institutions, established long before the founding, had taught the people “the art of being free,” habits of mind and heart consistent with self-government. Americans had anchored their civil and criminal courts in the counties, close to the people, who could be confident that they would be judged by their peers.

Most importantly, American hearts were animated by the principles of a “democratic and republican” religion. As De Tocqueville had earlier maintained, the first movement toward equality of condition was in Christianity itself, its teaching of human equality before God. At the same time, American minds were enlightened by an education that was eminently practical, with the ‘Three Rs’ enabling citizens to read their Bibles for moral guidance, to read their newspapers for political information and for expressing their own opinions, and to calculate sums correctly in business.

In all, “American legislators had come, not without success, to oppose the idea of rights to sentiments of envy; to the continuous movements of the political world, the immobility of religious morality; the experience of the people, to its political ignorance, and its habit of business, to the enthusiasm of its desires.” It was true that Americans confronted one potentially ruinous dilemma absent from Europe: race-based slavery, the theme of the final section of De Tocqueville’s first volume—one distinct from the problem of the overall civil-social equality, the democracy, in America. Europeans, however, faced the reverse problem: no slavery, but no obvious solution to the questions raised by democracy.

On that front, Europeans enjoyed none of the advantages Americans enjoyed. Democracy was advancing in their societies with the weakening of the aristocracies. But democracy, social and civic equality, need not issue in republicanism, in the protection of natural and civil rights. Napoleon had demonstrated this, only a quarter-century before De Tocqueville ventured to the United States. “The organization and establishment of democracy among Christians is the great political problem of our time.” Indeed, “the question I have raised interests not only the United States, but the entire world; not one nation, but all men.”

Why? Under the civil-social condition of modernity, democracy, with no aristocrats standing between the people and the centralized state, one could not only see a monarchy along the lines of France under Louis XIV, but a new absolutism, a new despotism “with features unknown to our fathers.” The old absolutist monarchies retained a still-formidable aristocratic class. Firstborn sons inherited the estate, ruling but also protecting the peasants who worked their land, as their ancestors had done for centuries. Second-bord sons entered the clerical aristocracy, the Roman Catholic Church exerting influence on peasants, monarchs, and their fellow aristocrats alike Under the old regime, wealthy merchants in cities and townships also commanded their own sources of revenue and manpower independent of monarchs and aristocrats. Even under the rule of the Bourbons, then, there was “a love of freedom in souls” among honor-loving aristocrats and aristocrats and commerce-loving merchant. The peasants and urban workers ruled by these elites nonetheless understood that they, too, could one day see the face of God, that they too partook of the dignity of human being.

But in the European civil-social democracy of De Tocqueville’s century, the Enlightenment philosophes and their intellectual heirs had undermined faith in God; “nothing any longer sustains man above himself.” And democratic men find themselves in a leveled society in which all classes mix together, and “the individual disappears more and more into the crowd,” readily “lost in the midst of the common obscurity,” and therefore no longer held responsible for his actions.

 “When each citizen, being equally powerless, equally poor, equally isolated, can only oppose his individual weakness to the organized force of the government,” a regime of despotism would take on the harshness of late Roman imperialism, “those frightful centuries of Roman tyranny, when mores were corrupt, memories effaced, habits destroyed, opinions wavering, and freedom, chased out of the laws, no longer knew where to take refuge to find an asylum; when nothing any longer stood guarantee for citizens and citizens no longer stood guarantee for themselves,” where “one would see men make sport of human nature.”

In the event, many Europeans would come under tyrannies even worse than De Tocqueville foresaw, regimes in which making sport of human nature meant hunting it down in death camps and world wars, resulting in tens of millions dead, regimes where the modern state, armed with technologies permitting surveillance of its subjects, ended civil and political liberty for those who survived the onslaught, spurring the invention of a new word, ‘totalitarianism.’

“Is this not worth thinking about? If men had to arrive, in effect, at the point where it would be necessary to make them all free or all slaves, all equal in rights or all deprived of rights; if those who governed societies were reduced to this alternative of gradually raising the crowd up to themselves or of letting all citizens fall below the level of humanity, would this not be enough to overcome many doubts, to reassure consciences well, and to prepare each to make great sacrifice readily?” For “if one does not in time succeed in founding the peaceful empire of the greatest number among us,” democratic republics instead of democratic despotisms, “we shall arrive sooner or later at the unlimited power of one alone.”

Against atheist ideologies, therefore, De Tocqueville called upon Europeans to renew their respect for Christianity. Against overweening military and political ambition, he commended a spirit of peaceful commerce, of the ‘bourgeois’ life detested by aristocrats and socialists alike. Against the “sentiments of envy” he opposed the idea of individual and civil rights. Against governmental centralization, federalism and the practical experience local self-government provides to citizens. Against the threat of foreign wars, a strong executive, a constitutional monarch empowered to defend the realm. And against the alienation of his fellow aristocrats, De Tocqueville urged a policy not futile dreaming of reinstituting command but of guiding democracy, moderating its passions by teaching it how better to govern—as De Tocqueville himself did, in writing Democracy in America.

 

Will Morrisey is the author of ten books, including studies of the political thought of the American founders, the American Progressives, Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick, and Shakespeare’s comedies. He has been an editor of Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy for 45 years. He retired from the Politics Department at Hillsdale College in 2015. His articles and reviews may be found on “Will Morrisey Reviews.”

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Danny de Gracia

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 296-298 (Stop at “Importance of what Precedes”) of this edition of Democracy in America.

The Way We Were (And Could Be Again)

“The Americans have no neighbors and consequently no great wars, financial crisis, ravages, or conquest to fear; they need neither large taxes, nor a numerous army, nor great generals; they have almost nothing to dread from a scourge more terrible for republics than all those things put together – military glory.”
-Alexis de Tocqueville

The late Ronald Reagan after losing his party’s nomination for president in 1976, spoke of a time capsule that he had the opportunity to write a letter for that would be later opened for the American Tricentennial 100 years later in 2076.

“And suddenly it dawned on me, those who would read this letter a hundred years from now … will know whether we met our challenge,” Reagan explained. “Whether they will have the freedom that we have known up until now will depend on what we do here.”

Reagan then went on to say:

“Will they look back with appreciation, and say, ‘Thank God for those people in 1976 who headed off that loss of freedom? Who kept us now a hundred years later, free? Who kept our world from nuclear destruction? And if we fail, they probably won’t get to read the letter at all, because it spoke of individual freedom and they won’t be allowed to talk of that or read of it. This is our challenge and this is why we were here in this hall tonight. Better than we’ve ever done before, we’ve got to quit talking to each other and about each other and go out and communicate to the world that we may be fewer in numbers than we’ve ever been but we carry the message they’re waiting for. We must go forth from here united, determined, and what a great general said a few years ago is true: There is no substitute for victory, Mr. President.”

History both repeats and rhymes, and the challenge and battle that Reagan had spoke of for the soul and future of America is the same struggle that every American has been fighting since The Shot Heard Round The World on April 19, 1775 and maybe even earlier.

In the early decades of the United States of America, this country was a marvel to philosophers, historians, and political observers the world over, one of them being Alexis de Tocqueville. The Old World had its share of political revolutions and political experiments, and the search for a system of government that balanced the individual’s pursuit of happiness against society’s need for cohesion and order had been tried and failed numerous times over.

More often than not, the rulers of the Old World brought about political reform through palace intrigue, bloody revolutions, and military takeovers, often offering platitudes of liberty and freedom and justice to distressed citizens but ultimately never granting a system that allowed people the space to be human inside a government restrained enough to not be oppressive but still maintain the basic functions of a sovereign state without becoming a failed state. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss” was the way that rulers and systems of government had come and gone for millennia up to the founding of the United States of America. Certainly, the Ancient Greeks had their experiment in democracy, but that was a system that was at best superficial and did not empower people to pursue and enjoy individual freedom in the way we today think of the revolutionary American statement that “all men are created equal.”

In fact, the lessons of the Peace of Westphalia treaty were still very much on the minds of European leaders at the time of the American Revolution. That treaty established the understanding that the lowest common denominator in the world system is not the individual, but the state itself, and that rulers have the right to be sovereign inside their national borders – a concept which, interestingly, lives on in the text of today’s United Nations charter.

This idea that the king is the state and the state is the king and everything and everyone under the king belongs to the king who is, like the ancient Pharaoh of Egypt, the morning and the evening star was upheld by the Peace of Westphalia. Many of the ancients, though they resented it, likely felt and understood this was a necessary evil.

The Bible gives us the story of Moses spending time collecting the Ten Commandments on a mountaintop, while his brother Aaron is left behind with the presumably millions of Israelites who had been rescued from Egypt’s bondage by divine deliverance. The people organized the equivalent of a democracy in the absence of Moses, pressured Aaron to build a golden calf as their national icon, and began to revel and cast off all restraint – that is, until Moses came back with the power of God to put them in their place.

This idea that if people are allowed to have their way, they’ll use it to do evil and wreak chaos on a national and even international scale has persisted throughout human history. The purpose of the king, who is either there because a “god” chose him or because he is the bloodiest, wisest, or richest person able to assemble and control the resources needed to maintain a state, is essentially under this line of thought to keep the citizens in line and to keep the neighboring countries in line as well.

When we read De Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America,” we can therefore see the European alarm and fascination that America, at least at the time, was a political unicorn. Here De Tocqueville finds Americans govern themselves, and don’t require a police state to keep them in line. Here the heads of state, local leaders, and public servants are anodyne, mostly agreeable individuals, who dare not step out of line, lest they face the wrath of the public. In short: Americans have a functioning democracy because they can handle it.

“To submit the provinces to the capital is therefore to put the destiny of the whole empire not only in the hands of a portion of the people, which is unjust, but also in the hands of the people acting by itself, which is very dangerous,” De Tocqueville wrote. “I already said before that I saw in the origin of the Americans, in what I called their point of departure, the first and the most efficacious of all the causes to which the current prosperity of the United States can be attributed. Americans had the chance of their birth working for them: their fathers had long since brought equality of conditions and of intelligence onto the soil they inhabited, from which the democratic republic would one day issue as from its natural source. This is still not all; with a republican social state, they willed to their descendants the most appropriate habits, ideas, and mores to make a republic flourish.”

One will likely read De Tocqueville in 2024 and, seeing the condition of the United States, easily say, “Ouch, he missed it, we missed it, and what a height we’ve fallen from.” The very things that allowed America to be a successful democracy at the time of Tocqueville’s writing of “Democracy in America” are the very things that are absent in today’s country.

Increasing urbanization by design means that people today are packed together in tight, uncomfortable, competitive built environments. This is the opposite of the pastoral, agrarian, mostly relaxed America that De Tocqueville wrote of with agreeable citizens and family structures that were personal, instructive, and a form of self-government.

Want to feel democracy has failed? Work in Downtown Honolulu, Hawaii and just try to leave your office for a 45-minute lunch break. Trust me, if you don’t get a traffic ticket for a simple mistake, get run over by a distracted driver, collide with a pedestrian disobeying the crosswalk signal, or get stuck in a traffic jam due to some wild accident for two hours, then you must have the very blessing of God Himself operating in your life. This is a daily experience which embitters citizens and makes individuals reliant on big government to fix, regulate, or control the increasingly out of control world around them. Here in Hawaii, we have no shortage of public “planners” yet the local chaos here is out of control.

Does democracy as a system of government work? Technically yes, technically no. It “works” if a majority of those voting are enlightened, altruistic, and at peace with themselves and others. It doesn’t work when they’re not. And that is why America, in 2024, is the exact opposite of what De Tocqueville described in “Democracy in America.”

Today? We’re fighting world wars no one wants to admit are world wars. Our young people are tearing apart college campuses and have a political divide that is night and day from their parents view of the world. Our government is bigger than it’s ever been before, but it can’t maintain order. We’re taxing people way beyond what drove the Founders to rebel, but every politician and bureaucrat says they need more money and can’t even cut the grass or keep the roads paved because there’s “no money for that.” And depending on which of the two major parties one subscribes or aligns with, one may see two totally different directions and purposes for the future of America.

Oh, if only we could go back to De Tocqueville’s time, when times were simpler. We can, in fact. Despite all of the disruption, decline, and major changes in history, America’s experiment is still at its core a system of inputs and outputs that when operated properly will work the way it was intended, for limited government, and maximum individual freedom.

De Tocqueville’s America at the time of his observation emphasized a connection to one’s family and to one’s community. When we are able to know each other and keep each other accountable, we can solve things by cooperation or by negotiation amongst ourselves. That is the beginnings of self-governance.

I often ask myself how many people would be out protesting in the streets or being vicious and disagreeable over abstract political ideas if they had someone back home who loved them and helped them and kept them grounded with supportive words and kind loyalty.

De Tocqueville also encountered an America that did not see or rely on national government as the source of their solutions. Today, we want a quote from the president and the speaker of the house and the senate majority leader on every little thing that happens in the world and what their plan is. When Americans took initiative and took action on the things they had within their personal sphere of reach, politicians were largely obsolete. Today, we take minimal responsibility for things and seek to be as un-accountable for our actions and others as possible. De Tocqueville’s America was proactive and ready to take charge. They had peace because they had initiative.

And most importantly, De Tocqueville saw an America that had traditions that clearly established lines between moral rights and wrongs. “In the United States, religion not only regulates mores, but extends its empire over intelligence,” he observed. Today, we have been encouraged to be narcissistic, avoidant, and mercenary in our actions. The concept of “your truth,” “your vibes,” or “your tribe” that has been promoted in recent years suggests a man or a woman can be an island who does whatever is right in their own eyes at any given time with no accountability to anything or anyone except their own gratification.

Multiplied to a population level, this kind of thinking is disastrous and results in exactly the kind of society we have that is at war with itself. There is a war against moral clarity in America today that brings out the worst, rather than the best, that democracy can offer.

“It is likely,” Benjamin Franklin said at the 1787 constitutional convention, “to be well-administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government.”

Take that not as a prophecy that cannot be avoided, but as a warning that must be heeded.

America is at a dangerous precipice in 2024. We are headed away from the enlightenment that De Tocqueville and others marveled at, and are going backwards in time to the traditions of upheaval, reactionary despotism, and ultimately, total decline. But we can turn back. It will take changing our communities, changing our cities, and most importantly, changing ourselves.

Danny de Gracia is a political scientist and internationally published author who lives in Hawaii. He is currently working on his second master’s degree in health policy at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Richard Epstein

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 292 (Stop at “That the Laws”) – 295 of this edition of Democracy in America.

Causes Tending to Undermine a Democratic Republic

Commentary on de Tocqueville:
Vol. One, Part Two, Chapter Nine

It is widely acknowledged that Democracy in America, written in 1835 and 1840, is the greatest book on that topic—a period of America long gone and never to return. De Tocqueville offers an optimistic chapter describing the forces working to preserve a democratic republic. Conjoining those two words obscures the traditional philosophical opposition between republics and democracies. In so doing, De Tocqueville offers several explanations that, while accurate for his time, are as dead as a dodo bird in ours.

His first explanation is that “The Americans have no neighbors and consequently no great wars,” except, of course, with themselves (the Civil War of 1861-1865 was at the time the bloodiest and most sophisticated war fought anywhere in the world). We still have quiet borders with our northern and southern neighbors (putting aside the problem of illegal immigration). But today, new technologies that span oceans call for military interactions with countless nations, both friend and foe—China, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Russia, Spain, Taiwan, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and many others. Our current military budget, foreign policy, defense capabilities, intelligence sources, and foreign aid programs never crossed De Tocqueville’s mind. But to read him as a blind isolationist would draw exactly the wrong inference. Today, he would know that the question is not only whether to interact with these formidable world powers but also how to do so. Do we sign bilateral or multilateral treaties? Can we continue to follow a constitutional system that requires, except in emergencies, the Congress to declare war before the President as commander-in-chief can intervene in Kosovo or Libya? These all present tough issues. And if De Tocqueville was right to attack General Andrew Jackson when he ascended to the presidency, should we say the same about Dwight Eisenhower? Don’t blame De Tocqueville for not seeing the future. Don’t rely on him as if he did.

Second, De Tocqueville spoke of the advantages of having a small national capital, which prevents a disproportionate concentration of power at the center that would regrettably displace the “great assemblies” in small towns and reduce the key role of citizen participation in direct democracy. He even notes with evident uneasiness that cities like Philadelphia (then populated by 161,000 inhabitants) and New York (then 202,000) could be the source not only of disagreement but potentially of race riots.

Those days are gone forever. When De Tocqueville wrote, the population in the United States was under 15 million people, just before the new waves of immigration reached our shores. Today, the population of the United States is over 336 million people. New York City is close to 8 million, and Philadelphia has about 1.5 million. Those long-term population increases do not allow traditional institutions to scale up without some fundamental changes in their character. The town model cannot work, so some variation on the square/cube law takes over—any viable state must cube the size of its infrastructure in order to double the size of its operations. Town meetings are for school boards, not climate control or interstate transportation.

Yet more than size is at stake. For the first, roughly speaking, 125-150 years under the 1787 Constitution, the philosophy of government at the federal level changed radically. The classical liberal model that speaks of the control of force, fraud and monopoly was no longer at the fore. Now, a much broader conception of government power uses administrative expertise to implement complex regulatory schemes that are supposed to reflect informed democratic preferences. Woodrow Wilson’s administration ushered in the federal income tax, the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Trade Commission, the expansion of antitrust laws, the direct election of Senators, and women’s suffrage. Together, these composed the first stage of expanding state power, followed by Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. These activities undercut the restrictions on state power imposed by the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. The New Deal saw the rise of the alphabet agencies—the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the National Labor Relations Board, the Civil Aeronautics Authority, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and many more. The Great Society added civil rights, health care, and environmental protection, bringing more power to Washington, which today may be somewhat curbed by the Roberts Court’s controversial attack on judicial deference to the expansive actions of the administrative state.

De Tocqueville may not have approved of all these changes had he foreseen them. But, if alive today, he would recognize that there is no turning back to the simpler world of 1835. And as the final irony, like De Tocqueville, we have no open spaces in which to move and hide. So our challenge in this brave new world is to maintain levels of freedom and prosperity that De Tocqueville could not have imagined—or understood.

Richard A. Epstein is the inaugural Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law, where he serves as a Director of the Classical Liberal Institute, which he helped found in 2013. He has served as the Peter and Kirstin Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution since 2000. Epstein is also the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law Emeritus and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Tony Williams

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 288 (Start at “How the Enlightenment”) – 292 (Stop at “That the Laws”) of this edition of Democracy in America.

De Tocqueville on American Education and Self-Government

In 1838, a young Abraham Lincoln addressed a young men’s lyceum debating society in Springfield, Illinois, on the topic of “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions.” Lincoln stated that mob rule and demagoguery were great threats to American self-government. He asserted that the way to preserve American political institutions was to restore reason and reverence for the laws as a “political religion” over the shifting and dangerous passions of human nature.

Publishing his masterpiece, Democracy in America, at the same time Lincoln spoke, De Tocqueville offered his own reflections on “the influence exerted by the enlightenment and the habits of the Americans on the maintenance of their political institutions.” In both cases—education and political habits—were formed primarily through experience rather than theory. The American people, he observed, were eminently a very practical people.

De Tocqueville thought that American education did not produce great literature or scientific inventions. Instead, Americans adapted the technology, “marvelously to the needs of the country.” They also sought education to learn “the doctrines and the proofs of [their] religion.” Finally, they gained familiarity with “the principal features of the constitution that governs” their country.

The main measure of American education might be found, in De Tocqueville’s view, in the thousand newspapers he says crisscrosses the republic. Americans demonstrated a commitment to the “utility of Enlightenment” rather than a desire to reproduce the Encyclopedie project of the French Enlightenment to classify all the world’s knowledge, for example.

Americans bring this practical education and knowledge even in the vast stretches of the western frontier. De Tocqueville stated that the American plunges “into the wilderness of the New World with his Bible, a hatchet, and newspapers.” Thus, they bring their version of enlightenment with them as they civilize what they considered a wilderness.

But, more than that, education cultivates the habits and mores of a self-governing people. De Tocqueville writes, “the instruction of the people serves powerfully to maintain a democratic republic.” Those virtues of citizenship, however, are acquired not through reading great political tracts but by the constant practice of self-governance.

De Tocqueville is astounded that Americans have an extremely strong sense of their rights. The American knows “what his rights are and what means he will use to exercise them.” The same could hardly have been said of peasants farming in Italy or serfs in imperial Russia.

Americans also acquire an understanding of the laws from reading newspapers and participating in the work of self-government. With a written Constitution and published laws, Americans were in a unique position of knowing the laws they lived under. De Tocqueville writes, “He has made himself familiar with the mechanisms of the laws.”

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, Americans engaged in self-governance. Universal male suffrage meant that all white men could vote, which was truly exceptional in the first half of the nineteenth century. They voted in free elections, served on juries, held political office, served in local government jobs in their communities, and attended democratic town meetings.

“It is from participating in legislation that the American learns to know the laws, from governing that he instructs himself in the forms of government. The great work of society is accomplished daily before his eyes and so to speak in his hands.”

De Tocqueville noted that Americans carried “the habits of public life into private life.” That was perhaps one of the keys to the health of American democracy. They had democratic habits and virtues that animated a robust civil society of self-governing citizens who could manage their own affairs without the intrusive hand of government. And, self-government was rooted upon education forming the character of the American people.

Today, Americans generally have a strong instinctual sense of their constitutional rights. While they may not always get the exact particulars correct, they cherish the right to speak their minds because they have free speech under the First Amendment. They also have a strong reaction against a police officer searching the trunks of their cars without probable cause or entering their homes without a warrant. They would want to speak with a lawyer if arrested and held at a police station. In this way at least, the American spirit of liberty and self-government is alive and well.

De Tocqueville noted this phenomenon almost two centuries ago in Democracy in America. He wrote an American “will teach you what his rights are and what means he will use to exercise them.”

Tony Williams is Senior Teaching Fellow at the Bill of Rights Institute; a Constituting America Fellow; author of Washington and Hamilton: The Alliance that Forged America, and Hamilton: An American Biography.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Ben Peterson

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 282 (Start at “On the Principal Causes”) – 288 (Stop at “How the Enlightenment”) of this edition of Democracy in America.

De Tocqueville on Religion in Society

For De Tocqueville, habits and mores, determined especially by religion, are the primary contributors to the Americans’ successful maintenance of their democratic republic. Against champions of liberty who opposed Christianity and reactionaries who opposed liberty and defended religion, De Tocqueville described and favored an American republicanism that had combined “the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom.” The dominance of Christian morality—a salutary tyranny of the majority—promotes domestic tranquility and furnishes limits on political power. De Tocqueville makes an arresting claim: “Religion, which, among Americans, never mixes directly the government of society, should therefore be considered as the first of their political institutions; for if it does not give them the taste for freedom, it singularly facilitates their use of it.”

While noting that religion “never mixes” with government, De Tocqueville nevertheless notes that it holds widespread influence in society, hinting at the larger force of his argument. De Tocqueville’s claim is twofold: first, Christianity exercises an enormous degree of political influence in America, despite formal separation of church and state, through its hold over the mores. Second, the degree of influence Christianity wields actually depends on disestablishment, assigning religion to its proper sphere of dominion over hearts and minds.

In De Tocqueville’s analysis, mortal man is irrepressibly homo religiosus, irrepressibly yearning for immortality. Religion thus possesses a natural advantage in the sphere of the mind and mores, pertaining to the permanent interests of human beings in the next world:

As long as religion finds its force in the sentiments, instincts, and passions that one sees reproduced in the same manner in all periods of history, it defies the effort of time, or at least it can only be destroyed by another religion. But when religion wishes to be supported by the interests of this world, it becomes almost as fragile as all the powers on earth.”

All civil powers, in contrast, are ephemeral. Direct alliance with civil political power jeopardizes religion’s natural advantage. The enemies of an allied regime become enemies of the religion: “So by uniting with different political powers, religion can only contract an onerous alliance. It does not need their help to live, and by serving them it can die.”  This makes religion especially vulnerable in democratic ages because configurations of political power change rapidly and constantly.

The reason Christianity—which De Tocqueville will argue in Volume II is especially suited to liberty—maintains a somewhat thinned, but widespread and unchallenged influence in American society is because it confines itself to the realm of general moral guidance and the government of the heart and mind, the natural, universal realm of religion: “In America, religion is perhaps less powerful than it has been in certain times and among certain peoples, but its influence is more lasting. It is reduced to its own strength, which no one can take away from it; it acts in one sphere only, but it covers the whole of it and dominates it without effort.”

De Tocqueville presents religion with a tradeoff: it can have universal dominion over minds and mores, or conventional political power over a particular group, but not both. De Tocqueville’s claim and analysis, supported with the example of the French Revolutionaries’ antagonism to religion and the American case, suggest two intriguing possibilities relevant to the question of the Christian witness: first, political influence need not rest on direct governmental prerogative or public recognition. Second, entanglement with conventional political power could present a danger to the influence of religion, undermining the influence over minds and mores.

The tradeoff has a bit more bite. De Tocqueville claims that Christianity has complete dominance over minds and mores, but that dominance comes up against other mental and moral features of the democratic age. For example, Christianity must not challenge too pointedly the “love of well-being” that equality engenders but be content with constraining the pursuit of well-being to honest means. In democratic ages, religion cannot afford to buck against common opinion too much:

“As men become more alike and equal, it is more important that religions, while carefully putting themselves out of the way of the daily movement of affairs, not collide unnecessarily with the generally accepted ideas and permanent interests that reign among the masses; for common opinion appears more and more as the first and most irresistible of powers; there is no support outside of it strong enough to permit long resistance to its blows.”

Religion retains its dominant—but limited—hold over minds and mores only by staying tightly within narrow bounds. The spirit of religion and the spirit of liberty mix, but uneasily in the context of democracy.

Ben Peterson is an assistant professor in the Department of Government and Criminal Justice at Abilene Christian University. He writes on a range of public policy issues, drawing from resources in Christian social and political theory, the broader Western tradition of political thought, and contemporary social science. You can find links to his other writings and information about his scholarship on his website.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Paul McNulty

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 275 (Start at “On Religion”) – 282 (Stop at “On the Principal Causes”) of this edition of Democracy in America.

Religion and Democracy in America:
An Essay on the Observations of Alexis de Tocqueville

America’s Founding Fathers believed there was an inseparable link between faith and freedom. They were convinced that if one flourishes the other will as well and that liberty particularly would be at risk if religion and virtue diminished. The evidence of these shared convictions is unmistakable, as revealed in the quotations below. In addition, decades after it factored into the Framers’ crafting of the U.S. Constitution, De Tocqueville emphasized the foundational significance of religion in preserving American freedom. But why is this so?

In a free society, self-government is a prerequisite for social order. If citizens exercise self-restraint in relation to others and take responsibility for their well-being and that of their dependents, then freedom and limited government can be maintained. In the absence of self-government, freedom will diminish as various forms of coercive government power necessarily fill the void. Self-government requires the exercise of moral virtue, often referred to as public virtue. And moral virtue is generally and historically the fruit of sincere faith. This is why the Founders saw the great utility of religious belief.

John Adams, our second President, wrote, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The father of our Constitution, James Madison, offered a similar insight when he observed that our form of government necessitated “sufficient virtue among men for self-government.” And perhaps the strongest statement on this point was offered by President Washington in his “Farewell Address” to the people of the United States in 1796. He wrote,

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

The relationship between freedom, religion, and virtue has been insightfully described by some observers as the “golden triangle of freedom.” Freedom begets the exercise of religious belief, religious belief begets virtue, and virtue strengthens freedom. This was universally understood by America’s founding generation.

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the essential interconnection between faith and freedom was among De Tocqueville’s key observations about our young nation. In his Democracy in America subchapter entitled “Of Religion Considered as a Political Institution, How It Serves Powerfully to Maintain the Democratic Republic among the Americans,” De Tocqueville notes, “Who could deny the fortunate influence of religion on mores and the influence of mores on the government of society [?]” Here the word “mores” is essentially the same as public virtue, a set of generally accepted moral norms within a community. De Tocqueville saw such mores as a powerful influence, both directly and indirectly, on the American political order and critical for sustaining freedom. He writes, “From the onset, politics and religion found themselves in accord, and they have not ceased to be so since.”

In his following subchapter entitled “Indirect Influence Exercised by Religious Beliefs on Political Society in the United States,” De Tocqueville affirms a non-sectarian value of religious belief. “There is an innumerable multitude of sects in the United States. All differ in the worship that must be given to the Creator, but all agreed on the duties of men toward one another. Each sect therefore adores God in its manner, but all sects preach the same morality in the name of God.” Moreover, De Tocqueville observes that some Americans may not be convinced of the truth of religion, but he is sure that they are convinced of its utility.

For De Tocqueville, religion typically entails various characteristics that are especially valuable for a free society. These characteristics include: a special appreciation for the equality of people and their inherent value; a commitment to strong family life; a love for order that “carries into the affairs of the State:” and, perhaps most importantly, a requirement of moral self-restraint that preserves liberty and influences public service.
De Tocqueville concludes subchapter 5 on a cautionary note, one that is strikingly relevant to our current political and moral climate. “How could society fail to parish if, while the political bond relaxed, the moral bond were not tightened?” In other words, the increasing polarization in our politics poses a serious threat to the preservation of our Constitutional order if public virtue continues down the current path. At the same time, the growth of secularism has weakened the religious foundations of our shared morality.

Many in today’s debates would strenuously resist making a connection. At the very least, the burden on those professing faith to demonstrate virtuous character has never been greater. Such faith-based morality is what the Founders were counting on, and what De Tocqueville saw as the greatest hope for America.

Paul McNulty is the president of Grove City College. Prior to assuming this position in 2014, he served more than thirty years in Washington, DC as an attorney in public service and private practice. In 2005 he was appointed to the position of Deputy Attorney General by President George W. Bush after serving for more than four years as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia where he was a leader in the nation’s response to the terrorist attacks of 9-11. He served for more than ten years in the U.S. House of Representatives including as Chief Counsel for the House Majority Leader, Chief Counsel for the Subcommittee on Crime, and Counsel to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Mr. McNulty also led the corporate compliance and investigations practices at the global law firm Baker McKenzie.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Stephen Tootle

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 274 (start at “On the Influence of the Laws…”) – 275 (On Religion) of this edition of Democracy in America.

Even the shortest sections of De Tocqueville’s writings often contained keen insights into the requirements of liberty. When describing the laws and mores required to maintain a democratic republic, De Tocqueville summarized what he had described in previous chapters. His summary gave us a remarkable insight into how American ideals and institutions had been working since the founding.

He understood that the very structure of our government encouraged and enabled a free people to keep their liberties. One key element of this structure was the interaction between the national government and local government. The national government had the power to protect the American people. Local governments gave Americans the ability to enact legislation meaningful to their everyday lives. But towns and the democratic institutions closest to the people had a special role to play.

Towns tended to enact and enforce laws that limited the evils of unchecked majorities. As these people and institutions did their work, every American learned the value of freedom. Courts could not stop majorities from enacting their desires forever. But the emotions of majorities could be slowed and directed. De Tocqueville saw that what the founders had intended did work in practice.

A metaphor can help to understand his point. Imagine an athlete competing in a sport over time. That athlete would come to understand the value of having the rules of the sport applied fairly. When the athlete won, it would be an earned victory. The people who watched the sport would become more invested in the sport because of the integrity of the contest. Thus, even when one failed to win, the athletes and spectators would come back for the next contest. Rules, when fair and followed, create a culture that leads to the best results over time. Further, even though a fan of a particular team or athlete might want to win one contest, over time a fan would learn the importance of protecting the integrity of the sport through effective officiating and rulemaking.

De Tocqueville understood how cultures and government systems interact with one another. Individuals have, “habits of the heart.” Those habits interact with others in society to form, “habits of mind.” Those collective habits form a culture. A government system on its own could never create a free culture for a free people, but governments could help maintain, encourage, or destroy a free culture. Over time, systems of government could allow a culture of a free people to continue and thrive. These lessons might seem simple or obvious, but their implications are as profound as the continued existence of a free government tending toward the prosperity of all people.

As each individual human being is infinitely complex, every single person contains untold conflicting and overlapping desires and values. The federal system, local governments, the practices of towns and judges, and the free culture of a free people did something very special to the complex, conflicting, and overlapping desires of individuals. The system enabled what Hamilton called for in Federalist 1: a political culture based on “reflection and choice” rather than “accident and force.” De Tocqueville’s record of how Americans lived in the early decades of the 19th century demonstrated that Hamilton was right.

Human nature has not changed since the days of De Tocqueville. What was true for them still holds for us. Culture is the sum of the values of individuals. Government institutions cannot force us to live good lives. But good government and good institutions can make it possible for people to live peaceful, prosperous lives of their own choosing.

Stephen Tootle is Professor of History at the College of Sequoias in Visalia California and Honored Visiting Graduate Faculty at Ashland University. His reviews, articles, and essays have appeared in National Review, the Claremont Review of Books, Presidential Studies Quarterly, the Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, and his hometown newspaper. He hosts a weekly podcast/webcast called “Tootle Talk.”

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Val Crofts

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 264 (start at chapter 9 heading) – 274 (stop at heading “On the Influence of the Laws…”) of this edition of Democracy in America.

The Main Causes Which Tend To Maintain a Democratic Republic in the United States

The United States exists today as a federal democratic republic, which was part of the Founders’ plan to create the unique and effective system of government that we have lived under for 237 years. Our democratic republic has two elements to it. First, in our form of democracy, we let the citizens rule under majority rule in certain elections, as well as adhering to the concept of popular sovereignty: government that is based on the supremacy of the people. Second, in our republic, we give power to our representatives, who govern for their constituents. We have elements of both a democracy and a republic, balanced within our system of government, which was the Founders’ intent.

In the first part of Chapter 9, De Tocqueville examines the main reasons and causes of the democratic republic existing within the United States in 1831-32. Throughout his book, De Tocqueville states that his primary goal was to explain these reasons and causes. He believed that the main causes for them could be narrowed down to three main causes.

1. The situation that God (Providence) placed Americans
2. Our laws
3. Our habits and norms

This section looks at the main factors in maintaining our democratic republic. De Tocqueville narrows down the list of “a thousand circumstances” for the unique situation of the United States democratic republic to the main ones. He felt that as we had no neighbors around us who served as a military threat, we did not need to fear war or the possibility of conquest from neighboring nations. He believed that military glory and the need for conquest were fatal to past republics, but were not a concern to ours in the 1830s.

When De Tocqueville visited, the United States had a small capitol city that was not dominant over the entire nation’s politics yet. It was not controlling the lives of the citizens and making itself felt everywhere. U.S. citizens ruled themselves in small assemblies and participated within direct democracies to determine most of their day to day lives and issues. The people were allowed to be stewards of themselves. De Tocqueville felt it would be a breach of the representative system if the national capital ever tried to usurp the local control.

De Tocqueville speaks throughout his book of the “point of departure” of our nation from others, when the Puritans combined religious and personal liberty, bringing “equality of conditions and of intelligence” to our shores that would become the natural fabric from which our democratic republic would emerge. God also graced us with a natural place to foster this type of government.

He next speaks of Americans having a general “well-being” that exists here, due to the incredible riches that exist on the North American continent, which was described as a blank canvas waiting for emigrants to discover and farm upon. It creates a peaceful and content mindset, which runs contrary to societies that are angry and discontent and those feelings often come out as resistance and overthrow of governments. In the United States of 1831, De Tocqueville felt we did not have to worry about such things because we were so content.

God gave us this land in a pristine state, De Tocqueville notes, which was just sitting there waiting to be cultivated by future successful farmers.

He then discusses that most of the emigrants in the American West do not come directly from Europe there. Most European immigrants, in De Tocqueville’s observations, stayed along the Atlantic coast until they were able to be successful enough to move on to greener pastures of the West. This trend continued as settlers moved into the Ohio Territory. Many in Ohio and the former Northwest Territory also waited to accumulate personal wealth before moving West.

These emigration patterns led to a new type of primogeniture in the United States—one that did not exist by name, but because of condition. As families become more prosperous, the eldest will generally take the land in the East and the younger siblings go West to seek their fortune. This helps to keep large estates in the family and not parceled up among the family. De Tocqueville notes that this does not offend anyone and goes on without complaint. He cites enormous numbers that leave homes in the East and move West.

These situations God provided, along with a series of laws and habits that Americans naturally had during his visit in 1831-32 allowed for our nation to exist to be a perfect land for a democratic republic, according to De Tocqueville.

Val Crofts began his teaching career in 2001 at Westosha Central High School in Paddock Lake, Wisconsin, and is currently employed as the Chief Education and Programs Officer at the American Village in Montevallo, Alabama. He previously taught at Milton High School in Milton, Wisconsin, for 17 years and worked as a teaching consultant for the Wisconsin Virtual School for nine years.
He shared his passion for learning by teaching AP Government and Politics, AP Human Geography, AP Comparative Government, AP U.S. History, U.S. History, and U.S. Military History. In his current role at the American Village, he works to create an engaging curriculum to help assist teachers and students of all ages to learn about American history, America’s Founders, and the legacy that they left for future generations.
In 2008, Crofts founded the Discovering Democracy program at Milton High School. Discovering Democracy immersed hundreds of students into government through public policy research and culminated with a weeklong field study in Washington D.C. His students were privileged to meet with top policy experts and national leaders such as then-Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and former Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan.
Crofts was recognized for his teaching efforts in 2013 when he received the Crystal Apple Award for Teaching Excellence. He was also selected as the Wisconsin DAR Outstanding Teacher of U.S. History in 2020.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Tom Hand

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 250 – 264 (stop at chapter 9 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

Democracy in America: Moderating the Majority

In Democracy in America, De Tocqueville warns of the inherent danger to a democracy from “the omnipotence of the majority” and the tyranny that is naturally imposed on the minority. De Tocqueville offers some consolation to lovers of American democracy that certain factors in the United States work to hold in check some of that power.

Among these impediments, at least in the 1830s, to potential abuses were lawyers who collectively constituted an independent, non-partisan judiciary system and the authority vested in American juries. De Tocqueville believes that lawyers are naturally elitists and aristocrats and often think contrary to the general run of mankind, thus creating an obstacle the masses must overcome to impose their will on the minority. He also states that the American jury system, in which the people have the final say regarding which laws are just and if they have been equitably applied, is a significant check on the absolute power of the majority whose representatives create the laws.

But De Tocqueville argues the greatest check on the despotic tendencies of the majority is the simple fact that the central government has limited interest in directing the daily lives of its citizenry. De Tocqueville states that during his 41-month tour of the United States in 1831 he observed a central government that was concerned with very few aspects of American life, being almost solely interested in foreign affairs.

Based on his world of the 1830s and the federal government found in America at the time, De Tocqueville’s reasoning was sound. But things have changed since those early days of the republic and his words meant to give comfort to Americans now must give us pause in light of the current state of affairs.

In the America of De Tocqueville’s day there was no federal administrative state, and even President Jackson’s own cabinet only consisted of six departments. There was no Federal Bureau of Investigation to observe every move of a free citizenry, no Environmental Protection Agency to decide if people can use gas stoves in their own homes, no National Health Institute to determine that Americans need to wear masks and stand six feet from their fellow citizens, and no Transportation Security Administration to decide that two ounces of liquid is okay but never three.

The sheer lack of size and apparent lack of interest in the federal government in overseeing day-to-day life in America was, in De Tocqueville’s mind, a blessing to democracy. He mentions how fortunate Americans are that the federal government “has not undertaken to regulate secondary things in society” but provides a warning as well if that condition should ever change.

De Tocqueville writes, “…if having established the general principles of the government, it (the federal government) entered into the details of their application, and having regulated the great interests of the country, it could descend to the limit of individual interests, freedom would soon be banished from the New World.”

One wonders what De Tocqueville would say if he were to view the America of 2024 with its overarching federal government that touches every aspect of American life and is administered by those unelected by the people. It is easy to imagine that De Tocqueville would lament for the loss of true freedom in America, that ability to decide for ourselves how we would live, and he would probably predict a darkened future if somehow this cancer is not removed.

Tom Hand is the visionary behind Americana Corner, an organization dedicated to sharing compelling narratives of significant events, influential leaders, and foundational documents that have shaped the United States. Since 2020, Tom has written and produced over 200 articles and videos, aiming to rekindle Americans’ patriotic spirit and remind them of the nation’s remarkable legacy. Beyond his creative work, Tom established the Preserving America Grant and Partners programs, donating millions to support history organizations nationwide. All proceeds from his book, “An American Triumph: America’s Founding Era through the Lives of Ben Franklin, George Washington, and John Adams,” support these programs. His unwavering dedication to promoting patriotism and preserving America’s heritage makes him an invaluable advocate for the Great American Story.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Tom Hand

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 243 (start at “On the Power that the Majority..” heading) – 249 of this edition of Democracy in America.

Democracy in America: The All-Powerful Majority

In De Tocqueville’s masterpiece, Democracy in America, De Tocqueville discusses at length what he terms the “omnipotence of the majority” found in democracies and how that all-powerful force is one of the greatest threats to liberty and freedom, the twin pillars of a democratic form of government.

It seems a contradiction that the greatest blessing of a democracy, the rule of the majority instead of the one or the few, should also hold in it the most likely place wherein lies the seeds for the possible destruction of democracy. But, as De Tocqueville points out, that is very much the case.

As De Tocqueville asks, “What is a majority, in its collective capacity, if not an individual with opinions, and usually with interests, contrary to those of another individual, called the minority? Now, if you admit that a man vested with omnipotence can abuse it against his adversaries, why not admit the same concerning a majority?”

De Tocqueville goes on to argue that this omnipotence can easily, and perhaps naturally, lead to abuse, one he terms the “tyranny of the majority.” Because they are the many against the few, the majority assumes a type of moral authority over society and woe be to him that questions this power. Where can he who confronts the majority turn for help? The executive is elected by the majority, and the legislature is as well. The police are, in De Tocqueville’s term, simply “the majority under arms.”

This all-powerful influence extends beyond the laws and the customs of a country; it even has a telling effect on the thoughts of its citizens. De Tocqueville argues that once the majority has determined what is “right,” all who oppose that opinion become outcasts of society.

In an example, De Tocqueville pictures an official telling someone out of step with the majority that “You are free not to think as I do; your life, your goods, everything remains to you; but from this day on you are a stranger to us…When you approach those like you, they shall flee you as being impure; and those who believe in your innocence, even they shall abandon you, for one would flee them in their turn. Go in peace. I leave you your life, but I leave it to you worse than death.”

Because the majority is insulated from the criticism, it lives in a state of “perpetual adoration of itself,” failing to ever conceive that they may be wrong. This develops into arrogance within the majority who begin to see their fellow citizens not as equals with a different outlook but rather as deplorable beings incapable of redemption.

The omnipotence of the majority also has a profound effect on our national character by encouraging the “spirit of the court,” that demeaning characteristic in which men crawl before others in positions of power to curry their favor. While that dehumanizing trait is typically the hallmark of a small cadre of nobility within an absolute monarchy, De Tocqueville argues that the courtier spirit is even more prevalent within a democracy where the many are within reach of the pinnacle of power, therefore making demeaning servility much more common place.

De Tocqueville concludes this discussion by stating that the greatest danger for American republics comes from the omnipotence of the majority. He writes, “If ever freedom is lost in America, one will have to blame the omnipotence of the majority.”

In laymen’s terms, De Tocqueville is cautioning that the minority in this country will only take so much before it pushes back, and that push back will be most unpleasant. This closing warning is ominous and one that today’s “thought-police” in America would be wise to recognize.

Tom Hand is the visionary behind Americana Corner, an organization dedicated to sharing compelling narratives of significant events, influential leaders, and foundational documents that have shaped the United States. Since 2020, Tom has written and produced over 200 articles and videos, aiming to rekindle Americans’ patriotic spirit and remind them of the nation’s remarkable legacy. Beyond his creative work, Tom established the Preserving America Grant and Partners programs, donating millions to support history organizations nationwide. All proceeds from his book, “An American Triumph: America’s Founding Era through the Lives of Ben Franklin, George Washington, and John Adams,” support these programs. His unwavering dedication to promoting patriotism and preserving America’s heritage makes him an invaluable advocate for the Great American Story.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Jeff Broadwater

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 235 (start at chapter 7 heading) – 243 (stop at “On the Power that the Majority in America…) of this edition of Democracy in America.

On the Omnipotence of the Majority in the United States and Its Effects

For De Tocqueville, unchecked majority rule within the states presented problems. The national government, he observed, was more independent of public opinion and largely limited itself to foreign affairs, leaving state governments to dominate American society.

De Tocqueville argued that state constitutions dangerously inflated the power of the majority. State legislators served short terms and were elected directly by the people, and so reflected “the daily passions of their constituents.” Bicameral legislatures failed to check the majority because both houses represented the same social class and both were popularly elected. The executive and judicial branches could not serve as effective checks. State governors, who were often selected by the legislatures for short terms of office, lacked the necessary independence. In several states, even judges were elected, and legislators controlled their salaries. Making matters worse was a growing tendency on the part of voters to limit lawmakers’ discretion with binding instructions.

Popular attitudes tended to enhance the authority of the masses. “The moral empire of the majority,” De Tocqueville wrote, “is founded in part on the idea that there is more enlightenment and wisdom in many men united than in one alone.” Americans also believed “that the interests of the greatest number ought to be preferred to those of the few.” They could accept what De Tocqueville called “the tyranny of the majority” because Americans were not divided by “irreconcilable interests;” minority parties could always hope to form a majority in the future. Unfortunately, he added, the will of the majority was so overbearing that it could not be delayed long enough “to hear the complaints of those it crushes,” a tendency that he warned could have dangerous consequences in the future.

The Omnipotence of the Majority and Legislative and Administrative Instability

Whatever dangers America’s freewheeling democracy posed to the nation’s future, De Tocqueville saw immediate problems in its legal system and in public administration. State constitutions aggravated the instability inherent in democracy—he assumed public opinion could change quickly and dramatically—by consolidating power in state legislators and then providing for their annual election. As evidence of instability, De Tocqueville pointed to the state constitutions themselves: almost all of them had been amended within the last thirty years. Ordinary statutes meanwhile proliferated. He considered Massachusetts to be the best governed of the states, but new bills passed by the Massachusetts assembly since 1780 had already filled three large volumes, and that was after an 1823 revision in which a number of obsolete laws were repealed.

Democratic instability also frustrated attempts to implement policy. De Tocqueville cited prison reform in Pennsylvania as an example. In the 1780s, reformers in the Keystone State–he apparently had the Quakers in mind—had pushed for the construction of new prisons built with rehabilitation in mind. But because the entire system could not be reconstructed at once, the older, more punitive prisons, which De Tocqueville described as “dungeons,” persisted, and once public interest in prison reform waned, grew even more brutal.

The Tyranny of the Majority

In addressing the tyranny of the majority, De Tocqueville confessed a personal dilemma: he deplored the idea that the majority had the right to do whatever it pleased, and yet he conceded that all legitimate political power was derived from “the will of the majority.”

De Tocqueville attempted to resolve his dilemma by appealing to universal principles of justice which transcended the laws of a single jurisdiction. When he refused to obey an unjust law, he wrote, he was appealing “from the sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty of the human race.” If one nation might abuse another, and if one individual might abuse a neighbor, why would we deny the capacity of a majority faction to violate the rights of a minority? He rejected “mixed government,” in which competing interests were combined to check and balance one another, as a solution. England, often cited as a model of mixed government, was, De Tocqueville argued, actually an aristocracy. Some superior “social power” would always exist, but justice required it be subject to a moderating influence.

Majority tyranny was rare in America, but when it erupted the law could not contain it. At the start of the War of 1812, pro-war mobs in Baltimore repeatedly attacked the offices of an anti-war newspaper and killed one of the editor’s defenders. In Pennsylvania, free blacks enjoyed a legal right to vote, but fearing white reprisals, feared to exercise it. The states, De Tocqueville concluded, needed executives and judges with greater independence and legislators who would represent the majority without being “the slave of its passions.”

Majority Power and the Arbitrariness of Officials

Majority support, De Tocqueville observed briefly, often permitted American officials to exceed their authority and act arbitrarily, a habit he feared might “one day become fatal” to freedom.

Jeff Broadwater’s publications include Jeffferson, Madison, and the Making of the Constitution (2019); James Madison: A Son of Virginia and a Founder of the Nation (2012); and George Mason, Forgotten Founder (2006). He also co-edited, with Troy Kickler, North Carolina’s Revolutionary Founders (2019). He currently serves as the book review editor for the Journal of the North Carolina Association of Historians.

 

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Jason Stevens

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 227 (Start at heading, “On the Idea..”) – 235 (Stop at Chapter 7 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

 

The Real Advantages Americans Derive from Democratic Government

De Tocqueville called America the “country of democracy par excellence.” To understand why, one must recollect the real advantages American society derives from democratic government. Among those numerous advantages Americans gain from living in a democracy, De Tocqueville argued, are the idea of individual rights, the respect for the law, and the vigorous political activity that reigns in all parts of the body politic.

1. The Idea of Rights

There has never been a great and prosperous people without some notion of individual rights. One of the key advantages of democratic society is respect for the idea of rights, especially the right of property. Americans seem innately to understand that the rights that they want to claim for themselves, and that they want to be respected by others, must belong to everyone in equal measure. The result is a form of the golden rule; so that one’s own rights are not violated, one does not attack those of others.

Through this idea of equal rights, the people over time learn the habits of living free. “One cannot say it too often,” De Tocqueville said, “There is nothing more prolific in marvels than the art of being free; but there is nothing harder than the apprenticeship of freedom.” As opposed to despotism, which pretends to be a quick fix for all of society’s ills but leaves everyone worse off and miserable, “Freedom…is ordinarily born in the midst of storms, it is established painfully among civil discords, and only when it is old can one know its benefits.” Freedom, in other words, is hard work, and it takes time to realize its advantages, but there is no surer path to individual and societal happiness.

2. Respect for the Law

In addition to the idea of rights, respect for the rule of law is another real advantage that American society derives from democracy. The respect Americans share for the law derives from the personal self-interest that each has for seeing the law obeyed and upheld by everyone. “[I]n the United States,” De Tocqueville claimed, “each finds a sort of personal interest in everyone’s obeying the laws; for whoever does not make up a part of the majority today will perhaps be in its ranks tomorrow.” Each follows the law because it is in one’s own interest that everyone obeys the law, which is the product of the people themselves. Since the majority are responsible for making the law, the people view obedience not as an act of servitude but as an expression of freedom. For in following the law, they are in effect ruling themselves: “However distressing the law may be,” De Tocqueville discovered, “the inhabitant of the United States submits to it without trouble, therefore, not only as the work of the greatest number, but also as his own.” Respect for the rule of law is the single greatest expression of self-government.

De Tocqueville is not saying, and democratic peoples do not believe, that there is no such thing as a bad law. Far from it. The argument is that bad laws, while they remain in effect, ought to be obeyed by everyone until such time as the people repeal them. “[T]he people in America obey the law not only because it is their work,” according to De Tocqueville, “but also because they can change it when by chance it hurts them.” In this way, respect for the rule of law increases the overall happiness of the people.

3. Political Activity

Finally, democratic government produces the vigorous political activity that is seen in all parts of the body politic. “When one passes from a free country into another that is not,” De Tocqueville mused, “one is struck by a very extraordinary spectacle: there, all is activity and movement; here, all seems calm and immobile.” Freedom creates energy and a willingness to labor that fuels “the prodigious motion of industry.

Perhaps reflecting on his own first impressions of America, De Tocqueville claimed, “Scarcely have you descended on the soil of America when you find yourself in the midst of a sort of tumult…Around you everything moves.” In one place, the people gather to learn if a church should be built, and in another place, they deliberate on the choice of a representative; here, the people are restless to decide on some matter of local improvements (what we might call infrastructure), and there, they attend a town meeting to discuss the planning of a school or park. The mighty engine of self-government is always on the move, spreading and deepening the habits of freedom and the happiness of the people.

All in all, De Tocqueville suggests that if “the principal object of a government” is “to procure the most well-being for each of the individuals who compose it and to have each avoid the most misery”—if the purpose of government is to increase the happiness of the most people—then the answer is to “equalize conditions and constitute the government of a democracy.

 

Jason W. Stevens is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Ashland University, where he teaches political thought and history courses with fields of expertise in the American Founding, Abraham Lincoln, and political philosophy. He is also Co-Director of the Ashbrook Scholar program.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Brenda Hafera

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 220 (start at Chapter 6 heading) – 227 (Stop at heading, “On The Idea Of Rights…”) of this edition of Democracy in America.

How to Re-ignite Patriotism in America

Has patriotism become unfashionable? Last year, a Wall Street Journal poll reported that just 38% of Americans view patriotism as very important. That’s down from the 70% who said the same in 1998. The question is, why?

De Tocqueville, the famous French author who loved America, offers some insights. In his essay, “On Public Spirit in the United States,” he describes two kinds of patriotism, warns of the moments when patriotism fades, and offers a solution for patriotic renewal.

The first kind of patriotism is instinctive. People love their home, and that “love intermingles with the taste for old customs, with respect for ancestors and memory of the past.” This patriotism, more monarchical in character, rests on old orders and traditions. It ebbs and flows, reigniting and then subsiding in times of war and peace.

In contrast, republican patriotism is steady, and the citizen “interests himself in the prosperity of his country at first as a thing that is useful to him, and afterwards as his own work.” He connects his character and destiny with that of his country. Republican patriotism is based in reflection, practice, and self-interest. It “is born of enlightenment; it develops with the aid of laws, it grows with the exercise of rights, and in the end it intermingles in a way with personal interest.”

De Tocqueville was astonished and admired that such patriotism reigned in America, despite its citizens not having resided long on the land. He even quipped that a traveler could not criticize anything about America to an American, except perhaps the climate and the soil, “and still, one finds Americans ready to defend both as if they had helped to form them.”

But “sometimes a moment arrives in the lives of peoples when old customs are changed, mores destroyed, beliefs shaken, the prestige of memories faded away.” The land “become a lifeless land in their eyes,” and they are dismissive and disparaging of their ancestors and legislators. Neither form of patriotism appeals any longer to the hearts and minds of the people.

It is difficult to read De Tocqueville’s description of such a moment without thinking of our current time. Civic education is in a sorry state. We tear down statues and with them our memories, good or bad. Four out of 10 Zoomers believe the Founders can be more accurately described as villains, rather than heroes, according to psychologist Jean Twenge’s Generations. It is perhaps no surprise that patriotism matters less for the technological generations who have retreated to the online world and avoid in-person conflicts, or even everyday niceties.

De Tocqueville’s prescription for patriotic renewal is for men and women to participate in government and society. As he famously observed, Americans formed civic associations for even seemingly mundane tasks. Such involvement allows citizens to come together for the purpose of repairing a community center or conducting a fundraiser without care for partisan political disagreements. Engaged citizens begin to see each other as neighbors first, not political adversaries, and view differences through the lens of good will rather than suspicion.

More fundamentally, America’s political system being animated by consent of the governed affords citizens a sense of ownership of their country. It is the principle “all men are created equal” which demands public opinion be treated as sovereign, making that principle the ultimate source of American patriotism. To understand this more fully, we might turn to one of De Tocqueville’s most noteworthy American contemporaries, Abraham Lincoln.

When commemorating the 4th of July, Lincoln observed that many Americans were no longer direct descendants of those who fought the Revolution. As time went on, would the unity and patriotism of America erode? He responded that, as Americans look to the Declaration, they will find that they:

have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.

It is the Declaration that defines and unites Americans. It gives us a principle to strive towards, an ideal that we are asked to further and fulfill, inviting us to love America because it is good in its mission, even if imperfect. Perhaps the most significant source of the current decline of patriotism is that we no longer understand, and maybe even do not believe, the truth of this great principle.

Our call today is to take it seriously, to wrestle with it. We may find that it not only makes us patriotic, but ennobles us, both as individuals, and as a people.

Brenda Hafera is the Assistant Director and Senior Policy Analyst at The Heritage Foundation’s Simon Center for American Studies.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Joseph A. Ledford


Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 217 – 220 (to heading “What are the Real Advantages…”) of this edition of Democracy in America.

The Manner In Which American Democracy Conducts Foreign Affairs.

Governing the external affairs of a state involves a particular set of skills. Foreign policy requires the combined use of patience, prudence, secrecy, and long-term strategic thinking. It entails grave risks and difficult trade-offs. Decision-makers, who should be free of the passions that grip the people, must make cold-blooded calculations in the national interest. Such is the view of De Tocqueville. In contrast to the “good sense” of democracy guiding domestic affairs, De Tocqueville observes that foreign affairs demand these aristocratic attributes. Certain qualities of democracy stop at the water’s edge.

As De Tocqueville explains, American elites of the Early Republic possessed the leadership qualities necessary to ensure that democracy flourished at home while America advanced its interests abroad. Although seemingly a contradictory stance, De Tocqueville’s advocacy for their role in directing foreign affairs was not incompatible with his republican predilection. Rather, as he contends, aristocrats and commoners alike had a shared interest in the prosperity and security of the United States.

And it was none other than George Washington and Thomas Jefferson whom De Tocqueville saw as the Founding Fathers of American diplomacy. They charted the course for America’s engagement with the world.

Washington, the American Cincinnatus, impressed De Tocqueville above all with his “inflexible character.” De Tocqueville, who abhorred the French Revolution, admired how Washington’s adroit statecraft prevented a Franco-American alliance during the French Revolutionary Wars. In doing so, Washington had incurred the steep cost of bitter partisan politics over his stance of neutrality. Washington braved this domestic upheaval through the Genêt affair and especially during the implementation of the Jay Treaty with Great Britain. Despite these immediate repercussions, however, Washington’s approach to foreign affairs permitted the establishment of the nation in the long run. America eventually secured itself from the meddling of European powers, although it was hard-won through the Quasi-War and the War of 1812.

On September 19, 1796, George Washington’s Farewell Address appeared in Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser, an eloquent political testament that resonated with De Tocqueville nearly four decades later. First drafted by James Madison in 1792, and then shaped by Alexander Hamilton in 1796, Washington’s Farewell Address makes the classic case for unity, neutrality, and reciprocity, all of which were needed to transform America into a great power.
In Democracy in America, De Tocqueville elects to include an extract from Washington’s Farewell Address. It highlights the first president’s timeless principles for conducting foreign policy. In the passage, Washington prevails upon Americans to seek free trade, abide by treaties, and avoid permanent alliances to keep Americans from involving themselves in European wars.

Washington aimed for peace and union, not war and disunion. This wisdom transcended political divides. Avoiding messy entanglements with European powers proved to be a bipartisan effort among American statesmen. Despite Jefferson’s fierce disagreements with Hamilton, De Tocqueville identifies Jefferson as a kindred spirit of Washington. Once an ardent political foe, the Democratic-Republican shared the Federalist’s vision for American foreign policy when he ascended to the presidency.

To demonstrate the continuity, De Tocqueville cites a maxim from Jefferson. It reflects the third president’s general position on how America should manage its relationship with other countries. “That Americans ought never to demand privileges from foreign nations in order not to be obliged to accord them themselves,” De Tocqueville quotes from Jefferson. In a footnote, De Tocqueville acknowledges that he cannot provide a source for Jefferson’s words. Nevertheless, this sage line captures the sentiment of Jefferson’s precept from his first inaugural address, in which he famously declared “peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”

We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists,” Jefferson also proclaimed at his first inauguration. Indeed, De Tocqueville understood the conduct of American foreign affairs this way.

For De Tocqueville, as well as Washington and Jefferson, America was geopolitically exceptional. Given that the United States was located in the New World, the struggles of the Old World did not concern Americans. Without being mired in European power struggles, Americans could continue to grow their nation, develop their democracy, and thrive. One day, though, America would become powerful enough to pursue more ambitious external affairs.

 

Joseph A. Ledford is a Hoover Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Paul Carrese

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 120 (starting at the heading “On The Election of the President”) through 130 (stopping at the heading “On The Federal Courts”) of this edition of Democracy in America.

These sub-chapters on America’s “Government by Democracy” address a crucial theme of the work: constitutional republic versus democracy. De Tocqueville befriends the new phenomenon of mass, egalitarian democracy, especially its success in America (so far). Yet as a genuine friend, he notes both weaknesses and strengths. His tough-love message: beware too much of a good thing. Too much democracy, and its ideal of equality, undermines America’s other great principles. These include: liberty and self-government; the rule of law; moral principles mostly stemming from Christianity yet sustained by religious liberty; and, striving for happiness (per the Declaration) in ways that ennoble life, not cheapen it. The tough-love messages in these sub-chapters address: public morality, particularly corrupt officials; can our democratic spirit sustain hard struggles (e.g. extended wars); can the people heed the wiser policy judgments of “statesmen;” and, can we exercise the self-control and far-sighted thinking necessary to survive and prosper in a dangerous world.

A crucial passage in the “Efforts” sub-chapter reiterates De Tocqueville’s praise of the United States as a federal republic with a complex Constitution (see e.g. Vol. I, Part 1, ch. 8 – praising the Constitution’s offices for statesmen in the Presidency and Senate, and elevated federal judges, balancing the democratic House). The Constitution keeps America a democratic republic, making the best of our democratic-egalitarian spirit. “Efforts” also notes that “a great democratic-republic has never been seen” ( 212). America is the first powerful, successful such republic in human history. However, here and in the sequel – on “the Power” of self-control American democracy shows – De Tocqueville wonders whether our “democracy,” the dominance in American politics of popular will, allows the necessary self-control and far-sighted thinking. In “Efforts” he concludes that democracy “will in the long term augment the real strength of society,” but aristocracies, monarchies, and despotisms still can gather more focused power (in the mid-19th century). Nonetheless, there is a path America could take, offering hope:

If a democratic country remained subject to a republican government for a century . . . it would be wealthier, more populous, and more prosperous than neighboring despotic [authoritarian] states; but . . . it would have run the risk several times of being conquered by them. (214)

Thus, another theme here: can Americans sustain the civic virtues – including “public morality” – to abide by our republican, constitutional forms of government; thereby sustaining a more honorable politics; and, finding policies to promote greatness and security. Today we don’t think of politics in terms of virtues, vices, or the character of the people and of our leaders; thus, we don’t use “statesman” regularly. Yet: looking across the 190 years since De Tocqueville published these sub-chapters, don’t they capture enduring issues of American self-government, along with predicting our survival – indeed, power and greatness – in a still-dangerous world?

Further ideas to consider:

Corruption and Vices of Those Who Govern in Democracy; Effects on Public Morality
Difficulty maintaining “public morality” in democracy; strong temptations to “vulgar” wealth-seeking by officials – and, to popular suspicions against officials – versus the dignity, honorableness, and “public conscience” a democratic-republic should seek.

Of What Efforts Democracy Is Capable

Phony, authoritarian democracy versus genuine.

De Tocqueville considers only the Revolutionary War an existential crisis for America; he never mentions the War of 1812. Yet, a few chapters ahead, he discusses the prospect of a civil war – over slavery. Can Americans sustain the taxes, and military service either voluntary or conscripted, needed in a war of survival? What wars has America fought to substantial victory since 1830? What wars in the past 60 years have we abandoned? How is America’s military faring after 50 years of the all-voluntary military policy? Democracies prefer peace; can make “a sudden and vigorous effort” in a crisis; but may not be capable of “braving great storms . . . for a long time” (p. 214).

Democracies lack a “clear perception of the future,” of the long-term value gained via difficulties, because “the people feel much more than they reason;” lacking the “enlightenment and experience” that authoritarian governments have regarding war, international challenges (p. 214).

The Power American Democracy Generally Exercises Over Itself

The wisdom of “statesmen” versus “the difficulty that democracy finds in defeating the passions and silencing the needs of the moment in view of the future;” that “the people are surrounded by flatterers,” and we often fall for the easy path offered.

De Tocqueville’s harsh criticism of Indians (the typical term in the 19th century), and the Spanish and indigenous peoples of South America, reflects a time when democratic republics were new and fragile; he emphasizes the basic reality that no people and politics is successful unless prosperous, ordered, and powerful enough to defend itself. Later in this Part he severely criticizes America for betraying the principles of the Declaration in its treatment of African slaves and indigenous peoples; but also predicts America will someday be one of the world’s two dominant states – standing for liberty – while Russia stands for authoritarianism. He praises America, even if flawed, for being ordered enough to achieve greatness – by securing the power to defy authoritarianism; yet this realistic lens also produces his harsh judgments about other peoples.

Paul Carrese is a Professor in the School of Civic & Economic Thought and Leadership at Arizona State University, and its founding Director, 2016-2023. Formerly he was a professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy and co-founded its honors program blending liberal arts education and leadership education. He teaches and publishes on the American founding, American constitutional and political thought, civic education, and American grand strategy. He has held fellowships at Oxford University (Rhodes Scholar); Harvard University; the University of Delhi (Fulbright fellow); and James Madison Program, Princeton University; and currently is a Senior Fellow of the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America’s Founding Principles and History.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Samuel Gregg

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages  199 (start at at heading “On Public Costs Under The Empire of American Democracy” – 210 (stop at heading “The Corruption and Vices Of Those Who Govern In Democracy…”)

Government By Democracy In America Vol. 1 Pt. 2 Ch. 5, Subchapters. 8-11 – Public Expenses Under The Rule Of American Democracy, Instincts Of American Democracy In The Fixing Of The Salaries Of Civil Servants, Difficulty Of Discerning The Reasons Which Persuade The American Government Toward Economy, Can The Public Expenditure Of The United States Be Compared With That Of France?

Though well-known for his political and social commentary, De Tocqueville devoted considerable attention throughout his life to issues of political economy. He was well-versed in the economic writings of thinkers like Jacques Turgot, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill. De Tocqueville also explored some of the pressing economic topics of his time in texts such as his Memoir on Pauperism (1835).

Educated Europeans of De Tocqueville’s era were well-aware of the burgeoning economic power of the American republic that he visited for 10 months between 1831 and 1832. In Democracy in America, however, De Tocqueville’s thoughts on economic topics revolved around questions concerning the effects of democracy upon government expenditures.

Public expenditures in Western countries in the nineteenth century as a proportion of national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) were much less than those of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. But the advent of democratic government, according to De Tocqueville, was likely to increase pressures for ever-growing state spending.

In Democracy in America, De Tocqueville argues that citizens in democratic societies were expected to think more about the proper responsibilities of government. The more they do so, De Tocqueville states, the more that “a host of needs arises that they had not felt at first and which one can only satisfy by having recourse to the resources of the State.”

At the same time, De Tocqueville observes, democracies were more prone to sudden changes of policies. That meant many publicly funded government activities go unfinished or take on a haphazard character. This resulted in democratic governments making numerous “unproductive expenditures.” Such inefficiencies were compounded by the fact that “continuous surveillance” of public officials in charge of implementing budgets was lacking in America.

Working against these propensities to expand public spending, De Tocqueville notes, were the equalizing tendencies of American democracy. These generated skepticism about the worth of expending large sums on the “principal agents” of government.

Americans were willing to pay good salaries to “officials of secondary rank.” Yet their democratic instincts led them to spend less on “the great officers of the State.” The reason, De Tocqueville argued, was that Americans looked at such office holders through the lens of their own social and economic circumstances. This means, he wrote, that democratic society “give those who govern it hardly enough to live honestly

That parsimonious mindset affected Americans’ willingness to engage in public expenditures on government buildings and public events. On one level, this reflected Americans’ habit of viewing this spending from the standpoint of their own often modest personal circumstances. But another element that disinclined Americans to support government spending on such things was the fact that Americans were as much “a commercial people” as they were “a democratic nation.” Habits like thrift, saving, and deferred gratification that dominated Americans’ business and economic activities discouraged them from attaching much worth to public displays of ornamentation.

De Tocqueville closes his commentary on public expenditures in America by comparing it to the situation in his native France. He stresses the difficulties of making such comparisons in light of limited information about this topic in both countries.

In France, De Tocqueville notes, the central government’s expenses were known, as were those of the eighty-six departments into which France was administratively divided. Expenditures at the town level, however, were unknown. A similar pattern, De Tocqueville observes, manifested itself in America. The Federal government published “the total of departmental expenditures.” One could also easily obtain “the particular budgets of the twenty-four states of which [the Union] is composed.” Yet at the level of county and town, De Tocqueville wrote, such information was near-impossible to find.

De Tocqueville nevertheless maintained that taxation and government expenditures in France were much higher than in America. For one thing, he noted, France had a much larger army and a navy that dwarfed America’s. France’s national debt was also larger than America’s because France had been subject to two invasions in De Tocqueville’s lifetime. America’s physical isolation from Europe, however, meant that it did not face this prospect.

That said, De Tocqueville thought that it was “mistaken” for the “partisans of democracy” to claim that democratic government “is genuinely economical.” Democracy, he argued, did not mean “cheap government.” There was nothing in democracy’s design, De Tocqueville believed, which would prevent it from raising taxes “as high among them as in most of the aristocracies or monarchies of Europe.” The moment that “great troubles came . . . to assail the peoples of the United States,” he fully expected America to increase taxes and its public expenditures.

In this, as in so many other matters, De Tocqueville proved to be correct.

 

Samuel Gregg is the Friedrich Hayek Chair in Economics and Economic History at the American Institute for Economic Research. In 2024, he was awarded the Bradley Prize.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Roberta (Bobbi) Herzberg

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 196-199 (stop at heading “On Public Costs Under The Empire of American Democracy”) of this edition of Democracy in America.

An Analysis of Democracy In America (Vol. 1 Pt. 2 Ch. 5, Subchs. 6-7) – The Arbitrary Power Of Magistrates Under The Sway Of American Democracy, Administrative Instability In The United States.

Today, many citizens worry that bureaucrats are unaccountable and unresponsive to the interests of majorities, while other citizens worry that the bureaucracies are too politicized and too open to manipulation. As we can see from these selections of De Tocqueville, this is a long-standing concern for democratic governance. In these chapters, De Tocqueville suggests that democratic systems can be as arbitrary and unstable as despotic states because democratic majorities, just as a despot, can press the administrators to follow their desires. As a result, he argues that democratic majorities do not worry about the power of administrators because they believe that those administrators work on their behalf. If interests of a democratic majority change, they can simply change the actions of the administrators or the administrators themselves. As De Tocqueville states:

In democracies, the majority being able to take power each year out of the hands in which it had entrusted it, also does not fear that it may be abused against itself. A master at making its will known at each instant to those who govern, it would rather abandon them to their own efforts than chain them to an invariable rule that by limiting them would in a way limit itself (196).

As a result, majorities and the administrators they directed could act at will to pursue the majority interests. De Tocqueville worried that this created an instability in society that permitted some potentially dangerous actions by bureaucrats. As he argues:

Nowhere has the law left a greater part to arbitrariness than in democratic republics, because in them, what is arbitrary does not appear fearful. One can even say that the magistrate becomes freer as the right of electing descends further and as the time of the magistracy is more limited (197)
He argued that responsiveness to the majority took precedence over consistent decisions that could form a meaningful rule-of-law.

As an alternative to this arbitrary rule, De Tocqueville suggests that democratic states divide power, as exists in a limited monarchy, which provides both the stability and the energy needed to create the proper balance between effective government and individual liberties. Under this divided plan, both the monarch and democratic majorities will prefer the adoption of regular rules for administrators to follow over the constant tug of war between these divided interests:

The same cause that brings the prince and the people to render the official independent brings them to seek guarantees against the abuse of his independence, so that he does not turn against the authority of the one or the freedom of the other. Both therefore agree on the necessity of tracing out a line of conduct in advance for the official, and see their interest in imposing rules on him from which it is impossible for him to deviate. (198)

The result is the beginning of the arguments in favor of a professionalized administrative state over one that is directly responsible to democratic preferences. Today, the professionalization of the bureaucracy under civil service rules, first established with the Pendleton Act of 1883 and updated by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, significantly reduces this link to democratic change that De Tocqueville feared. But, instead, it introduces the risk of severing the bond to democratic interests that made Americans not fear the magistrate. It may no longer be the case that the government is us in the way that De Tocqueville reflects in this selection.

For De Tocqueville, good administration required a balance of democratic input and knowledge of administrative science that only develops and matures with experience across generations: “the art of administering is surely a science; and all sciences, in order to make progress, need to bind together the discoveries of different generations as they succeed each other.” (198) He argues that the instability in a pure democratic system prevents such learning and growth and that this limited the effectiveness of American governance:

It is very difficult for American administrators to learn anything from one another. Thus, they bring to the conducting of society the enlightenment that they find widespread within it, and not knowledge that is proper to them. Therefore, democracy, pushed to its final limits, harms progress in the art of governing (199)

For De Tocqueville, the success of democracy depends heavily on the education and development of the citizenry. It is not surprising, therefore, that he focused so heavily in Democracy in America on the role of civil society as a training ground essential to the successful self-governance of a democratic republic. The skill sets built in those interactions act as a cross-pressure to the desire for constant and immediate change he associates with pure democracy. Without the voluntary art of association which he observed in his travels through America, such an unstable and arbitrary system would be untenable. These cautions come out clearly in Volume Two of Democracy in America, published just 5 years after these selections from Volume One, and are at the heart of his critique and analysis of The French Revolution in The Old Regime and The Revolution. De Tocqueville was a prescient analyst of the strengths and the challenges of building a properly functioning democratic system. We can learn much by continuing to keep his insights and cautions in mind.

Roberta (Bobbi) Herzberg is a Distinguished Senior Fellow for the F. A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics and a Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and Emerita Associate Professor in political science at Utah State University (USU), where she served as department head and administrative director of The Institute of Political Economy. Dr. Herzberg currently serves as president of the Society for Development of Austrian Economics and was president of the Public Choice Society from 2014-2016. Dr. Herzberg received her Ph.D. in political economy from Washington University in St. Louis. She writes and speaks regularly on public policy, public choice, institutional analysis, civil society, and the Bloomington School.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: James Clinger


Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

 

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 192 (start at heading Influence that American Democracy Exerts on Electoral Laws) – 195.

In a span of a few pages in the first volume of Democracy in America, Alexis De Tocqueville discusses the implications of the frequency of American elections and the significance of the un-exalted position of civil servants in the United States. In each case, De Tocqueville’s arguments hinge on the importance of time horizons in understanding the behavior of public officials in the nation.

De Tocqueville visited the United States in 1831, along with his friend and collaborator, Gustave de Beaumont, officially to do research on penal conditions in the United States. This did result in a report that was presented to the French government, but of more significance was De Tocqueville’s book, Democracy in America. This was an analysis of more than government and politics, but also social conditions and a civic society that De Tocqueville believed gave rise to a form of governance that was unknown in Europe. De Tocqueville based his conclusions on observations carried out over several months. De Tocqueville visited seventeen of the twenty-four states then making up the union. He also briefly traveled through a bit of Canada. He only spent a few weeks in Washington, DC, so the bulk of what he learned about the country came from witnessing happenings outside the capitol. His observations also took place in a year in which no presidential or congressional elections were held. Much of what he learned came from witnessing politics and society at the local level.

Influence Which American Democracy Has Exercises On Electoral Laws

In remarking on the relative frequency of American elections, De Tocqueville claimed that “When election comes only at long intervals, the state runs a risk of being overturned in each election.” The parties involved perceive that there is much at stake in the election, and the winning side will “seize for themselves a fortune that comes so rarely within their reach.” If elections occur more frequently, the defeated candidates are more “patient.” In short, their time horizons adapt to the prospect of a change in their prospects in a soon to be held election. Frequent elections cause a good bit of “unrest for the state,” largely by the enactment of policies that are unstable since they are often reversed. Yet De Tocqueville believes that most Americans seem to have chosen the dangers of some instability over the threat of calamitous and tumultuous changes when elections are few and far between. Some of the founders, such as Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, decried this instability in laws, but their concerns were not persuasive enough to sway most state lawmakers, who crafted the election laws. De Tocqueville’s conclusions were probably based on his observations of state and local elections, and their aftermath. There were no federal elections at the time of his travels to America.

Modern social science research has explored the implications of election frequency. Much of that research examines effects on voter turnout, rather than the behavior of candidates and parties. A phenomenon sometimes called “voter fatigue” or “ballot fatigue” has been found when elections occur frequently or if the ballots are too long. Under these circumstances, voter turnout declines as the number of elections increases over a fixed period of time. Because in America voters have opportunities to vote in federal, state, and local elections, often held on different days of the calendar, elections of some sort were and are held quite frequently. Party primary elections also add to the number of times that voters go to the polls, but primaries did not exist in De Tocqueville’s day. Some research does address the effect of the electoral cycle on the behavior of elected officials. In cases on elected officials with longer terms, such as U.S. senators, voting behavior in their chamber is relatively independent of their constituencies’ preferences but becomes more representative of constituency desires later in their terms as the next election approaches.

“Public Officials Under the Empire of American Democracy”

De Tocqueville also had much to say about the impact that the “empire” of American democracy had on public officials, particularly civil servants. One of the notable aspects of the way that public officials behave appears to be related to that they “remain intermingled with the crowd of citizens: they have neither palaces, nor guards, nor ceremonial uniforms” generally working without uniforms, badges, or distinctive ornaments of office that set them apart from the general population. In a democracy, De Tocqueville argued, “government is not a good; it is a necessary evil.” Public officials are “accorded a certain power” but beyond that any “external appearance of power” would “needlessly offend the public’s sight.

This disdain for external and pretentious ornaments of office is also related to the issue of time horizons. Privileges (and power) of office “are passing; they depend on the place and not the man.” The administrative positions in office are temporary. They are paid positions, otherwise, the government would be staffed by wealthy amateurs who can afford to serve without official remuneration. This would create a “class of wealthy and independent officials, to form the core of an aristocracy.” In democratic states “all citizens can obtain posts” but “all are not tempted to solicit them.” In a sense, both formally elected and administrative positions are filled by the “principle of election.” The common voters select the elected officials, and the elected officials “elect” those holding administrative positions. In each instance, the appointments are temporary. They are not long-term, and they cannot be handed down from father to son. For that reason, “there is no public career, properly speaking” and officials have “no assurance in being kept in them [office].” Without the prospect of a long-term career, the pool of people who are both willing and able to work in government is restricted.

It is important to remember that De Tocqueville’s observations took place in a time in which both political and bureaucratic terms in office were much different than they are now. In those days, political careers were more time-limited and incumbent office holders had less advantage in elections than they do now. Furthermore, in De Tocqueville’s day there was no civil service system at any level of government. With the Pendleton Act in 1883, the federal government adopted a civil service system, which provided some job protection for government employees, and state and local governments adopted civil service in some cases before but often after the Pendleton Act. Whether this careerism that can be found in America over the last century or so has made the country less “democratic” is an issue that must be considered at another time.

 

James C. Clinger is an emeritus professor in the Department of Political Science and Sociology at Murray State. For many years, he was the director of the Master of Public Administration Program at Murray State. He now serves as an on-line adjunct instructor for any university willing to hire him and as a substitute teacher for the Henry County (Tennessee) School System.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

 

Guest Essayist: Dr. Colleen Shogan

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 187-192 (stop at heading Influence that American Democracy Exerts on Electoral Laws).

Please leave a comment in the blog below and automatically be entered in our weekly drawing for a free copy of the book!

De Tocqueville’s Democracy in America is known for its conversational writing about culture, government, and politics. But like all thinkers who blend theory and observations, De Tocqueville can be tricky. It is important to read De Tocqueville slowly and carefully so that we understand the full implications of his arguments.

At the beginning of the chapter, De Tocqueville gives us a hint about what is to come. He wrote, “I know here I am walking on ground that is afire. Each word of this chapter must offend on some points the different parties that divide my country. I shall not speak less than all my thought” (187).

What a remarkable introduction. He tells his readers that he knows his arguments are controversial, so much so that the topics he is about to discuss are on fire! While his opinions will offend almost everyone, he promises honesty in his analysis. These eye-opening sentences place the reader on high alert. We must proceed with caution.

What are De Tocqueville’s shocking revelations? First, he asserts that “in the United States, the most remarkable men are rarely called to public offices” (188). Why is this? Tocqueville argues that although many citizens in a democracy are well-meaning, they don’t know how to achieve the goals they desire (188). Also, democracy encourages envy in its citizens due to the powerful sentiment of equality (189). De Tocqueville comments that Americans “do not fear great talents, but they have little taste for them” (189). Democracy encourages talented citizens to shun a political career, since the vast majority of the electorate does not want them and oftentimes, they have better things to do, such as pursue private wealth.

This seems like a very dismal conclusion from De Tocqueville. If this is the case, then perhaps we should stop reading Democracy in America. The United States is a representative democracy. If democracy does not encourage good people to enter public service as representatives, then it seems as though democracy has no chance of succeeding.

However, it’s important to keep reading. Remember the beginning of the chapter. De Tocqueville likes to make brash statements which catch the attention of a reader. His style is similar to a top-selling thriller writer, who ends each chapter with a scary cliffhanger.

The first sentence of the next section indicates De Tocqueville is about to shift gears. He begins with this pronouncement: “When great perils threaten the state, one often sees the people fortunately choose the most appropriate citizens to save it” (190).

Wait one second! Didn’t De Tocqueville just argue that a problem of democracy is that its citizens don’t choose “remarkable men” for office? This is why De Tocqueville can be puzzling at times. He likes to make bold observations, and then provide counter arguments.

De Tocqueville has at least three caveats to offer, which challenge his pronouncement that representative democracy is endangered. First, when difficult circumstances present themselves, De Tocqueville argues that citizens in a democracy tend to select the best people to lead. This is a big qualification to his earlier argument. After all, the most critical time for a democracy to select the best people is during a crisis. If democracies succeed in picking qualified leaders at these moments, then much of the earlier concerns noted by De Tocqueville may not be valid.

Second, the “mores” (or culture) of a location affect the quality of government (191). De Tocqueville viewed the New England states as the best prepared in this regard, largely because they are the oldest functioning democracies in the United States (191). They’ve had more years to practice democracy, and as it turns out, they’ve gotten better at it over time. This seems a temporary problem, which should resolve as democracies age.

Lastly, De Tocqueville argues that America’s constitutional design is also helpful. While the House of Representatives attracts less distinguished individuals, the Senate is elevated in its membership and rejects “small passions” that can frustrate the public good (192). The bicameral legislative structure seems to mitigate some of the bigger worries De Tocqueville had about representative democracy.

So, which argument is correct? Is it the first notion that democracy frustrates or inhibits the selection of qualified citizens for public office, thus dooming it to failure? Or can we find hope in the second argument, which offers a much more positive assessment about democracy’s future?

Of course, that is why De Tocqueville is such a complicated thinker about democracy. He doesn’t provide all the answers. It’s up to you, the careful reader, to decide. De Tocqueville wants you to keep reading, and to apply your knowledge of history to evaluate his observations.

Remember, De Tocqueville wrote the first volume of Democracy in America in 1835. He could only study and observe about fifty years of American history to frame his opinions. Now, the United States has been a democracy for five times longer than that. This makes studying De Tocqueville today more relevant and compelling than ever.

 

Dr. Colleen Shogan, 11th Archivist of the United States

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Michael C. Maibach


Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

 

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner


Alexis de Tocqueville On Political Association in the United States:

By Michael C. Maibach

In Democracy in America, De Tocqueville dedicates a chapter to “Political Association in the United States.” “The right of association is an English import, and has existed in America since the beginning… Of all the countries in the world, America has taken greatest advantage of association and has applied this powerful means of action to the greatest variety of objectives…

[The American] learns from birth that he must rely on himself to struggle against the evils and obstacles of life.” De Tocqueville has come from the Age of Aristocracy to visit the new Age of Equality. Here he found gone the safeguards of royal order, social standing, and the family name. In this classless society “In the United States, they associate for the goals of public security, commerce and industry, morality, and religion.” De Tocqueville coins the word “individualism” when writing of America. That word alone explains the deep desire of Americans to form voluntary leagues of all manner and size – what Burke called “little platoons.”

“After the press, association is the great means that parties use to get into public affairs to gain the majority. In America, the freedom of association for political ends is unlimited… An association consists of public support by individuals to a doctrine and the promise… of making those doctrines prevail.” Free speech engenders free association, which engenders the freedom of assembly. “There, men see each other; the means of action combine; opinions are expressed with the force and heat that written thought can never attain.” From assembly, parties may be formed – like a nation inside a nation. And it is parties who elect to office those who will make the changes around which all this gathering has inspired.

In America, he writes, political assemblies “do not have… the right to make laws; but they have the power to attack the one that exists and to formulate in advance the one that should exist.” American assemblies exist to lead opinions to change, not to force change through the violence of the mob. “In America, there are factious persons, but no conspirators.” His example is the 1831 Philadelphia convention convened around the Nullification Crisis. While Americans did not turn to violence then, it was ironically a forerunner to the Civil War of 1860 when political assemblies so sharply divided did come to blows.

De Tocqueville writes, “In America associations can never pretend to represent the majority; they only aim to convince it. They do not want to act, but to persuade; in that they are different from the political associations of Europe.” Why? “Of all the causes that cooperate in the United States to moderate the violence of political association, perhaps the most powerful is universal suffrage.” Because male citizens could cast a vote, those elected to office had a deep legitimacy under the designs of the Constitution. “In countries where universal suffrage is accepted, the majority is never doubtful.” The loyal opposition can write, debate, associate and assemble – but using force is never justified given the basic fairness of universal suffrage. “In America, the purpose of associations is to convince and not to compel.”

In sharp contrast, De Tocqueville writes that “In Europe, there are almost no associations that do not claim that they represent the will of the majority… Most Europeans still see in association a weapon of war… the thought of acting next preoccupies all minds. An association does not want to convince, but to fight… In Europe, associations consider themselves in a way as the legislative and executive council of the nation, which itself cannot raise its voice; starting from this idea, they act and command. In America, where in the eyes of all they represent only a minority of the nation, they speak and petition,” not act.

In summary, De Tocqueville’s thesis is that America’s universal suffrage – the idea of free and fair elections – has the great benefit of creating “the loyal opposition” we see in our political assemblies. They talk, assemble, petition, and campaign… they do not tear down the house. They do not turn to violence or law breaking.

But all of this could be at risk today. Americans’ faith in universal suffrage, in “election integrity” has become a significant issue for our Nation. Until a few years ago US election practices did not include ‘early voting,’ ‘ballot harvesting,’ ‘drop boxes’… and the repeal of voter ID requirements. In Virginia we have gone from Election Day to 145 days of early voting! Party poll watchers can monitor voting on Election Day. It is simply impossible for any party to monitor the polls for 145 days.

De Tocqueville closes by writing – “There are no countries where associations are more necessary to prevent the despotism of parties or the arbitrariness of the prince than those in which the social state is democratic. In aristocratic nations, secondary bodies form natural associations that halt abuses of power. In countries where such associations do not exist…a great people can be oppressed with impunity by a handful of factious persons or by one man.” Considering this, America cannot afford to have the mainstay of our faith in self-government undermined by radical, non-transparent election reforms combined with open borders. At some point public trust in our political system will be lost.

 

Michael C. Maibach is a Trustee and Managing Director of the James Wilson Institute and a Distinguished Fellow On American Federalism at Save Our States.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: George Landrith

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

 

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

 

Freedom of the Press in the United States
By George Landrith, President, Frontiers of Freedom Institute

Our Founding Fathers saw freedom of the press as a foundational element of being a free and sovereign people. They had seen Redcoats arrest writers and destroy printing presses used to publish papers that were critical of Parliament and the Crown. So they made sure that our First Amendment specifically prohibited the government from abridging the freedom of the press and of speech.

De Tocqueville, a Frenchmen, came to study and analyze democracy in America and what made it work. His seminal work was the book – Democracy in America which he published in 1835. Not surprisingly, it includes an extensive discussion of freedom of the press.

De Tocqueville acknowledged that freedom of the press might be abused at times, but he also understood that freedom of the press, even with its imperfections, prevents great evils of abusive government power used to control and manipulate the people. He grasped that a choice between government censorship and a free press was actually a choice between servitude and independence. And like our Founders, De Tocqueville came down on the side of independence and individual liberty.

One of De Tocqueville’s observations was that in France, the newspapers were highly centralized whereas in America newspapers were dispersed, numerous and local. In America, nearly anyone could start their own newspaper or publication and could argue for the proposals or solutions that he or she thought best. Because of this freedom of the press, political information was widely available throughout the entire nation and covered many different perspectives. Thus, the American public was able to debate and evaluate the various political issues and in many cases come to a national consensus after a robust national debate. The wide array of newspapers and publications that enjoyed the freedom of the press played an important part in this national debate.

Among a free and sovereign people, determining what is true is our job. And we need a full spectrum of information and a robust debate to help us determine what is truth versus what is misinformation. The First Amendment’s free speech and free press protections are the best way to be sure we can decipher fact from fiction and truth from lies. Censorship has proven over hundreds of years to be a poor method for arriving at truth. Our founder’s believed this and interestingly, De Tocqueville came to a similar conclusion.

A brief review or comparison of societies across the globe throughout history reveals a great deal. Every totalitarian dictator in modern history has used censorship to empower themselves and to control and subjugate the masses. No dictator in modern history has protected the right of his political adversaries to express their views. Instead, the expression of dissent is seen as an act of treason and merely disagreeing with those in power can result in punishment.

As an inspired break from this trend of using censorship to control the masses, our Founders guaranteed that we could express our dissent and we could even peaceably assemble with the express purpose of stating our disagreement with the government’s actions.

Both our Founders and De Tocqueville wisely understood that we cannot hope to be a free and prosperous people if freedom of speech and the press is only allowed if the content is approved of by those in positions of government power. And we should never base our approval on the concept of a free press on whether we agree with the content.

I am confronted regularly with ideas and content that I believe to be wrong-headed, but its value is that it facilitates a robust public debate and that debate is an important foundational element of our nation’s freedom and strength. Even if I strongly disagree with the writer’s perspective, the answer is to honestly and fairly critique their argument and explain its errors and provide a better option. But it isn’t helpful to seek to silence them simply because we believe them to be wrong.

Another Frenchman, Voltaire, was quoted by his biographer, Evelyn Beatrice Hall, as having said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” This is very much inline with the views of our Founders and De Tocqueville.

If we believe in freedom of the press only for those with whom we agree, then we don’t really believe in freedom of the press. Freedom of the press plays a fundamental role in a self-governing society where the people enjoy freedom. If we allow freedom of speech or the press to be eroded, the foundations of our liberty will also be eroded. So being pro-freedom of the press is simply being for American foundations of liberty and against government with totalitarian instincts. We can thank De Tocqueville for his keen powers of observation and analysis in Democracy in America.

George Landrith is the President of Frontiers of Freedom Institute – a public policy think tank devoted to promoting freedom, the Constitution, the rule of law, a strong national defense, free markets, and individual liberty. Mr. Landrith is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was the Business Editor of the Virginia Journal of Law and Politics. He is admitted to the bar in Virginia and California and is also a member of the United States Supreme Court bar. As an adjunct professor at the George Mason School of Law, he taught constitutional law and appellate advocacy.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Horace Cooper

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

 

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

 

On Parties in the United States

De Tocqueville offers trenchant analysis of the political parties in the US at the dawn of the 19th Century.

At the time of his writing there was one large party that was dominant – the Republican Democratic party which ultimately came to be called the Democratic party. This party had managed to outmaneuver and outlive the Federalist Party and the Whigs.

In fact, today the so-called Democratic party is the oldest continuously existing party in American history. Founded in 1828, it is also the oldest political party in the world.

According to De Tocqueville, the longevity of this party isn’t a sign of its greatness, but, counter intuitively, a sign of its smallness.

To appreciate this insight, one has to understand De Tocqueville’s understanding of political parties.

He divided them into two categories – great and small. He wasn’t referring to size, instead he was talking about philosophy and impact.

Great parties are motivated by principles rather than by specific conflicts or disagreements. Great parties promote the interests of the whole nation rather than appealing to subset groups within.

In his view the then dead Federalist Party was in fact great. It was populated by some of the most prominent members of society and importantly of the Revolutionary War. Men like John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.

These individuals and others like them had served in key roles during the War of Independence against Great Britain as well as within the first government set up by our Constitution.

In fact, many of these individuals were instrumental in the creation of the government in both drafting, and selling it to the American people.

Even after its collapse the Federalist party has had a lasting impact on the American system by laying the foundations for having a national economy, promoting the acceptance of a national judicial system and formulating principles of foreign policy.

In contrast, the Democratic party was viewed by De Tocqueville as a “small” party. Its issues agitate rather than support the broader society. Small parties he argues lack a political faith – that is remain constant on a principle regardless of circumstance. A small party is “stamped with a selfishness that shows openly in each of their acts.” De Tocqueville uses the National Bank as an example of the distinction between “great” and “Small” parties. He argues that the “enlightened classes” are generally in favor of the National Bank and the population at large are not.

Rather than focus on the benefits and costs of the National Bank – which was created by the Federalist party with that in mind – the Democrats used its unpopularity with the public as a wedge to have it eliminated.

This choice by a small party may help it succeed in the short run, but in the long run may not be great for society.

Remember, the National Bank was set up as a means of dealing with the war debt and to help fund the government’s other debts. It was empowered to issue currency as well.

Ironically, though the Democrats were successful in ending the charter of the National Bank in 1811, by 1816 a new national bank had to be created for many of the same reasons as before – this time the War of 1812.

However, even that Bank was ultimately killed by the Democrats. Nearly 100 years would pass before the Federal Reserve was created in 1912. Ironically another Democrat would sign the law creating the Federal Reserve (a national banking system) after the concept had been killed by a Democrat – Andrew Jackson in 1836.

If nothing else, the same political party could ultimately be on opposite sides of the national banking issue, demonstrating De Tocqueville’s point.

De Tocqueville claims that “great” parties try to unite the interests of the country while “small” ones carelessly divide them. In this case he uses the divide between the wealthy and the rest of the population as an example.

Whereas the Federalists supported laws that sought to protect the interests of all the citizens of the US as a “great” party would do, the Democrats sought to pit the broader American society against the wealthy.

In fact, this willingness to look at the broader impact of national policy led to the Federalist party not being nationally popular, according to De Tocqueville.

Only because the national government was so limited in its authority did this phenomenon not create great havoc in the first 100 years of America’s existence. But by the start of the 20th as the federal government expanded its authority, this wedge proved quite powerful in allowing for the creation of greater taxation and business regulation – the super regulatory state that exists today.

Whether political parties are “small” or “great” they still serve a useful purpose. De Tocqueville says that political parties are an “inherent evil” as they provide a constructive way for “factions” to compete with one another. In contrast, without parties there is the inherent risk that “rival nations” form within a given country and when those rivals are unable to resolve their differences then a civil war becomes likely.

While De Tocqueville made his observations nearly 3 decades before the US Civil War, his insights were quite profound. Many of the conflicts that the Federalists recognized – the importance of America being a thriving commercial republic vs an agrarian one, the broader goal of citizen equality (including blacks), and the benefits of limited government – were ultimately unable to be permanently resolved without military conflict.

Even though he had hoped that the competition among parties would allay conflict, his observations have largely held true.

Though today political parties may not be “great” their existence creates a way for Americans to work through their differences without physical force. Like them or not, for De Tocqueville that is a ringing endorsement for their existence.


Horace Cooper is a writer and legal commentator. He has appeared on CNN, MSNBC and Fox as well as in a variety of print publications. He is also a Research Fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research, a Senior Fellow with the Heartland Institute and the Director of Law and Regulation at the Institute for Liberty.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Peter Roff

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

 

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner


The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references page 165 of this edition of Democracy in America.

It is important to remember that De Tocqueville’s masterwork was published early in the 19th century. It is a collection of observations about an America vastly different from the one in which we now live.

While some of De Tocqueville’s observations are truisms, holding true then, now, and always, it is only by approaching others while acknowledging the emergence of the modern liberal welfare state that we can see how far the nation has moved from its “small d” democratic roots.

Chief among these enduring notions is the concept of America as a self-governing people. De Tocqueville’s words in Chapter 1, Part 2 of Volume 1 of Democracy in America still resonate. The people are sovereign, wielding the ultimate authority over the state. They elect representatives to voice their concerns at the federal, state, and local levels in the executive, legislative, and sometimes even in the judicial capacity, a living testament to the enduring relevance of De Tocqueville’s observations.

With a few caveats, the system studied by De Tocqueville has weathered well most of the storms of the last two and a half centuries. The franchise has been expanded to the point that every law-abiding American citizen is eligible to participate in the electoral process, serve on juries, and be part of national, regional, and local governance. This evolution is a testament to the dynamic nature of our governance system.

That is not to say, however, that the Constitution upon which it is based is, as many like to argue, “a living breathing document that must keep up with the times.” It is foundational to the American system, “saying what it means and meaning what it says” as more than one pundit has said. The system changed because the people arguably wanted those changes and voted for them.
Consider the popular movement that brought about the direct election of senators. It was proposed and adopted through a constitutional amendment as an anti-corruption measure without much consideration being given to how it would abolish the institutional tensions purposely established between the states and the federal government.

It would be wrong to fault De Tocqueville for failing to anticipate changes that allowed the government to grow in size, authority, and power. The system we have now, which began to take shape under Woodrow Wilson and grew exponentially under FDR’s New Deal, LBJ’s Great Society, and the administration of the current president, takes it upon itself to fulfill many of the valuable and volunteer functions cited by Democracy In America as essential to American character and different from what could be found at the time in Europe.
What the voters, through their representatives, put in, they should be able to remove, again through their representatives. That this has not happened, even with the best efforts of presidents like Calvin Coolidge, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump, is a testament to the growth in the power of political parties and special interests, as De Tocqueville discusses later in Part 2 of Volume 1.

Nonetheless, the people still govern. They still have the ultimate authority because they still have the franchise. The agents of the administrative state often attempt to overlook that fact, as do members of the judiciary who frequently substitute their own interpretation, not just of the laws passed by Congress and the regulations issued by the Executive Branch and the plethora of independent agencies that populate the nation’s capital, but of the U.S. Constitution itself.

All that can be undone by the people should they choose to be serious once again about their liberty. It will be a costly enterprise, difficult to achieve unless common ground can be found among the badly polarized factions of the American populace that the vision of the nation as recorded by De Tocqueville is superior to what we now have. Without unity on that point, factionalism will expand, partisanship will increase, and the divide of people living side by side will grow.

 

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at Newsweek and a Senior Fellow at several Washington-based public policy organizations.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Joseph M. Knippenberg


Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

 

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 154 (starting at heading What Keeps The Federal System From Being Within Reach of All Peoples) – 161 of this edition of Democracy in America.

Tocqueville on the Distinctiveness of American Federalism (Democracy in America, Book I, ch. 8)

De Tocqueville’s discussion of “What Keeps the Federal System from Being within Reach of All Peoples” is a penetrating and challenging meditation on a certain kind of American exceptionalism. It is at once a tribute to the genius of the American Founders and to the enlightenment of the people for whom they legislated, and a profound appreciation of the serendipitous contribution of geography—America’s great distance from the European powers—to the success of their undertaking.

De Tocqueville identifies two vices inherent in every federal system—“the complication of the means it employs” and the “relative weakness” of the central (i.e., national, or as we say, federal) government. The first, he says, is “most visible,” while the second is “most fatal.”

The complexity has to do with the distribution of sovereignty between two levels of government, each operating directly on the people and each supreme within its limited sphere. This, De Tocqueville emphatically avers, is “conventional and artificial,” that is, not natural. What’s natural is for people to be governed by one source of power, to look to one capital as both the center of authority and the center of loyalty and affection. To undertake the careful discrimination between which government has authority to do what, to discern the limits of both state and federal government in their respective spheres, requires “a people long habituated to directing its affairs by itself, and in which political science has descended to the last ranks of society.”

Are we still capable of this? Our tendency to expect or seek national uniformity in legislation and policy, our impatience with the political and cultural diversity of the states, and our complaints about the “undemocratic” character of both the Senate and the Electoral College, certainly suggest that many of us have lost sight of the genius and subtlety of the original design.

De Tocqueville’s account of the weakness of the central government follows from what he believes about the naturalness of unitary government. Our national government is, he says, “a work of art,” the product of our constitutional design. For most of us, most of the time, it is a remote abstraction. On the other hand, “the sovereignty of the states in a way envelops each citizen… It takes charge of guaranteeing his property, his freedom, his life; at every moment it influences his well-being or his misery.” Indeed, he continues, this sovereignty depends on “all the things that render the instinct for one’s native country so powerful in the heart of man.

To be sure, especially in times of international crisis, we need a strong central government, capable of defending us from adversaries. Our states by themselves are too small and too weak to meet the exigencies of such a moment. De Tocqueville describes an almost fateful choice between a weak government that leads to defeat and domination and a strong government that prevails only by becoming despotic.

It was America’s great fortune, he wrote in 1835, to have the Atlantic Ocean between it and the European powers, a natural defensive barrier that remedied the defects of a relatively weak central government and obviated the need for a strong one.

Now, we haven’t enjoyed this luxury since the end of World War II and the beginning of the Nuclear Age. Despite America’s status as a superpower, it remains vulnerable to other nuclear powers and to asymmetric threats (such as terrorism) from rogue states and non-governmental actors like al Qaeda and ISIS.

According to De Tocqueville’s prescient analysis, such a situation would seem to call for a strong central government, with its concurrent temptations to abuse and oppression, i.e., to despotism. We might then, in a sense, be forgiven for our own almost natural inclination to abandon federalism, paying attention to the federal government, rather than to the states.

But De Tocqueville’s argument suggests that we do so at our peril. As he argues elsewhere in Democracy in America (see, for example, Vol. I, ch. 5, on townships and on administrative decentralization), the scope of local and state politics matches both our imaginations and our concrete interests. The more distant and abstract those interests are (as in national policy matters), the less efficacious and engaged we tend to be, and the more abstract and ideological our positions tend to be. It would not surprise De Tocqueville at all for a largely national political scene to be dominated by hyper-ideological elites, which seems like an apt description of our current situation.

As I suggested at the outset, his remedy for this situation is to see to it that “political science [descends] to the last ranks of society,” so that we understand the vital role played by the states in our federal system. This is not just a matter of fidelity to a Constitution that has been in place for almost 240 years, but of informed allegiance to a political arrangement that engages our interest, protects our rights, and provides the basis for the kinds of political interactions where fellow citizens on opposite sides of an issue can work together to find a common ground.

Joseph M. Knippenberg is Professor of Politics at Oglethorpe University in Brookhaven, GA, where he has taught since 1985.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Will Morrisey

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

 

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 149 (starting at On the Advantages of the Federal system Generally and its special Utility for America) – 154 (stopping at heading What Keeps The Federal System From Being Within Reach of All Peoples) of this edition of Democracy in America.

In order to construct modern, centralized states on the model advocated by Machiavelli, European monarchs weakened the aristocratic class, which had ruled the feudal states, characterized by weak monarchs and powerful landlords. Weak aristocracies meant increasingly egalitarian civil societies beneath the modern states, whether their regimes were monarchic or republican. For De Tocqueville, ‘democracy’ is not itself a regime, and equality is neither a natural or legal right; democracy is a social condition, one that must be understood clearly if it does not descend into despotism. As the most thoroughly democratized society in the world in the 1830s (this, despite slavery), America fascinated the young French aristocrat, living in the aftermath of the debacle of the French republicanism in the 1790s and of French monarchy in the 1780s and again in the Napoleonic Wars.

Differing from feudal states in their degree of centralization, modern states also differed from ancient city-states in size, being far larger in both territory and population. In small states, De Tocqueville remarks, “the eye of society penetrates everywhere” (as the song advises, “don’t try that in a small town”), ambitions modest (no Napoleon has arisen from Slovenia). In small states, “internal well-being” is prized more than “the vain smoke of glory.” Manners and morals are “simple and peaceful,” inequality of wealth less pronounced. Political freedom is the “natural condition” of small states; in all times, antiquity (Athens) and modernity (Switzerland), “small nations have been cradles of political freedom.

They lose that freedom on those rare occasions when they do muster the power to expand. “The history of the world does not furnish an example of a great nation that has long remained a republic,” whether the nation is ancient Rome or modern France. That is because “all the passions fatal to republics grow with the extent of territory, whereas the virtues that serve as their support do not increase in the same measure.” The gulf between rich and poor widens; great cities arise, with their “depravity of morals”; individuals become less patriotic, more selfish. This is worse for republican regimes than for monarchies, as republics depend upon popular virtue while monarchy “makes use of the people and does not depend on them.” In sum, “nothing is so contrary to the well-being and freedom of men as great empires.

This notwithstanding, “great states” enjoy some substantial advantages. Their cities are “like vast intellectual centers,” where “ideas circulate more freely” than in the more censorious atmosphere of small communities. The people are safer from invasion, since the borders are remote from much of the population. Above all, great states wield greater force than small states, which is “one of the first conditions of happiness and even existence for nations.” De Tocqueville “[does] not know of a condition more deplorable than that of a people that cannot defend itself or be self-sufficient.

What, then, shall republican legislators do? The American Founders took the recommendation of Montesquieu: federalism, which (as Publius argues in the tenth Federalist), permits Americans to live in an “extended” republic, one that can preserve the virtues needed for republicanism while enjoying the advantages of a large modern state. While the Congress “regulates the principal actions of social existence,” it leaves administrative details to the “provincial legislatures.” [1] In a democratic republic, the people are sovereign; in the United States, the people have divided their sovereignty between the federal government and the “provinces” or states. The federal government attends to the general welfare of the nation, but can only act through specific, enumerated powers set down in the Constitution. It can reach into the states and rule their citizens directly, but not in all, and indeed not in most, things.

This is what allows democracy or civil-social equality to ‘work’ in the United States. Because the federal government organizes American foreign policy, the states need not take on the expense or the effort to defend themselves and so can concentrate their energies on internal improvements, just as small political communities are inclined to do. This spirit of economic enterprise is enhanced by the Constitutional prohibition of tariffs among the states, which makes America into a vast free-trade zone. The spirit of economic enterprise itself redirects ambitions toward peaceful commerce and away from military glory, the passion of aristocrats. Americans thereby unite “the zeal of citizens” with their self-interest. With no arms to purchase and no wars to sustain, among state politicians “ambition for power makes way for love of well-being, a more vulgar but less dangerous passion” than the love of glory, the passion of aristocrats. “Vulgar” means not-noble, not aristocratic but democratic. Federalism thus reinforces the democratic republican regime, unlike in the South American republics of the time, where republicanism extended over large territories but under centralized governments. In the federal republic of the United States, “the public spirit of the Union itself is in a way only a summation of provincial patriotism.” Combining civic participation with the spirit of commercial enterprise, Americans unite “the zeal of citizens” with economic self-interest, each passion moderating the other.

Thanks to the wisdom of the Framers of the United States Constitution, “the Union is a great republic in extent; but one could in a way liken it to a small republic because the objects with which its government is occupied are few.” The federal government exercises substantial power but in a manner “not dangerous to freedom” because, unlike a fully centralized government, it does not “excite those immoderate desires for power and attention that are so fatal to great republics,” whether in ancient Rome, modern France, or modern Brazil. Such desires that do arise “break against the individual interests and passions of the states,” jealous defenders of their own share of the popular sovereignty.

In the civil society of American democracy within a federal system, “the Union is free and happy like a small nation, glorious and strong like a great one.


Note:
De Tocqueville uses the term “provincial” rather than “state” because his European readers associate statehood with sovereignty, which American states have only in part.



Will Morrisey holds the William and Patricia LaMothe Chair in the United States Constitution at Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan, where he has taught since 2000.

 

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Marc A. Clauson

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

 

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

 

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 146 (starting at heading “What Distinguishes the Constitution of the United States of America from all other Federal Constitutions – 149 (stopping at On the Advantages of the Federal system Generally and its special Utility for America) of this edition of Democracy in America.

The French writer De Tocqueville traveled in and wrote about the culture and politics of the new American Republic between 1835 and 1840. His work has become a classic of political thought and is considered one of the most insightful analyses of the early Republic and its institutions. Democracy in America is De Tocqueville’s most important work, particularly for our consideration of the Constitution.

The question in subchapter 21 is a crucial one, even in current discourse on the Constitution. De Tocqueville asks what makes the American Constitution different from other constitutions. In his day, the American version was certainly not the only constitution in effect (even less so today). In addition, several elements set the American compact apart from other similar documents, such as Poland and France. De Tocqueville focuses on one aspect—a very important one. As he explains it, the most unique innovation of the American Constitution is that, unlike the previous Articles of Confederation, whose provisions only allowed the national government to operate on state governments as a whole, the new compact’s provisions operated directly on citizens of each state. Before, the state governments could, and sometimes did, simply refuse to follow laws enacted by Congress based on its powers. As De Tocqueville writes, “In America, the Union has, not states, but plain citizens, for those governed.” The new Constitution bypasses the states in the exercise of its enumerated powers.

This innovation might at first seem somewhat insignificant. But if one remembers the previous regime, it was the very problem of the inability of the Congress to enforce its powers that threatened the survival of the new republic. This flaw (at least in large part) drove the Constitutional Convention to take drastic action in devising a wholly new social compact. Even assuming common interests existed among the entire population and across all or most states, the possibility that each time Congress attempted to enforce its agreed-upon powers could lead to defiance on the part of even one state, and could inevitably incentivize more states to ignore the national government. The entire confederation might disintegrate.

Vincent Ostrom has elaborated on the political theory underlying the American Founders’ innovation, beginning with the foundational idea that “people as individual persons are the fundamental units to be considered in organizing any political association…The individual person is the doer of acts. The way each individual as a person relates himself to others is the basis of all social organization.” The fundamental reason for the existence of government is to establish order among individuals. Collectivities as a whole cannot make such decisions apart from the individuals constituting them. Moreover, individuals as individuals are the recipients of political order, as a given law or policy does not fall on an abstract entity called a state, but on natural humans, notwithstanding the occasional legal attribution of some corporate entities as legal persons. Even a decision affecting a corporation in the first instance eventually affects the individuals related to that corporation, not the “thing” called a corporation—for example, employees and consumers.

In addition, De Tocqueville and the American Founders recognized that laws needed to be enforced to be effective. But under the previous Articles of Confederation, sanctions amounted only to advice or suggestions. To be effective, laws had to be enforceable as against individuals, the actual actors. Without the design of the Founders, the very idea of a government and its goal would be thwarted, to the detriment of the citizens. Once again, one can see the uniqueness of the American Constitution. It would not be an overstatement to assert that the American constitutional system would not work, in fact, might collapse, without this innovation added by the Founders.

Marc A. Clauson is Professor of History, Law and Political Economy and Professor in Honors at Cedarville University. Marc holds a PhD from the University of the Orange Free State, SA, Intellectual History and Polity); JD (West Virginia University College of Law, Jurisprudence); MA, ThM (Liberty University, New Testament Studies and Church History); MA (Marshall University, Political Science); BS (Marshall University, Physics); and PhD work (West Virginia University, Economic Theory).

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Adam Carrington

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 143 – 146 (stop at heading What Distinguishes the Constitution of the United States of America from all other Federal Constitutions) of this edition of Democracy in America.

Please leave a comment in the blog below and automatically be entered in our weekly drawing for a free copy of the book!

 

In this section of Democracy in America, De Tocqueville claims that the national constitution is superior to those found in the states. In making this case, he points to a broader purpose of his project.

As he stated early in the work, De Tocqueville thinks that a general movement toward democratic forms of government are inevitable, part of a Providential movement in history. Yet he believes humans possess the ability to make their democracies better or worse. Here, he notes two problems democracies tend to face. Both he claims the national constitution combats better than its state counterparts.

First, De Tocqueville writes that one danger for democracies is the possibility of “[t]he complete enslavement of the legislative power to the will of the electoral body.” One might think this point is a good thing, a feature, not a bug. Should not the lawmakers in a popular government follow the will of the people, who by definition are the sovereign in such regimes?

De Tocqueville does not deny the ultimate sovereignty of the people. But he wants the people to exercise their rule in the most thoughtful, moderate, and just way possible. The people do so best through representatives who themselves possess some ability to lead and thus to mold popular opinion rather than merely follow it. This balance, wherein the representatives truly represent but do so with some room to persuade, depends in large part on the terms of office lawmakers hold.

In the states, the lawmakers tend to hold one to two year terms, De Tocqueville notes. This made the representatives constantly dependent on the immediate, short-term views of the people. In that mode, the people could be prejudiced, passionate, and irrational, as all persons can be at certain points in life. The national constitution established longer terms—two years for the House and six for the Senate—with the idea that, “lengthened the time of the electoral mandate to allow to the deputy a greater use of his free will.” With some space between elections, lawmakers had some time to persuade voters, to appeal to their more settled, rational, and longer-term interests. That space would increase the chances of justice being served, not the mighty feeding on the weak.

Second, the French thinker states that democracies tend to result in “[t]he concentration, in the legislative power, of all the other powers of government.” The Americans had learned from another Frenchman, Montesquieu, that political power was by nature legislative, executive, or judicial and that free governments divided these tasks among distinct institutions. To combine them descended into tyranny, even if it was the people themselves combining the power.

But state constitutions had proven woefully inadequate in realizing the truth about separation of powers. Though having such a distinction on paper, the legislative power tended to dominate in practice; executives and judges became the puppets of the lawmakers. The national constitution reacted to these problems with a better structure.

The president as national executive would have a four year term, thus giving him the independence that came with length of office. Moreover, the legislature could not coerce him to act in certain ways by diminishing or eliminating his salary. Finally, De Tocqueville points to the veto, whereby the president could stop legislative attempts to minimize or eliminate his inherent constitutional powers.

Other guards existed for the judiciary. They, too, would have salary protections. But instead of a four-year term, the judges, once appointed, held their positions for life absent willing resignation or the difficult process of impeachment and removal. These judges need not succumb to legislative control but instead could exercise their own powers in ways that furthered their purpose and checked overreaches from other branches.

Taken together, De Tocqueville says the clear result was that, “the affairs of the Union are infinitely better conducted than the particular affairs of any state.” By this claim he meant the national government operated in a more moderate, wise, intelligent, stable, and firm manner. Doing so was about much more than simple efficiency. De Tocqueville saw in the national constitution mechanisms that preserved the people’s liberty against its many foes. The national constitution channeled decision-making the exercise of power in ways more likely to result in justice.

We would be wise to listen to De Tocqueville’s wise observations. It not only will make us better students of our own country. It might make us better citizens of it here and now.

Adam M. Carrington is Associate Professor of Political Science at Ashland University, teaching courses on U.S. political institutions and the intersection of faith and political thought. Previously, he taught in The Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College, focusing on the U.S. Constitution, Constitutional Law, The American Presidency, and Politics & Literature. His writing has appeared in such popular forums as The Wall Street Journal, The Hill, National Review, and Washington Examiner. His book on the jurisprudence of Justice Stephen Field was published in 2017 by Lexington. Carrington received his B.A. from Ashland University and his M.A. and Ph.D. from Baylor University. He lives in Hillsdale with his wife and their two daughters.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Eric Wise

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 130 – 143 of this edition of Democracy in America.

Please leave a comment in the blog below and automatically be entered in our weekly drawing for a free copy of the book!

 

On The Federal Constitution – Volume 1 Part 1 Chapter 8 Sub Chapters 15-19

In the hands of seven federal judges rest ceaselessly the peace, the prosperity, the very existence of the Union. Without them, the Constitution is a dead letter…”

– Alexis De Tocqueville

 

The great observer of the American regime is Alexis De Tocqueville. An observer is most often distinct from a participant. De Tocqueville sees America from the outside.

But to say he sees America from the outside is insufficient. We are invited to ask from what vantage point of the outside does De Tocqueville observe.

It would be easy to conclude he observes from another great young democracy, France. After all, his subject, democracy in America, suggests that democracy is going on somewhere else.

Democracy in America was first published in 1835. This is the period of the July Monarchy in France, which began with the overthrow of one Bourbon monarch, Charles X, to replace him with another Bourbon monarch, Louis Phillipe. De Tocqueville could have accurately titled his book Democracy Today, given that democracy in America was at that time the only democracy game in town.

Why digress so? Because in reading De Tocqueville it helps to understand that, as astute an observer as he is, he is in fact an alien to the system in America. De Tocqueville truly knows only monarchy.

In this spirit he writes, “a federal government ought more than any other to desire to obtain the support of justice, because in its nature it is weaker, and one can more easily organize resistance against it.” Is this observation made because for an observer looking down from a monarchical perch, that is how the American system appears?

In America, they have put this theory into practice. The Supreme Court of the United States is the sole, unique tribunal of the nation,” writes De Tocqueville. “Sole” reminds us of the root “mono”, which is one half the root of “monarchy”, which means rule of one. This idea foreshadows a potential corruption of the institutions of the United States, which we will get to later.

Let’s look at De Tocqueville’s perspective and then at the possible corruption.

De Tocqueville appreciates how the United States’ federal government and the United States’ state governments are both ground up institutions. That is, each part of the federal system represents delegations of sovereign authority from people to the government. The people of each state lend certain aspects of their sovereignty to the state governments, and the people of the United States lend their sovereignty collectively to the United States.

As De Tocqueville wrote, “The first question which awaited the Americans … was so to divide the authority of the different States…, whilst the entire nation, represented by the Union, should continue to form a compact body, and to provide for the general exigencies of the people.

This sense of the sovereignty of individuals, which is the basis of consent in America, is bred in the bone. Perhaps the first instance of this practice occurs in Connecticut through the adoption of the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut without any reference to royal authority. As Thomas Hooker, a leading Puritan minister in New England, had said in 1638, well before Hobbes and Locke wrote any jot or tittle on the subject, “The foundation of authority is laid firstly in the free consent of the people.

That ethos as reflected in the United States Constitution leads to dual sovereignties that are derivative of the sovereignty and consent of the people. With that dual sovereignty comes dual judicial systems, one state and one federal. And while De Tocqueville makes no mention of Puritans such as Hooker, he appears to understand this.

Thus De Tocqueville observes with interest that “It may easily be proved that the Union could not adapt the judicial power of the States….to enforce the laws of the Union by means of the tribunals of the States would be to allow not only foreign but partial judges to preside over the nation.

But I venture an American of De Tocqueville’s time would have seen this procedurally requirement slightly differently, as they would not have admitted the possibility of a sole power precisely because there cannot be two sole powers, of course. If the sole power of the American regime is the consent of the people, then there is no room for judicial supremacy. De Tocqueville, one dares say, may have mistaken, ever so slightly, or as a modern man might say, subconsciously, the power of the Supreme Court with the power of a king.

This brings us to corruption. At the time De Tocqueville was writing the United States was experiencing a drought of new amendments to the Constitution, new affirmative and formal acts of consent, that began in 1804 and would not end until after the Civil War with the 13th Amendment. To fill the gap, the Supreme Court, after De Tocqueville, handed down the Dred Scott decision to settle once and for all a regime question that could only be resolved through the consent process. Justice Taney, the author of Dred Scott, assured a credulous President James Buchanan that the regime question of popular sovereignty set forth in his Dred Scott opinion, would put to rest the political instability over slavery that troubled the regime. Taney could scarcely have been more wrong.

Today we suffer from a similar drought of amendments, the last fully consummated and unified process for the 26th Amendment having been completed in 1971 (the 27th Amendment having been a drawn-out event that began as the Congressional Compensation Act of 1789). De Tocqueville might see the change as an example of the power of the Supreme Court analogous to a monarch. But from the perspective of an American participant it is hard to unsee it as the ebb of the true sole power in America, the people, which ought to be restored through a process like a convention of states, where the people of the United States might take on regime questions after the manner of the Founders, and in the manner the Founders intended, as reflected in Article V.

 

   J. Eric Wise is a partner in the law firm of Alston & Bird.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Tara Ross

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 120 (starting at the heading “On The Election of the President”) through 130 (stopping at the heading “On The Federal Courts”) of this edition of Democracy in America.

American presidential elections have grown increasingly contentious in recent years—to say the least! Too many mistakenly blame the Electoral College, but Alexis de Tocqueville’s classic work, Democracy in America, offers a different perspective.

Indeed, his observations about American society in the early 1800s also included warnings that Americans should have heeded—but didn’t. No wonder presidential elections have become so acrimonious.

De Tocqueville, of course, lived at a time when countries around the world were (at least trying to) shake off monarchies, replacing them with elected leaders. Perhaps it’s unsurprising, then, that Democracy in America alludes to the change. A monarchy, with its relatively infrequent change in leadership, at least provides stability. Can a nation elect new leaders once every few years without too much disruption?

In general, De Tocqueville believes that elective systems undermine a nation’s stability, but he notes that this danger has been mitigated in America because presidential power is limited. To the contrary, “the preponderant power resides in the national representation as a whole,” De Tocqueville observes.

The modern American presidency, of course, looks nothing like the one that De Tocqueville studied in the 1830s.

A powerful President, De Tocqueville writes, makes for dangerous election seasons. One human being clawing for power is surrounded by others, also clawing for a piece of that power. “It is clear that the more prerogatives the executive power has,” De Tocqueville explains, “the greater the lure is; the more the ambition of the pretenders is excited, the more also it finds support in a crowd of [those with] secondary ambitions who hope to share in power after their candidate has triumphed.

America during De Tocqueville’s lifetime didn’t have that problem. To the contrary, he marveled, “[n]o one has yet been encountered who cares to risk his honor and life to become president of the United States, because the president has only a temporary, limited, and dependent power.” The same applies to those who might otherwise want to help a candidate achieve the presidency. “The reason for this is simple,” De Tocqueville concludes, “having come to the head of the government, he can distribute to his friends neither much power nor much wealth nor much glory, and his influence in the state is too feeble for the factions to see their success or their ruin in his elevation to power.

A too-powerful President can create other dangers, too, because the workings and direction of government become too dependent on a single individual. “The vaster the place that executive power occupies in the direction of affairs, the greater and more necessary its habitual action is,” De Tocqueville concludes, “and the more dangerous such a state of things is. Among a people that has contracted the habit of being governed by the executive power and, even more so, of being administered by it, election could not fail to produce a profound disturbance.

An election is inherently “a period of national crisis,” De Tocqueville thinks, because everyone becomes overly focused on the approaching election. The interests of the country fall by the wayside. Nevertheless, things are even worse when a President runs for re-election.

He recognizes the dilemma facing the delegates to the Constitutional Convention: If a President is doing a good job, then Americans should have the option to re-elect him. On the other hand, De Tocqueville wonders if the dangers don’t outweigh the benefits.

Intrigue and corruption are vices natural to elective governments,” he concludes. “But when the head of state can be reelected, the vices spread indefinitely . . . . [the incumbent] borrows the force of the government for his own use. . . . the care of the government becomes a secondary interest to him; his principal interest is his election.

In an interesting twist, De Tocqueville remains impressed by the “mode of election” for American Presidents, recognizing that the Electoral College “express[es] the real will of the people.” He notes the difficulty in getting a majority to support any candidate “at the first stroke,” especially given the size and nature of the country. Electing a special body (the Electoral College) to make this decision struck De Tocqueville as an efficient process for reaching agreement on a candidate. It would also better reflect the will of the people than legislative selection.

America’s presidential election system, he concludes, “[is] a happy combination that reconciles the respect that is owed to the will of the people with the rapidity of execution and the guarantees of order that the interest of the state requires.”

In short, Democracy in America focuses on two factors that have historically made American presidential elections work: The limited nature of executive power and the structure of the Electoral College. The first of these has been severely undermined, and the second is under attack.

De Tocqueville would surely be unsurprised to learn that elections have turned ugly in recent decades.


Tara Ross is a retired lawyer and the author of several books about the Electoral College, including Why We Need the Electoral College (Regnery Gateway).

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Dr. Robert Brescia


Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 113 (starting at the heading “On the Executive Power”) through 120 (stopping at the heading “On the Election of the President”) of this edition of Democracy in America.

 

Executive Power; a Summary of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Comparison of the U.S. Presidency and the French Monarchy

 

“The executive power in France extends to everything, like the sovereignty – the king is one of the authors of the law. The president is only the executor of the law.”

“The president is hindered in the sphere of the executive power – the king is free in it.”

“The president possesses great prerogatives that he has no occasion to make use of – in what he does have occasion to execute, he is weak.”


Alexis Charles Henri Clérel, Comte de Tocqueville

It’s helpful to set the stage with the reminder that De Tocqueville was one the 19th century “big thinkers” – A French noble who analyzed political and sociological movements. He had an avid interest in the young United States, particularly its form of government. De Tocqueville was a classical liberal who espoused the governmental form of parliamentary government, wary, though, of the tyranny of the majority when in power. It is difficult, however, to assign a political ideology to De Tocqueville because he straddles the ideals of much of the political spectrum. The time of his visit to America was during the French monarchy (Louis XVIII and Charles X); “between the republics” period – between the First Republic (1792–1804) and Second Republic (1848–1852).

De Tocqueville’s thoughts about the American presidency and the French monarchy

Following are the main points of difference between the U.S. Presidency and the French monarchy that De Tocqueville points out in Democracy in America, starting with what he refers to as the most important difference:

1. Sovereignty in the United States is divided between the Union and the states, whereas among us (in France), it is one and compact. In the United States, the executive power is limited and exceptional, like the very sovereignty in whose name it acts; in France it extends to everything, just like the sovereignty.

2. The king in France really constitutes a part of the sovereign, since laws do not exist if he refuses to sanction them; he is, in addition, the executor of the laws. 3. The king of France participates in the formation of the legislature by naming the member of one house and putting an end to the duration of the mandate of the other at his will. The president of the United States does not concur at all in the composition of the legislative body and cannot dissolve it.

4. The king is represented within the houses by agents who set forth his views, support his opinions, and make his will prevail. The president has no entry into Congress; it is only in an indirect manner that he can influence the legislative process.

5. The power of the king of France has the advantage of longevity over that of the president – this makes the king feared because he wields power for a much longer time. The president is a magistrate who is elected every four years with one exception so far (Grover Cleveland, 1885-89 and 1893-97), while the king of France is a hereditary head – divine right to assume absolute power says it all. Whereas the U.S. president is indirectly elected by the people, the French king is appointed – usually succeeded by an immediate family member.
6. The king of France is the absolute master in the sphere of executive power. The president of the United States is responsible for his actions. French law says that the person of the king is inviolable. Like the Roman Catholic Pope, he is infallible when speaking “ex cathedra” (from the chair). The difference is that while the Pope has only spoken once ex cathedra, the French kings put out many edicts during their reigns. There can be no opposition to his rule.

7. De Tocqueville points out that in France, there must be an accord between the king and the chambers; that anything else invariably leads to an irresolvable struggle. That is not the case in the U.S. but if the U.S. president is of a different political party than the majority in one or two houses of Congress, there certainly is a struggle to get things done.

The framers of our Constitution had placed the utmost importance on the legislative branch and envisioned the executive branch as an action-oriented, puttin-laws-into-force branch of government. They realized that it is one thing to write a law and another to apply it and see that it is obeyed. Basically, the U.S. president is supposed to be a “doer” – an executor. Article II of the Constitution says that the president “must take care that the laws be faithfully executed” and that he must take an oath or affirmation to faithfully execute the Office of President. In our times, there has evolved a notion of the “imperial presidency” which deals with the enlargement of the powers of the office but that flies in the face of the Constitution and is reinforced by the mystique factor of the presidency, especially in recent years. De Tocqueville recognizes that there are “accidental causes that can increase the influence of the executive power – generally that is war because the president acts as the chief of the armed forces.

Summary

Alexis de Tocqueville’s service to our heightened understanding of the U.S. presidency is quite commendable. For example:
“Just now Washington contains the most important men of the whole Union. We no longer seek instructions from them on subjects of which we are ignorant; instead, we reexamine, in conversation with them, everything which we already know, more or less. We settle the doubtful points…”
His service is very valuable because it promotes a prominent level of questioning and “doubt settling” we should be undertaking currently. The nature of our political experiment can be considered as an early form of a complex adaptive system – constantly changing with the identity and the impact of independent variables weighing heavily upon it. That is something that historians do not focus on and something that political scientists should. The U.S. presidency has built up capabilities never imagined in 1832 because our society has become infinitely more complex to manage. Still, many Americans repel the notion of a monarchy as much as they did when King George III was the King of England.

 

Dr. Robert Brescia is a National Board Certified Teacher (NBCT), serving as Social Studies Department Chair at Permian High School in Odessa, TX. The Governor of Texas re-appointed him to the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) for a six-year term. Bob has a doctoral degree with distinction in Executive Leadership from The George Washington University. He also teaches ethics to university students and leadership to organizations.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Christopher C. Burkett


Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 110 (starting at the “Legislative Powers heading”) – 113 (stopping at the “On the Executive Power Heading”) of this edition of Democracy in America.

Alexis De Tocqueville: On The Federal Constitution

“In this state of things, what happened was what almost always happens when interests are opposed to reasonings: they bent the rules of logic.” (Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America).

As De Tocqueville notes, the Constitution of the United States is federal in nature. This makes it quite unusual – in fact, unique – among all historical constitutions in Europe. This is so, in part, because Americans have discovered a new understanding of what “federal” means, which in turn requires De Tocqueville to carefully point out to his European readers some subtle characteristics of the Constitution.

De Tocqueville begins to explain the federal nature of the Constitution of the United States by describing what he calls “Legislative Powers.” By this, De Tocqueville means to show how the bicameral Congress is composed of two legislative bodies – a House of Representatives and a Senate – and, though the concurrence of both is needed to pass laws, each has some unique characteristics, responsibilities, and powers. This difference between the two houses of Congress arises from the compound nature of the American political union: it is intended, by the Federal Constitution, to be a union of the whole American people under a national government with national laws, while each of the member states simultaneously retains its own government, laws, and powers.

This compound or “federal” nature of the American Union and Constitution is an important factor in shaping American democracy, but was established legally in the new Constitution as a way to reconcile the natural tension that would exist between a national government and a state government. De Tocqueville reveals how this new kind of federalism came into being, beginning with the first attempts at establishing a government for the Union during the American Revolution. In the years when the Articles of Confederation were legally in effect (1781-1787), disagreements rose to the surface in the Confederation Congress over whether the Union of the American states comprised a real nation or a mere treaty-based agreement between sovereign and independent nation-states. As De Tocqueville writes:

“[T]wo opposed interests were presented to each other. Those two interests had given birth to two opinions. Some wanted to make the Union a league of independent states, a kind of congress, where the representatives of distinct peoples would come to discuss certain points of common interest. Others wanted to unite all the inhabitants of the former colonies into one and the same people.”

These were the prevailing opinions when the Confederation Congress authorized a Federal Convention to meet in Philadelphia in 1787 to discuss amendments to the Articles of Confederation. Delegates such as David Brearly and Robert Paterson of New Jersey, for example, strongly defended the former point of view that, in order to protect the various interests of the states, the Union should be more like a treaty-based league with a very limited general congress. Others, such as James Madison of Virginia, argued for the creation of a national union under a strengthened national government with real legislative powers. From the beginning of the debates at the Convention, when delegates agreed to create a bicameral legislature it became clear that this question would be resolved primarily through the composition of the two bodies of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate). Brearly and Paterson, among others, insisted that each state be equally represented in both houses, and that members of each house be selected by the state legislatures, ensuring that the interests of the states would be sufficiently expressed, supported, and protected in Congress. Madison and his supporters, on the other hand, insisted on creating a national government in which each state would be represented proportionally (based, for example, on population) in both houses, and in which state legislatures would select members in either house of Congress.

Ultimately delegates agreed to compromise on these questions (as proposed in part by Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut): the states would be proportionally represented in the House of Representatives by members elected directly by the people; and the states would be represented equally in the Senate by members chosen by the state legislatures. By this compromise the framers established a Constitution that was “partly national, partly federal.” De Tocqueville writes:

“In this state of things, what happened was what almost always happens when interests are opposed to reasonings: they bent the rules of logic. The legislators adopted a middle term that reconciled by force two theoretically irreconcilable systems. The principle of the independence of the states triumphed in the formation of the Senate; the dogma of national sovereignty, in the composition of the House of Representatives.”

With careful insight, De Tocqueville reveals the uniquely complex nature of the Constitution of the United States in the composition of Congress, as an important factor of American democracy.

Christopher C. Burkett is Associate Professor of History and Political Science, and Director of the Ashbrook Scholar Program at Ashland University.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Robert Lowry Clinton


Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 105 – 110 (stopping at the heading “Legislative Powers”) of this edition of Democracy in America.

“…what is new in the history of societies is to see a great people, warned by its legislators that the wheels of government are stopping, turn its regard upon itself without haste and without fear, sound the depth of the ill, contain itself for two entire years in order to discover the remedy at leisure, and when the remedy is pointed out, submit voluntarily to it without its costing humanity one tear or drop of blood.” (Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America).

Alexis De Tocqueville: On the Federal Constitution

After a brilliant introduction expounding the rise of democratic inclinations in Europe during the centuries leading up to the colonization of America, followed by seven chapters exploring socio-economic, geographical, cultural and political conditions on this side of the Atlantic, De Tocqueville turns to a peremptory discussion of the Federal Constitution in chapter 8. Beginning with the history of the Constitution’s emergence out of the earlier Articles of Confederation, De Tocqueville emphasizes the colonists’ strong connections to England before the War of Independence, noting the sharing of religion, language, mores and laws among the Americans and the English. This sharing, however, was not enough to prevent the War of Independence.

During the War and its immediate aftermath, the Americans were governed by the Articles (written in 1778 and adopted in 1781), which repudiated a complete union in favor of a confederation of individual states. De Tocqueville explains that once the War commenced, the principle of union prevailed anyway in the face of a common enemy. However, when the public danger subsided, states resumed their original and entire sovereignty.

The states disunited proved disastrous, exposing the states to dangers both foreign and domestic. Before long, Congress recognized its’ impotence and called for a convention to address the problems and revise the Articles. The “revision” thus produced by the Convention of 1787 turned out to be a complete replacement of the Articles, resulting in our present written Constitution.

De Tocqueville extols the greatness of the American founders in heeding the warning of the dangers of disunity, acting with resolve yet patience in devising a remedy, and accepting the remedy—though controversial—without bloodshed:

“…. what is new in the history of societies is to see a great people, warned by its legislators that the wheels of government are stopping, turn its regard upon itself without haste and without fear, sound the depth of the ill, contain itself for two entire years in order to discover the remedy at leisure, and when the remedy is pointed out, submit voluntarily to it without its costing humanity one tear or drop of blood.”

After a brief comparison of the American and French Revolutions, attending to the most obvious differences between the two wars, De Tocqueville proceeds to a summary of the Federal Constitution, stressing the crucial distinction between the character of the powers granted to the nation and those left to the states. Since the goal of the nation is to respond to “a few great general needs,” its powers are “simple and easy enough to define”. Since the goals of the state are “multiple and complicated,” thus retaining “the common rule,” their prerogatives cannot be so easily defined. De Tocqueville perceives the inevitability of conflict between state and national governments, and suggests that the Supreme Court was created, in part, to avoid having such disputes left to individual state courts.

Relying heavily on The Federalist, De Tocqueville examines more closely some of the intricacies presented by this constitutional system. For example, some national powers are made exclusive, others not. Where national power is not exclusive, states can govern freely, subject to the intervention of courts if they abuse their freedom and “compromise the security of the entire Union.” Thus the Federal Constitution establishes both a republic and a confederation, both federal and confederal.

De Tocqueville closes his section on federal prerogatives by giving some examples suggesting that on some points (e.g., having a single national court to interpret the law and a single legislature to impose taxes on everyone and commercial regulations on the states), the American Union is more centralized in some ways than some European monarchies! Though this seems a bit of a stretch, maybe not. Perhaps De Tocqueville was echoing the earlier fears of the Anti-federalist “Brutus” when he suggests in the one-sentence section that follows (entitled “Federal Powers”) that it might be difficult to confine the national government to the exercise of its delegated powers?

In sum, De Tocqueville’s preliminary remarks on the Constitution are generally sound and most helpful in drawing attention to the most important feature (and problem) of the constitutional order it established: the dual sovereignty embodied in the federal system. And in the last analysis, his cautionary suggestion about the difficulty of preventing future concentration of power in the national government would prove fully justified.

Robert Lowry Clinton is Professor Emeritus at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. He is the author of Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review, God and Man in the Law: The Foundations of Anglo-American Constitutionalism, and numerous articles in academic and popular publications.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Andrea Criswell


Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 100 – 104 of this edition of Democracy in America.

Alexis De Tocqueville: On Political Judgment in the United States

“[Political jurisdiction is] to withdraw power from someone who makes a bad use of it and to prevent this same citizen from being vested with it in the future.” (Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America).

“Take one for the team”! Maybe Washington, maybe Hamilton, patented this unheard of paradigm shift, but the idea set in motion a constitutional republic that would require more from the elected than any other time in history. Adding a unique feature, in regard to public officials, the Founders took it a step further, one that would keep democracy on the up and up. Alexis De Tocqueville recognized this feature, he caught the nuance in regard to political jurisdiction saying it is, “to withdraw power from someone who makes a bad use of it and to prevent this same citizen from being vested with it in the future.” It allowed public servants to be judged among their elected peers, without criminalizing them. In America’s version of political jurisdiction it could not be used as a partisan weapon, it required deep trust of the elected, and it tethered leaders to a higher accountability. These three distinctions will be considered here.

Be slow to impeach. The temptation to override is currently strong in the political atmosphere. Take what you want politically by force. The Founders feared this, and set in motion a unique take on political jurisdiction which would require a respect for the law no matter who was elected. If the people, by free and fair elections, selected a person to govern, then that person should be protected from impeachment being used as a partisan weapon. It is this very reason that only the public official called forward by the House of Representatives can be labeled an offender. Protecting against false accusations, the Senate judges the offense. What surprised De Tocqueville was that this only included removal from office, not justice through the penal code. The House could call for impeachment, and the Senate could enact impeachment, but neither could take away the personal liberties of the offender. That was out of their jurisdiction. Radically different from the structures in both England and France, the Founder’s plan limited impeachment for the purpose of protecting the choice of the governed.

Trust the law. In times of uncertainty, the governed must trust the checks and balances of the law and not take matters into their own hands. Obedience to authority is a wonderful fail safe when the elected is your chosen candidate, but when your candidate is not chosen, it requires great maturity to work under the leadership of someone you do not agree with. Order is a protective measure against chaos. It blesses all who sit in its shade. The shade as seen in political jurisdiction in the United States is that the leaders are tethered to something greater than themselves, the law, which supersedes agenda. Usurpation is only acceptable when the elected dishonor the law. However, in modern America trust in elected leadership has been broken and most of the governed do not understand the law. This is a concerning combo that the Founders feared.

To hold office. A little phrase with great power. When seen through a lens of selfish ambition this power brings an elected person self-promotion. Seen through the lens of service, it garners benefit for the governed. Political jurisdiction is intended to protect the elected while establishing office void of selfish ambition. What a difference a lens can make. This is where free and fair elections apart from gerrymandering are so important. The balance between recognizing the possibility of human failure and the tension between freedom of choice and the law is real. The elected person is imperfect, but the law holds their imperfection in check. Accordingly, political jurisdiction is, in De Tocqueville’s words, “despite its mildness and perhaps because of its mildness, a very powerful arm in the hands of the majority.”

This is not “your father’s” democracy. Liberty requires more. The republic is a standard of law for all people, to be honored and upheld equally by both the elected and the governed. It was understood that the elected would place their own natural tendencies aside out of respect for the law, and that the governed would place their natural tendencies aside out of respect for the elected. This mutual agreement of giving and receiving would allow them to accomplish something the world had never seen. De Tocqueville reminds us today that America’s system of political jurisdiction sets American democracy apart. If it breaks down, she will become just like other democracies. Without this unique balance, America will not embody liberty in its truest form.

Andrea Criswell is a wife, mother, and homeschool teacher in the northwest Houston area. Graduating from both Texas Tech University and Asbury Theological Seminary, she teaches Christian Worldview classes. Her passion is helping high school students become responsible young adults who critically think and learn how to solve problems.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Kevin Gutzman

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 93 (starting at chapter 6) through 99 of this edition of Democracy in America.

Alexis De Tocqueville entitles Volume One, Part One, Chapter 6 of Democracy in America “On Judicial Power in the United States and Its Action on Political Society.” He attempts to describe American judicial institutions as if they were all of one model, along the way comparing them to the French courts more familiar to him and to his intended readers. Particularly notable to De Tocqueville as a foreign observer was the political role of American courts that we Americans have come to take for granted. “ The judicial power[‘s] … political power is so great,” he explains, “that it appeared to me that to speak of it in passing would diminish it in the eyes of readers.”

Federal, republican, and elective governments are not peculiar to America, this Frenchman notes, but the American judiciary is unique. Its weight is felt in every political discussion. In regard to particular cases, it exercises its power as other countries’ judiciaries do — “as an arbiter” between parties, “on particular cases and not on general principles” (that is, not on an advisory or legislative basis), and “only when it is appealed to” (that is, when a case is properly brought before it).

Yet, American judges, De Tocqueville insists, have political power of a remarkable kind: “Americans have recognized in judges the right to found their rulings on the Constitution rather than on the laws.” What he has in mind is that American judges exercise the power of judicial review, which he classifies as political, not legal. To an American, this distinction is jarring. We have all been indoctrinated in the idea, captured in Article VI of the United States Constitution and forcefully said to have been the bedrock of judicial review by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, that judicial review is precisely a legal function, that what is happening when a judge says a statute is to be inoperative (“struck down”) on the basis of unconstitutionality is that inferior law is being made to yield to superior law. As Marshall put it, “It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each. If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”
It was by political acts that the sovereign states, following the Article VII ratification process, put the U.S. Constitution into effect, yes, but determining whether a law is constitutional in a case brought before it by one of the parties is for an American court a legal task, not a political one. De Tocqueville essentially concedes this point without making it when he notes that in America the people can, when they so desire, change a constitution (state or federal).

After comparing the relationships between law and constitution in the American system to the relationships between law and constitution in France and in Britain, De Tocqueville asserts that there is little to fear from judicial decisions holding laws unconstitutional, as they will only affect the particular cases the judges are deciding. Whether a statute will be repealed because unconstitutional is a question that will only be decided after several related cases have been adjudicated. Here our author is simply mistaken: decisions holding statutes unconstitutional have commonly had immediate and general effect since American courts first exercised the power of judicial review.

De Tocqueville next asserts that judges exercise the power of judicial review only despite themselves. They have no impulse to do so, he says. We are familiar with numerous instances in which Americans certainly were, or at least seem to have been, anxious to exercise the power of judicial review. At least one of them, the Supreme Court case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), ought to have been known to De Tocqueville. There had already been numerous cases of judicial review in federal courts by the 1830s, when De Tocqueville wrote his book, and they have come to be quite numerous now.

De Tocqueville closes this chapter with consideration of Article 75 of the French Constitution of year VIII (1799), which made Napoléon Bonaparte first consul. Under that constitution, he says, a government official could only be tried after the Council of State had decided he could. American courts have no need of such permission, he notes.

Kevin R. C. Gutzman, J.D., Ph.D. is Professor and former Chairman in the Department of History, Philosophy & World Perspectives at Western Connecticut State University. He is the author of six books in the history of the American Revolution and Early Republic, one of which was a New York Times bestseller, two of which were book club main selections, and one of which was named one of the ten outstanding conservative books of 2007. His latest is The Jeffersonians: The Visionary Presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Jay McConville

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 82 (starting at the heading “Administrative Decentralization”) – 93 (stop at chapter 6) of this edition of Democracy in America.

Alexis De Tocqueville: Administrative Decentralization and the Character of the United States.

“What I admire most in America are not the administrative effects of decentralization, but its political effects” (Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America).

Alexis De Tocqueville’s Democracy in America is an insightful examination of American society and its political institutions. In “The Necessity Of Examining What Happened In Individual States Before Considering The Union As A Whole – Political Effects Of Administrative Decentralization In The United States,” De Tocqueville emphasizes the importance of understanding the political structures at the state level before attempting to grasp the nature of the American Union. His admiration for the political effects of the American decentralized system highlights the importance of democratic participation and local governance over mere administrative efficiency.

In times of increasing political polarization, complexity of governance, and rising public debt, it is natural to look for ways to reduce redundancies and centralize operations. That has led many to question the effectiveness of the federalist system, especially given modern communications technologies. It is no longer difficult to communicate, as it was at our founding for example, between federal authorities and local communities. De Tocqueville was one of the first to observe that the division of powers among national, state, and local authorities in America could lead to inefficiencies in governance. After detailing some examples of this division, he readily admits that “the villages and counties of the United States would be more usefully administered by a central authority…” Yet De Tocqueville knew such efficiencies were not the most important aspect of government, but that instead, “individual forces [are] joined to the action of social forces,” and that when joined, “they often succeed in doing what the most concentrated and most energetic administration would be in no condition to execute.”

Laboratories of Democracy

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis popularized the phrase “laboratories of democracy” in the 1932 Supreme Court case New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann. His emphasis, like many of today’s writers, was on effectiveness and efficiency. “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country,” wrote Brandeis. This has often been cited as a reason to maintain what is otherwise an inefficient diffuse administrative state, as well as for leaving as much power locally as possible. Brandeis wrote, “[m]erely to acquire the knowledge essential as a basis for the exercise of this multitude of judgments would be a formidable task…Man is weak, and his judgment is, at best, fallible.” Brandeis’ opinion echoes much from De Tocqueville who wrote, similarly, that “[a] central power, however enlightened, however learned one imagine it, cannot gather to itself alone all the details of the life of great people. It cannot do it because such a work exceeds human strength. When it wants by its care alone to create so many diverse springs and make them function, it contents itself with a very incomplete result or exhausts itself in useless efforts…” Thus, an over-centralized state “excels, in a word, at preventing, not at doing.”

Reading Democracy in America, it becomes clear that while De Tocqueville and Brandeis might agree on the benefits of decentralization, De Tocqueville emphasized its role in fostering democratic participation as the primary benefit.

The Character of the Nation

De Tocqueville’s analysis of administrative decentralization compared the distinctive nature of American governance to European nations, where administrative power was often concentrated in the hands of a few. American decentralization, to De Tocqueville, was not just a matter of convenience but a deliberate strategy to promote democratic participation. European citizens, controlled by a centralized authority, often viewed their condition as akin to being a “colonist, indifferent to the destiny of the place that he inhabits.” The citizen’s connection to the nation was therefore suspect, reliant more on tradition than a genuine belief that his nation was his own. Longevity for the nation was therefore tenuous, as its governance “[does] not concern him in any fashion,” and “belong[s] to a powerful foreigner called the government.” As a result, European citizens found themselves “swinging constantly between servitude and license.”

De Tocqueville was more bullish on the American nation, even as tradition might fade, because, unlike Europeans, the American “applies himself to each of the interests of his country as to his very own… He has for his native country a sentiment analogous to the one that he feels for his family, and it is still by a sort of selfishness that he takes and interest in his state.” Americans believe, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, that this is a nation “of the people, by the people, [and] for the people.”

Out of Many, One.

True, federalism ensures a check on national authority and guards against tyranny. Additionally, decentralization promotes a more responsive and accountable government.

Most importantly, however, decentralization fosters a political culture of what we would today call buy-in – that deeply held belief that this is our nation, that we are not subjects, but full participants in its success now and into the future. It fosters civic responsibility and engagement, and develops a habit of self-governance, responsibility, and accountability. De Tocqueville saw this buy-in as essential for the sustainment of democracy and knew, like many today, that such self-reliance should never be sacrificed on the altar of efficiency.

Jay McConville is a former soldier, political activist, and business executive who writes on Substack at Goose & Gander (jaymcconville.substack.com). He is also a fitness trainer and a doctoral candidate at the L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, Virginia Commonwealth University. Jay has served for more than seven years on Constituting America’s Governing Board of Directors.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Scot Faulkner


Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 79 (starting at the heading “On The State”) through 82 (stop at the heading “Administrative Decentralization”) of this edition of Democracy in America.

The core of America’s federal system of government is viable state governments. America is called “the United States” to institutionalize the importance of distributed and diverse state governance as a balance to centralized power.

De Tocqueville fully understood this unique America concept by declaring “The Necessity of Examining What Happened in Individual States Before Considering the Union as a Whole”.

State legislatures, except Nebraska, mirror the two legislative chambers at the national level. In 1934, Nebraskans voted to merge their two legislative houses determining unicameralism would be more efficient and cheaper.

The concept of two legislative chambers, at both the national and state levels, began with the Royal Charter that established Jamestown in Virginia. It evolved from the Charter holders into governance by the King’s Representative (Royal Governor) and his Advisory Council. This evolved into the Senate at both the national and state level.

As De Tocqueville explains:

“The Senate is usually a legislative body; but sometimes it becomes an administrative and judicial body.”

A state’s House of Representatives, called the House of Delegates in some states, also has its roots in Jamestown. When the settlers demanded their own voice, the Virginia House of Burgesses, in 1619, became the first democratically elected legislative body in America.

De Tocqueville explains the difference:

“The other branch of the legislature, ordinally called the House of Representatives, participates in no administrative power and takes part in judicial power only by accusing public officials before the Senate.”

The House of Burgesses became a proving ground for what would become the “lower house” at the national and state levels.  “Upper” and “Lower” house designations were derived from their location within Jamestown’s legislative building. The House of Burgesses was located on the ground floor while the Governor’s Advisory Council met on the second floor.

Drawing from British tradition, the members of the House held their positions for shorter periods of time to be held closely accountable by those they represented.

De Tocqueville explains:

“By granting to the senators the privilege of being chosen for several years, and being renewed seriatim, the law takes care to preserve in the legislative body a nucleus of men already accustomed to public business, and capable of exercising a salutary influence upon the junior members.”

James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, writing under the pseudonym “PUBLIUS”, outlined this binding of the House of Representatives more closely to those they served in Federalist No. 52:

“Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured…. It is a received and well-founded maxim, that where no other circumstances affect the case, the greater the power is, the shorter ought to be its duration.”

This unique legislative environment of having different terms and therefore different mandates/perspectives was considered a strength by de Tocqueville:

“To divide legislative strength, thus to slow the movement of political assemblies, and to create a court of appeal for the revision of laws – such are the sole advantages that result from the current constitutions of the two houses in the United States.”

De Tocqueville embraced the universal wisdom of how America’s state legislatures governed:

“This theory, nearly ignored in ancient republics, introduced into the world almost haphazardly like most great truths, unknown to several modern peoples, has at length passed into the political science of our day as an axiom.”

De Tocqueville then turns his attention to state governors.

He outlines the governor’s role as a “moderator and counsel”. This is very different from the powerful Royal Governors they replaced.  Governors serve as a counterbalance to the legislature as each chamber balances each other. This institutionalized series of “checks and balances” creates a web of accountability at both the state and national level. The lessons learned from royal overreach were embedded to prevent future tyranny.

Governors also have the power to “stop or at least to slow movement” of legislation.  This check on legislative power arises from the lessons learned from the English Revolution (1640-1660) when Charles I’s royal tyranny was replaced with Oliver Cromwell’s legislative dictatorship.

A governor, in their role as moderator, do set “out the needs of the country to the legislative body and makes it known what means he judges useful to employ in order to provide for them.” The legislature’s role is to approve or reject the governor’s agenda, serving as a balance to executive power.

De Tocqueville, who had previously outlined the importance of local government in America, explains that “the governor does not enter into the administration of townships and counties”.

Each level of government in America has its own role, power, and independence. From the national level on down to local communities, America’s strength is a structure that prevents centralized tyranny.

Scot Faulkner was the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives. Earlier, he served on the White House staff. He is Vice President of the George Washington Institute of Living Ethics at Shepherd University and the President of Friends of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Raúl Rodríguez

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 56 – 65 of this edition of Democracy in America, and stops at the heading “On The County In New England.”

De Tocqueville’s study of townships in America is justly famous. He allows Americans to have pride in where they come from and in their history. He champions the idea of local civic participation and shows how it is a core element of American prosperity. The town, he tells us, is the key to understanding what true freedom is and fostering it in a democracy. This is a bold claim. Let us see what de Tocqueville has to teach us.

De Tocqueville states that one must look at the individual states prior to looking at the national government to understand America. De Tocqueville recognizes that the United States has a unique constitution that grants political power to states and the national government. The federal character of the US Constitution is one of the strengths of America. This virtue of America is better understood by examining not only the states, but also the towns and counties that make up the state. The local character of America, we will learn, gives America vitality and fosters freedom.

De Tocqueville memorably states that townships are “the sole association that is so much in nature that everywhere men are gathered, a township forms by itself.” Because towns are so natural, they exist in all societies. The town, he even declares, “appears to issue directly from the hands of God.” Despite the natural, or providential, character of towns, “the freedom of a township is a rare and fragile thing.” Town liberty requires citizens to come together and to fix their own problems. The difficulty with this is that towns often make mistakes. A large and sophisticated country “tolerates only with difficulty the trials of freedom in a township.” The authority overseeing a town often thinks that it can govern in a faster and more efficient way. As a result, town liberty is vulnerable to “the invasions of power”” (57). Town liberty, in other words, does not last long. What is amazing is that in America, town liberty still existed when de Tocqueville visited and he had reason to believe that it could possibly be maintained, albeit with considerable effort.

Rather than disparage the dysfunctional and provincial character of local towns, de Tocqueville praises them. De Tocqueville agrees that a centralized nation can sometimes get things done faster, but such a nation loses the spirit of liberty. There is something about liberty that requires small, local action by citizens. He memorably tells the reader that towns prepare citizens to be truly free:

“The institutions of a township are to freedom what primary schools are to science; they put it within reach of the people; they make them taste its peaceful employ and habituate them to making use of it. Without the institutions of a township a nation can give itself a free government, but it does not have the spirit of freedom” (57-58).

Freedom is not easy—it requires apprenticeship. Towns provide citizens with an opportunity to practice being free. Localism is a key ingredient to freedom.

The New England Township is elevated as a paragon of liberty. Numbering between two and three thousand inhabitants, New England is the epitome of local political action. De Tocqueville says that “the law of representation is not accepted” in the New England township. Citizens are their own masters and they unite to rule over themselves. This pure form of local freedom is unheard of in Europe and most of the world, de Tocqueville tells us. Ordinarily, citizens see problems, but have no power to fix them. In the township, citizens see a problem, come together to discuss the problem and to vote on how to fix it immediately. This fact of the township teaches citizens how to be powerful and independent. To be free means to have the power and independence to take action.

In the cosmopolitan world that we now live in, it can be hard to see the virtue of local towns. De Tocqueville helps us have a new perspective. He challenges us to reexamine, to rethink, what it means to be free. For de Tocqueville, freedom is not simply the right to do whatever you want, but the ability to take action with our fellow citizens to accomplish something good. By vindicating town life, de Tocqueville provides us with a practical means by which to learn and practice civic freedom. He also gives us a warning—local liberty is hard to keep. If citizens allow local decisions to be taken out of their hands, they may never get it back. Actively participating in town governance can be annoying and tiresome, but we should be wary of giving it up for the sake of convenience. Freedom requires vigilance, and even mistakes. Our small towns provide us with a space to practice the art of being free. De Tocqueville admonishes us: Return to your local communities—you will find freedom there!

Raúl Rodríguez is an Assistant Professor in the School of Civic Leadership at the University of Texas at Austin. He received his Ph.D. at the University of Notre Dame and his B.A. at Furman University. Dr. Rodríguez’s research and teaching focus on the classic texts of political philosophy and constitutional studies. His current book project is titled Redeeming Democracy: Tocqueville’s New Liberalism.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Charles Hurt

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references page 65 (starting at the heading “On The County In New England”) through page 79 (stop at heading “On The State”) of this edition of Democracy in America.

Anyone who has worked as a reporter for newspapers — from small town weeklies to big city dailies — can tell you that few things are more boring than the civic affairs of a tiny New England township. It’s existence, one might say, is “obscure and tranquil.” Yet, curiously, it is also the object of “lively affections” from the citizens who inhabit the township. We are reminded of this intense pride over a township’s mundane civic obligations every four years when the dutiful people of Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, trundle out into the deep snows near the remote Canadian border at midnight on a Tuesday to cast and count the first half dozen or so ballots in the nation’s presidential primary. It’s an affair bursting with so much pride among the townspeople as to seem like a Taylor Swift concert — even compared to that always show-boating Punxsutawney Phil predicting the end of spring down near Young Township closer to the end of winter in balmy Pennsylvania. To the outside cynic, the voters of Dixville Notch very often get it wrong and never has a primary come down to those first six or 11 votes cast by those hardy citizens. Yet the townspeople of Dixville Notch are undaunted and persevere every four years as if the life of the Republic depended upon it.

Because it does.

The “obscure and tranquil” nature of the New England township — and the “lively affections” inspired among its citizens — caught the jealous attention of French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville when he traveled to America in 1831 to study this budding new Republic. He was in awe of such curious behavior as if he were an explorer on a safari observing strange, new wild animals in their native habitat.

“The township is the hearth around which the interests and affections of men come to gather,” he observed.

Coming from a continent of aristocratic bloodlines, 1000-year religious wars, feudal fiefdoms and kingly realms with bejeweled crowns and walled cities, de Tocqueville considered this New England township in America a truly strange creature. What was the source of cohesion among its citizens? From where did such intense pride spring? How did they know what to do? Where was the castle? It is worth noting that many of these townships predated the republic to a time when they were remote, unwalled outposts in a vast kingdom loosely governed by a king whose palace was an ocean away. Even then, they were kind of on their own. While they were taxed by the king and had fealty to him, they were entirely on their own when it came to finding practical solutions to the very real problems they faced in daily civic life. It was this very whiff of practical independence that would become the wind that fueled the wildfire of freedom on the American continent.

“The revolution in the United States was produced by a mature and reflective taste for freedom, and not by a vague and indefinite instinct of independence,” de Tocqueville observed. “It was not supported by passions of disorder; but, on the contrary, it advanced with a love of order and legality.”

In the plain New England township, titles were loathed. Instead of Lords and Dukes, the officers of the township are called “justice of the peace” and “selectman.” Degrees in received wisdom were viewed with special suspicion.

“The justice of the peace is an enlightened citizen, but who is not necessarily versed in knowledge of the law,” de Tocqueville noted. “So they charge him only with keeping the order of society, a thing that demands more good sense and rectitude than science.”

The justice of the peace and the selectman is stripped of all “aristocratic character,” he writes.

In particular, de Tocqueville was struck by the “primitive” nature of the township and the “practical” matters so dutifully taken up by regular townspeople. If a road or a bridge washed out, who would fix it? Certainly not a king in some faraway land of fairy tales. The road had to be fixed and fixed fast so that the farmer could get his grain to the miller’s grist mill on the far side of the stream so that bread could be made so that the people of the township could eat. It was that simple. Practical self-interest was the social compact. Certainly, high ideals such as independence, life and liberty were sacred in the new Republic. But those principles alone would ultimately perish if all the townspeople starved to death. In the old country, governments and kings were forever justifying their existence and brutally confirming their authority. In this strange new country fueled by human nature and reigned by self-determination, government was a lowly affair entirely justified by its ability to ensure basic freedoms while solving practical problems that would clear the path to prosperity for the townspeople.

“In the bosom of the profound peace and material prosperity that reign in America, the storms of municipal life are few,” de Tocqueville wrote.

Obscure and tranquil? Yes. Even boring? Perhaps. But free.

Charles Hurt

Charles Hurt is the Opinion Editor and a columnist for The Washington Times. Often seen as a Fox News contributor on the cable network’s signature evening news roundtable, Mr. Hurt in his 20-year career has worked his way up from a beat reporter for the Detroit News and Washington correspondent for the Charlotte Observer before joining The Washington Times in 2003. He later served as D.C. bureau chief and White House correspondent for the New York Post and editor at the Drudge Report.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references start at the chapter four heading on page 53 and goes through page 55 of this edition of Democracy in America.

Alexis de Tocqueville’s seminal work, Democracy in America, offers a profound examination of the American political system, with particular emphasis on the principle of the sovereignty of the people. In Volume 1, Part 1, Chapter 4, de Tocqueville explores how this principle functions in the United States, attributing much of its success to the decentralized nature of American government, particularly through the institution of townships.

De Tocqueville identifies townships as the foundational units of American democracy, embodying the principle of the sovereignty of the people. He describes them as independent entities endowed with significant local autonomy, handling functions such as tax collection, school management, and road maintenance. This level of local governance contrasts sharply with the centralized administration prevalent in France, where the state manages most functions.

The autonomy of American townships, according to de Tocqueville, fosters widespread civic participation. He notes that almost every citizen is involved in some aspect of local governance, which serves as an essential educational tool. Through active participation in township affairs, citizens practice self-governance, develop a deeper understanding of their rights, and cultivate a sense of public spirit. This civic engagement strengthens democratic institutions from the ground up, reinforcing the principle of popular sovereignty.

Thomas Jefferson, one of the foremost advocates for states’ rights and local governance, argued for the devolution of power to states and localities within America’s federal system. Jefferson believed that the best government is one that is closest to the people, where citizens have the most direct control over their affairs. He saw local governance as a means to educate and engage citizens in the political process, thereby fostering a more vibrant and resilient democracy.

Jefferson’s vision aligns with de Tocqueville’s observations on the role of townships. By decentralizing power and granting autonomy to local governments, the American system ensures that citizens are not merely subjects of distant authorities but active participants in their governance. This decentralization, or dual sovereignty, creates a balance between national and local interests, promoting liberty and preventing the concentration of power.

The principle of federalism, which underpins the American political system, involves the distribution of power between the national government and the states. This diffusion of power is crucial in securing individual liberties. The 1992 Supreme Court case, New York vs United States, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor highlighted this aspect of federalism, stating that “Federalism secures to individuals the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.” This case underscored the importance of maintaining a balance between centralized authority and local autonomy to protect individual freedoms.

In de Tocqueville’s analysis, the sovereignty of the people is most evident in the functioning of townships. These local units of government embody the principle of subsidiarity, where decisions are made at the most immediate level possible, thus promoting individual freedom and responsibility. The townships’ ability to manage their own affairs without excessive interference from higher levels of government exemplifies this diffusion of power.

De Tocqueville emphasizes the educational role of townships in American democracy. By engaging in local governance, citizens learn the practicalities of democratic participation. They develop skills in deliberation, negotiation, and decision-making, which are essential for the functioning of a healthy democracy. This hands-on experience in governance is invaluable in cultivating informed and active citizens.

Moreover, de Tocqueville observes that the local independence of townships nurtures a strong sense of community and public spirit. Unlike the centralized bureaucratic systems in Europe, where citizens often feel detached from their government, American townships foster a direct connection between the people and their representatives. This connection enhances accountability and responsiveness, further reinforcing the principle of popular sovereignty.

De Tocqueville contrasts the decentralized township system with the highly centralized administration in France, highlighting the benefits of the American approach. In France, the central government’s extensive control over local affairs stifles civic participation and inhibits the development of local leadership. In contrast, the American township system encourages local initiative and responsibility, creating a dynamic and participatory political culture.

This decentralization serves as a counterweight to potential abuses of power by the central government. By distributing authority across multiple levels of government, the American system prevents the concentration of power in a single entity, thus safeguarding individual liberties. This balance is essential for the maintenance of a free and democratic society.

The principle of the sovereignty of the people in America is intricately linked to the role of townships in the nation’s federal system. De Tocqueville’s observations highlight the significance of local autonomy and civic participation in fostering a vibrant democracy. Through the devolution of power, as advocated by Thomas Jefferson, and the diffusion of sovereign power emphasized in the New York vs United States case, the American system of federalism secures individual liberties and promotes active citizenship.

Townships, as the foundational units of American democracy, provide a practical and effective means for citizens to engage in self-governance. This decentralized approach not only enhances local governance but also serves as a critical educational tool, preparing citizens for broader political participation. Ultimately, the success and stability of American democracy rest on this delicate balance between local autonomy and centralized authority, ensuring that the sovereignty of the people remains at the heart of the nation’s political system.

Andrew Langer is a long-time contributor to Constituting America’s annual studies on the Constitution.  Currently, he serves as Director of the Center for Regulatory Freedom at the CPAC Foundation, as well as the host of several podcasts, including the Federal Newswire’s “Lunch Hour” podcast and “Andrew and Jerry Save the World.”. For nearly a decade, he was the host on WBAL Newsradio 1090 in Baltimore, and still fills-in regularly for radio shows across the country.  A graduate of William & Mary with a degree in international relations, he has taught regulatory policy at the university level.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

 

Guest Essayist: Joerg Knipprath

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

 

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

 

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 45 (start at chapter 3 heading) – 53 (stop at chapter 4 heading) – of this edition of Democracy in America.

Please leave a comment in the blog below and automatically be entered in our weekly drawing for a free copy of the book!

De Tocqueville long has had the deserved reputation of an insightful early observer of the United States and its people. His discussion of the social condition of Americans and its influence on their personal and political character is a case in point. De Tocqueville uses this chapter as an introduction to a further and more detailed analysis later in the book. Although De Tocqueville’s account is informative and illuminating, one must be conscious of its author’s limitations. In various particulars, his remarks are outdated due to no fault of his, having been overtaken by significant social and technological events. Some are likely incorrect, and yet others reach conclusions more comprehensively explained by other developments. Moreover, as the typical current discussion of historical events sadly demonstrates, it is difficult to rise above one’s own cultural background, biases, and attitudes, for us no less than for De Tocqueville.

De Tocqueville’s main theme in this chapter is the mutually reinforcing relationship of American social conditions, the character trait of seeking equality, and the political tendency in favor of democratic government. To develop that theme, he attributes considerable importance to changes in the law of inheritance at the time of the American Revolution. Indeed, as he describes, American states generally abandoned feudal English practices of entail and primogeniture.

Although this is not an essay on English land law, a very brief and, admittedly, superficial foray into the subject is useful. Entail allowed “dead-hand control” in that a landowner would convey his property (in practice it usually—but  not always—was a male landowner) to someone with the proviso that the recipient could transfer the land only to his kin (usually his issue). That kin could only transfer to their own kin, and so on, within the structure of primogeniture. The entail could keep landed estates within the family and preserve the family’s land based status.

Primogeniture required that, in general, the entire landed estate went to the eldest son. If there was no son, a more curtailed estate would go to any daughters. Those daughters’ interests then would go to their eldest sons. This system helped to prevent estates from being broken up into undesirably smaller parcels over time. However, as De Tocqueville points out, it also fostered economic inequality among family members and social inequality between the great landed nobility and the rest of society, including the emerging commercial bourgeoisie. At the same time, primogeniture had the—probably unintended—consequence of pushing the younger sons of the nobility into the military, the legal profession, or the church. Much of England’s imperial success was engineered by those who were deprived by primogeniture of inherited landed wealth.

Complex interrelated changes in European society gradually produced an economically powerful and politically restive commercial elite. Money and trade became the focus of enterprise and wealth. With the decline of feudalism, land became more commodified. Entail and primogeniture survived in some relic form in England into the 20th century. However, they already had lost their vitality long before De Tocqueville wrote, due to changed social conditions and through the creativity of English lawyers.

Attempts to plant the English law of land tenures in American colonies occurred but fell on inhospitable soil. Not all colonies were initiated by English noblemen. Even within the proprietary colonies, the authority of the lords proprietor was challenged almost from the beginning by the settlers who, whether farmers, merchants, artisans, or mechanics, represented a broad middle class and who did  not shy from using their numbers and their taxes for political leverage. Moreover, the English families mostly remained in the old country, several thousand miles  across the ocean. There arose some economically and politically powerful American families of Dutch descent in New York and English descent in Virginia  and other Southern and Border states. But, as De Tocqueville acknowledges, “So, therefore, in our day in America the aristocratic element, always weak since its birth, is, if not destroyed, at least weakened, so that it is difficult to assign it any influence whatsoever in the course of affairs.”

Finally, the North American colonies had an abundance of something that England lacked by comparison, land. As long as people could move freely across the next ridge of mountains, neither entail nor primogeniture was a barrier to land acquisition and to wealth and status. In short, while De Tocqueville’s thesis about the intimate connection and critical causal relationship between the abolition of such land law doctrines and the development of American democratic character is interesting, there may be less to it than he claims. It might be more accurate to state  that the republican nature of American post-Revolutionary War politics and the resulting constitutional realignment made it easier for state legislatures to sweep away anachronistic legal doctrines.

With those disclaimers, many of his observations and conclusions are worth contemplating, both for their general validity and their continued specific relevance to current American social conditions and political structure. “In order to know the legislation and mores a people, one must therefore begin by studying its social state.” So much has been a common staple of anthropology and political philosophy for millennia. Plato’s exploration of the relationship between the nature or soul of the individual and that of the community comes to mind. Aristotle’s  argument in favor of the social conditions provided within the Greek polis as best conducing to human flourishing is another example. Baron de Montesquieu added climate and ecology to the factors determining the character of a people and their  customs and laws, while his premise of the importance of a people’s social condition to their political system matched that of his countryman.

Ordinary law, including legislation, is most effective when it arises organically from the habits of the people and responds to the community’s felt  needs of the times. Law imposed from the top and used instrumentally to achieve a “good” community envisioned by a self-proclaimed enlightened elite and their clerisy is less likely to account for the full range and nuance of the community’s social condition. At the level of a political constitution, the study of a people’s social condition must take into account historical influences and cultural predispositions beyond what might be needed for ordinary civil or criminal law.

De Tocqueville generally views the American emphasis on equality as a commendable trait. Equality is at the heart of an eminently democratic American  political structure, as he describes it. There is relative economic equality, not due  to a lack of wealthy individuals, reticence about the love of money, or commitment to the permanent equality of property. Rather, there is economic mobility. “In  America most of the rich have begun by being poor,” and “fortune turns there with  incredible rapidity and experience teaches that it is rare to see two generations  collect its favors.

This is an important factor for republican government. A broad middle class,  constituted of farmers, merchants, artisans, and mechanics, was the focus of  republican theory from ancient Greece to the American founding. Through its  stabilizing influence on the inherent contentiousness of factional political  competition, a broad property-owning middle class as an engine for general  prosperity and maintenance of so-called bourgeois values and morals is a critical  factor for success and longevity of a republic. The current unease about wealth  inequality reflects in part a concern about its effect on the essence of our political  system, self-government. However, wealth inequality is natural in an advanced  technological society based on knowledge. We are not a nomadic hunter-gatherer  society. It is not wealth inequality as such that is the problem, it is whether or not  there is sufficient economic mobility to avoid multi-generational economic and,  ultimately, political stratification.

This cultural devotion to the principle of equality is generally beneficial. It provides the incentive to be economically productive and successful. In education, few are illiterate. “Men show themselves to be more equal in their fortunes and their intelligence … than in any country in the world and than they have been in any century of which history keeps a memory.” On the political side, equality promotes democratic sentiment and political fluidity. “This passion tends to elevate the small to the rank of the great ….”

De Tocqueville acknowledges that there is also a dark side to equality and the democratic principle. He appears to have taken to heart Plato’s lessons in The Republic about the dangers of the democratic man. “[O]ne 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.” This tendency, rooted in envy, is certainly not unknown today.

As to the political danger, “when citizens are all nearly equal, it becomes difficult for them to defend their independence against the aggressions of power…. People can therefore draw two great political consequences from the same social state [maintaining popular sovereignty or succumbing to absolute power of one ruler];…” He concludes, “The first to be submitted to the formidable alternative  that I have just described, the Anglo-Americans have been happy enough to escape  absolute power.” But the danger is always present, and, if Plato is to be believed, the same social and political characteristics that lead to increased equality and  democracy have inherent flaws which ultimately lead to tyrannical government.

De Tocqueville avers that the cause for Americans’ success up to that point was their circumstances (presumably overall prosperity and wide-spread property ownership), origin (presumably deeply ingrained cultural influences), enlightenment (comparatively wide-spread literacy), “and above all mores ….” If  De Tocqueville was correct in at least the core of his analysis of the social condition of the dominant Anglo-American population of the United States in the  mid-19th century, one must now confront two difficult questions. To what extent do the social and economic conditions he saw as critical pre-requisites for self government and popular sovereignty within a republican system still exist? If they have become eroded and resulted in (or are the result of) more systemic economic stratification, less connection to cultural influences that previously defined American republicanism, and collapse of traditional morals, can these deficiencies be mitigated and the alternative tendency to tyranny be avoided?

 

An expert on constitutional law, and member of the Southwestern Law School faculty, Professor Joerg W. Knipprath has been interviewed by print and broadcast media on a number of related topics ranging from recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions to presidential succession. He has written opinion pieces and articles on business and securities law as well as constitutional issues, and has focused his more recent research on the effect of judicial review  on the evolution of constitutional law. He has also spoken on business law and contemporary constitutional issues before  professional and community forums, and serves as a Constituting America Fellow.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Guest Essayist: Tony Williams

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages  27 (start at chapter 2 heading) – 45 (stop at chapter 3 heading) – of this edition of Democracy in America.

Please leave a comment in the blog below and automatically be entered in our weekly drawing for a free copy of the book!

Alexis De Tocqueville was a French traveler who produced one of the most discerning observations about American democracy ever written. His discussion of the Puritan origins of American democracy is ample proof of his keen understanding. In De Tocqueville’s view, the Puritans made profound contributions to civil and religious liberty in what he terms, “the first age of the American republics.”

De Tocqueville acknowledges that the English tradition of rights in the Magna  Carta was important to the colonists’ attachment to rights, freedoms, and the rule of law that were a ““fertile seed of free institutions.” But, whatever their country of origin, they experienced common hardships settling North America that promoted equality instead of European feudal aristocracy. While De Tocqueville briefly discusses the South and argues that slavery bred a character of haughtiness and extremes of luxury and poverty:

Slavery as we shall explain later, dishonors work; it introduces idleness into society, and with it, ignorance and haughtiness, poverty and luxury. It enervates the forces of the intellect and puts human activity to sleep. The influence of slavery, combined with the English character, explains the mores and social state of the South.

He focuses on the Puritan democracy that shaped the American character and self rule.

De Tocqueville sees several defining characteristics of Puritan democracy that supported religious and civil liberty. The Pilgrims, he notes, sought to escape persecution and enjoy religious freedom to worship God as they pleased. Importantly, they settled as middle-class families who were the backbone of a society that valued family, order, and morality.

In addition, one of the first things the Pilgrims did in the New World was to agree to a political covenant establishing the rule of law. The Mayflower Compact created a civil body politic to create “just and equal laws” in support of the common good. The towns of New England formed democracies in which the people were sovereign and “name their magistrates…[and] give themselves laws.”

In their democratic town meetings, the sovereign people voted and participated in public affairs, enjoyed individual freedom, and consented to taxes. They served in local public offices that served the needs of the community. The citizens formed strong attachments to their community and were habituated in their rights, duties, and morals.

One of the main pillars of strong, democratic New England towns was the great emphasis upon education. Townspeople paid taxes to support public schools. De Tocqueville correctly observes that the Puritans were a people of the Book who valued education and encouraged literacy to read Scripture. “It is religion that leads to enlightenment,” he wrote.

De Tocqueville argues that New Englanders clearly demonstrated the close ties of “the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom” that “lend each other a mutual support.” Importantly, he states that Puritanism provided a natural law framework for liberty under law rather than licentiousness.

While he does not directly address the rich tradition of Protestant resistance theory that was similar to and predating the Enlightenment ideas of John Locke, De Tocqueville believes that Puritan covenant theology supported an understanding of civil liberty that the Founders would have understood. The Puritans believed that  the Creator was the source of natural rights. A just government supported a rule of  law and a moral society that protected the rights granted by the divine.

De Tocqueville concludes the chapter with an exploration of national character. He states that the English tradition of liberty obviously influenced colonial political ideas and practice, but he offers a rather bold assertion that in understanding the  American founding, “one ought therefore to distinguish carefully what is of Puritan origin or of English origin.” The tenor of the chapter is that one should not  underestimate just how important the Puritans were to shaping American democracy.

Tony Williams is a Senior Fellow at the Bill of Rights Institute and is the  author of six books including Washington and Hamilton: The Alliance that  Forged America, with Stephen Knott. Williams is currently writing a book on the Declaration of Independence.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 3 – 27 of this edition of Democracy in America, and stops at the Chapter 2 heading.

Please leave a comment in the blog below and automatically be entered in our weekly drawing for a free copy of the book!

In 1831, Alexis De Tocqueville came to America, sent by France to investigate the United States of America’s prison system. De Tocqueville does that and much more in his incredible, sprawling book that provides his impressions of democracy in North America.

De Tocqueville addresses in the first volume and part and chapter the majestic, sprawling geography of the United States. He refers to the “external configuration” of North America. De Tocqueville refers to the “methodical order” that separates land and water, with two vast regions divided. He notes the two great mountain ranges that separate the regions, one being the Alleghenies in the east, and the other the Rocky Mountains in the west.

In between the two mountain ranges is the “Father of Waters, or the Mississippi.” The valley watered by the Mississippi River “dispenses good and evil at will, and in that it is like the god”. De Tocqueville notes that the waters are responsible for the country’s sterility and abundance. He was very impressed with the Mississippi Valley, making the following glowing attribution:

“The Mississippi Valley is, all in all, the most magnificent dwelling that God has ever prepared for the habitation of man, and nonetheless one can say that it still forms only a vast wilderness.”

De Tocqueville would be pleased, one would think, if he could jump ahead almost 100 years to the present and see that the wilderness is no more.

Turning to the territory that is east of the Alleghenies and west of the Atlantic Ocean, De Tocqueville characterizes that part as “a long band of rocks and sand that the sea, in retreating, seems to have forgotten.” The small territory, 100 miles wide and 900 miles long, did not lend itself to ideal or easy farming. This land De Tocqueville describes was “on that inhospitable coast” where “were born and grew the English colonies that were day to become the United States of America”. When one reads and ponders that statement, one realizes how incredible it is that those colonies became the base for this great nation of ours, which spans beyond the Rockies to the west coast and beyond.

In this first part, De Tocqueville speaks much of the Native Americans and contemplates the first European settlers’ arriving to the new place. He writes of the time before the Europeans came to our shores and the inhabitants:

He speaks of the Indians as “equal and free.” He contemplates the “landing on the shores of North America” by Europeans having little impression on the natives, as “their presence gave rise neither to envy or fear.”

“Mild and hospitable in peace, pitiless in war, even beyond the known boundaries of human ferocity, the Indian would expose himself to die of hunger in order to assist the stranger who knocked at the door of his hut in the night ….. The most famous ancient republics had never admired a firmer courage, prouder souls, a more intractable love of independence than was hiding in the wild woods of the New World.”

“The Indian knew how to live without needs, to suffer without complaining, to die singing. ….they adored God, the creator of the universe. Their notions on great intellectual truths were generally simple and philosophical.”

De Tocqueville in this chapter identifies the resources and the bountifulness of the United States and provides reasons why the nation he wrote so much about was in the position it was, even before the Industrial Revolution that was soon to come.

In closing chapter 1, De Tocqueville sets up the overall premise of his book, the democracy he experienced.

He wrote, “It was there that civilized men were to try to build a society on new foundations, and applying for the first time theories until then unknown or reputed inapplicable, they were going to give the world a spectacle for which the history of the past had not prepared it.”

Much of what De Tocqueville wrote has weathered two hundred years and gone through massive changes, yet his views on the exterior lands is amazing and somewhat forecasting, as the map and America he explored in 1831 was not the sea to shining sea nation we live in today.

Daniel A. Cotter is Attorney and Counselor at Dickinson Wright PLLC. Dan focuses his practices in a variety of areas of corporate law and litigation, including insurance law, complex business disputes and counseling, employment law, corporate transactions, corporate governance and compliance, and cybersecurity and privacy law. Dan was an adjunct professor at The John Marshall Law School, and has taught Insurance Law, Accounting for Lawyers and SCOTUS Judicial Biography. Dan graduated summa cum laude from The John Marshall Law School and received his B.A. in Accounting from Monmouth College, magna cum laude. Dan is a frequent writer and presenter on various topics, including the nation’s history and the Supreme Court, and in 2019, his book, “The Chief Justices,” was published.”

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked. 

Guest Essayist, Pete Peterson, Dean of the Pepperdine School of Public Policy

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Leave a comment in the blog below and automatically be entered in our weekly drawing for a free copy of the book!

In the introduction to their translation of Alexis De Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, the renowned Harvard historian, Harvey Mansfield, and his late wife, Delba Winthrop, describe the volume as “at once the best book ever written on democracy and the best book ever written on America.” Though written almost two centuries ago, the book’s insights on American culture and exceptionalism could not be more timely. Though coming in at 700+ pages in the Mansfield/Winthrop edited edition, it’s well worth an investment of time and study by every American.

Alexis De Tocqueville was a French aristocrat and government official who landed in the United States in 1831 with his friend, Gustave de Beaumont, ostensibly to study America’s prison system, but his plans soon change as he encounters a culture so different than his own. In the first paragraph of the book, De Tocqueville lays the foundation for his overarching argument about the country’s exceptional nature by declaring that what struck him most about America in those first few days of the visit was the “equality of conditions”. He goes on to argue that “this enormous influence this primary fact exerts on the course of society; it gives a certain direction to public spirit, a certain turn to the laws…and particular habits to the governed.” By “equality of conditions”, De Tocqueville did not mean to say that everyone lived in equal circumstances, but something closer to “equality of opportunity.”

From this firm foundation, De Tocqueville perceives the major cultural factor (what he calls “mores”) that appears to be necessary to support a country where equal opportunity reigned as the central economic dynamic. He quickly discovers that Americans hold to a doctrine he calls “self-interest rightly understood” – a worldview that dictates a certain degree of reliance on neighbors and community in order to accomplish tasks ranging from building churches to roadways. Remember, at this stage in America’s history, the federal government had little power to determine local affairs. As De Tocqueville writes, “they show with complacency how an enlightened regard for themselves constantly prompts them to assist each other, and inclines them willingly to sacrifice a portion of their time and property,” for the common good.

Comparing with his native Europe, De Tocqueville is also shocked to see religion and government mix in a way that’s actually beneficial rather than a source of bloody conflict. Unlike Europe, America did not have a national religion, but ironically, this contributed to a flourishing of faith in the country. From developing Americans’ political skills by serving in local church administrative councils, to working with faith-based nonprofits, De Tocqueville concludes, “Religion, which, among Americans, never mixes directly in the government of society should therefore be considered as the first of their political institutions; for if it does not give them the taste for freedom, it singularly facilitates their use of it.”

This willingness of Americans to collaborate through nonprofit and ad hoc civic organizations is what De Tocqueville describes as “associativeness”, and it’s a major distinction between this burgeoning republic and Europe. From temperance associations to foreign missionary support organizations, De Tocqueville sees Americans put their faith into action even as they respond to local needs that would have been the purview of government in Europe. He observes, “Everywhere that, at the head of a new undertaking, you see the government in France and a great lord in England, count on it that you will perceive an association in the United States.”

As we conclude our whirlwind review of Democracy in America, it’s worth noting that De Tocqueville’s last chapters in the book can be seen as prophetic in describing the future of American (and other democracies’) society. It’s not an optimistic perspective, and one grounded in the Frenchman’s belief that with the increasing wealth he foresees coming to this country, Americans will gradually withdraw from their associations, their faith, and the community-spirit. De Tocqueville looks to the future: “There is, in fact, a very perilous passage in the life of democratic peoples. When the taste for material enjoyments develops in one of these peoples more rapidly than enlightenment and the habits of freedom.”

De Tocqueville fears that as Americans earn the material benefits of freedom, they will look to government not to protect our liberties, but to protect our “stuff”. He describes this dynamic: “each of them desires that it [central government] aid him as an exception in the special affair that reoccupies him, and he seeks to attract the action of the government to his side, all the while wanting to shrink it for everyone else.”

It is here where De Tocqueville wonders whether the “self-interest rightly understood”, which drew Americans into civil society and community would become “self-interest wrongly understood”- a selfishness and withdrawal from the public square. For future leaders, De Tocqueville sees that “individual independence and local liberties will always be the product of art.” Are we seeing these trendlines today? I think these concerns, and the importance of citizen engagement are vital to consider during this election year, and beyond.

Pete Peterson is the Braun Family Dean’s Chair of Pepperdine University’s School of Public Policy. Prior to that he was the executive director of the School’s Davenport Institute, which trains local government officials to improve their public meeting processes. Pete speaks and writes widely on civic participation, viewpoint diversity in higher education, and the increasing role of technology in local government.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.