This paper delves deep into how the
American States and the federal government would grow politically and
socially under the umbrella of democracy. He sees the United States as a
unique entity because of how and why it started as well as its geographical
location. De Tocqueville explains that the foundations of the democratic
process in America are completely different from anywhere else on the globe.
The land was virginal and the colonies had almost complete sovereignty from
England from the very beginning because they were separated by an ocean and
financial troubles. The people who came to America were the oppressed and
unhappy in England and all were trying to find a place where they could
start anew and create a political structure that would facilitate an
individual freedom unlike anything that they had previously experienced in
Europe. De Tocqueville believed that the nature of democracy in the New
World rested within the fact that all of the emigrants were basically from
the same social strata, resulting in the first new country where there was
no preliminary basis for an aristocracy. "Land is the basis of an
aristocracy…and… [in America] when the ground was prepared, its produce was
found to be insufficient to enrich a proprietor and a farmer at the same t
ime(41)." He saw that even the soil of America was opposed to the
structure of an aristocracy.
There were also outside influences
lending unvoiced support for the creation of this new democracy. Being an
ocean apart from its mother country, who at this time did not have the
financial reserves to oversee its colonies, let the Americans govern
themselves. If they had not had this sovereignty at the beginning America
might have become something completely different than it is today, but that
was not the case, so these emigrants now had a fertile place to plant their
ideas of a country founded upon the many ideas of the Enlightenment. Another
large influence was the lack of neighbors. America had no worries of
guarding and protecting its borders because there was not anyone there who
could pose a threat. They could put all of their energies toward the
creation of their democracy. This democratic nation was to have no
aristocracy and only one major division between its people: the North and
the South. De Tocqueville saw two very different attitudes in these regions.
The North and the South had conflicting views as to how they were going to
advance themselves in the economic and political arenas. But the
introduction of slavery into labor was the major conflict between the two.
"Slavery…dishonors labor; it introduces idleness into a society, and with
idleness, ignorance and pride, luxury and distress…The influence of slavery,
united to the English character, explains the manners and the social
condition of the Southern States(42)." With the advent of slavery, the South
was creating a class system amongst themselves that would not exist in the
other regions of the States. The few Southern
founders were granted
huge amounts of land with which to work, and instead of diving into the land
themselves like the northerners did with their smaller pieces of land. They
instead bought slaves and would eventually divide the country in a nasty
dispute over their handling of affairs. He realized that the majority of
the influences over public policy were the men in the North. They created
the first public school system that was to be readily accessible to the
majority of the people. The enlightened idea that every man should have
access to knowledge was given exercise in this new nation, creating a highly
learned society, but one that is not very intellectual. Schools teach
specialized skills so that American can enter the work force as soon as
possible, but gloss over any areas that have no value in work. Whereas in
England, the few who do go on towards a higher education are actually being
challenged and forced to expand their minds, higher education in America is
available to many, but it is more specialized and very basic. This unlimited
quantity, limited quality relationship is seem by de Tocqueville as an
inherent part of a democratic society. This is because, "…there is no
class…in which the taste for intellectual pleasures is transmitted with
hereditary fortune and leisure and [wherein] …intellect [is] held in
honor(53)." Democracy is a facilitator of a blended society. The masses
will be very similar in their thinking as well as their actions. America is
a social democracy because the citizens are united by their beliefs and
movements as
well as their political organization and its laws. "In
no country, in world does the law hold so absolute a language as it does in
America; and in no country is the right of applying it vested in so many
hands(63)." Americans give up the idea of complete personal freedom so that
they can obtain and preserve a civil society in which they can live. A
centralized government is one that controls all interests that are common
amongst the nation, whereas a centralized administration deals with the
interests of a small area or community. "These two kinds of centralization
mutually assist and attract each other; but they must not be supposed to be
inseparable(63)." De Tocqueville sees America as having no real centralized
administration but a supreme system of centralized government. This is
states because America only has one legislature in each State that reigns.
He sees this as a great strength as well as its weakest point. Where ever
there is a government that changes power so quickly do to its "subord
inat[ion] to the power of the people(65)" will be susceptible to its
"vigor." The States will be most likely torn apart by their vehemence and
not apathy. In the 1830’s, many of the citizens were very interested in
every turn that this budding country took in the political arena. They saw
criminals as a personal affront and society shunned all who dared to break
the peace. Now, with millions of people who live from the Atlantic to the
Pacific, many views of American politics have changed. Instead of enthusiasm,
apathy has taken over many people. Presidential elections have to most
turn-outs, but
those still do not have 50% turn-out rates. Laziness
has taken over present day America and the society is really hurting because
of it. Crime is rampant and no one seems to care if justice or punishment is
served or not. Many are very disillusioned with the government and think it
is easier to do nothing than to become involved and try to change it. This
is in direct relation to de Tocqueville’s notion that democracies have a
tendency to lose liberty and personal interest as the country grows larger.
Not only with more people are there bound to be more differing ideas, but
more people who share them, creating more voiced dissonance in the political
sphere. This dissonance is glossed over when still in the minority.
"[T]he tyranny of the majority" is one of de Tocqueville’s main concerns
with democratic nations. When a government is run and hindered by the
thoughts of the majority, where do the ideas of the minority fit? When in
elections only 45% of the population votes, and who elects representatives,
how is the majority of the country really represented? The original thought
behind the majority was that the consensus of many would be more informed
and intelligent than of a few. But looking upon the uninformed voting habits
of the public today, is that still the case? De Tocqueville sees the problem
of an oppressive majority and it seems to have come to light in the last few
decades. He views the majority not as an entity unto itself, but as a
conglomeration of single men who might have aspirations other than the
betterment of society. If a lone man has the ability to misuse power, what
changes if a majority has the ability to misuse as well? "Thought is
an invisible and subtle power, that mocks all efforts of tyranny(116)."
Since America is founded upon education that lacks thought, Americans are
facilitating oppressive powers from the very place they are trying to
facilitate freedom and liberty. Original American concepts of democracy are
falling to the wayside, hypocrisy and apathy are taking its place, creating
an even more fertile ground for the majority to gain more power than it
already has. If not careful, the majority will soon be speaking for a very
select group, while the masses will be left out, creating a despotic
government of the past to take over what is now one of the greatest
democracies of the era. In response to Hofstadter’s theory on
anti-intellectualism, De Tocqueville’s vision of American education, or lack
there of, again comes into play. It is not in the nature of America to
strive for excellence. For to do so would be to draw oneself out of the
masses, creating a feeling of distrust and suspicion that would envelop them
wherever they went. In order to feel a common bond with ones' peers,
intellectualism is not the route to take. So as to not alienate oneself, one
must be content to merely be average. Mass media knows this; television was
not created to promote education, it was and is used as an "opiate for the
masses," as Karl Marx once said about anything that would keep people’s
minds off what could potentially be revolutionary ideas. Lives kept mundane
and boring are not a threat to the development and movement of a nation. The
contradictions in American
values are amazing. Liberty is canonized,
yet Americans will give it up so easily if enticed, which is not difficult.
Yet, there is still some element that has kept the country together and away
from the tendency to convert from democratic means to other, more easily
managed ways of govern. This element is adaptable from person to person.
Many are content with the government as it is, as long as they can go about
their lives without interference. Others will whole-heartedly take it as a
personal mission to enter into politics and change the world for the better.
Whatever the case may be, people are easily led away from what is really
important to the lasting of a society, and take their lives on a tangent
route that may leave them satisfied with their mediocre accomplishments, but
might eventually kill off any real progress towards excellence in any genre
of society, even if for the time being, it feels that as a nation, America
is content with itself. De Tocqueville’s ideas of the effects of
democracy on feelings and gender roles are very enlightening. He sees the
lack of class distinctions as to why Americans are immediately friendly with
one another. Since no one person is better than the next, there is no
premise for suspicion of one another. Americans are unaccustomed to a rigid
etiquette, so they are less easily upset by a slight from another person.
Amiable to the end, they will most likely let minor things blow over, and
they will be hard to provoke with breaches in decorum. Americans are very
good-natured for the most part,
and this trait will always make them
a little apart from the rest of the Western societies. De Tocqueville
sees women in America as extremely different from the women in Europe. "…and
she is remarkable rather for purity of manners than for chastity of
mind(234)." He sees American women as worldly and unaffected by the European
naiveté and ignorance. He sees the influence of democracy in every action of
a female. She has none of the rigid social restraints of the Europeans, and
in so, needs to know how to combat her passions herself and not rely on
society to do it for her. American women are self-assured and strong of
opinion. They have an innate ability to be strong and independent while
still respectful of their husbands and fathers. Religion helps in maintaining
constraints on the female population, but democratic societies hold the
woman responsible for herself. De Tocqueville has left no aspect of
American society out of his publication. He rips the American body open and
examines all the things that are inside right down to the bare bones. It is
a little scary to read of ones’ own nation and its culture. To realize that
one’s own life is not how he made it, but of how his ancestors have created
society. Whether it be as to how Americans view their politics, or their
social afflictions, de Tocqueville voices his opinions as to what is
commendable, are conversely, what is wrong with every aspect of America. He
sees America through the eyes of intelligent outsider who has no reason to
make America sound anything
other than it is. He has done a very
thorough job, and his vision of nineteenth century America will surely help
lead America into the twenty-first century with a better definition of
itself.