Part three of Democracy in America primarily focuses on the characteristics of the army within a democracy. Tocqueville starts with his observations as to why it is difficult for a revolution in our government and concludes with the effects of war on democracy.
Tocqueville conveys the inability of individuals to combat the prevailing strength of public opinion. He then attributes the notion, "... [I]f you could establish a state of society in which each man has something to keep and little to snatch, you would have done much for the peace of the world." I disagree with Tocqueville's statement because it would only create a state of illusory peace. This peace would not have come from consolidation of issues but from the fear of losing the privileges or goods, one has acquired. He also then goes onto include the influence of public opinion on the
…show more content…
Citizens, he claims desire peace so they can pursue their goal of upward mobility and quarrel over small matters rather than revolutionize. While soldiers would be more inclined to war so they can achieve mobility in military ranking thus improving their social status. He believes that democracy is the catalyst for this ambition because in aristocracies only noblemen can move up within military while democracy allows all to climb the ranks. Although Tocqueville also demonstrates the ways in which public opinion is able to shift the desire for war. Through public opinions, distaste for war and the changes in demeanor that accompany it the taste for war can be diminished. This concept reminded me of the "make love not war" anti-war movement of the mid-1900's. When people started to understand the atrocities and social implications of war they became less sensational than their ancestors were about it. Though wars now hold a negative connotation a simple change in naming alleviate the public disapproval of such
According to Christopher and James Collier,”War turns men into beasts.” It is true because many people are willing to
Alexis de Tocqueville's visit to the United States in the early part of the nineteenth century prompted his work Democracy in America, in which he expressed the ability to make democracy work. Throughout his travels Tocqueville noted that private interest and personal gain motivated the actions of most Americans, which in turn cultivated a strong sense of individualism. Tocqueville believed that this individualism would soon "sap the virtue of public life" (395) and create a despotism of selfishness. This growth of despotism would be created by citizens becoming too individualistic, and therefore not bothering to fulfill their civic duties or exercise their freedom. Tocqueville feared that the political order of America would soon become aimed at the satisfaction of individual needs, rather than the greater good of society. Alexis de Tocqueville viewed participation in public affairs, the growth of associations and newspapers, the principle of self-interest properly understood, and religion as the only means by which American democracy could combat the effects of individualism.
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...
Locke and Tocqueville were born nearly two hundred years apart from each other. This span of time corresponds to great changes in the European political spectrum, with Locke being born before the English Glorious Revolution (1688) and Tocqueville born after the French Revolution (1789). Much of what Tocqueville and his contemporaries would have written would have taken for granted the innovations to political thought which Locke and his contemporaries would have fostered. Thus, in areas such as the primacy of human self-interest, to the necessity of nominal societal participation in government, to the belief that “freedom cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith,” our authors share a common ground. It is from this common ground that Locke and Tocqueville most radically depart from one another, beginning with Locke’s conception of
The human race has long been assumed to have a warlike nature, involving itself in many violent endeavors. Philosophers such as Hobbs firmly asserted such an ideal throughout their teachings, their theories revolving around said notion. Yet some occasions throughout history point to the contrary, specifically those in which war was the unpopular choice. Perhaps the most exemplary of unpopular wars was the Vietnam War, which spurred a myriad of anti-war sentiment. These ideals manifested themselves in a wide variety of protests and draft evasion. Despite its unpopularity, the government pushed forward with its efforts to remain involved for a number of years, drawing more negative attention to the divide that existed between the popular opinion
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.
...re importantly, it tries to give democracy a good name at a time when democracy, rule by the people, was feared in Europe and the rest of the world. Democracy in America shows us how each society has certain habits that contribute to its definition of democracy. These habits, some of which are good and some bad, check each other to a balance of normalcy in which everyone has opportunity, safety, and potential progress in society. It shows us that democracy incorporates many “habits of the heart” and aggregates them to a common equality, making it an irresistible force in the world. Conversely, the “habits” of the people change over time. So, what Democracy was in America when Tocqueville visited may not be the same as that today or in the future. However, materialism and religion still play key roles in American democracy as a passion and a temper to that passion.
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.
Upon the opening words of the Constitution, "We the People do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," one must ask, who are these people? While the American Constitution provided its citizens with individual rights, many members were excluded. Elite framers manipulated the idea of a constitution in order to protect their economic interests and the interests of their fellow white land and slave owning men' by restricting the voices of women, slaves, indentured servants and others. Therefore, the Constitution cannot truly be considered a "democratic document." However, because it is a live document, malleable and controllably changeable according to the interest of congress, it has enabled us to make reforms overtime. Such reforms that have greatly impacted America, making us the free, independent nation that we are today.
Adding this all up, I have concluded that the United States democracy is unhealthy, yet I still believe there is hope. If I had to give the current condition of democracy a letter grade, I would give it a C. I got this grade because even though the United States maintains many civil right and liberties, a strong number of interest groups, and diverse political parties, it just isn’t enough to carry the poor conditions of ideologies, voter turnout, education, economics, and media. Democracy is surly not thriving in America, but at this point, there is still hope.
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.”
"United States can be seen as the first liberal democracy. The United States Constitution, adopted in 1788, provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties. On the American frontier, democracy became a way of life, with widespread social, economic and political equality. The system gradually evolved, from Jeffersonian Democracy or the First Party System to Jacksonian Democracy or the Second Party System and later to the Third Party System. In Reconstruction after the Civil War (late 1860s) the newly freed slaves became citizens, and they were given the vote as well." (Web, 1)
War is a hard thing to describe. It has benefits that can only be reaped through its respective means. Means that, while necessary, are harsh and unforgiving. William James, the author of “The Moral Equivalent of War”, speaks only of the benefits to be had and not of the horrors and sacrifices found in the turbulent times of war. James bears the title of a pacifist, but he heralds war as a necessity for society to exist. In the end of his article, James presents a “war against nature” that would, in his opinion, stand in war’s stead in bringing the proper characteristics to our people. However, my stance is that of opposition to James and his views. I believe that war, while beneficial in various ways, is unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs.
Barry, Brian. "Is Democracy Special?" in Philosophy, Politics, & Society, 5th Series, ed. Peter Laslett & James Fishkin. Hew Haven: Yale University Press, 1979.