Why Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” is still important today

  After about five weeks I have finally finished reading Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” and I have to admit that this was not an easy undertaking; while I found some of it to be quite interesting, other parts of this book were, to be honest, just a little boring depending on the subject being discussed in the various chapters.

  At times de Tocqueville seems to be a political prophet–he correctly predicted that slavery would tear the nation asunder long before the first outcries of abolition were heard in the legislature as well as the eventual undoing of the American Indians, who he claimed were too proud to succeed in the United States because they would be unwilling to assimilate when it was all but certain that the “Europeans” would eventually rule the entire North American continent.

  But the last few chapters are the ones that I found to be the most interesting because we are seeing his predictions unfold right before our very eyes today–his political prophecies are coming true once again. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about the inevitable centralizing of powers in the federal government:

“In democratic communities nothing but the central power has any stability in its position or any permanence in its undertakings. All the members of society are in ceaseless stir and transformation. Now it is in the nature of all governments to seek constantly to enlarge their sphere of action; hence it is almost impossible that such a government should not ultimately succeed, because it acts with a fixed principle and a constant will, upon men, whose position, whose notions, and whose desires are in continual vacillation.”

  Here he states that the natural progression of any government is toward enlarging and centralizing its position, while at the same time stating that the government will be successful in this goal because they have a long term vision, while the ideas and will of the American people change from generation to generation. While the American people’s opinions might change over time, the federal government’s vision does not. This allows the federal government to remain focused on usurping powers while most Americans are worried about their day to day lives and simply making ends meet.

  Alexis de Tocqueville also claims that while many Americans may oppose a strengthening of the federal government they also contribute to its ability to do just that:

“It frequently happens that the members of the community promote the influence of the central power without intending it. Democratic ages are periods of experiment, innovation, and adventure.”

  So how can it be that people who oppose a strengthening of the federal government could at the same time actually be promoting it? He provides us with the answer:

   “At such times there are always a multitude of men engaged in difficult or novel undertakings, which they follow alone, without caring for their fellowmen. Such persons may be ready to admit, as a general principle, that the public authority ought not to interfere in private concerns; but, by an exception to that rule, each of them craves for its assistance in the particular concern on which he is engaged, and seeks to draw upon the influence of the government for his own benefit, though he would restrict it on all other occasions.”

 “If a large number of men apply this particular exception to a great variety of different purposes, the sphere of the central power extends insensibly in all directions, although each of them wishes it to be circumscribed. Thus a democratic government increases its power simply by the fact of its permanence. Time is on its side; every incident befriends it; the passions of individuals unconsciously promote it; and it may be asserted, that the older a democratic community is, the more centralized will its government become.”

  He claims that while most Americans will be opposed to a consolidation of power in general that they are willing to accept government intervention when it suits their personal goals, while they will oppose it when it does not affect them personally. While a person may be willing to accept a government policy when it suits their individual needs and will base their opposition or support for centralization on a case by case basis the government is looking at the bigger picture. The government is able to gain support for all centralizing legislation by appealing to the different special interest groups as a whole thusly gaining support for all government intervention.

  He also states that time is on the side of the government; and he is right for as one generation leaves and the next generation comes to power the one constant is the federal government. The government has time to implement all of its plans to centralize the government and we have seen this taking place since the very beginning of our union.

  In addition to the natural tendency of all governments to gravitate toward more power and centralization, de Tocqueville also writes about another manner in which the federal government is able to gain strength–and that is through what he calls “Place-Hunting” in a democratic system. He also predicted that this would prove to be the ultimate downfall of the United States.

    By seeking “place” it can be said that de Tocqueville is talking about social justice; while the United States holds the position that all men are created equal there is nothing in the constitution that guarantees an equal outcome for all Americans other than equal protection under the law. Yet the federal government has sought to empower itself by promising “place” to all Americans through social engineering, but there is a little problem with promising everything to everybody–money.

  Here is what de Tocqueville had to say about this:

  “Amongst democratic nations, as well as elsewhere, the number of official appointments has in the end some limits; but amongst those nations, the number of aspirants is unlimited; it perpetually increases, with a gradual and irresistible rise in proportion as social conditions become more equal, and is only checked by the limits of the population. Thus, when public employments afford the only outlet for ambition, the government necessarily meets with a permanent opposition at last; for it is tasked to satisfy with limited means unlimited desires.”

  The government has a limited supply of money, while the wants of the people remain limitless. Yet the government seeks to meet all of these wants regardless of the fact that it simply cannot provide for them. The government looks to become the provider and in doing so kills off the personal ambitions of many people who would otherwise be willing to work for what they want. Eventually people feel as if they have no chance to succeed without the government, and that is precisely the outcome the government is looking to obtain. Eventually the people will revolt when it is learned that the government is not the end all, be all, and I honestly believe we are seeing this on the left today.

  More from de Tocqueville:

  “It is very certain that of all people in the world the most difficult to restrain and to manage are a people of solicitants.”

  People on the left–the solicitants–are becoming frustrated because the government does not have the ability to take care of everybody and they are looking to blame Wall Street and “big businesses” for all of their problems when they should be looking inside for their answers.

  So what does de Tocqueville predict will be the end outcome once the solicitants are no longer satisfied by the provisions of the federal government? What can the government do when it can do nothing else?

  “Whatever endeavors are made by rulers, such a people can never be contented; and it is always to be apprehended that they will ultimately overturn the constitution of the country, and change the aspect of the State, for the sole purpose of making a clearance of places.”

  The leaders will ultimately overturn the constitution because they can no longer provide for the people within the constraints of the constitution! And didn’t Barack Obama promise to fundamentally change America? Didn’t Barack Obama claim that the one great failing of the constitution was its lack of economic policy including the redistribution of wealth?

  If the constitution is the document which this republic is based on, and Barack Obama wants to fundamentally change America, it can be easily reasoned that Barack Obama wants to change the constitution–just as de Tocqueville predicted would happen almost 200 years ago.

  Alexis de Tocqueville predicted that eventually the usurpers would rue the day they tried to gain control this way:

  “The sovereigns of the present age, who strive to fix upon themselves alone all those novel desires which are aroused by equality, and to satisfy them, will repent in the end, if I am not mistaken, that they ever embarked in this policy: they will one day discover that they have hazarded their own power, by making it so necessary; and that the more safe and honest course would have been to teach their subjects the art of providing for themselves.”

  This is one prediction that I am not sure will come true, although there is a backlash being felt in this country over the out of controlled spending which in the end may prove to be the downfall of the statists in the federal government–hopefully it will not prove to be the downfall of America as well.

  Alexis de Tocqueville is relevent today because we are seeing the last of his predictions play out right in front of us, but the ball is in our court. We will have the final say and it will be up to us to make the statists rue the day that they promised so much to so many all in the name of centralizing power for their own benefit.

  It is time to take back our country from the statists and we cannot let this chance pass us by, for it may be the last chance that we have. America is in financial peril and much of it can be attributed to “place-hunting” as a means toward the centralization of government that Alexis de Tocqueville predicted, if we do not end this process now we may our children may not recognize the America we have left them.