Here's a paper that I'm turning in today for my Govt. and Economics class on Democracy in America.
Hailed by scholars as the greatest critique of American government and democracy, Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville dissects the basic elements of American government and gives the reader his conservative opinions on them. Most of the book is a praise of the democratic system and the United States’ implementation of it, but he is an outspoken critic of what he calls the “tyranny of the majority.” This unlimited power of the majority that Tocqueville loathes so much is actually very much the fuel of American democracy.
Alexis de Tocqueville begins Chapter XV by comparing the preponderance of the population in America to the French monarchy. He states that “the interest of the many are to be preferred to those of the few.” But what Tocqueville does not understand is that this method of governing is what democracy is all about. According to the democratic form of government, power should be in the hands of the people. The basis for democracy is equality. If a nation believes in this homogeneity of mankind, then every person has an equal voice in his government; therefore, no man should be given an advantage over another. So, for instance, if in a group of three men, two vote for something while only one votes against it, the two that voted for it win. This is because all three of the men are equal; so, since the one man is not more powerful than the other two, he loses. It is more common sense than philosophical reasoning that rules in favor of the two men. It is the presence of this type of majority in America that Tocqueville so strongly dislikes. America’s legacy as the common man’s land is based on the fact that the common man, the majority, plays a vital role in his government. This concept plays a vital role throughout Chapter XV.
Tocqueville uses two men as an analogy in an attempt to prove that the power of the majority is tyrannical. He says that the more powerful man, the majority, submits his will over the weaker man, making the stronger man a master over a slave. Tocqueville states that this unjust since the stronger man is exploiting the other man’s weakness. But what Tocqueville fails to understand is that power in strength is totally different than power in a majority. A nation is not merely made up of two equal sides with one having domination over another. There is always a majority and always a minority. The majority should almost always have control simply because more people wish for the majority to rule than the minority. In the case of Tocqueville’s analogy, the exploitation that occurs is clearly unfair. But when dealing with a majority, one must recognize that, providing everyone is equal, it is only just that the majority prevails over a minority. Going back to the example given in the previous paragraph, two men have the advantage over one simply because they exercise a fair majority. Why would the will of one ever be taken over the will of two men? This is the essence of democracy - equality and power of the common man.
In another example given by Tocqueville, a mob attacks a newspaper’s headquarters, destroying the press and injuring the editor. Tocqueville declares the mob, in this case the majority, never fails to stamp out any opposition. But again, he uses a faulty example. This fiery mob is not a majority, but a minority. If it were a majority, then the “tyrannical” majority-ruled government could have taken over the press without damage or injury. The majority would have no reason to create a mob.
In Section 4 of Chapter XV, Tocqueville says, “I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.” He says that this is because he believes that the majority supposably quells any thought independent of the majority’s dogma. But in a real democratic system, any individual thinking is accepted and even encouraged. Perhaps Tocqueville was reminiscing on the French Republic, which was not a true democracy. America, though, is the land of the free. We have the right of independent thought and opinion guaranteed to us.
According to Alexis de Tocqueville, this repression hinders free thought in writing. A repercussion, Tocqueville states that, as of 1835, there have been no international works or writers that have come out of America. He says that the inability to think freely is what holds back potential great American writers. Tocqueville believes that if a great literary work is released that is contrary to popular opinion, then the author of the work is ostracized and discouraged from writing any more works of the same type. This brings out an important footnote that is important to consider. Many of Tocqueville’s speculations have been rendered invalid since the time of the book’s first publishing. For instance, in this case there have been many international acclaimed writers since Tocqueville’s lifetime. As a matter of fact, a large part of the 20th centuries writers were American.
Tocqueville goes on and says that perhaps the greatest danger in the American democratic system is the mutability of our laws. He states that our living constitution is threatening because it can be easily altered by the whims of the majority. He believes that if the majority sees something in the constitution that they don’t like, they can simply wave a wand and make it disappear. Tocqueville fails to grasp three vital concepts. First of all, a living constitution is one of America’s greatest achievements. One that can be changed to suit the needs of the current age. If our constitution is immutable, blacks would still be slaves and women wouldn’t be able to vote. Second of all, the majority should be able to change the constitution if they feel that it is necessary. For instance, if the majority of Americans are in favor of enacting a new law that creates juvenile curfews, then common sense dictates that the law be passed. And lastly, the constitution is written so that laws cannot be created simply by sudden impulses. It is a long process, taking time so the people can fully decide if it is actually a good law. These three arguments clearly rule out Tocqueville’s reasoning that a living constitution is a faulty one.
In a chapter filled with ideas contrary to the democratic way, Democracy in America does make a good point at the end of the chapter. Alexis de Tocqueville points out that the majority often gets caught in self-applause. The majority often congratulates itself, never studying its own downfalls and shortcomings. The public often thinks that they have everything all figured out, relaxing and letting their senators do their work. This is one of democracy’s few shortcomings, a flaw worth noting but not critical enough to be fatal.
While the premise that this essay is founded on is that the majority should have absolute control, there is one crucial exception that should be noted. If the majority steps out of the natural moral boundaries laid down by God, hen any possible altering of the constitution should be rendered null and void. The law of reason makes anything immoral a violation; so if anyone, majority or minority, tries to enforce it, they are awry and should be prohibited from imposing their will on the moral minority.
For the most part, Democracy in America praises American democracy, applauding its Biblical basis and moral practicality. But in Section XV, Alexis de Tocqueville challenges the “tyranny of the majority,” declaring it to be unfounded and destructive. But what he fails to understand is that that is what democracy is about. The power of the common man and reigns of the government in the majority’s hands is the essence of democracy.
