Classics and the Western Canon discussion

VOL2 PART IV ON THE INFLUENCE THAT DEMOCRATIC IDEAS AND SENTIMENTS EXERT ON POLITICAL SOCIETY
Chapter 1: Equality Naturally Gives Men a Taste for Free Institutions
Equality fosters independence to such a degree, while there is a danger of anarchy, despotism is more likely:

Equality in fact produces two tendencies: one leads men directly to independence and can drive them all the way to anarchy in an instant, while the other leads by a longer, more hidden, but also more certain path to servitude. Peoples are quick to recognize the first of these tendencies and resist it. They allow themselves to be carried away by the latter without seeing it. Hence it is particularly important to point it out.

Chapter 2: Why the Ideas of Democratic Peoples About Government Naturally Favor the Concentration of Power
Tocqueville asserts that democratic people prefer the simple and general ideas to the complicated leading them to conform to a single model directed by a central authority. Also, equality of political conditions as a means to stamp out all privilege leads democracies to adopt uniform laws that apply to all.

Chapter 3: How the Sentiments of Democratic Peoples Accord with Their Ideas to Bring About a Concentration of Power
Along with preferences in chapter 2, the weaknesses of a democratic people, the individualism, the “isolated equal”, and the distractions of reduced time and inclination for politics required to produce a more complex form of government also result in a simpler stronger centralized and uniform government.

Chapter 4: Concerning Certain Particular and Accidental Causes That Either Lead a Democratic People to Centralize Power or Divert Them From It
Tocqueville fears from the first three chapters in this part are expressed in what he calls a single scientific principle of despotism, loving or appearing to love equality, as opposed exposing any hints of aristocracy, will lead the people to centralize public power great enough to ensure tranquility.

Chapter 5: How Sovereign Power in Today’s European Nations Is Increasing, Although Sovereigns Are Less Stable
Here Tocqueville mainly explains how revolutions, i.e., change of different types and the instability they create, military, political, industrial, and wars, all tend to consolidate power. Tocqueville fears the spirit of liberty is not enough to check this tendency. This reminds me of the quote often attributed to Benjamin Franklin

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Benjamin Franklin for the Pennsylvania Assembly in its "Reply to the Governor" (11 Nov. 1755)

Chapter 6: What Kind of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear
Tocqueville asserts a new kind of oppression, different from the traditional tyranny or despotism could arise in modern democracies. He tries to define a sort of soft despotism, or protector that the citizens willingly acquiesce to:

an immense tutelary power, which assumes sole responsibility for securing their pleasure and watching over their fate. It is absolute, meticulous, regular, provident, and mild. It would resemble paternal authority if only its purpose were the same, namely, to prepare men for manhood. But on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them in childhood irrevocably. It likes citizens to rejoice, provided they think only of rejoicing. It works willingly for their happiness but wants to be the sole agent and only arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and takes care of their needs, facilitates their pleasures, manages their most important affairs, directs their industry, regulates their successions, and divides their inheritances. Why not relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and the difficulty of living?

Tocqueville wonders how men who have renounced the habit of managing their own affairs could be successful in choosing those who aught to lead them and fears that this will result in the loss of that one great privilege.

Some rhetorical questions I have are If this is what the majority mandates, what his wrong with that as long as the people do not lose their political rights turning the government into a true tyranny or despotic state? Why does Tocqueville assume the one great privilege of participating in government would necessarily go away in this type of protectorship. If the majority retains its sovereignty, then the majority is the protectors, right? How is this different than how it has always been?

Chapter 7: Continuation of the Preceding Chapters
Tocqueville asserts

It is both necessary and desirable for the central power that guides a democratic people to be dynamic and forceful. The point is not to make it weak or indolent but only to prevent it from abusing its agility and strength.

Tocqueville reasserts associations, a free press, and judicial power in the court are the safeguards of democracy and urges more attention be paid to the adherence of forms or the rules, procedures, and social conventions to moderate extreme behavior in a constantly changing environment. Tocqueville also asserts democracy must remain vigilant against sacrificing the rights of the individual in obtaining some end because what harms one, corrupts the whole. What does Tocqueville mean when he says a primary goal of lawmakers is:

To set broad but visible and immovable limits on social power. . .

Of the extremes of liberty, Tocqueville was concerned less by the anarchy of too much liberty than the despair in the impossibility of man’s liberty in which vigilance will be the ever beneficial tool against despotism despite man’s natural instincts for it.

Chapter 8: General View of the Subject
Tocqueville says the growing uniformity in all of its average mediocrity chills him and he longs for the old aristocratic days and its extremes of highs and lows, however equality is more just with a grandeur and beauty of its own and suggests his contemporaries forget about trying to bring the benefits of the past into the future but to secure the new goods that equality provides that are appropriate for them. He calls the thinking of some of his contemporaries that nations are never their own master a fatalistically false and cowardly doctrine and instead places greater confidence in people to choose to use their equality to lead them to liberty, enlightenment, and prosperity.

David, I am the last person in this discussion who have not said how helpful and insightful was your posts on DiA and what great work you've done navigating us through the book. Do you plan to publish them?

As I understand the book its gist is if the people do not care about their freedom and rights no institution can save democracy.

A bit closer to this week readings - the despotism here fear of is the same the modern liberal and libertarians fear, all controlling bureaucracy, 'enslaving' people, denied them free will. But they suppose the answer is to limit power and activity of central government, split power between different level of government. But de Tocqueville insist on the strong and active central government, he did not like splitting the authority with local and regional governments. Is this because he did not believe that institutions can protect democracy when people are apathetic about democracy?

David wrote: "Some rhetorical questions ... If the majority retains its sovereignty, then the majority is the protectors, right?"

In theory, yes, but does the majority truly rule in America and if they do rule is their rule informed? As to the first question, 27% of eligible voters elected the President in 2016. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi... As to the second, sparing repetition, see Week 15, Message 13.

That article goes back to the beginning of the century, and indicates that 2016 wasn't too much different from the rest since 2000. I'm sure it's out there, but I wonder how that differs throughout America's history--I wonder how many presidents have been elected with more than 50% of eligible voters.

I found this week's reading especially interesting because here T writes more broadly about democracy and what he expects to be its likely future. A DiA theme, repeated here, is that equality is ultimately the enemy of liberty. I expect this reflects his aristocratic leanings, but it deserves consideration. Both here, and previously in DiA, T asserts that to preserve liberty in a democracy, three things are necessary: (1) freedom of the press; (2) an electorate that does the work to stay informed; and (3) an electorate that resists apathy, and votes. Without these, he cautions “Equality in fact produces two tendencies: one leads men directly to independence and can drive them all the way to anarchy in an instant, while the other leads by a longer, more hidden, but also more certain path to servitude.” I, for one, find myself agreeing with him.

Bryan wrote: "That article goes back to the beginning of the century, and indicates that 2016 wasn't too much different from the rest since 2000. ..."

I agree with your point wholeheartedly. Even though my post mentioned only one election, a minority of citizens have made political decisions for the country throughout its history. We have never had real majority rule in America. At the founding only land-owning males could vote, until 1868 only white men could vote, not until 1920 could women vote, and throughout voter suppression and voter apathy have enabled government by other than the majority of citizens.

Gary wrote: “Equality in fact produces two tendencies: one leads men directly to independence and can drive them all the way to anarchy in an instant, while the other leads by a longer, more hidden, but also more certain path to servitude.” I, for one, find myself agreeing with him."

Does equality really drive a march towards anarchy or servitude, or just help facilitate a drive to them? Does not equality also drive or facilitate a free press and associations to keep us from these extremes? Were these extremes more or less possible before the civil war, or after it? Won't there always be enough opposing but equal dissenters to prevent the extremes?

David wrote: "Does equality really drive a march towards anarchy or servitude, or just help facilitate a drive to them? ..."

The distinction you are making, David? Do examples come to mind that make this more concrete?

Perhaps one of the philosophical questions here underlies the word "servitude." Does not much of what is required for commercial success, for example, often offer deep service to fellow creatures, while at the same time often including exploitation, whether of people or of resources, even as wealth is accumulated selectively? Start for an example with the development of a new drug. Decide whether for a wide spread ailment or for deadly plague to a small population.

For an example closer to Tocqueville's time, consider the building of the Erie Canal.

And once again, am I talking babble outside the guts of this conversation?

@6Gary wrote: "As to the second, sparing repetition, see Week 15, Message 13. ..."

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

As for absence of majority rule, maybe it is a problem, but, if we exclude compulsory voting (as I remember nobody in this group has posted in favour of it), minority is always who make political decisions for their countries. If I cannot make a sound political judgment in certain election, maybe better for me not to go to the polling station.

Alexey wrote: "If I cannot make a sound political judgment in certain election, maybe better for me not to go to the polling station. "

That relates to an important point T is making, namely that one of the dangers to democracy are citizens who don't do the work to be informed and don't arrive at and act upon considered political opinions.

I agree that not-voting may well be better than sham-voting in nations that are democracies in name only and where election results are pre-determined, which has been the case historically in a number of nations and which is the case in some nations today.

Gary, I agree with your emphasis on this den Tocqueville's point and, returning to your post from previous week, I also hope that pursuing of truth will become more common among citizens. But my hope is based on the fact that critical thinking become more and more important in day to day life, particularly in professional competition, and IF more people get habit of critical thinking in day-to-day life, that must make their political judgment more sound and thoughtful.

On balance, I’m happy we read DiA. In all honesty I would not have read it on my own, and there were a number of times when I was ready to close the covers and walk away. I’m grateful to David and the group for motivating me to stay the course.

I found DiA at times annoying, even aggravating, but also perceptive, and occasionally wise. The text, while quite readable in the translation I used, is dense, repetitive, and relentless. Many of T’s generalities are suspect, but yet I found much in DiA that resonated with me as true, and much that is quotable.

Lily, in earlier posts, remarked on T’s youth; he was age 30 and 35 when Vol 1 and Vol 2, respectively, were published. I think it is remarkable that someone so young brought such a mature perspective to the work, although he has his hobby horses such as the superiority of an aristocracy for advancing works of the intellect and art.

At the end of the day, is DiA a book for Americans or Europeans? My take is that DiA was written for European intellectuals then thinking about democratizing Europe. So why is DiA, or parts of it, on the reading list of many American colleges, and why did our group choose to read it? Here’s T’s take on that:

”Americans in their relations with foreigners, seem impatient of the slightest censure and insatiable in their appetite for praise. They are pleased my the merest of commendations and seldom satisfied by the fullest. They pester you constantly for your praise, and it you hold out against their importuning, they will laud themselves. Doubtful perhaps of their own merit, they wish to have its portrait constantly before their eyes.” Vol 2:III:16

Bryan wrote: "T I'm sure it's out there, but I wonder how that differs throughout America's history--I wonder how many presidents have been elected with more than 50% of eligible voters. "

The answer appears to be: None. It's hard to reach 50% of the total eligible when the turnout is usually around 60%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...

Thomas wrote: "The answer appears to be: None. It's hard to reach 50% of the total eligible when the turnout is usually around 60%. "

Thanks, Thomas, for finding that. 0 is the number I would have guessed, if the exception was made for Washington. I think I seized on the original article because it implied (to me, at any rate) that 2016 was an anomaly.

AdT's prediction that democracy will lead to centralization seems to have been borne out by history. I don't think he reconciles that prediction with his prediction in the first book that the American states will become more powerful than the federal government.

Thank you, David, for moderating this discussion. This was a book that I likely would not have otherwise read, and I found that although AT seemed repetitive at times, the conversation that happened in this group made it well worth the effort to enjoy this book. Thank you!

Roger wrote: "AdT's prediction that democracy will lead to centralization seems to have been borne out by history. I don't think he reconciles that prediction with his prediction in the first book that the Ameri..."

How much of that centralization is related to features of democracy vs. advancements in communication and mobility technology?

You are welcome, Kyle. I will in turn thank you and the other members who participated in the discussions that gave this book the time and attention due to it as well as the critical analysis and review it deserves.

It may amuse you to note that on WP list of "The best books to read for every age," DIA shows up thus:

Age 22
“Democracy in America” by Alexis de Tocqueville

To truly understand the country we live in, sometimes you have to see it through the eyes of a 19th-century Frenchman.

Actually, if one follows the maxim of the value of reading again the classics we find of use, this does feel like a not bad suggestion to the generation taking up the responsibility/duty of voting and being citizens.

I am glad to have made the investment in the Liberty Fund edition of DIA -- between trying to read it and use the Henry Reeve's audible and kindle versions, I still feel more as if I have dabbled in these tomes than read them. But, am so very grateful for the incentive and discipline of the discussions here. And for other, more recent studies on democracy that have come into my purview, in the challenge of relating 1835-40 observations to those of living in the 21st century.

For the entire WP list, for ages 1-100, worth at least a chuckle or two or possibly even a suggestion, see here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphi...

I finished tonight. Thanks to David for moderating and thanks to those who commented--as I was about a week behind for the entire read, I didn't get into the conversation much when it was current, but I did read what everyone posted.

Bryan "Blackadder" wrote: "That article goes back to the beginning of the century, and indicates that 2016 wasn't too much different from the rest since 2000. I'm sure it's out there, but I wonder how that differs throughout..."

That is SO sad, isn't it? So many citizens of other countries risk their lives at times to go out to vote, as the black community in the U.S. did when they first got the right to vote. Why are we so apathetic now?

I am actually just starting this last week's readings, a few weeks behind as usual. I am a slow reader, especially with things I need to reflect upon & digest. And like many, life gets in the way of being able to just pull up the chair, put on the glasses & revel in a book!

Bryan "Blackadder" wrote: "I finished tonight. Thanks to David for moderating and thanks to those who commented--as I was about a week behind for the entire read, I didn't get into the conversation much when it was current, ..."

Me too. I always enjoy the commentary & the chance to pick up something that has lingered on my TBR pile for years or that I would have never attempted at all on my own.

Gary wrote: "I found this week's reading especially interesting because here T writes more broadly about democracy and what he expects to be its likely future. A DiA theme, repeated here, is that equality is ul..."

So true!

I think I'm the last to finish this book and am so behind the discussion I'll just mention the eery feeling I got when I was reading chapter 6. Soft despotism(or some new word that Tocqueville was trying to invent) was like an orwellian Big Brother and how the people try to console the ever decreasing independence and liberty with reminding themselves with their choice being what brought this upon them. It sort of reminded me of what victims of domestic abuse or other codependent relationships (mistakenly) say to themselves: that they brought this upon themselves by choice. I doubt if this choice was entirely based upon enough free will or enlightenment and people's beliefs/characters/circumstances can change, so I don't believe it's a consolation(or excuse) enough to endure the abuses and fall into apathy. It takes considerable effort to persuade them that they don't deserve this or that they have other options. I think this is what T. was trying to stress- that we must be enlightened, vigilant and freer in our choices and keep being that way even after we made our choices as human society is a dynamic, ever-evolving system.

Plus, thank you so much, David for your posts. I can't believe I made it through this thick tome! ;-)