The Mind and Brilliance of Alexis de Tocqueville, Part One
Most of you have heard of Alexis de Tocqueville, the Frenchman who visited America in the 1830s and wrote a two-volume classic, Democracy in America, about his findings. De Tocqueville was an incredibly brilliant man, and I’d like to share with readers a little of his genius. Like our Founding Fathers, he had a solid grasp of history, human nature, and great, eternal spiritual truths. Here are a few of his thoughts.
1. “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
I’ve made this point so many times in my writings that my readers might be getting tired of it. I’ve quoted Benjamin Franklin to the same effect: “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” And historian Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy.” Here I simply wish to demonstrate that Alexis de Tocqueville understood the same common-sense truth. I find it interesting that he said that Congress would bribe the people with their own money. The man was honest. That is exactly what the corrupt Congress is doing today, and the government is $39+ trillion in debt because of it. We learn nothing from great minds, but are enamored by idiots.
2. I think this second quote from de Tocqueville is funny: “I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior men if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run.”
De Tocqueville wrote in the 1830s when America actually still had some pretty good men in public office; probably a step down from our Founders, but far superior to nearly anything we have today. I wonder (no, actually, I don’t) what de Tocqueville would think of U.S. Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), Jasmine Crockett, U.S. Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters (CA-43), and the 533 other members of Congress that currently plague the American nation. Superior? Don’t make me laugh.
The American people appear to be diligently searching rubbish bins and toilet bowls for people to run for office today. We could (and should) tell them, resoundingly, “NO!” But then, read the first quote above again.
3. This next quote has some brilliant subtleties that really need an entire article to analyze. Maybe later. Here is the quote: “Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
Socialism, or at least socialistic ideas, has existed all through history, and de Tocqueville (as well as our Founding Fathers) was aware of, and rejected, them. Notice that de Tocqueville talked about “democracy” in opposition to “socialism.” Now, it’s important to understand that the Frenchman understood certain limitations of democracy (point number 2 above implies such). A “virtuous democracy” (or republic) a la our Founding Fathers, would be in view here. But given that kind of democracy, de Tocqueville’s analysis is sheer genius.
Democracy looks at the individual, at “individual freedom” in de Tocqueville’s term. Socialism sorts men into groups, classes, collectives (“agents”, “numbers”, not individuals). Socialism is not just an economic theory; it is also a way of organizing a society. And that organization is “collectively,” not “individually.” Individualism is the enemy of the collective; socialism always has an “enemy.” In the 20th-century communist, socialist countries, the enemy was “rightists,” “capitalist roaders,” “anti-revolutionaries”—in other words, peasants, etc., who wanted their own land and basically just wanted to be left alone to live their lives as best they could. Socialism can’t allow that; people (farms) must be “collectivized,” as they were in the Soviet Union and China. Individual freedom leads to private property, which is the bane of Marxism (and socialism).
In America, the Democrat Party has accepted socialism. They look at Americans in groups, collectives—blacks and other “minorities,” women, homosexuals, transgenders, DEI—any way they can deny individualism and sort people into units to whom they can give certain benefits (see point number one above again, please), and thus restrict individualism. Black people are not individuals to Democrats; they are members of the “group” to be exploited for the gain of socialists. And the enemy, of course, is “white supremacy” (white men). The only individual “liberty” the Democratic Party believes in is not true liberty, but licentiousness, and even then, it is “group” licentiousness—abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, promiscuity, etc. Individuals have no way of rising above the “group.” The Democrat Party has no concept of “virtuous liberty (or democracy)”.
De Tocqueville’s last point is also exquisite. (Virtuous) democracy and socialism do have one word in common: equality. But while to democratic individualism, “equality” means “equality of opportunity,” to socialism, “equality” means “equality of results.” And the latter can only happen under government (forced) redistribution of existing resources. And since only individuals can create the resources necessary for a society to become truly wealthy (freedom is necessary for such, and government’s vested interest is always to restrict freedom as much as possible), it is not surprising that the typical socialist country does indeed have equality—an equality of poverty, oppression, and misery. Look at America’s big cities to see where the Democrat Party’s “socialism” has had its obvious (and frankly, to Democrats, desired) effects. Control, not freedom. That is socialism vs. virtuous democracy.
More brilliance from de Tocqueville forthcoming.
