Classics and the Western Canon discussion
This topic is about
Democracy in America
Democracy in America
>
Week 2: DIA Vol 1 Part 1: Ch. 4 - 6
David wrote: "Here we also get another paradox from Tocqueville:Thus, strange to say, the democratic spirit proved most irresistible in states where aristocracy had been most deeply rooted."
I also noticed this passage in the book. For comparison, it was Tory who passed the universal suffrage in the UK. I can not say whether it is a universal principle, but very likely that aristocracy is more willing to give universal suffrage, then who may be called the third estate (I know awful terms but cannot get better).
I am interested - why?
I have got some ideas but am not satisfied with them.
e.g. Aristocrats may feel they can (more) easily control poor then middle-class and expanding suffrage give them an upper hand in the battle with liberals.
P.S. I know that universality of the suffrage is questionable.
Patrice wrote: "isnt it a continuation of noblesse oblige."While Tocqueville does not appear to deny the existence of noblesse oblige he does suggest the prime motivating factors were the opposite of noble generosity towards those less privileged, self-interest, with some self preservation thrown in as well.
Power was, in point of fact, in democracy’s hands. To struggle against it was no longer even allowed. The upper classes therefore submitted without a murmur or a fight to an evil that was now inevitable. What happened to them was what usually happens to powers that fall: individual members of these classes succumbed to self-interest. Since they could no longer wrest power from the hands of the people, and since none of them detested the multitude enough to take pleasure in defying it, their only thought was to win its good will at any price. Those whose interests were most threatened by democratic laws therefore vied with one another to vote for them. Consequently, the upper classes did not arouse popular passions against themselves. . . but they did hasten the triumph of the new order.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. Alexis de Tocqueville: Democracy in America (LOA #147) (Library of America) (pp. 63-64). Library of America. Kindle Edition.
"The American Revolution broke out, and the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people came out of the townships and took possession of the state..." Tocqueville describes the democratic revolution as irresistible, inevitable... almost like an infectious disease for the aristocracy: "...an evil that was now inevitable." Tocqueville seems to think this is the pathology of equality -- it spreads on its own and is difficult to control once it starts. In this chapter he applies this principle to electoral rights; "There is no more invariable rule in the history of society: the further electoral rights are extended, the greater is the need of extending them; for after each concession the strength of the democracy increases, and its demands increase with its strength."
My thoughts on T's thoughts about Administrative Decentralization. Townships were, at this point in time, still mostly homogeneous, isolated, and difficult to get to. Isolation, distance, and difficulty traveling distances all favor autonomy at the local level. I'm not sure the township as the central governing authority was a choice as much as it was a necessity.
People with common beliefs lived together in their own townships apart from groups of different shared beliefs who lived in their townships. This seed was planted right at the beginning -- Puritans (MA), Quakers (PA), Anglicans (VA), Catholics (MD), Dutch (New York) -- and it made governing these townships easier, and the distances between the separate groups kept contact at a minimum. And it made democracy and equality look more egalitarian than it otherwise might have looked.
Years before Protestant sects migrated to the U.S. they governed themselves by assembly and councils. The congregation was the assembly -- self rule. They did not have authoritarian, hierarchical internal governments, but they did live under the rule of external central governing bodies. I don't find it surprising that now that they were living alone and free that they chose a form of government similar to the one they had been practicing internally for years.
The seeds of democracy and equality (among their own kind!!) were already planted in their belief systems and traditions long before they migrated to the U.S. They came to the U.S. with these ideas in mind; they weren't infected by them upon arrival. The vast wilderness, devoid of a central government and with plenty of space to live apart from groups of different beliefs, gave these groups the opportunity to put their beliefs into practice free of interference.
Equality (and democracy?) is easier to practice when those governed are more alike than not and when their belief systems are more alike than not. Perhaps these are the conditions favorable to its germination, but I'm not sure T is seeing any of this, although he has had ample opportunity to do so in his own country.
Democracy and equality of conditions broke out in America because its vastness and its lawlessness provided the environment in which it could do so, and not necessarily because the people were special, or because they were more intelligent, or because they were more equal in intelligence.
Yet there came a time when these separate groups came together, and somehow the center held. And I want to know why? Sure the constitution demands it, but that's a document, and I'm sure it was ignored at the local level whenever it was convenient to do so. I want to know why it worked in practice? Why didn't it fall apart into factions? It certainly had many opportunities to do so.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Why didn't it fall apart into factions? It certainly had many opportunities to do so."Tocqueville offers some suggestions, so far:
. . .the Revolution began to be apparent to all, victory had already declared itself irrevocably in favor of democracy. Power was, in point of fact, in democracy’s hands. To struggle against it was no longer even allowed. . .Beyond these, one can safely assume bonds of common defense and a few ideas T may mention a bit later. One could always imagine, indeed one can see, everyone did not share the feeling of union, but they were not large enough or otherwise capable of pulling it off.
. . .Why, then, does the individual obey society, and what are the natural limits of his obedience? He obeys society, not because he is inferior to those who rule it, or less capable of governing himself than anyone else, but because union with his fellow men seems useful to him, and because he knows that such union cannot exist without a regulatory power. . .
. . .The revolution in the United States was the result of a mature, reflective preference for liberty and not a vague, indefinite instinct for independence. It did not depend on the passions of disorder. On the contrary, it demonstrated love of order and legality as it went forward. In the United States, therefore, it was never claimed that man in a free country has the right to do whatever he pleases. Indeed, the range of social obligations imposed on him was wider than in other countries. The idea was not to attack the power of society at its source and to challenge its rights; instead, people confined themselves to dividing the exercise of that power. In so doing, they wanted to ensure that authority would be great and the official small, so that society would continue to be well regulated and remain free.
Updated to add: Tocqueville will touch on this again in Chapter 8 when he discusses the Federal Constitution. We discuss that chapter next week.
Patrice wrote: ". . .that does seem very protestant to me. the people are the authority and the source"Thanks for adding that. You gave me an "oh duh" moment. I was still missing Tocqueville's reasons for asserting democracy was in line with religion of the colonists. I was stuck on thinking religion being too authoritarian in an overall sense and still struggling with the connection until you you said "protestant", which I used to be until I protested too much for even that group. But they did indeed have quite the independent and decentralizing effect.
I thought that an idea put in Chapter 5 was quite interesting. The idea that political alienation destroys the liberty. I don't know what words is used in english but the main idea is that one.
As David noted, T makes the excellent point that if the judiciary can't rule a law unconstitutional, then the legislature can change it at its whim, essentially by-passing any special rules that exist for altering the text. This judicial safeguard is central to the idea of separation of powers and is what makes a constitution foundational.
Patrice wrote: "didn’t Marbury vs Madison change that in 1803?"IIRC, yes. The Court kind of empowered itself.
Well Article 4, Section two may address it:The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,
Or maybe not.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Well Article 4, Section two may address it:The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,
Or maybe not."
de Tocqueville also noted that even in the case if a court can not declare a law unconstitutional but binds to place the Constitution before the law, it can make unconstitutional law effectually void. As I understand the right to declare laws unconstitutional is reserved to SCOTUS but other courts can only choose to apply the law or not.
So if I understand de Tocqueville, he argues judicial safeguard can function even if courts could not revise the law but the Constitution is still higher than usual laws.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "My thoughts on T's thoughts about Administrative Decentralization. Townships were, at this point in time, still mostly homogeneous, isolated, and difficult to get to. Isolation, distance, and difficulty traveling distances all favor autonomy at the local level. I'm not sure the township as the central governing authority was a choice as much as it was a necessity."
I think you are right and modern centralization is due to the development of transportation and technologies. But as a Russian, I must add that our country has been highly centralised since the beginning of the 18th century though geography and transport infrastructure ' all favor autonomy at the local level'. So it seems de Tocqueville was right to press the role of religion and its tradition of congregational self-governing.
When T. described how New England townships had many magistrates/officials, each having narrow but well defined duties rather than broad and all encompassing duties, he might have been identifying the genesis of what we now call the principle of separation of powers.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "When T. described how New England townships had many magistrates/officials, each having narrow but well defined duties rather than broad and all encompassing duties, he might have been identifying ..."Usually, the principle of separation of powers is attributed to Montesquieu. But I supposed that what de Tocqueville described, magistrates and township offices, came from congregational traditions and medieval cities apparatus. Both characterised by directly elected officials with narrowly defined duties. So it is more about Calvin than Montesquieu, the latter would play a bigger role next week when we will speak about federal constitution
My understanding is that any court in the US can find a law unconstitutional, but that decision is subject to review by a higher court. Only a decision of the Supreme Court is final (unless overturned by a future Supreme Court).
You probably right, I have written what I understood from DiA.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "When T. described how New England townships had many magistrates/officials, each having narrow but well defined duties ..."As a New Englander I can report that town government/town meeting as described by T in Chapter 5 is still alive and kicking in many small New England towns especially in northern New England. This about as close as you can get today to what democracy was in ancient Athens.
When a town becomes too large to have every interested adult resident participate, it changes to a representative town meeting. There can be hundreds of elected town meeting members for tens of thousands of residents. When a town grows into a city, it adopts a more modern city form of government.
It is said of town meetings that the smaller the question, the bigger the controversy. It is not uncommon for town meeting to approve a multi-million dollar school budget with perfunctory discussion, but to passionately dispute a proposal to buy a truck. Town meetings often go on for days and it can be difficult to find residents willing to devote the time it takes to be an active member of town meeting.
Patrice wrote: "this tradition of town meetings really is central to democracy. it reminds me of something a friend said after the arab spring failed. everyone had been so hopeful that democracy could come to the ..."Interestingly, is not it exactly what New Englanders would do? I mean to call for a town meeting.
Here is something to think about for the weekend. I was struck by this paragraph in chapter 5.In general, the towns of New England lead a happy existence. Their government is to their taste as well as of their choice. Amid the profound peace and material prosperity that prevail in America, stormy episodes in municipal life are rare. Management of town interests is easy. The people have long since completed their political education, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they arrived already educated on the land they now occupy. In New England, divisions by rank do not exist, not even as a memory. Hence no portion of the town is tempted to oppress any other portion, and injustices, which affect only isolated individuals, are lost in the general contentment. Though the government is not without defects — indeed, it is easy to point them out — they do not strike the eye, because the government really does emanate from the governed, and as long as it continues to struggle its way forward, it will be protected by a sort of paternal pride. In any case, the people have nothing else to compare it with. England formerly ruled the colonies, but the people always governed local affairs. The sovereignty of the people in the town is therefore not just an ancient state but a primordial one.What are your thoughts on the part in bold in the middle of this paragraph? What is oppression if it is not an expression of inequality? Is Tocqueville too ideal or naive about this point to paint such a rose colored picture here, or not? Is this another argument on the importance of everyone attending those local government meetings? Would better attendance in local government from the ground up make things run more smoothly and fairly overall, or not? Would expression of inequality in a local government meeting continue to get by so easily if more people attended, if you attended?
David wrote: "Here is something to think about for the weekend. I was struck by this paragraph in chapter 5.In general, the towns of New England lead a happy existence. Their government is to their taste as w..."
No doubt there were richer and poorer in AdT's New England towns, but it sounds like they did not think of themselves as belonging to different classes. Everyone had fundamentally the same political rights. Sounds healthy.
Patrice wrote: "...true freedom comes from self governance. reminds me of the saying, the bigger the government the smaller the citizen..."He sounds like a proto-libertarian :)
Some libertarians calls themselves 'classic liberals' or '19th Century liberals.'eta:
Friedrich Hayek's typology of beliefs
Friedrich Hayek identified two different traditions within classical liberalism, namely the British tradition and the French tradition. Hayek saw the British philosophers Bernard Mandeville, David Hume, Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson, Josiah Tucker and William Paley as representative of a tradition that articulated beliefs in empiricism, the common law and in traditions and institutions which had spontaneously evolved but were imperfectly understood. The French tradition included Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Marquis de Condorcet, the Encyclopedists and the Physiocrats. This tradition believed in rationalism and sometimes showed hostility to tradition and religion. Hayek conceded that the national labels did not exactly correspond to those belonging to each tradition since he saw the Frenchmen Montesquieu, Benjamin Constant and Alexis de Tocqueville as belonging to the British tradition and the British Thomas Hobbes, Joseph Priestley, Richard Price and Thomas Paine as belonging to the French tradition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic...
I am surprised Hayek did not come up sooner and in relation to Tocqueville's section in Chapter 5 ON THE POLITICAL EFFECTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECENTRALIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES. Tocqueville describes two form of centralization, governmental and administrative.Governmental Centralization
To concentrate the power to direct [Certain interests, such as the enactment of general laws and relations with foreigners, are common to all parts of the nation] in one place or one pair of hands is to establish what I shall call governmental centralization.
Administrative Centralization
To concentrate the power to direct [interests [that are special to certain parts of the nation: local projects] in the same way is to establish what I shall name administrative centralization.
Tocqueville is of the opinion that a highly centralized governmental administration is pretty much a requirement if a nation is to endure. However, he states governmental centralization is often confused with administrative centralization and seems to suggest a balance must be stuck in the implementation of administrative centralization:
But I think that administrative centralization serves only to sap the strength of nations that are subjected to it, because it steadily weakens their civic spirit. To be sure, administrative centralization can gather all of a nation’s available forces at a specific time and place, but it impedes the reproduction of those forces. It ensures the nation’s victory on the day of battle but over the long run diminishes its might. It can therefore contribute admirably to the passing grandeur of one man but not to the enduring prosperity of an entire people.He then goes on to describe the lack of any centralized administration in America, at the time, and the problems he sees with that, one of which is a lack of organization to deal with national crises. This is where I thought of Hayek would enter the discussion. Hayek would later make his case against the slippery slope of increasing the "administrative" centralization under governmental controls during periods of national crises and never decreasing them again after the crises was over accompanied by the negative effects described by Tocqueville in this section brought about by a loss of "freedom".
Christopher wrote: "Some libertarians calls themselves 'classic liberals' or '19th Century liberals.' ..... Friedrich Hayek's typology of beliefs....."Was listening this morning to the Great Courses lectures on the French Revolution. Am wondering where to place names like Edmund Burke and Jean-Baptiste du Val-de-Grâce (and Nicolas de Condorcet, Olympe de Gouges, Jeremy Bentham, Joseph-Marie, ...).
I also found T’s plea for local self-government (administrative decentralisation) attractive. The grassroots are essential. However …The problems confronting local government today are far more complex than in T’s days. Resulting in larger units and more professionalism - not an environment where the ordinary citizen will feel at home. Moreover, the separation of powers can be poorly implemented on the local level. Transparency, and a critical press, may be weak or lacking.
So, while decentralisation is often presented as a democratic policy, it would seem to me that the health of local government may in fact profit more from a reduction of its tasks than from an extension. Vigorous local politics may than produce a more representative group of citizens able to make the step to a higher level.
David wrote: "Hence no portion of the town is tempted to oppress any other portion, and injustices, which affect only isolated individuals, are lost in the general contentment."The lack of reported oppression speaks to either the homogeneity of the town at the time, or, ironically, the intrinsic oppression of those not included in decision-making in the township (i.e. based on factors of gender, race, class, etc...). One of the hallmarks of democracy should be dissent, and with it, at least the temptation to skirt the democratic principals and rely upon shortcuts of oppression.
Kyle wrote: "The lack of reported oppression speaks to either the homogeneity of the town at the time, or, ironically, the intrinsic oppression of those not included in decision-making in the township (i.e. based on factors of gender, race, class, etc...).."A really good point.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Yet there came a time when these separate groups came together, and somehow the center held. And I want to know why? Sure the constitution demands it, but that's a document, and I'm sure it was ignored at the local level whenever it was convenient to do so. I want to know why it worked in practice? Why didn't it fall apart into factions?.."Well, it did, didn't it? Just a couple decades after Tocqueville was writing. It took a protracted and extremely brutal civil war to hold it together. Could a stronger, more centralized government have prevented this?
Thomas wrote: "Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Yet there came a time when these separate groups came together, and somehow the center held. And I want to know why? Sure the constitution demands it, but that's a documen..."Good question. I may rephrase it, as would a stronger, more centralised government have triggered this earlier?
If I remember it correctly, even before de Tocqueville’s trip there were several conflicts between the Union and states that almost became a civil war.
I supposed the constitutional convention chose the most centralised of all passable variants.
One we can say for certain - the ‘protracted and extremely brutal civil war’ was a period of national crises which caused an increase of administrative centralisation, which as David (and Hayek) has said never decreasing again. Ironically, de Tocqueville has an opposite view on the dynamic of power in the federal state.
Patrice wrote: "but isn’t there a difference between how local government functioned and federal. the small well functioning townships created one way of life and the southern plantation culture was so different t..."Federal government from the beginning has been simplified, only the head of the executive is directly elected, meanwhile township can elect a dozen of the executive officers. It possibly due to the more abstract matters of the federal responsibilities. In towns, you can now what this or that officers do, but on the federal level, the meaning of entire sentences may be obscure for the majority of people. As I understand the US still has very different systems of the administrative government on different levels. This is a sharp distinction from Russian universal principle of one-man management, which is pushed everywhere.
Alexey wrote: "If I remember it correctly, even before de Tocqueville’s trip there were several conflicts between the Union and states that almost became a civil war. .."
Yes, there were. Shay's Rebellion in 1786 might be the most important of these in this context -- this is the rebellion that led to Thomas Jefferson's famous quote: "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
George Washington felt differently and urged a reform of the Articles of Confederation, the "rope of sand" linking the states. The result was the U.S. Constitution, which installed a much more powerful and centralized federal government. I'm sure we'll be talking more about that in the next section, but already we can see the delicate balance that exists between liberty and security.
Thomas wrote: "Alexey wrote: "If I remember it correctly, even before de Tocqueville’s trip there were several conflicts between the Union and states that almost became a civil war. .."
Yes, there were. Shay's ..."
Almost every theme in these chapters seems labelled 'to be continued...'
Patrice wrote: "it amazes me to read how in T time, the country was so decentralized. the federal government has grown and grown since then. something has been gained and something has been lost. i think we are st..."In the Federalist, Publius discusses how the Constitution gives supreme executive authority (under law) to one man, to allow energetic action when it is required. It's only changing the laws that requires endless discussion. I bet AdT will discuss this when he discusses the Federal government.
Thomas wrote: "Well, it did, didn't it? Just a couple decades after Tocqueville was writing. It took a protracted and extremely brutal civil war to hold it together. Could a stronger, more centralized government have prevented this?"I doubt it.
The division between North and South began growing back in colonial times, the north becoming more and more commercial out of economic need, and the South remaining agricultural and non-commercial out of economic satisfaction. I believe by the time of the constitutional convention these divisions were deep and well-established. By Tocqueville's time the South was already suspicious of the North and wanted to keep its influence out of their homeland. I think a more centralized government earlier would have caused the same outcome earlier.
Also . . .
At Tocqueville's time the situation that probably existed was as you traveled west the feds' influence diminished, becoming almost nonexistent in certain areas. The country was growing so fast, adding more and more territory, that perhaps the feds simply didn’t have the resources to make its presence felt in day-to-day activities far and wide, especially where travel was difficult.
Possible reasons why the country stayed together.
First, the East had all the money, and everything flowed east to west -- population, financiers, capitalists, artisans, farmers, etc. The East was the fountainhead. The West needed the East. Second, the feds provided a common currency, a great advantage in trading and doing business near and far. Third, the feds presence, though light and not oppressive, provided physical protection and security from outside forces.
It would be interesting to compare federal involvement along the oceans, rivers, and canals where transportation and continuity between communities existed (steamboats, barges, etc) with its involvement in communities further west where there were practically no forms of transportation and continuity.
Patrice wrote: "it amazes me to read how in T time, the country was so decentralized. the federal government has grown and grown since then. something has been gained and something has been lost. i think we are st..."How much of government "size" can we, since AT's time, attribute to the "shrinking" of the size of the country due to newer transportation and communication technologies. In AT's day, it seems like the government literally could not have been centralized, since everything was so far (time and distance) from a central location.
In 2019, one tweet, and BAM, DC is in my pocket.
In AdT's time, the Russian and Chinese empires were highly centralized, despite their extent.
Kyle wrote: "How much of government "size" can we, since AT's time, attribute to the "shrinking" of the size of the country due to newer transportation and communication technologies. In AT's day, it seems like the government literally could not have been centralized, since everything was so far (time and distance) from a central location."As a Russian, I can say that ineffectiveness of the centralized power did hinder its centralization. and in the Russian empire everything was even more far from a central location but it was even more centralised than today.
Thomas wrote: "Alexey wrote: "Yes, there were. Shay's Rebellion in 1786 might be the most important of these in this context -- this is the rebellion that led to Thomas Jefferson's famous quote: "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.""Some additional from notes I took someplace, somewhere . . .
Kentucky-Virginia Resolutions -- Political statements drafted in 1798 and 1799 taking position that the Alien & Sedition Acts were unconstitutional. Argued states had right and duty to declare acts of congress unconstitutional.
New England Secession Movement -- Led by Federalists in NE after election of Jefferson in 1801. Jefferson -- pro agriculture, pro expansion, anti-British; New England (Federalists) -- pro-British, anti-Expansion, pro manufacturing -- opposed Louisiana Purchase, opposed Embargo Act of 1807 -- trade embargoes against France and Britain during Napoleonic wars, and opposed U.S. declaring war on Britain -- War of 1812. Secession convention of 1814 held in Hartford Connecticut -- NE states vote to remain in union by one vote.
Nullification Crisis -- South Carolina declares federal tariffs of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional. Crises ends when congress passes "Force Bill" authorizing military action against South Carolina and congress also passes Compromise Tariff of 1833 addressing S.C. issues.
Thank you, Xan! I wanted to browse something about this, but still have done nothing. And you post these notes, really helpful.
And de Tocqueville should write about at least the last one.
But the Constitutional deliberations 1787-89 were also about states' rights - and class interests. Though the latter are not needed to explain T.'s enthusiasm for this second founding of the republic:"But what is new in the history of societies is the sight of a great nation, warned by its legislators that the workings of government are grinding to a halt, turning its attention, without haste or fear, upon itself, sounding out the depths of the ill, standing still for two whole years in order to uncover the remedy at leisure and, on discovery of the remedy, submitting to it voluntarily without its costing humanity a single tear or a drop of blood."
However, while there was little blood shed this time, the losers of 1789 must have shed plenty tears. And the issue was bound to haunt the federation.
When T. compares 'America' with 'Europe' he is actually thinking of the US and France. In Britain, but also elsewhere in Europe, institutions were different. No country was as centralised as France.Though France experimented with different republican systems, the present 'Fifth Republic' has a strong independent executive that resembles that of the US more than any other European democracy.
Though the governemental centralisation of 1789 was a blessing, T. also stresses the importance of administrative decentralisation. Not in the last place, he says, for political reasons. That is, civilian enpowernment. T.’s understanding of political culture seems topical (now and always). As in this quote (Bevan translation):There are European nations where the inhabitant sees himself as a kind of settler, indifferent to the fate of the place he inhabits. Major changes happen there without his cooperation, he is even unaware of what precisely has happened; he is suspicious; he hears about events by chance. Worse still, the condition of his village, the policing of the roads, the fate of the churches and presbyteries scarcely bothers him; he thinks that everything is outside his concern and belongs to a powerful stranger called the government. He enjoys what he has as a tenant, without any feeling of ownership or thought of possible improvement. This detachment from his own fate becomes so extreme that, if his own safety or that of his children is threatened, instead of trying to ward off the danger, he folds his arms and waits for the entire nation to come to his rescue.
Furthermore, this man, although he has so comfortably sacrificed his own will, still does not like obeying any more than the next man. Granted he submits to the whim of a clerk but, as soon as force is withdrawn, he enjoys defying the law as if it were a conquered enemy. So we see him constantly wavering between slavishness and license.
Wendel wrote: "When T. compares 'America' with 'Europe' he is actually thinking of the US and France. In Britain, but also elsewhere in Europe, institutions were different. No country was as centralised as France..."It is a bit more complicated. Though France is the most presidential of all European republics to the west of Russia, its executive is not fully independent. President is the head of state and of government, but the government is subordinate also to parliament. Prime minister should be from the parliamentary majority, so there was often cohabitation - when the President was from one party and the Prime minister from the opposition. Finally, they solved the problem by synchronizing presidential and parliamentary terms. Assembly is elected a couple of months after President, so newly elected President should do something extraordinary not to get a majority in the assembly.
These chapters are all about 'checks and balances’, though I did not see the expression being used. A strong but limited executive, selfconscious townships, sharing of power between states and federation, bicameral representation, elected officials, a judiciary with a political role. All checks and balances.From a European view elected officials are interesting, because almost unknown (the Napoleonic legacy?). Neither do we have a degree of judicial interference with the legislative (and consequent 'politization' of the highest courts) as in the US (the constitution of my own country explicitly forbids such interference, but that is also uncommon).
Alexey wrote: "Wendel wrote: "When T. compares 'America'..."That's correct, still France is not Europe. Which leads to another observation. While today most European democracies have strong legislatives, T. warns that in a democracy the legislative tends to usurp all power. Leading to the situation described in the long quote @61. Do the US or France suffer less from the syndrome @61?
Wendel wrote: "Alexey wrote: "Wendel wrote: "When T. compares 'America'..."That's correct, still France is not Europe. Which leads to another observation. While today most European democracies have strong legis..."
Can't answer your question about France and the US, but here in Russia we all ill with this syndrome. And legislatures are mere placeholders, all power grabs by executives. So I think, that de Tocqueville was wrong about legislature. It is the government who grab the power. In the parliamentary republic, they can also constitutionally control legislature by the way of the parliamentary majority and party discipline, that in theory empower legislature to control government.
Yes, I agree that T.'s fear of democracy's legislative does not seem realistic today - harassing executives have caused more and more serious problems. But what did strike me in the syndrome@61 is that it is about civilians who are in fact completely free to make their own choices and are yet completely taken in by a kind of welfare system they actually hate. Passive-aggressive and spoiled.
I'm getting somewhat bogged down in chapter 5. It's not hard to comprehend, but I feel a nap coming on whenever I go back to it.
Tocqueville re-asserts here that"This principle then grew into a irresistible dogma convincing even the last holdouts to get with the program. Here we also get another paradox from Tocqueville:How does Toqueville explain this one and why does he he call sovereignty of the people a dogma; what authority makes it one? (dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.) Perhaps Tocqueville gives us a clue when he says:Reading that quote puts me in mind of another book, very much linked to DIA, that among other things also explores themes of authority and too much freedom:Tocqueville also says the very existence of an expanding suffrage presents a slippery slope to universal suffrage. I think this idea far outstripped his expectation because he says Maryland was the first state to grant "universal" suffrage, i.e. free white landowning men. Clarifyting this a bit and our inequality/equality discussion last week is the appendix section referencing a SUMMARY OF VOTING REQUIREMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES. indicates that:Chapter 5 NECESSITY OF STUDYING WHAT HAPPENS IN PARTICULAR STATES BEFORE SPEAKING OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION
Tocqueville starts his examination of government in America at the local level and declares the lowest level of the hierarchy of government the most critical to a free spirit:Was anyone else inspired by this to attend their local council meetings besides me? If not, I am pretty sure there will be other chances late on. In his descriptions of local, state, and federal governments, beyond a renewed interest in the importance of local government, I guess I learned more about justices of the peace than anything. The Wikipedia page has some interesting notes on Justices of the Peace in America and a difference California and the U.S. Supreme court sees in their use, (see judicial review, below)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice...Skimming over most of the civics lessons for now and finding the most interesting to Toqueville to be the bicameral legislature, we get to:
Chapter 6. . .his views on the judicial system in America. Remember Tocqueville is a lawyer! Here he finds the idea of judicial review, the power to declare laws unconstitutional, or constitutional if states or other lower courts try to call them unconstitutional (see link to justice of the peace, above), to be unique, and a unique check on legislative and executive (administrative) powers in America.