Regenius
12-12-2007, 03:33
I recently wrote an essay on the nature of American Democracy as compared to American Democracy when Tocqueville wrote his book.
Give it a quick read, and let me know what you think.
On Democracy in America
In the early 19th Century, Alexis de Tocqueville, a French philosopher and historian, visited the United States with the intent of discovering why the democratic republic worked in the United States while it was floundering in his homeland. What he discovered was an innate sense of the necessary balance between individuality and societal needs. He called this the “principle of self interest rightly understood”. This ideal has eroded over time leaving America in the factional, consumerist state it is in today.
Tocqueville describes the principle of self interest rightly understood as the ability of an individual to accept virtuous behavior as not only a means of advancing the society as a whole, but also of advancing himself. He points out that in old Europe it was widely accepted that virtuous deeds “…should be done without hope of reward as it is by the Deity himself.” This idea, that man should do good deeds only because that is what God would do, was held by the aristocracy and dictated to the poor and working classes. In the United States however, there was no definite aristocracy. Certainly there were wealthy families and individuals, but in a society based on equality, they couldn’t simply tell the lower classes what to do. From this moral vacuum emerged the principle of self interest rightly understood. According to Tocqueville, this view of virtue is what made democracy work in the United States.
Today, we often see a tendency towards unmitigated selfishness in our society. This is evidenced in some of the more disturbing trends of the last half century. Since World War II, arguably the last war fought by all classes, the last equalizing war, the gap in our society between the wealthy and the poor has been widening. The rise of gated communities exemplifies the desire of the wealthy to separate themselves from the rest of American society. Though they pride themselves on their contributions to society through charitable donations or other avenues, they often forget the message they broadcast with the security fences that surround their neighborhoods. It is accepted that American’s have the right to advance themselves socially and financially, but it was never decided that once they reached the top, that they’d take leave of the rest of us.
The extreme right wing in our country often expresses its distaste for social security and welfare, and denounces the income tax, and in some cases the practice of taxation itself. This flies in the face of the principle of self-interest rightly understood. Democracy cannot peacefully last without equality. This has been demonstrated many times in our own history, the Civil War being the prime example. The nature of welfare and social security is not to provide a handout to the poor so that they don’t have to work. The nature of welfare and social security is to provide the monetary support necessary for the poorest Americans to enjoy the most basic equality of economic security. The rejection of taxation by the right wing, an expression of self interest in its most pure form, its members have decided that their own well being is more valuable than the well-being of society as a whole.
When one considers the nature of democracy and specifically its relationship with the individual, you often encounter Locke’s social contract theory. The social contract and the principle of self-interest rightly understood are the same ideas applied to different facets of the nature of government. The social contract addresses the idea of a man giving up some of his freedoms in exchange for the protection of government, while the principle of self interest rightly understood explains why a man would be inclined to do so. It explains the desire of man to follow the tenets of society, not through threat of violence by the government, although for some that is a factor, but because he realizes that he will be better able to advance himself inside the construct of society’s morality than outside of it.
When a man realizes that he should be virtuous only because it will advance him in society, then he has realized the fullest extent of Tocqueville’s principle. This happens less and less frequently these days. The now common practice in our society of exploiting those below you in the social ladder to further yourself is something more often seen in old world Europe. This trend reflects a regression of American ideals towards those more commonly held in the pre-democratic kingdoms of Europe. CEO’s have become our lords and ladies, and they rule over us with much the same disdain for the lower classes as their spiritual predecessors. Enron and other examples of corporate embezzlement show this clearly; those who occupy the highest rungs of the social ladder have lost respect for those below them, and by extension the rest of society. This trend is distressing because the wealthiest in any society hold the most power, and thus influence, over the rest of society. If it again becomes acceptable for the rich to exploit the poor, as it was for centuries before the rise of corporate controls and enforcement, the United States will lose what made it great when Tocqueville wrote his book.
The necessary components for democracy, according to Tocqueville, are not particularly mysterious. A societal acceptance of cultural equality on some level is the first, which this country has more and more of every day. The second is the realization that while society is more important than the individual, each member of society can advance himself by being a contributing member of the whole. This country is in danger of losing this important philosophy entirely. Perhaps in this age of consumerism, it isn’t possible to counteract the billions of dollars spent by industry on advertisement supporting, albeit indirectly, this decline in the American Republic. It remains to be seen whether the American spirit will prevail over the nemesis that is unchecked self-interest.
Works Cited
Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. 10th. Canada: Knopf Inc., 1966.
Anastaplo, George. "On the Central Doctine of Democracy in America." Interpreting Democracy in America (1991): 425-461.
Give it a quick read, and let me know what you think.
On Democracy in America
In the early 19th Century, Alexis de Tocqueville, a French philosopher and historian, visited the United States with the intent of discovering why the democratic republic worked in the United States while it was floundering in his homeland. What he discovered was an innate sense of the necessary balance between individuality and societal needs. He called this the “principle of self interest rightly understood”. This ideal has eroded over time leaving America in the factional, consumerist state it is in today.
Tocqueville describes the principle of self interest rightly understood as the ability of an individual to accept virtuous behavior as not only a means of advancing the society as a whole, but also of advancing himself. He points out that in old Europe it was widely accepted that virtuous deeds “…should be done without hope of reward as it is by the Deity himself.” This idea, that man should do good deeds only because that is what God would do, was held by the aristocracy and dictated to the poor and working classes. In the United States however, there was no definite aristocracy. Certainly there were wealthy families and individuals, but in a society based on equality, they couldn’t simply tell the lower classes what to do. From this moral vacuum emerged the principle of self interest rightly understood. According to Tocqueville, this view of virtue is what made democracy work in the United States.
Today, we often see a tendency towards unmitigated selfishness in our society. This is evidenced in some of the more disturbing trends of the last half century. Since World War II, arguably the last war fought by all classes, the last equalizing war, the gap in our society between the wealthy and the poor has been widening. The rise of gated communities exemplifies the desire of the wealthy to separate themselves from the rest of American society. Though they pride themselves on their contributions to society through charitable donations or other avenues, they often forget the message they broadcast with the security fences that surround their neighborhoods. It is accepted that American’s have the right to advance themselves socially and financially, but it was never decided that once they reached the top, that they’d take leave of the rest of us.
The extreme right wing in our country often expresses its distaste for social security and welfare, and denounces the income tax, and in some cases the practice of taxation itself. This flies in the face of the principle of self-interest rightly understood. Democracy cannot peacefully last without equality. This has been demonstrated many times in our own history, the Civil War being the prime example. The nature of welfare and social security is not to provide a handout to the poor so that they don’t have to work. The nature of welfare and social security is to provide the monetary support necessary for the poorest Americans to enjoy the most basic equality of economic security. The rejection of taxation by the right wing, an expression of self interest in its most pure form, its members have decided that their own well being is more valuable than the well-being of society as a whole.
When one considers the nature of democracy and specifically its relationship with the individual, you often encounter Locke’s social contract theory. The social contract and the principle of self-interest rightly understood are the same ideas applied to different facets of the nature of government. The social contract addresses the idea of a man giving up some of his freedoms in exchange for the protection of government, while the principle of self interest rightly understood explains why a man would be inclined to do so. It explains the desire of man to follow the tenets of society, not through threat of violence by the government, although for some that is a factor, but because he realizes that he will be better able to advance himself inside the construct of society’s morality than outside of it.
When a man realizes that he should be virtuous only because it will advance him in society, then he has realized the fullest extent of Tocqueville’s principle. This happens less and less frequently these days. The now common practice in our society of exploiting those below you in the social ladder to further yourself is something more often seen in old world Europe. This trend reflects a regression of American ideals towards those more commonly held in the pre-democratic kingdoms of Europe. CEO’s have become our lords and ladies, and they rule over us with much the same disdain for the lower classes as their spiritual predecessors. Enron and other examples of corporate embezzlement show this clearly; those who occupy the highest rungs of the social ladder have lost respect for those below them, and by extension the rest of society. This trend is distressing because the wealthiest in any society hold the most power, and thus influence, over the rest of society. If it again becomes acceptable for the rich to exploit the poor, as it was for centuries before the rise of corporate controls and enforcement, the United States will lose what made it great when Tocqueville wrote his book.
The necessary components for democracy, according to Tocqueville, are not particularly mysterious. A societal acceptance of cultural equality on some level is the first, which this country has more and more of every day. The second is the realization that while society is more important than the individual, each member of society can advance himself by being a contributing member of the whole. This country is in danger of losing this important philosophy entirely. Perhaps in this age of consumerism, it isn’t possible to counteract the billions of dollars spent by industry on advertisement supporting, albeit indirectly, this decline in the American Republic. It remains to be seen whether the American spirit will prevail over the nemesis that is unchecked self-interest.
Works Cited
Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. 10th. Canada: Knopf Inc., 1966.
Anastaplo, George. "On the Central Doctine of Democracy in America." Interpreting Democracy in America (1991): 425-461.