Democracy in America

Tocqueville argues that despotism sees any coherent action between people as a threat. This is for purely practical reasons: “a despot readily pardons the governed for not loving him, provided that they do not love each other” (485). The antidote to individualism—which also supports despotism—is “cooperation” and participation in politics (486). This remedy is in operation in American political life, thanks to federalism and local government. These traditions, Tocqueville argues, “multiply infinitely the occasions for citizens to act together and to make them feel every day that they depend on one another” (487). Americans constantly work for the “common prosperity” because they live and practice politics in proximity to their neighbors. American political institutions remind each citizen that “he lives in a society” (488). For Tocqueville, “to combat the evils that equality can produce there is only one efficacious remedy: it is political freedom” (488).

Americans also “constantly unite” to carry out civic causes, like building schools, hospitals, and other infrastructure (489). This takes the place of aristocratic action. Tocqueville argues that this function cannot be fulfilled by government, as this would result in “tyranny” and a squashing of individual initiative (492). Tocqueville notes that while he first found the anti-alcohol temperance movement confusing, he now sees that it is similar to projects aristocrats used to undertake to inspire peasants. He argues that association is a kind of “mother science, the progress of all the others depends on the progress of that one” (492).

Newspapers help associations develop because they spread ideas and inspire “common action” (493), which allows citizens to identify their shared needs and interests and act in concert. As countries grow more democratic, newspapers and associations will proliferate in equal proportion. Tocqueville’s argument here is reminiscent of political scientist Benedict Anderson’s: Newspapers represent a kind of “imagined community” so that nationalism and political cohesion develop. (Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso. 2006. 25.) Tocqueville makes this argument centuries earlier to suggest that newspapers expand an individual’s imagination about what kinds of actions are possible and that an individual’s needs might become a broader project.

Tocqueville then considers the relationship between political and civil associations. Political association, in his view, is an antidote to individualism, since it “makes a crowd of men who would otherwise have lived alone desire to unite, and teaches the art of doing it” (496). Political association tends to exist on a larger scale, which further suggests to citizens that smaller-scale work of civic association may also be effective. Associating for both purposes makes the practice “universal,” which is beneficial for democracy. It may be tempting to political leaders to curtail this habit of association, but flourishing civic associations are only possible when political association is also permitted. Tocqueville freely admits that the power of political association should likely be limited to stave off “anarchy,” but that these limits may have negative consequences as well.