In his review of Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (Mill, 1835) states that Tocqueville wrote the book not to determine whether democracy shall come, but how to make the best of it when it does” this assessment seems accurate and I will explore it in this essay. In explaining and evaluating why he decided to explore democracy by writing about America I will begin by looking by looking at both Tocqueville’s origins and his life situations and beliefs and then looking at the situation in France at the time Tocqueville made his decision to write Democracy in America and how this influenced him to do so. I will then move onto why he chose America of all the countries in the world to study democracy in throughout the essay and after each section …show more content…
Although I will agree with him about the importance of writing about the possible dangers to maybe help prevent such things from occurring which can still be useful in modern democracies in the current age with America at the time that he visited it being a good case study in both the positives and negatives that democracy can bring and although there were some measures put into to help counteract these negatives in the US such as the US Constitution and the system of checks and
Colonial America’s democracy was a work in progress with democratic and undemocratic features. With features like Individual and Human Rights, Equality, and Limited Government, colonial America was continuously finding new ways to govern a new society. While, some of their strategies were undemocratic and cruel, they realized and fixed it with democratic solutions. Their efforts were enormous, and created the free land of colonial America.
In Democracy in America, Tocqueville distinguishes material and moral differences being the cause, and concludes that states distinguished by slavery are intensifying their hardships. When Tocqueville discusses slavery of the South, one of the first things he mentions is that it originated there. The southern states were the first to receive slaves, and the further north you traveled, the more the number of slaves decreased. This is due to a difference in material need. “The question of slavery was, for masters in the North, a commercial and manufacturing question; in the south, it is a question of life or death.”
Alex de Tocqueville explored aspects of the perplexing American Union Federal system in “From Democracy in America” whilst searching for a successful government style that would eradicate the failing and outdated monarchy of France. de Tocqueville first opens his excerpt by examining the lack of separation of power between head of state and congress, stating how both entities withheld the ability to “use the militias in cases of insurrection or invasion” (From Democracy in America) which consequently caused chaos during the War of 1812. This haphazard policy caused de Tocqueville to question the effectiveness of the federal system because the “absurd and destructive doctrines received not only the sanction of the Governors and the legislature,
They traveled over to America and stayed for nine months to “study” the prisons. However, he accomplished a lot more than what he came here to do. Alexis made quite a few observations about America, these observations will be discussed throughout the paper. One of the many observations Alexis de Tocqueville made during his stay in america is the principle sovereignty of the the people.
Catt explains the history of America’s democracy, political stand and goals through events and quotations of certain presidents. She states, “Abraham Lincoln welded those two axioms into a new one: ‘Ours is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.’” , she states another quote, “Fifty years more passed and the president of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, in a mighty crisis of the nation,
Introduction In the chapter 8 named In Tocqueville’s Footsteps of The Good Citizen, Russell Dalton (2008) strengthens his argument about changing citizenship norms in the United States by comparing with other advanced democratic nations. Dalton (2008, 139) emphasizes how crucial cross-national comparisons are in a national political analysis by quoting the well-known saying of Seymour Martin Lipset, an expert in contemporary chronicler of American society and politics, as “those who know only one country, know no country”. By comparing nineteen advanced industrial democracies with the America, Dalton (2008, 142) determines that there are many similarities as well as differences of norms changes in the United States and in those democratic
Democracy is the foundation of the American government, and its application creates the opportunity of social class intermingling. Albeit in the form of social interaction or working one’s way up the chain of command. The labor standoff between the Homestead workers and management became the tipping point for manners in American democracy. This tipping point resulted in violent altercations, assassination attempts, and ultimately broken spirits. The Homestead strike in the 19th century not only exemplifies how democracy instigated class blending, but also diminished morality.
Tocqueville analyses the success of the American system under the United States Constitution. He states: “…the real weakness of federal governments has almost always been in the exact ratio of their nominal power. Such is not the case in the American Union, in which, as in ordinary governments, the Federal power has the means of enforcing all it is empowered to demand” (Tocqueville 158). Thus, the distinct nature of the American political system arises from the ability of the central government to execute the laws it has produced – a principle of federalism.
Tocqueville was concern about the tyranny of the majority, citing the government of the United States that without some form of checks and balances it could possibly lead to the suppression of the minority. He writes, “What is a majority on its collective capacity, if not an individual with opinions, and usually with interests, contrary to those of another individual, called the minority?” . He is apprehensive about the lack of guarantees against tyranny and how to preserve individual freedoms in the United
“I have tried to see not differently but further…”(Tocqueville, 1835) was Alexis de Tocqueville’s conclusion to the introduction of his perennial classic text Democracy in America, and adumbrates to the reader of his modern ideas and observations that were to follow. At the same time, he measures the progress of society through its relationship with equality and liberty. In this paper, I will highlight Tocqueville’s use of equality and liberty to compare the past and the modern, and establish his views on the effects of these concepts with society and each other. Finally, I will put forth that Tocqueville does not favour one concept over the other, but notes the complex relationship between the two and the importance of the co-existence of liberty and equality for a society of people. To begin, let us build the base case to compare with and look the past as defined by Tocqueville, with emphasis on equality and liberty.
De Tocqueville had a discussion on how Americans combat the effects of individualism by free institutions. Individualism is what is need to be understood first. It is common for it to be known as something we can do ourselves; our freedom. This is especially true when talking politically of individuals over a state or government control. Tocqueville says that free constitutions were how American’s brought the idea of individualism.
He puts forward the idea of “freedom of opinion” (Tocqueville 106) and constitutes it as “independence of mind and real freedom of discussion” (Tocqueville 104). Unlike Locke, this stretches far beyond what is done. Tocqueville is careful to differentiate this liberty from the freedom of speech, as this freedom from opinion is more meant to indicate the freedom to follow different paths of thought and not be unfairly judged for it. Once again, it is the majority who suppresses this in Tocqueville’s opinion, as scorn and persecution for unwanted opinions permeate throughout society (Tocqueville 105). Tocqueville’s entanglement of liberty and what is right means that a majority’s limitation of liberty is unjust, while Locke’s concept of liberty means it must necessarily be restrained by a majority in order to protect the principle aim of government, to protect
Alexis de Toqueville, a Frenchman and author of Democracy in America, wrote that he “saw America as 'the image of democracy itself, with its inclinations, its character, its prejudices, and its passions’” (Feller). Toqueville wrote this statement during Andrew Jackson's first presidential term. In the election of 1824, between Jackson and John Quincy Adams, Jackson received the most popular votes and electoral college votes, but he did not acquire the necessary simple majority. As a result, the election was transferred to the House of Representatives where each state would get one vote.
The progressive movement encompassed a variety of different ideas and activities of reformist pressure groups, that called for political reforms attacking bribery and corruption. Progressive reformers were sought to eliminate social reform issues which included poor working conditions, female suffrage, and child labor. They were also sought to delegate power away from the political institutions by entrusting some legislative power to commissions. It is from the initiative and referendum process that placed legislation or constitutional amendments directly before the voters. The initiative did this by circumventing the legislature, relying instead on a petition process to force a vote on a particular issue either in the legislature or by the general process.
De Tocqueville doesn 't view liberty as an attribute part of the democratic era. He believes that the only character that is associated with this era is equality. He explains in his theory that people of this era prize equality over liberty, although he doesn 't deny that democratic people value liberty, because everyone can take part in it and enjoy it effortlessly, as opposed to liberty where you have to "sacrifice" to achieve it (De Tocqueville, 1835). He holds that equality creates individualism, which means people separate themselves from one another, their ancestors and the future generations, that leads to tyranny and despotism. On the contrary, he claims that during the aristocratic ages, people were not selfish and careless about others ' needs because "aristocracy links everybody, from peasant to king" (De Tocqueville, 1835).