Democracy in America

Tocqueville admits that the pessimistic limits of his vision apply more to Europe than to the United States because of their differing histories. He demonstrates:

Among the Americans, therefore, freedom is old; equality is comparatively new. The contrary obtains in Europe, where equality, introduced by absolute power and under the eye of the kings, had already penetrated the habits of peoples long before freedom had entered into their ideas (646)

This tendency will be exacerbated by revolutions, as the only source of authority that remains after these tumults will be the state apparatus. Americans set up their democracy without having to struggle with aristocratic traditions or the remnants of this elite class. Newly democratic states will face more pressure to centralize if they need to fight frequent wars to protect themselves.

Resistance to central authority will be weak, Tocqueville argues, “if it happens that this same power faithfully represents their interests and exactly reproduces their instincts” (650), but it will be stronger if the new government is associated with a former aristocracy. Claiming that government represents equality is the new “science of despotism” that threatens individual liberty (650). Tocqueville’s vision of democracy, especially outside the United States, becomes increasingly dystopian. He suggests that a commitment to equality and smashing the influence of former elites will be enough to destroy real resistance to authoritarian rule.

Tocqueville continues his pessimistic journey by stressing that the worst tendencies of despotism are likely to increase in Europe. He declares emphatically, “One would say that each step they take toward equality brings them closer to despotism” (651). As evidence Tocqueville describes the erosion of alternative power structures: “From one end of Europe to the other, the privileges of lords, the freedoms of towns, the provincial administrations are, or are going to be, destroyed” (651). States have taken over tasks like education and care for the poor, and have amassed more wealth through savings banks for the poor and loans to the state from wealthy backers. This is exacerbated by industrialization, as massive projects require infrastructure that only the state can finance.

He insists that revolution must not be equated with real equality because centralization is its own revolutionary impulse: “one must beware of confusing the fact of equality itself with the revolution that serves to introduce it into the social state and the laws” (659). Revolutions conducted in the name of equality lost the commitment to freedom, so that they “reinforced and centralized the social power” (660). Tocqueville presents state spending and intervention as an unstoppable giant that crushes individual initiative; state care for the poor or intervention in finance is not, in his view, a sign of progress but a harbinger of doom because it abdicates individual and local responsibility. He argues that it is not enough to tear down ancient structures in the name of equality; care must be taken that an overzealous government does not replace them.

Tocqueville’s dystopian vision is distinct from that of cruel tyranny of the past. Democratic societies will use different tools to ensure social control. Citizens will not fear for their lives but will be drained of life force by the search for amusement: “I see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls” (663). The new paternal state will be focused on leisure and pleasure above all else. Tocqueville argues that this is due to the contrary impulse of citizens both “to be led and the wish to remain free” (663). Tocqueville admits that “despotism” via legislative government is less demeaning than other forms, but this will be ultimately fruitless in a system where the state has taken over private life. Eventually citizens will become so unaccustomed to exercising their political freedom that they will no longer be able to choose representatives. Tocqueville’s dystopia, then, rests on citizens seeking personal contentment more than personal or political activity. Free choice becomes like an unused muscle that will eventually atrophy and disappear, even if some democratic political institutions are maintained.