One of the first and oldest questions in politics: how is it the various offices, powers and departments of state should be arranged? Or put another wOne of the first and oldest questions in politics: how is it the various offices, powers and departments of state should be arranged? Or put another way: how shall the state be constituted? The question is not a solely a curiosity for the intellect. The underlying belief is the forms and institutions have an tremendous influence on the ability of the state to govern, its moral legitimacy, and the character of its people. If so, then among the myriad of possible arrangements, which is it that best conduces for the achievement of greatness and glory? How can the integrity of the polity be ensured? In what ways can the civil harmony can be firmly maintained? What will suffice to eradicate the mischievous influences of faction and corruption? And what sort of qualities should be encouraged in the people? Should the laws aim to cultivate feelings of duty, nobility, honor, and virtue? Or should instead they be configured to permit the widest scope for personal freedom, encourage the people's industry, urge them on to commerce, stimulate their intellect, and in general let a thousand flowers bloom?
These of course are very ancient questions of politics. But though they are old, their relevance is not outdated nor do I think that their importance diminished. Since the earliest lawgivers through to the very present, the model of a perfect constitution has eluded apprehension by the speculations of men. There is no government today that can boast it enjoys total harmony, rules all its tempers, and has discovered a species of politics invulnerable to the trials and disturbances that inevitably convulse civil society. Even after two, three thousand years of history these ailments of government still have no cure. And the same was true for early 19th century France.
In the early years of that century and before, there was the trauma of the French Revolution, then Napoleon's Empire, and then the July Revolution in 1830, all which had left the French state bruised and debilitated. The leadership of her government was weak, her domestic affairs were confused, and men began to cast about looking for diagnoses of what were the deeper causes of the French malady. One very popular suggestion was that her constitution and laws should be reformed; the principles of government that had once made France the most enviable and influential state were no longer sound. If the right changes were made the belief was, the state could be put on strong and sturdy foundations so that her politics could convalesc and the country renew her glory.
Here enter Tocqueville and his study of "Democracy in America" (or as the introduction insists: the title is better translated "Of Democracy in America"). By his account, the times are undergoing epic change. There are trends, he says, new and old that have combined to create an irresistible force in favor of democratic forms. The foundations that underlie the feudal world are being fundamentally undermined, and the old dynastic, aristocratic institutions are beginning to fail. Democracy is the future of politics, he says, whether we like it or not, and for this reason it is essential to grasp its nature, understand its strength and weakness, so that the necessary adaptions to the old order can be made and the French state put on solid footing. The best and most advanced example of this accomplishment has been performed by the Americans. So that will the focus of attention, he says. America will be his subject, but democracy will be his object. As Tocqueville himself describes it:
It appears to me beyond doubt that sooner or later we shall arrive, like the Americans, at an almost complete equality of conditions. I do not concluded from this tat we are destined one day necessarily to draw the political consequences the Americans have drawn from a similar social state. I am very far from believing that they have found the only form of government that democracy can give itself; but it is enough that in the two countries the generative cause of laws and mores be the same, for us to have an immense interest in knowing what is produced in each of them.
There it is not only a curiosity, otherwise legitimate, that I have examined America; I wanted to find lessons there from which we could profit. One would be strangely mistaken to think that I wanted to make a panegyric; whoever reads this book will be well convinced that such was not my design; nor was my goal to advocate such a form of government in general; for I number among those who believe that there is almost never any absolute good in the laws; I have not even claimed to judge whether the social revolution, whose advance seems to me irresistible, was advantageous or fatal to humanity; I have accepted this revolution as an accomplished fact or one about to be accomplished; and among these peoples who have seen it operating in their midst, I have sought the one in whom it has attained the most complete and peaceful development, in order to discern clearly its natural consequences, and to perceive, if possible, the means of rendering it profitable to men. I confess that in America I saw more than America; I sought there an image of democracy itself, of its penchants, its character, its prejudices, its passions; I wanted to become acquainted with it if only to know at least what we ought to hope or fear from it.
This is in essence the intent and motive, in one, of Tocqueville's project. The seven hundred pages that follow are its completion. A heroic production. And though it is not flawless in all its aspects, nevertheless Tocqueville's many discerning observations, the bold cast of concepts that he draws, the force of his arguments, the scope of his discussion, I think all counsel in favor of ranking this one of the high achievements in political analysis. It is not an easy read, but for the diligent reader, it is a rewarding one.
I would, if the reader would indulge me, like to add something to this summary about the form and substance in colossal work of Tocqueville's. Let me begin with comments on his form.
This tome is in fact composed of two different volumes; written separately and published separately. The unity within a singe bound book therefore belies what is really two very different, but related programs. The first volume is essentially focused on how it is American democracy is instituted and maintained, its strengths and weaknesses, its glories and vanities; as well as all the principal causes of why that is, such as the disposition of American geography, its colonial heritage, the formalities of its constitution, the culture of its politics, and so on. The second volume is distinctly different. Tocqueville is no longer interested primarily in the vitality of a democratic republic itself. Rather the examination here is focused on the affect of democratic forms, and the "spirit of the laws", on the culture and mores of the people itself. Just as the austerity of Spartan laws imbued the Lacedemonian people with sentiments of courage, honor, strength, and fortitude; and Athenian laws encouraged intellect, commerce, industry, and ingenuity--in the same way: what are effects of democratic laws on the people of America? This is the subject for discussion in his second volume.
The two inquiries are distinct, and it is appropriate that they be parted and their discussion kept separate. The first part you could characterize as Tocqueville's political analysis; the second you could call more crudely his sociological (though I think that term now possesses connotations that do not quite fit Tocqueville's purpose). But however it is people prefer to abbreviate it, it is interesting from a methodological perspective that Tocqueville would think a complete analysis of democracy would be accomplished in these two steps. His analysis can be exhausting to read, but one can still wonder whether he has actually exhausted the topic.
The other strong impression of form that Tocqueville uses, which every reader will be certain to notice is his use of contrast and antithesis figures in the writing. This appears most vividly in his comparisons of America to Britain and France; though he does so also with other European countries, the Dutch and German Confederations, Russia, Mexico, and other countries as he fancies it. Tocqueville used this figure of argument very effectively, and many of his most famous passages appear at moments when he is affecting exactly this kind of juxtaposition. Not only does the affect create context, and often draw in the imagination of the reader, but it also produces a powerful polarization in presentation, which appears at its maximum when Tocqueville wants to draw contrasts between democracy and aristocracy. There are many superb examples, but I will restrict myself to just one.
External policy requires the use of almost none of the qualities that are proper to democracy, and demands, on the contrary, the development of almost all those it lacks...only with great difficulty can democracy coordinate the details of a great undertaking, fix on a design, and afterwards follow it with determination through obstacles. It is hardly capable of combining measures in secret and patiently awaiting their result. Those are the qualities that belong more particularly to one man or to an aristocracy...
If, on the contrary, you turn your attention to the natural defects of aristocracy, you will find that the effect that can produce is almost never noticeable in the direction of the external affairs of the state. The capital vice for which aristocracy is reproached is that of working only for itself, and not for the mass. In external policy, it is very rare that aristocracy has an interest distinct from that of the people.
The inclination that brings democracy to obey sentiment rather than reasoning in politics, and to abandon a long matured design to satisfy a momentary passion, was very well brought out in America when the French Revolution broke out. The simple light of reason was enought then, as today, to make Americans conceive that their interest was not to engage in the struggle... The sympathies of the people in favor of France were however declared with so much violence that nothing less than the inflexible character of Washington and the immense popularity that he enjoyed were needed to prevent war from being declared on England...
Almost all the peoples that have acted strongly on the world, those who have conceived, followed, and executed great designs, from the Romans to the English, were directed by aristocracy, and how can one be astonished by that?
The effect I hope has been brought in this longer passage. It is one of the signature features of Tocqueville to emphasize the contrast. He does it with incredible facility and force, though when he pushes to frequently it can often become tiring, or push his meaning to extremes as his affect creates a strong polarity. This technique should be credited for producing beautiful quotations, though with the trade off that it also makes his analysis drift into the realm of bombast.
This entry now has expanded to a tremendous length, and I am conscious that I should end it soon. There is so much for mention in Tocqueville's book however, that I could easily carry on for quite a while more. But so not to test the extremes of the reader's patients I will add only one thing more about Tocqueville on substance. Here it is that he really shines. There are many sharp observations, moments of high rhetoric, or insightful conceptualizations of American politics that refresh the reading by tickling the reader's intellect. If it were not for these places within Tocquevill'es writing, likely the book would not have won the renown that is has. I will not go so far to cite any passages of them, since there is quite of bank of them, and I have already spent my full allowance on quotations in this entry. But I will name a few places that I have saved in my notes, though I don't presume this list to be exhaustive. Some of Tocqueville's better insights include: the effects of estate law on equality and dynastic fortunes; divisions of political courts and judicial courts in government; a comparison of powers of the President and the French king; the strengths and weaknesses of elections in contrast to hereditary appointment; the dangers inherent in federation, and the differences in American democracy and American federation. These number just a few of the topics that Tocqueville plods through in his analysis; and whether the reader agrees with him in all his point (which this reader does at times, but not at others) one cannot help but admire his diligence, his care, and all his incredible political acumen for unpacking all the major components of a problem, and then skillfully drawing out the points that appear the most salient.
It is for these reasons, and many others I won't ramble on about, that I confidently award this book five stars. Though the book is long, it is not out of proportion with the project Tocqueville has tasked himself with. If the reader is uninterested in the fundamental inquiry, then surely they will not be patient for all the space his allows for discussion of it. And it is true the narrative of the book slows at points, but even river rapids give way to meanders and stretches of calm. It cannot be good criticism to complain that Tocqueville does not rush from beginning all the way to end....more
Loading...
