More handpicked essays just for you.
Tocqueville's perceived strengths and weaknesses of democracy
Relevance of social institutions
Role of social institutions
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the book, Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville discusses a wide range of topics, with a prevalent topic being American attitudes and the democratic values of equality and freedom. But, there are some threats to the ideal democracy everyone visualizes when they think of America. These are mass society, democratic despotism and extremes of wealth and poverty. Tocqueville suggests multiple solutions to these issues, such as increasing judiciary power, utilizing social institutions to increase social awareness and SOMETHING>!!!@WRER. I think the issues of mass society, democratic despotism and the extremes of wealth and poverty are effectively dealt with through an increased social awareness and voluntary societal institutions, as …show more content…
In order to protect their equality and self in this vulnerable state, people submit to mob rule and allow themselves to be guided by the government, all the while sacrificing their liberty. The end result of this mass society thinking is a majority rule where the largest mass has all the power. This is directly related to the next issue of democratic despotism. While tyranny is oft thought of as a monarchal issue, despotism is extremely possible in a democracy through the drive for equality. This drive leads to what is considered a “soft” despotism with the majority overpowering everything and allows the government to stifle the will of man. This occurs because once mass society has developed, there is little independence of mind and one cannot contradict the majority. Statesmen are all but eradicated and in order to be elected, politicians have to appease the majority. Those people brave enough to stick their necks out and contradict the majority, are swiftly put down. A great example of this is Mao’s “let a thousand flowers bloom” movement to encourage citizens to release their inner desires and follow …show more content…
In order to combat the initial self-absorbed inward pattern of thought in most Americans, Tocqueville suggested that the pattern must be broken by encouraging citizens to look beyond their interests and lives. The first way to do so would be through utilizing the judicial system as a classroom for American citizens. Lawyers would take the place in society as a sort of “aristocrat” with the difference in thought level not being through manners but through the thought process being very reserved and logical through the laws of America. Strengthening the judicial system would allow there to be a system of jury duty for citizens. This would force citizens to think about others problems and affairs. It would also allow people to visualize the judges sentencing and identify that it is not a biased opinion; it is based upon what is best for society based upon specific evidence presented. Jury duty would create a sense of social responsibility and diminish self-absorption. This would prevent mass society, or if it was actively occurring, break the pattern, and effectively diminish the occurrence of democratic despotism. Then, there would be less of a risk for depraved equality to occur. Another suggested solution is to facilitate social institutions in society that citizens can voluntarily get involved in to temper mass society and despotism as this
While having a judge may seem like it is more effective, while calculating time spent on the case, money used, and the education in the field of justice that a judge has, using a trial by jury is the best way to preserve the American ideal of democracy. In the Jury system mini Q document F, Mark twin mentions that the jury system doesn’t want educated people because they would make the trial too easy for one side. Rather than insulting the jury system it seems like this is more of a good thing because it shows that the jury system doesn’t want people who know too much about the subject already and could sway the decision based solely on their bias. Another way that the system is fair is the fact that rather than having one judge decide the fate of a person, rather it is 12 other citizens that have no ties to the person. In the Jury system mini Q document B The letter states “a reasoned and professional judgment should be replaced by blanket verdicts or pretty well any twelve men and women … I had taken my leave of sense.” While this man is insulting the jury system what he says should still be looked at. The people that come together for a jury will have much less bias towards the accused person that a judge who has either seen the person before, or could just not be looking at it with multiple points of
Tocqueville seems to like democracy in its ideal form. However, nothing can be perfect and thus America is not a perfect democracy. Tocqueville found numerous problems with democracy and the influence it had on the populace. These problems range from their distrust of dogmatic beliefs to the imperfect equality that is in place in America. He also found the effects of these problems to be quite problematic as well. For instance, individualism, an effect of equality, is very problematic to democracy. Tocqueville enjoys considering America as an experiment in democracy, but does not find it to be faultless.
Democracy in America has been a guiding principle since the foundation of the country. Many over the years have commented on the structure and formation of democracy but more importantly the implementation and daily function within the democratic parameters that have been set. Alexis de Tocqueville was a French political thinker and historian born July 29, 1805. He is most famously known for his work Democracy in America. Democracy in America has been an evolving social and economic reform, and has continually changed since it’s founding.
In talking about the importance of forming associations in America, de Tocqueville says, “Americans of all ages, all stations of life, and all types of disposition are forever forming associations...In democratic countries knowledge of how to combine is the mother of all other forms of knowledge; on its progress depends that of all the others.” My belief is that he is saying that although f...
de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. Translated by Henry Reeve. New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, 2003.
Tocqueville (rather bizarrely in retrospect) conceived of America as having “an almost complete equality of conditions”. While in respect to the French alone, Tocqueville argues, “the taste and the idea of freedom began to exist and to be developed only at the time when social conditions were tending to equality and as a consequence of that very equality.” Tocqueville draws the first stirrings of equality to the “political power of the clergy,” which upon being consolidated began to spread and upon its ranks to “all classes, to rich and poor, commoner, and noble.” Thus “through the Church, equality penetrates into the government, and he who as a serf must have vegetated in perpetual bondage could, as a priest, take his place in the midst of nobles, and would often sit above kings.” Tocqueville continues to trace the ascent of equality and descent of aristocracy to the financial demise of kings “ruining themselves by their great enterprises; the nobles exhausting their resources by private wars, [while] the lower orders enriching themselves by commerce”. And with the advent and spread of education, the “value attached to high birth declines just as fast as new avenues to power are
Alexis de Tocqueville discussed how he believed that majority rules in the United States. He writes about how the majority in America has control over the opinions of the masses and how people do not think for themselves. The latter part of that is true. The masses do not form many of their own opinions but these opinions are not given to them, like Tocqueville says, by the majority. These "ready made opinions" (Tocqueville 11) are given to American people by a powerful few. Tocquville's writing does not apply to the US today because several kinds of minorities wield inordinate amounts of power in modern American society.
America is a country whose emergence is contributed to many sources. More specifically, the American form of Democracy stretch back beyond the formation of the United States, having origin in ancient Greek thinking, the Enlightenment, as well as the English and their injustice, The United States owes its birth as a country to many areas of influence.
In this excerpt from Democracy in America Alexis Tocqueville expresses his sentiments about the United States democratic government. Tocqueville believes the government's nature exists in the absolute supremacy of the majority, meaning that those citizens of the United States who are of legal age control legislation passed by the government. However, the power of the majority can exceed its limits. Tocqueville believed that the United States was a land of equality, liberty, and political wisdom. He considered it be a land where the government only served as the voice of the its citizens. He compares the government of the US to that of European systems. To him, European governments were still constricted by aristocratic privilege, the people had no hand in the formation of their government, let alone, there every day lives. He held up the American system as a successful model of what aristocratic European systems would inevitably become, systems of democracy and social equality. Although he held the American democratic system in high regards, he did have his concerns about the systems shortcomings. Tocqueville feared that the virtues he honored, such as creativity, freedom, civic participation, and taste, would be endangered by "the tyranny of the majority." In the United States the majority rules, but whose their to rule the majority. Tocqueville believed that the majority, with its unlimited power, would unavoidably turn into a tyranny. He felt that the moral beliefs of the majority would interfere with the quality of the elected legislators. The idea was that in a great number of men there was more intelligence, than in one individual, thus lacking quality in legislation. Another disadvantage of the majority was that the interests of the majority always were preferred to that of the minority. Therefore, giving the minority no chance to voice concerns.
Democracy in the United States became prominent in the early to mid 19th century. Andrew Jackson, the 7th president of the United States, was inaugurated in 1829 and was best known as the person who mainstreamed democracy in America. Because he came from a humble background, he was the “genuine common man.” (Foner, pg. 303) He claimed he recognized the needs of the people and spoke on behalf of the majority [farmers, laborers]. However, critics of Jackson and democracy called him “King Andrew I” because of his apparent abuse of presidential power [vetoing]. These critics believed he favored the majority so much that it violated the U.S. constitution, and they stated he was straying too far away from the plan originally set for the United States. Because of the extreme shift of power to the majority, the limiting of rights of the few [merchants, industrialists] and the abuse of power under Jackson’s democracy, the foundational documents set in the constitution was violated, and the work of the preceding presidents were all but lost.
De Tocqueville’s argument was between equality versus individualism. He describes individualism as “a calm and considered feeling which disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of his fellows and withdraw into the circle of family and friends” (De Tocqueville, 506). His perspective was that individualism empowers people to become competent but also strengthens and reassures society to work with the others in the community to magnify the possibilities for humans. As stated by Professor Veugelers “De Tocqueville happened to see that the inequality between the rich and the poor became more restricted, and thought that at some point the gap will close.”
The political culture that defines American politics shows that despite this compromise, America is still very much a democratic society. The very history of the country, a major contributor to the evolution of its political culture, shows a legacy of democracy that reaches from the Declaration of Independence through over two hundred years to today’s society. The formation of the country as a reaction to the tyrannical rule of a monarchy marks the first unique feature of America’s democratic political culture. It was this reactionary mindset that greatly affected many of the decisions over how to set up the new governmental system. A fear of simply creating a new, but just as tyrannic... ...
“Majority rule only works if you’re also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.” Larry Flynt. Ray Bradbury’s book Fahrenheit 451 takes place in a dystopian future, in which to maintain “happiness” individuality has been removed. Books are burned, schools remove thought and create button-pushers. The citizens remain oblivious to the outside world’s suffering even as enemy bombs descend upon them. Fahrenheit 451 foretells a possible future in which the majority, like wolves, have consumed the intellectual and independent thought.
One of the most famous phrases that Americans say in relation to the people’s power (or the over power of government) is, “We the people…” The people need to have power over the government so that they should not become insignificant. The government should, in turn, make laws that are helpful to the people and improve their quality of life. An example of a government that is all-powerful in their country is North Korea. They are essentially ruled by a single leader, Kim Jong Un, who has a very militaristic idea for their country, as they continue to work on and test nuclear bombs, although they are restricted from it by the countries of the world. When government becomes too controlling, the lives of the people are no longer controlled by the
And because it is not necessary for them to voice their opinions, the public becomes uninterested and uninformed on the matters of government. This leaves people with stunted mental capacities. A good despotism is a government with no positive oppression by officers of state, but where all the interests of the public are managed for them. Mill asserts that despotism that consents not to be despotism could, in fact, be good. However, it depends on the despot. If the despot would refrain from exercising absolute power and instead, appoint a council chosen by the people, the despot could get rid of the evil elements of despotism. Mill continues to shed light on this despotic monarchy which is, in actuality, a representative government, when public opinion is allowed. Public opinion will either be for or against the despot. If it is against him, he can either put down opposition or defer to the nation. The former would cause animosity between the despot and the people; the latter would indicate a constitutional king rather than a monarch. Mill concludes by saying that the principle element behind a good government is the improvement of the