Democracy and Greatness in Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote his Democracy in America as democracy was beginning to sweep the international community as a popular and successful form of government. Choosing America because it was democracy taken to such an extreme, he came to the states in order to examine the all pervasive influence of democracy on the American people. As a French aristocrat, he provides an unbiased view, highlighting both the highs and lows of this growing fad. He knew that democracy was close to reigning in most of Europe, and that it was necessary to create a new political science. His official purpose is to educate the future leaders of Europe in handling this rapid takeover of egalitarianism. Tocqueville believes that at the heart of democracies lies equality, and that the two are inevitably tied to one another. That equality among the population essentially places limits on their potential. Though the ignorant number far less than in unequal situations, the possibility for human greatness is vastly hindered by the institution of democracy. Thus, the entirety of the American population has entered into a perpetual cycle of mediocrity that is fated to continue as long as democracy exists.

Tocqueville constantly references the bond between equality and freedom, marveling at the odd connection between the two. Associated with freedom was a liberty of the mind, and Americans constantly revel in this independence. They pride themselves on an ability to make their own decisions, and a refusal to cave into a tyrannical dictator rule. Yet, with equality comes a sort of conformity, seemingly contradicting their coveted freedom. As each person looks to others as their equal, the opinions of an individual come to be of less importance. Power no longer stems from one person because they are of a greater class, egalitarianism causes a power in numbers phenomena. Despite the fact that they are free to make their own decisions and free of a direct tyranny by the government, they are in fact chained by another sort of tyranny, that of the majority. True freedom of ideas does not exist in America according to Tocqueville, and he "does not know of any country where, in general, less independence of mind and genuine freedom of discussion reign than in America" (244). This ostensibly paradoxical relationship greatly impedes the individual mind, while helping to strengthen the collective minds of a society, the majority.

The tyranny of the majority is essentially an absolute rule, and Tocqueville attests to this, as he examines its complete hold on society. He states that its power is "founded...on the idea that there is more enlightenment and wisdom in many men untied than in one alone" (236). Again, the theory of power in numbers diminishes the individual mind, while empowering the collective thoughts of the majority. While people in general have little faith in one another, the wisdom and ideals of the public are rarely doubted. In America, the hold of this majority has grown beyond limits on mere thoughts and ideas, and has begun to impose beliefs upon the people. There is no need to persuade most of the population, as the ideals of the majority are like inborn intuitions as to what is right. They "penetrate souls by a sort of immense pressure of the minds of all on the intellect of each" (409). Resulting is a society greatly unified in thought, and a great contentedness of the bulk of a nations people. What is lost, however, are the unique thoughts of an individual, and the potential for a mind to develop any sort of true genius.

There is no true necessity for greatness in order lead a society that is so controlled by the majority. The true job of politicians in America is to comply with those ideals that public opinion has deemed to be correct. Unlike an aristocracy, where leaders need not worry about pleasing the majority, in a democracy, politicians must satisfy the population in order to maintain their position. With short terms and votes by the people, a political leader has to "submit not only to the general views, but even to the daily passions of their constituents" (236). Due to this, there is a constant legislative instability, as leaders come and go, and laws are constantly being amended according to the will of the majority. Out of the many political figures, Tocqueville claims that there are none since the original framers of the Constitution that have displayed a sign of greatness. America essentially has no more need for originality and genius, and has come to rely on the leadership of mediocre individuals that will comply with the wishes of the majority.

In America, this emphasis of the majority creates a significant lack of trust in a single persons opinions and ideas. The same applies to their philosophy, one which they follow without even acknowledging the existence of a philosophic principle. Their philosophic method according to Tocqueville is basically to avoid habits, familial traditions, escape class opinions, to take traditions as mere information and facts as an investigation to either repeat the same or to improve, and to work towards a goal without getting caught up in the means. He claims that America is "the one country in the world where the precepts of Descartes are least studied and best followed" (403). In a nation where equality has made it so that nearly everyone sees others as the same, they do not place much faith in another's reason. Following subconsciously Descartes' modern rationalism, Americans rely on their own reason as the most reliable source of truth. They cannot perceive another person, who is their equal, as possibly having a more superior ability to rationalize or reason. Therefore, there exists no faith in another's word, and only the shallow opinions of oneself are taken for truth. This trust in oneself leads to other problems as well, including an inability to comprehend otherworldly ideals.

This American philosophy explains partially why Americans are so unfamiliar with the supernatural and other-worldly ideas. Americans manage to resolve the rather insignificant difficulties of their practical lives, and so they conclude that this ability also applies to all aspects of their lives, and the world. Tocqueville states that "they easily conclude that everything in the world is explicable and that nothing exceeds the bounds of intelligence" (404). Those ideas that cannot be easily rationalized or explained are simply discarded. This mind-set places great limits on their potential, for they are unwilling to accept the intangible. They are deeply grounded in the practical, and this attitude is evident in all aspects of their culture.

Religion, despite being officially separate from the government, has a great hold on Americans, and it too fits their ideals. American religion is different in that it emphasizes not the after life, but rather, life in this world. Tocqueville claims religion as the first of their political institutions, stating that while "law permits [them] to do everything, religions prevents them from conceiving everything and forbids them to dare everything" (280). It is therefore necessary to ground religion in this world and the practicality of their society, as it acts as a control. He states that religion is in fact more necessary in a democracy than any other form of government due to the fact that as the political bonds on a person loosen, the moral bonds must tighten. Thus a person is stuck in another paradox, they are legally free to do as they wish, but bound in the limits of morality that religion imposes upon the people. The ideas of limiting factors and practicality carry through into all aspects of American culture.

Tocqueville claims that America is devoid of great artistic and scientific geniuses because they are too obsessed with utilitarianism. In aristocracy, there is a love for pure theory, knowledge for no real reason, and the pursuit of beauty and perfection. To democratic America, the thrill is accomplishing goals for a practical reason, and he says that "they will habitually prefer the useful to the beautiful, and they will want the beautiful to be useful" (439). With such a practical and utilitarian ideals bred into them, it is difficult to cultivate genius. Americans are not accustomed to the leisurely meditation of the aristocrats, and they strive for quick results, focusing on mass production and distribution. Similarly with the field of science, they are brilliant with science in terms of practicality, yet flounder in terms of abstract scientific theory. Thus, a great number of the public are exposed to art and science as compared to the limited upperclass of an aristocracy, yet, it is generally only a cheap exposure. Americans live in a narrow world, and the vast majority do not care to aspire for artistic and scientific genius.

Individualism as Tocqueville sees it is extremely prevalent among democratic America. He understands it as an individual's desire to live in their own world, creating essentially a small society composed of only those things that they know, and thereby ignoring the greater society as a whole. There is a fine line between individualism and selfishness, which is when an individual removes their responsibility to public morality. Aristocratic societies generally do not worry about this because of their inequalities, and they remain in a fixed station in life. Their communities are more tightly knit because of their strong dependence on each other, and the knowledge that their situations are basically irreversible. Democracy tends to migrate towards individual interest in which the focal point is one person, instead of a community. To guard against selfishness though, Americans must combat individualism. Religion, aforementioned, helps keep it in control with its subconscious moral limits and feelings of obligation. Another method is the existence of free institutions and associations.

Oftentimes, individualism has the potential to give birth to a sort of new despotism. Despots and tyrants like the theory of individualism because it "makes a public virtue of indifference" (485). Americans fight individualism, and thus despotism, through the institution of a free vote. The individual becomes less the main focus, and the emphasis is again on contributing towards the majority. They also create associations, both political and civil in order to increase participation and awareness. These associations have grown so popular by now that there is no fear of their disappearance. There are, however, dangers associated with their popularity and constant use. With so many associations comes the threat of anarchy, yet Tocqueville states that this risk is only associated with the larger associations that gain much control, and that it is an unavoidable threat. In addition to this, another significant method that is exercised is the theory of interest well understood.

As stated earlier, Americans are driven by the passions of this world, this in turn leads them to strive always to move up in the economic ladder. The equality among them is basically one of equal potential, and unlike an aristocracy, where their positions are fixed for life, there is a constant fluctuation in the loose class structure of America. This leads to great chaos, where individualism reigns. The idea of interest well understood comes into play at this point, the thought that what is good for the society is also good for the individual. The idea of virtues are not beautified in American culture, and "such sacrifices are as necessary to the one who imposes them on himself as to the one who profits from them" (501). Thus, this creates a society of many who are willing to commit smaller acts of good, yet, it is not one which will produce those willing to sacrifice themselves in grand acts. The ambitions of Americans are not driven by virtue and a desire to be noble or great, rather, they focus on economic and material well-being.

In America, ambitions are extremely abundant, yet, there is a lack of true great ambition. American society is controlled by their love of material well-being. There is very little pursuit for those enjoyments that are taboo, but rather they are wholly absorbed in their search for those legitimate enjoyments of this world. It is a constant and vicious cycle into which Americans throw themselves. Tocqueville writes that "these objects are small, but the soul clings to them: it considers them every day" (509). Fundamentally, it is a joyless search for joy, as Americans are consistently striving to obtain that which they do not yet have. They are never satisfied with what they already possess, and their mind is on their next goal, even as they have just satisfied their last one. Yet, they rarely aim very high, and one generally spends life coveting those things that are in reach. Hence, the American society is not a fertile breeding ground for great ambition, and those whose minds do not conform with the petty economic desires of the majority generally cannot succeed in this cruel democracy.

Democracy appears at a superficial glance to be the epitome of freedom of the mind and self. Upon closer inspection though, one is able to see the adverse affects of democracy that are a result of its inevitable connection to equality. Equality creates an equilibrium among its people, and it becomes very difficult to stray from its strict limits. As a whole, society is bettered as people become essentially more equal in all aspects. It is unlike aristocracy, where the majority of people remain ignorant and poor, with only a few in the upperclass. In democracies, the majority are at the middle level, and there are few outliers in both directions. Yet, Tocqueville laments the loss of much brilliance during this process, describing how he often neglected to notice the vast numbers of those who lived in the dark.. He claims that he is working to think like he believes God would, looking towards the democracy as truly the better society, for it had pulled everyone into a state of real equality. However, the sacrifices that one must make for this equality of conditions is the loss of any potential for greatness. In his conclusion though, Tocqueville acknowledges that it is not reasonable to expect the same genius of the past, and that with the arrival of this new social state must come "the kind of greatness and happiness that is proper to us" (675). One must stop expecting the heroic nobility that was formerly known as greatness, and learn to look for a new kind of greatness, born out of the young democracy.