Democracy__Self_Destructive_or_What_

Danielle Romero Sociology 250 Nina Eliasoph September 21, 2010 Midterm 1 Prompt 5 Democracy: Self-Destructive or What' In the spring of 1831 Alexis de Tocqueville, a member of the French aristocracy and a son of noble lineage, traveled to the United States to study the prison system. He stayed until February of the next year and studied not only prisons, but all social aspects of American life, including the economic and political systems. One of Tocqueville’s main concerns with the American political system, as outlined in Democracy in America, is that democracy leads to too much individualism and eventually to either a tyranny of the majority or excessive competitive anxiety and greed. He argued that these extremes are both psychologically harmful to the individual as well as socially harmful toward the state and to democracy itself. He did, however, include in his observations that there are some checks to these potential problems, and also a few certain things that can be done to cure extreme individualism and therefore save democracy from destroying itself. Tocqueville first argued that were individualism to become too extreme, people would get caught up in the idea of always letting “majority rule” and eventually the majority would end up dictating the entire state, thus resulting in a tyranny of the majority. He believed that this could happen because there is not enough dissent when it comes to opinionated sources. Tocqueville posed the question, “When a man or a party suffers injustice in the United States, to whom can he turn'” (Tocqueville, 1966: 252). The problem is that all arenas of the government – public opinion, legislative bodies, executive power, police, and juries – are all either directly or indirectly controlled by the majority, and one who is in dissent with the majority can never argue his opinion. Tocqueville believes the preferred “moral authority of the majority” is caused by two reasons, one being, “…based on the notion that there is more enlightenment and wisdom in a numerous assembly than in a single man, and the number of legislators is more important than how they are chosen” and the other, “…founded on the principle that the interest of the greatest number should be preferred to that of those who are fewer” (Tocqueville, 1966: 247). Once the majority is in control of these “socially accepted” beliefs, a member of the minority (or even all of those who are part of the minority) who disagrees will not be properly heard and thus, the conventions stay in place. This ends with the majority controlling everything. Tocqueville described this final situation using the metaphor of an indestructible machine, and when referring to the majority opinion, wrote, “When once its mind is made up on any question, there are, so to say, no obstacles which can retard, much less halt, its progress and give it time to hear the wails of those it crushes as it passes” (Tocqueville, 1966: 248). A tyranny of the majority, Tocqueville argued, could eventually stunt the growth of thought and expression in the United States and even lead to the disintegration of democracy itself. Tocqueville believed that there was, “…no country in which, speaking generally, there is less independence of mind and true freedom of discussion than in America” (Tocqueville, 1966: 254). Because the majority is in control of all spheres of politics, once it took over it could control everything. Someone who wanted to criticize the government would be too scared to be unaccepted or risk his chances of one day holding the coveted title of member of the majority. Tocqueville believed that, “In America the majority has enclosed thought within a formidable fence. A writer is free inside that area, but woe to the man that goes beyond it” (Tocqueville, 1966: 255) and that the man who did cross the boundaries of that fence would be shunned by the majority, outcast as a stranger amongst his own countrymen. Once there is no room for disagreement or alternate opinions, democracy disappears. Tocqueville wrote, “Governments ordinarily break down either through impotence or through tyranny. In the first case power slips from their grasp, whereas in the second it is taken from them” (Tocqueville, 1966: 259). In this case, the tyranny of the majority would take away the freedoms of the people, completely undermining the ideals of democracy that make everyone equal under the law, and result in only the majority making decisions for the entire population. Tocqueville argued that this is possible because there are no protections against this tyranny, and that what he sees as what is, “…most repulsive in America is not the extreme freedom reigning there but the shortage of guarantees against tyranny” (Tocqueville, 1966: 252). Because the majority basically has free reign, anytime it would like to take over the minority, it can do so. Tocqueville’s second issue with the threat of extreme individualism in the American democracy was that it could eventually lead to competitive anxiety and excessive greed amongst American people. He believed that man was never happy with what he had, and was constantly seeking complete “equality,” that is, having just as much stuff as everyone else so that he wasn’t left behind. Tocqueville observed, In America I have seen the freest and best educated of men in circumstances the happiest to be found in the world; yet it seemed to me that a cloud habitually hung on their brow, and they seemed serious and almost sad in the pleasures. The chief reason for this is that… [they] never stop thinking of the good things they have not got (Tocqueville, 1966: 536). The problem Tocqueville found is that basically, men can never enjoy the wonderful pleasures they do have (which in many cases among the affluent are copious) because they are so preoccupied in getting the latest and greatest. In the time that Tocqueville visited America men wanted the nicest furniture, homes, and clothing. America still faces the same problem today just with different material objects; it is now fast cars, new tech gadgets, and expensive jewelry. This leads to man becoming so greedy that he is overcome with competitive nature and the need not to be the best, but to be at least equal to everyone else. A man just needs to have as much as his peers to consider himself worthy or associating with them. This search for complete equality is futile, however. Tocqueville has the reader, “…imagine men who have found a degree of liberty completely satisfactory to them. In that case they will enjoy their independence without anxiety or excitement. But men will never establish an equality which will content them” (Tocqueville, 1966: 537). This constant seeking out can eventually destroy a person, as the need to be as well off or as decorated as everything else, "…fills him with distress, fear, and regret and keeps his mind continually in agitation, so that he is always changing his plans and his abode” (Tocqueville, 1966: 537). Tocqueville believed that a man’s quest for the unattainable (equality in relation to material objects amongst neighbors) will eventually lead to the detriment of man as well as to the detriment of democracy. Tocqueville referenced his native France’s high suicide rate compared to America, and said, “…in America suicide is rare, but I am told that madness is commoner than anywhere else” (Tocqueville, 1966: 538). He believed that eventually a man will be so overcome with the desire to possess, that the man will go crazy when he fails at his task. Even worse, the institution of democracy could suffer from the over competitive and greedy attitudes of these people. Tocqueville wrote, When the taste for physical pleasures has grown more rapidly than either education or experience of free institutions, the time comes when men are carried away and lose control of themselves at the sight of the new good things they are ready to snatch…they find it a tiresome inconvenience to exercise political rights which distract them from industry (Tocqueville, 1966: 540). Tocqueville argued that eventually man would become consumed with getting the next new object and wanting to be better than everyone else. He would not have the time to engage in political matters, express his opinions and solutions to political issues, or exercise any more of his democratic rights. The extreme demise would be that democracy would then fail once everyone had this same sort of apathy as a result of excessive competition, because there would be nobody left to serve as democratic bodies of social opinion. Though he finds the holes in the American fabric of democracy, Tocqueville also offers his solutions – the ideal situations that would make sure that individual psyches and democracy could not suffer because of extreme individualism. His three solutions to ensure that individualism will not get too extreme in a democracy are: the doctrine of self-interest properly understood, the formation of voluntary associations, and the decentralization of government. First, self-interest properly understood gives people perspective, and doesn’t allow them to do things only for their own benefit. Tocqueville described it as, The doctrine of self-interest properly understood does not inspire great sacrifices, but every day it prompts some small ones; by itself it cannot make a man virtuous, but its discipline shapes a lot of orderly, temperate, moderate, careful, and self-controlled citizens. If it does not lead the will directly to virtue, it establishes habits which unconsciously turn it that way (Tocqueville, 1966: 527). Basically, Tocqueville wanted Americans to actually care about their fellow citizens. He wanted them to be willing to make small sacrifices and recognize that these sacrifices were for the good of everyone. He thought that once people stepped out of their bubbles, and realized that by doing things for the benefit of the community rather than for personal benefit, everyone would be better off. Tocqueville also wanted people to communally recognize the problems they faced together, and use self-interest properly understood to seek out solutions for these problems by way of forming voluntary associations. Through these voluntary associations, Tocqueville believed, “A whole crowd of people who might otherwise have lived on their own are taught both to want to combine and how to do so” (Tocqueville, 1966: 521). By working together, people would be able to get so much more accomplished than they would without them. In addition, there is recognition of the person next to you as being an actual person, and not just something to be equal to or compete with. Finally, Tocqueville thought that the decentralization of government and the resulting creation of local governments would make sure that a tyranny of the majority could not emerge from individualism. Tocqueville uses the example that It is difficult to force a man out of himself and get him to take an interest in the affairs of the whole state, for he has little understanding of the way in which the fate of the state can influence his own lot. But if it is a question of taking a road past his property, he sees at once that this small public matter has a bearing on his greatest private interests… (Tocqueville, 1966: 511). Thus, a man is much more likely to involve himself in a local government than in the state or national government. If the national and state governments were to decentralize, then the local governments would be forced to govern their territories and much more interested local citizens would come out to contribute in town meetings, debates, and other such events. This would cure the low participation rate and make sure that the majority (which is usually on the national or state level) could not take over and become a tyranny. Though Tocqueville originally authored Democracy in America almost two centuries ago, his fears and solutions to these fears are still valid in the United States’ modern day government. America, as a representative nation, is still controlled in large part by majority opinion and many Americans are still driven by greed for material possessions and the need to compete with their peers. Americans are also still inclined to form voluntary associations, create local governments, and practice the doctrine of self-interest properly understood. These, arguably combined with other factors of course, are the reasons why the democracy that governs the United States of America has been able to last so long without collapse, and in the two hundred year span since Alexis de Tocqueville’s last visit.