by Jimmie Moglia for the Saker blog
Words being arbitrary, they owe their power to association, and have the influence which custom has given them – for language is the dress of thought.
Therefore on hearing the words “Democracy in America,” some will think of Alexis de Tocqueville’s book by the same title. Others, not having read the book (an enterprise of no mean feat), will think that it took a Frenchman to appreciate American democracy, as it existed nowhere else.
Still others may think that the concept of democracy and America are indissolubly and maybe exclusively linked, just as America is the obamanesque exceptional nation.
But as there is a history in all men’s lives, so there is one in all men’s words. In the instance, it may interest some to know the curious and fortuitous circumstances that caused the book to be written.
First, a geographical-historical anecdote. Prior the Normandy landing in August 1944, American planes bombed the hinterland. A target was the Tocqueville family’s castle, which was heavily damaged. After the war and to repair the castle, the Tocqueville family sold all Alexis’ manuscripts to the Yale University. Ironically, American pilots were given a little booklet containing extracts from Tocqueville’s most famous book, possibly to read or use should they be shot down in enemy’s territory.
Tocqueville wrote “Democracy in America” in the 1830s, after an epic journey to America with his friend and colleague Gustave de Beaumont. They originally intended to study the penitential system in the United States. But once there they decided to conduct a thorough sociological study on the nation.
France had just undergone (or survived) the French Revolution, Napoleon’s French exceptionalism, the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy and the July 1830 revolution, featuring a change of dynasty and the crowning of a bourgeois king, Louis Philippe d’Orleans.
Louis Philippe was also a gourmet and had long lived in exile in London. When British Prime Minister Disraeli paid an official visit to Paris, Louis Philippe, at dinner, insisted on slicing the ham for Disraeli. “I cannot allow this, a king cutting the ham for me” – said Disraeli. “No no – insisted Louis Philippe – I learned how to cut the world’s thinnest slices of ham from the chef of a London restaurant I patronized when I was in exile.” No doubt a bourgeois king.
But I digress. Louis Philippe himself would eventually flee Paris in disguise at the onset of the next 1848 and equally bloody revolution. Which was followed by a short-lived republic and eventually by the empire of Napoleon III. Incidentally, those interested in the turbulent post Napoleonic period in France may watch the related video I produced, titled “Revolutions Then and Now” https://youtu.be/AGB_ypTAuVY
Yet, only the most notorious revolutions have made it to history books, the post-1789 French-revolution period abounded with more upheavals, reformers and revolutionaries, such as Babeuf, Saint Simon, Proudhon, Fourier and others.
In this turbulent climate, credulity performed for America the office of faith, and panegyric the office of information. Or rather, America became a screen on which Europe could project its vision of an ideal world, accompanied by a sublime indifference to fact.
Here is an example from a European journalist, “In Virginia the members chosen to establish the new government assembled in a peaceful wood, removed from the sight of the people, in an enclosure prepared by nature with banks of grass. And in this simple spot they deliberated on who should preside over them.”
And “… the day when Washington resigned his command in the hall of Congress a crown inlaid with jewels had been placed on the books of the Constitution. Suddenly Washington seized the crown, broke it and threw the pieces before the assembled people. How petty the historical Caesar seems before this hero of America.”
In the imagination of enthusiastic Europeans, America had removed all artificial distinctions. “The Americans – wrote a German professor – are the most fortunate people in the world. They do not even know the name of many burdens worn by many subjects in Europe” etc.
In the 1830s a trip from Europe to America could take from 4 weeks to three months. Tocqueville’s travel through America was extensive, for the time, reaching Vermont and New Hampshire in the North, Ohio and Michigan in the Midwest, followed by a round-trip tour of the South.
Tocqueville’s books are massive, but some anecdotes may give the flavor of his observations. For example, given the absence of any touring or accommodation facilities, travellers resorted to local pioneers and homesteaders to obtain night hospitality for man, guide and horse. Hospitality that, as a rule, was willingly given.
Tocqueville noticed that the hosts did not make any inquiries about the guests, their origins or their travels. Questioned about why he had given hospitality to strangers, one host replied that he did so because he expected reciprocity when he would find himself in the same situation. As for interest in the guests the matter for him was irrelevant, because all his efforts were dedicated to production and to establish and expand his farm and homestead. Therefore he had no time for anything else.
Once in New England, Tocqueville reached a town during an election. He documented the procedures and noted how properly and carefully the election was organized. In 1830 the North had already abolished slavery and blacks had the right to vote, yet none showed up at the polling station. At first Tocqueville was told that the blacks would vote in the afternoon, but they didn’t. On asking about this absence the election staff replied half-jokingly that if any black would show up to vote he would be whipped.
In the South Tocqueville discovered that farmers whose permanent residence was in the North had actually two families, one in the North and one in the South. The growing season for cotton and tobacco being relatively short – about 4 months – they divided their time and residence accordingly.
The travellers learned with horror that when the white part-time Southern plantation owner died, his sons from family number 2 would be sold as slaves, because the owner’s Northern heirs considered their father’s sons in the plantation as part of the inheritance, an investment to be sold for the best return.
And, though slaves generally lived in poor conditions, they were still significantly better off as slaves in the South than as free men in the North. Slaves being a saleable asset – they were worth more alive, in reasonable conditions and therefore saleable, than dead and unsalable.
On returning to France the two travellers decided to write separately. Beaumont wrote a sociological novel about the plight of the natives. Tocqueville, in his extended two books, reached some tentative conclusions – here broadly summarized.
Problems in US are/were in reality the same problems as in France and elsewhere. But France could not copy or reproduce the American system.
Theory is complex, democracy is simultaneously the best and the worst political system. Accordingly, when citizens vote they simultaneously accept the best and the worst.
The popular view in France, at the time, was that America’s legendary ‘democratic’ superiority had to do with her laws – which Tocqueville studied and documented in detail. But that was not true. Mexico, for example, translated and copied the American laws verbatim, but with very different effects. Mexico did not become a democracy.
Conclusion: the laws do not per se make a system democratic. Otherwise it would only be necessary to translate the laws from the country where they have been proven to work to another and the problem would be solved.
Another theory held that democracy in America provided a safety valve for the dissatisfied, who could renounce the comforts of civilization and seek freedom by moving to the Western frontier.
Still the idea that of creating a US-like frontier in parts of Europe to resolve social problems was not convincing, even assuming that it had been possible.
What and when is a system really democratic? – Tocqueville asks. Studying history reveals a reality that cannot be reversed or repressed. The reality is the constant historical progress towards equality, notably from the 13th century onward – however accompanied by persistent social inequality.
Money creates social inequality but so do race and religion. Yet beyond doubt is the historical direction towards equality, accompanied by a generalized yearning for liberty. “Liberte’, fraternite’ egalite’” – said the Jacobins, who, nevertheless, proved their fraternal spirit by generously using the guillotine.
Yet Tocqueville cannot answer what does liberty really consist of, because – he says – liberty is a sensation. When someone asked him to define it, Tocqueville replied that the very asking the question proved that the questioner himself never felt free and therefore would not understand the idea.
Years later, in a conference where the same subject came up Tocqueville said that freedom does not exist because it is a sentiment akin to love, as described, for example, by French novelist Madame de Sevigne. And much like love, it is crucial to perceive and feel the sensation of freedom daily and continuously. For if we don’t feed the sensation, there is no freedom.
Still, the mind rejoices at deliverance on any terms from perplexity and suspense, says Tocqueville. But when the mass-man shouts, repeats and asks for ‘freedom and democracy’ he is asking for disaster.
There can be political systems that do not allow specific freedoms and yet where citizens can feel free. And the reverse is also true – there are systems apparently quite free, where the individual feels that he is not. Furthermore, the liberty of a citizen in one nation is not the same liberty of a citizen of another nation. And the liberty in one historical time is not the same liberty as perceived 20 or 30 years later.
Tocqueville reached the following conclusion. In future there may be republics, monarchies and other mixed forms of government. But in essence only three political systems can exist. One where liberty is the most important feature, irrespective of its consequences. But if this were so, eventually there would be no political form, no state or even politics – for complete freedom is anarchy, which is the antithesis of a political structure.
The second possibility is a system where equality and liberty coexist, with a tendency for equality to be perceived as more important than liberty. But this, says Tocqueville, after anarchy would be also the worst possible political system – from which an exit to freedom would be most difficult. Of this we have recent massive historic evidence in Europe during the XXth century.
The third possibility is a system where the political status-quo is daily brought into question and citizens are continuously involved.
Regrettably, both in the 19th century (as Tocqueville remarked), but also in our own times it is the equality-above-freedom political structure that the world at large seems to be directed towards. Most people like and want this system because it seems most attractive on the surface – consequently it will be implemented. We could add that the Western-Zionist slogan of the New World Order admirably embodies the concept, “You will own nothing and you will be happy.”
Such dreams may seem the children of an idle brain, begot of nothing but vain fantasy. Yet equality is attractive because everyone understands it. “I have the same rights as my neighbor, whatever my title, ethnic group, age, social condition, mode of dress or accent may be.”
It appears as the application of the simplest mathematical concept, 2=2, the foundation of reasoning, the principle of equality, of identity and of no-contradiction. Besides, equality is a principle easily impressed into our mind, whereas liberty is more complex.
But why in a democratic system equality seems more important than freedom? Because unconsciously we pretend to imitate the American pioneers on the Western frontier of old. Let us imagine – says Tocqueville – that we live in a system where education, origin, speech, religion are such as not to invalidate the concept of equality.
If so we quickly reach a paradox. Because all of us would be equal but, equally, all of us wish to be better than our neighbor, simply because we are human. However, as the inaudible and noiseless foot of time moves on, and under the impetus towards equality, things with an un-equalizing force such as education, life experience, determination, drive etc. tend to lose importance in the assessment of many.
In the end there is only one element that enables a citizen to demonstrate that he is better than his neighbor – meaning, in an environment where all wish simultaneously to be equal in theory but unequal in practice. And that contradiction-enabling element is money, more luxury items, more possibilities of ostentation, etc.
Which, in a democratic system – always according to Tocqueville – produces a somewhat dangerous mechanism. To achieve the objective we tend to focus our efforts only or exclusively on activities that we believe can secure more things, more money, greater, faster and easy wealth.
In turn, people abstain from what is more complex, does not promise an immediate economic reward and appears more distant from the immediate objective.
Humanities, philosophy or history do not seem to produce an immediate reward. The sought-for ideal knowledge is practical.
In this context, and as an update, we can interpret the current ‘cancel culture’ as the latest manifestation of the leveling principle – apart from other equally paradoxical and cataclysmic consequences, expected when the movement will reach its extreme.
The materialistic drive produces yet another paradox. Perceived social pressure forces the mythical average citizen to dedicate himself to the project of earning more money, to buy a bigger house, much like the pioneer of Tocqueville’s anecdote.
Hence the conviction that, with sufficient effort, one can resolve any problem, even when political. This is bad, says Tocqueville, because problems dealing with freedom and politics do not have easy solutions.
Yet the world ever looks for easy solutions – this was said in 1835-1840. The new French ‘bourgeois’ king’s message was, “Become rich, get more money, get more things.” With the consequence that in these conditions politics themselves lost (lose) their original function (in the Athenian’ sense, the ‘polis’ etc.).
He who compares himself with his neighbors may perhaps feel (about) equal, but when he compares himself with the rest he feels very small. I am as good as my neighbor – he may say to himself – but the mass inspires fear. And in a democratic system with emphasis on the material aspect of things the circle of reality becomes ever more restricted.
For this sentiment Tocqueville coined the term individualism, (1835), as confirmed by the Oxford dictionary that explains Tocqueville’s neologism as, “a self-centered feeling or conduct as a principle.”
Individualism – adds Tocqueville – is the first characteristic of a bad democratic system, leading to more people living alone and/or alone with their heart.
In the end– continues Tocqueville – citizens will only be interested in the narrower part of their family. In the 19th century families were still large, and it was revolutionary to think that eventually families would become smaller and smaller, with interest concentrated on the smaller family excluding everyone else.
Individualism, obsession for more money and for material things was the characterization of the pioneers whom Tocqueville met in America. I help other people so that they can help me, but without any other interest. Which means that I see others not as human beings but as a function of what they can do for me.
The ‘other’ person becomes an item of exchange, an element of the market. Which gives rise to another mysterious phenomenon or evolution; Tocqueville calls it the ‘tyranny of the majority.’
He explains as follows. To the self-centered individual political problems appear resolvable without great effort. For the mind rejoices at deliverance on any terms from perplexity and suspense.
How to tackle a strike, for example? A simple practical problem. Let’s tell the president of a company that tomorrow he should give all employees an equal and large sum of money, a house and a carriage. A seemingly practical solution.
The democratic illness, says Tocqueville, is the widespread citizen’s belief that problems can be resolved because they are assumed to be practical – like the material problems the citizen resolves in his daily life – where effort and dedication determine the result.
This reasoning, when applied to social or political issues, turns into the belief that, although a political problem is assumed resolvable, the individual has no time to dedicate himself to its solution, for he needs to concentrate his effort on the advancement of his career.
In defective democracies the individual citizen thinks that others have decided what is required to resolve the problems that he has no time to solve. Which leads to everybody agreeing that something is good or bad, and no one dares to oppose public opinion. As mentioned, Tocqueville calls it the tyranny of the majority. Or, using a contemporary term, the ‘thought unique.’
The thought-unique may suddenly change, but it will be affirmed with a conviction equal to its yesterday’s manifestation.
Hence yet another paradox. In previous eras (before Tocqueville’s) tyrannies were essentially material. There being no liberty, it was relatively easy to approach the castle or the palace of the lord, where the revolutionaries would execute the tyrannical ruler or lord. Meaning that tyranny ended due to the material nature of the tyranny. But eliminating the tyranny of the majority is a paradox, for we are the majority and consequently we tyrannize ourselves.
Furthermore we are convinced that we have formed our opinion independently. Therefore, concludes Tocqueville, when a democratic political system drifts towards equality but not liberty, we must adapt ourselves to be the objects of our own tyranny.
Eventually in a society where there is much equality but little freedom – we may think, individually, that we are taking our decisions independently, but in reality we are doing the same as other millions do.
Which is a terrible thing and a bad democracy, says Tocqueville, because it destroys the human being, and affects both social and family relations. It establishes an economic measure throughout society and throughout all relations among individuals, and it makes politics disappear.
Politics cease to exist, because no one wants, wishes or dares to face problems that hold no solution. And problems that have no solution but yet require it are the problems of politics, just like love, as explained by Madame de Sevigne’ in her novels.
How does it happen that, in such a society, we accept to resolve problems that have no solution? Poverty, for example, is a problem without easy or final solutions. It generates itself continuously. So is discrimination.
And there is no stability in politics, nor permanent liberty. Or rather, the thrust for liberty, again, should be a daily commitment and exercise.
But how is it possible that citizens may transform themselves into politicians?. For in a political system where democracy implies the tyranny of the majority we are only free once every four years when we vote. For the next four years we have ceased to be free.
In this sense we have improved on the past. Beforehand we could not elect our tyrants but now we can, once every four years. And when the voter casts his vote, he counts as one and he is free. In all other time he isn’t – says Tocqueville. Because, having renounced politics we have instead a state structure that fills the gaps we have left. Gaps filled with other things that reinforce our ideas that what is important is not politics but other things. The whole triggers a self-reinforcing feedback, whereby we dedicate ourselves to produce many things in order to own and produce more things. This is why, concludes Tocqueville, in a bad democratic system there are no citizens but only subjects.
Tocqueville was clearly pessimistic. He warned about the democratic political systems that established themselves in the 19th century – laden with great problems and greater risks. They are the most difficult systems to change – he said – for they require transforming subjects into citizens, an extremely complex, if not impossible, operation.
Subsequent authors who studied Tocqueville’s theories observed that today, in televised revolutions, the masses direct themselves not towards the presidential palace, but to stores, shops and supermarkets to break the windows and leave with as many stolen goods as possible.
Why? Because politics being perfunctory they are not felt as important. Toqueville almost reached the same conclusions as Fukuyama and his end of history.
What could occur in his time (the XIX century) if the political democratic systems were not sufficiently structured and managed? The citizenry at large, he sayd, would revert to a state of nature, of war of all against all, every man for himself, without solidarity, help, a social sense, friends or family.
On today’s stage – to test Tocqueville’s theory – where all men and women are still merely players, a citizen’s life in the new world order may approach the state of nature as defined by Hobbes, featuring disorder, chaos, aggressiveness, danger and fear. Antifa and BLM in America, and the US-Zionist-Nazi regime in Ukraine could be examples. The latter an attempt by the current US cabinet to maintain dominance by sophistry without art, and confidence without credit.
Tocqueville speculated, before Fukuyama, that the end of history could occur in the middle of the 19th century. For politics is dialog, debate, discussion, compromise, conversation and give-and-take – the lack of which Tocqueville already saw occurring in his time.
And while knowledge is often the parent of heresy, credulity performs the office faith and fanaticism assumes the language of inspiration. With the chance that, as time goes by, bipeds with the shape of men would meet themselves as wolves.
Equally, Tocqueville did not seem to account for or acknowledge, that the power of doing wrong with impunity seldom waits long for the will. In our historical times, the wars of destruction in the Middle East, Yugoslavia, the annihilation of the nation of Palestine, the US/NATO proxy-war in Ukraine are but some examples.
Could there be (have been) possibilities and means for Tocqueville to avoid his pessimistic conclusions?
Actually he himself attempted to transform the reality of the French political world by founding a movement or party. Possibly expectedly he failed and retired to his castle in Normandy.
His admirers attributed the failure to his being a political philosopher rather than a politician – and philosophers are not good politicians. Maybe, but perhaps they may have found an easier explanation in Moliere’s “Le misanthrope”, written about 200 years before Tocqueville. “C’est une folie à nulle autre seconde, De vouloir se mêler de corriger le monde.” It is folly second to none to set oneself up to correct the world.”
Which does not mean we shouldn’t try, subject to narrowing the geography of the endeavor. It may still be difficult but who knows? To quote 19th century English poet Robert Browning, “The aim, if reached or not, makes great the life – Try to be Shakespeare, leave the rest to fate!”
There is a democracy in America? Since when?
funny enough, the word “Democracy” does not occur in the US Constituition at all
The USA was supposed to be a democratic republic operating through the rule of law.
“The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence”. Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page.
So much confusion when it comes to political systems. Many have been tried, but none really work. Utopia seems impossible on this earth.
I like what Tolstoy said. Maybe we should try something that has never been tried. Maybe we should all, as individual humans before our creator God, decide just to do the right thing always…..to stand firm on principle. Act like the first cause is your only priority……be a moral individual. Always. No matter what.
As the organizing principle, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” most accurately reflects reality….that no person is immortal, no one is God, everyone dies someday. Live life before your creator as if this day is your last…..our, more accurately…….your only…….because, reality is: this present is your only day.
i heard a priest say in a sermon:
“Every day be extraordinary at being ordinary.”
The sermon was about modern infatuation with celebrity.
The US is a demockracy.
Where we are all equal, but some are more equal than others.
Hate to be a spoiler, but wasn’t Disraeli Jewish? Would he be eating ham? Would Louis Phillippe be culturally insensitive enough to serve it?
Economically, Putin put it very well. “A comfortable sufficiency for all”.
Equality of opportunity is I believe what most people want rather that the same number of dollars in their wallets. .
Freedom from having 38 FBI agents descend on your home without notice or lock you up for life because you revealed someone else’s crimes..
Freedom of expression and exploration.
Guaranteed human rights.
The most important job of government is protection. Protection from catastrophe be it personal, natural or the result of hostile intent.
Right now, the US is failing on all fronts.
Enjoyed this very much Mr. Moglia. Thank You for the education.
I don’t know where any of these demagogues get the idea that we have a democracy here in the United States — or anywhere else. We don’t. We aren’t.
Tocqueville is an historical relic. Jefferson thought democracy “rule by the mob.” Democracy scared the crap out of him. Probably why the United States is a constitutional republic, with some democratic principles (more like privileges) that can be easily revoked at any time.
Only professional politicians and the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) here in the United States push the whole fiction that they are “saving the world for democracy.” If fact, they are saving the world for something that does not exist — a fiction.
It’s only when the level of wanton and open criminality must be increased (which is a daily occurrence now), do we Americans have to endure people like President Brandon cry (weep) about how we are losing our democracy. Pure crap, and propaganda. “Come on, man!”
It’s like living in a country that can only exist through endless war and endless war mongering cry (weep) about “Peace.” Pure crap.
Only an “Empire of Lies” pushes this democracy crap.
“Because unconsciously we pretend to imitate the American pioneers on the Western frontier of old. Let us imagine – says Tocqueville – that we live in a system where education, origin, speech, religion are such as not to invalidate the concept of equality. ”
Not sure I agree that pretentiousness is the object of those who believe democracy can be achieved through equality? Probably because all who understand American mind set agree, those factors such as money, race, religion, age, intelligence, credentialed knowledge, even height, strength, and such are monopoly powers..and monopoly will be leveled and tamed by the concept of equality. Equality operates as a standard that is completely independent of all other factors.
A fascinating historical article but to what extent can political philosophy of a democracy be applied to a mixed or non-democracy? First – what is understood by the political philosopher to be a democracy? Does election of officials on a periodic basis satisfy the “rule by the people” criteria? If not, then how to determine the degree of rule?
People want to accumulate wealth and this is easier corporately than individually, so corporations gain unequal shares of wealth and power, being in a better position to influence the political process (“What is good for General Motors is good for the United States”). The evolution of this is that most Western democracies are not democracies but oligarchies. The title of democracy is kept as it evokes positive feelings but it is unlikely that the philosophies of democracy and oligarchy coincide.
Perhaps even the discussion is a distraction as the most pressing concern most people seem to feel is to do with wealth, not politics per se. It might be easier to consider what is the better financial system regardless of how much control the average citizen exerts over political decisions. A New World Order that delivered on “You will be rich and happy” would win the popular vote!
Great article!
Unfortunately, we in the USA started out as a republic (with democratic rules), then (as forewarned by Franklin), descended into empire (under Lincoln), and now we are under the rule of stateless oligarchs and permanent a permanent bureaucrat class (the Deep State, if you will). I see no way out of this without bloodshed, because those who aspire to power will not willingly give an inch. Jefferson was right about the tree of liberty needing the blood of patriots to remain healthy. And that tree hasn’t been watered for a long, long time.
Liberty? To me, it’s not living in fear of your government. That government which governs least governs best. The trick is how to limit the government’s power. As the author notes, laws alone do not make for good government. The best governments are the weakest because even if they aspire to do evil they don’t have the means. Who cares if you are taxed at a 100% rate, or are told that you must bow to the authorities if they don’t have the means to enforce it? And the means, as ever, are money. Starve Leviathan of lucre and he will be a much more docile creature.
Which brings me to another point. Most people I know don’t, in fact, aspire to power or even much more money than they have now. Maybe that observation is simply a function of the economic/social circles that I live in, but my sense is that this is a widespread phenomenon. I’ve often thought of why some people are driven to exploit and use others exclusively for their own selfish benefit. Beyond the observation that we are all sinful creatures, my conclusion is that there is a genetic component to this, as there is in most things. Which means that we won’t ever live in a world that Voltaire thought best, where we just cultivate our own garden, because there are principalities and powers that will always want to rule us…unless there is a way to neutralize those who are naturally predisposed to that kind of activity.
Thanks for the thought provoking article.
The USA is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, whatever fantasy that is. Democracy is not just a fantasy, but a utopian fantasy. The worse, or perhaps better, least successful form of government. Human nature is implacably in the way of this, an every other fantasy. Like communism.
the tension between individualism {my values} and community or social relationships is a constant . majority rules isn’t tyranical its group concensous {birds of a feather flock together} based on common values,if 70% of a community say sex with children is forbidden…the minority Must accept the majority rules or there is no government only chaos {everybody doing what is right in their own eyes} but the minority are given avenues to promote their beliefs ie. Free speech , the right to assemble {protest} to vote in their candidate who share their values/beliefs.but in the end the majority Must rule,
the social aspect of life {good of the community/city/state/nation} must also rule over individualism.
The protestant revolution played important role in how to pensive a man as a natural evil or natural good. The protestants claimed a man is natural evil and we need strong state to settle things right. Since than the strong state evolved in federal state corporate state empire and oligarchy. The protestant countries are richer and better organized than the others but people in those countries are more opressed. The protestant states dominated the world and colonised the rest with more violence and racism than before. The Latin over time become less Latin and more protestant with Vaticanum II exposing more unlimited individualism at the cost of common good. Now we got global corporate fascism socialism communism which dominated all the states because we’ve been corrupted (states churches ordinary man ) by the fake many as debt from the several private central banks.
“all of us wish to be better than our neighbor, simply because we are human.”~
Who is all, dear Sir? Why do you project your need to compete with your neighbour as a “human” trait?
How do you justify those sweeping statements that run counter to my experiences?
Maybe this statement applies to the class or environment you come from, but neither my sisters nor I, having grown up in a working-class family, are possessed of that drive, nor are any of my acquaintances, which might be due to the fact that I am very selective and with your opinion, I would exclude you, to your and my benefit.
Why for god’s sake, should he exists, would I want to measure my comfort, my life, my desires by my neighbours (in the widest sense) possessions? I strive for good neighbourhood, for helping when help is asked for, and for tolerance of one’s foibles unless they get oppressive.
In actuality: I don’t give a shit about my neighbours´ possessions.
I know what I need to feel comfortable, what I can afford and what other things I am willing to do without to get or achive that, any of which has absolutely nothing to do with my neighbour. I and my wife define our needs ourselves, and as my kids have grown up and do no longer need my help. And those needs are limited. Necessarily now as a pensioner, but even before that.
I ran a small business with friends for many years, and although we employed others when needed, we all felt more comfortable if we could avoid the responsibility for any employees. Yes, we didn´t think big, or bigger than what we felt we could handle within a certain stress level, and maybe that was because we were in essence tradesmen, and more concerned with the quality of our own work and not willing to take responsibility for the cock ups of others.
I reject your sweeping statement as being void of truth.
And as to the rest: our fall from grace was not some mythical serpent in a garden, it was when we as humans abandoned the nomadic lifestyle when we settled in large communities that needed power structures to maintain this construct.
It made the accumulation and the resulting power differential possible between individuals, and led to the ever-growing need for technology, each development creating problems to be overcome by refining the present one or to be replaced with a successor creating a more or different but usually equally destructive or damaging set.
No, we cannot go back to tribal life, and stop there, unless we are forced by a nuclear holocaust into a situation where going tribal is all that is manageable.
And as to equality and freedom? You claim it is easier to define equality than freedom, but is it? How do you define equality? Equality of opportunity?
Marx had some ideas when he (or Engels) postulated that socialism is the “free association of free individuals” or producers because they can associate without having to burden themselves with the ownership of the means of production which is owned collectively, to be accessible to everyone.
Or is it equality in access to education? Equality in the possession of things, equality in riches? Equality in being able to participate equally in a truly participatory democracy?
When does inequality mean: not being able to access those things that in the long term would achieve a more equal society, where wealth does not equal political power?
Things like a healthcare system that does not break you or your family, or education, or access to quality food and water?
We are not equal due to our individual makeup, intelligence, background, environment, but that should not mean entrenching an inequality due to the lack – and often by design – of access to what reduces this inequality and giving those a voice and a chance to participate in the management of society that are denied this at present, where oligarchs rule and politics almost solely represents those latters interests.
I am quoting Tocqueville, not myself
I was enjoying this until I came to the part about Prime Minister Disraeli visiting King Louis Phillipe. Disraeli did not become Prime Minister until 1868, and so if he ever met Louis-Phillipe, he did not do so as Prime Minister but was still a backbencher by the time Louis was deposed.
You have a pleasant style of writing, and I shall finish your piece later.
The event or anecdote is reported in Disraeli’s biography by nonetheless than famous French writer and biographer Andre’ Maurois. Disraeli became indeed prime minister later, which does not detract (we can assume) from the presumable veridicity of the event. It is common to refer to political personalities by the most famous (or notorious) title they acquired in their life.
Tocqueville wrote “Democracy in America” in the 1830s.
The most important American event in the 1830s was that President Andrew Jackson killed the second (banksters’) bank of the USA.
Article like the one above tend more and more towards useless discussions of “isms” when they do not respect the time line of who controls the issuance of the public money supplies.
The original ideals of the USA were that Congress would control the measure of the gold and silver which would be the money of the USA.
There is quite a precisely detailed and well-documented history of how the American People almost totally lost control over the American money.
When “We the People” do not control the issuance of the People’s Money, then there is no real democracy.
In the USA, President Jackson had to almost miraculously survive assassination attempts by the international banksters’ agents. Hence, the 1830s in the USA were a genuine revival of its underlying democracy, in the sense of the voters electing representatives that controlled the public money supply.
That was systematically chipped away, first by demonetizing silver, then creating the Federal Reserve Board, and finally demonetizing gold.
Since 1971, the American money supply has been controlled by an international banking cartel.
“Democracy” in the USA was systematically destroyed following the time line of control of the money supply. While money remained measurement backed by murder, that is, the American Military backed up the American Money, “We the People” in the USA had almost totally lost control over all of that.
Real, radical, revolution changes who controls the issuance of the public money supply.
That originally happened with the American Revolution. That was somewhat maintained during eras such as the 1830s, due to President Jackson. However, the American people have not controlled “their” monetary and taxation systems since 1913, while those enforced frauds necessarily became about exponentially more fraudulent since then.
Most of the article above seems to soar sublimely above all that.
The USA led the way towards the flowering of Globalized Neolithic Civilization as a debt slavery system backed by wars based on deceits. The USA achieved a globalized electronic monkey money fraud, backed by threats of force from apes with atomic weapons.
However, it has become technically possible that Russia now has superior weapons. (Following a lot of the links in the Saker Website has led me more to believe that.) Furthermore, Russia has become able and willing to move overtly enter into the actual murder systems that back up the money systems.
So called “Democracy” throughout “The West” is already about 99% dead, as judged by the degree to which the people control the public money supplies. Instead, almost all successful politicians, at the present time, throughout “The West” are the banksters’ puppets.
The actually existing system is due to excessively successful applications of the methods of organized crime through the political processes resulting in societies manifesting runaway criminal insanities.
The actually existing system has almost nothing to do with genuine “democracy.”
One thing is certain and that is that the “constitutional republic” in the U.S. has sufficient democratic features that evil has risen to the top and is now in complete control.
Democracy is simply the expression of the political will of the people. The expression of that will must be observably objective. It is axiomatic, therefore, that people, countries or nations who are unable to express their will, because they are subject to the will of others (internally or externally), cannot be thought of as enjoying a democratic existence. This is the case, and has been for a long while, for most people on the planet. Perhaps current exceptions are China, Cuba and Iran and a (very) few others.
Yes indeed Sarcophilus: it must be “observably objective.” And when we unpack that requirement we will discover it can only come through the deployment of a functionally effective (balanced and uncorrupted) spiritual culture. It takes an authentic living spiritual culture to fertilize and enable the wise interpretation of the “people’s will.”
But that can never be found inside the narrow frame of merely atheist secular humanist theory. This being the weakness of the above discussion. I have not seen in this conversation the slightest hint of this essential restorative cultural ingredient. Democracy is an ideal that can only work when the will of the people is not shrouded in illusion and ignorance which results from a spiritually blind egoism of materialism. This conversation needs far greater depth than that which can be provided by the unaided intellect.
The unrecognized radically fundamental requirement is the revolutionary restoration of balance between the feminine and masculine principles in our culture. That vital balance has long been targeted by the high priests of patriarchy, who have, for the best part of 5,000 years, driven a steadily deepening denial of the feminine spiritual principle. (Where pray tell do we now find the Asherah the sacred bride of Jehovah?) The result being psychologically unbalanced patriarchal oligarchy out of control and its rule of power and mass fear. Rudolph Steiner did not say that “Isis has been crucified” for no reason.
The people’s will needs to be culturally articulated in an enlightened manner. And from there socially galvanized. This being the one thing most deeply feared by the ruling oligarchies. To this end they are constantly driven to twist, abuse and destroy spiritually balanced culture, and in so doing strangling intelligent discussion of democracy etc. Hence our seeming confusion and loss of vision.
How can one possibly speak of a democracy of liberty without knowing what “human liberation” actually entails. Who adequately defines liberty? It certainly means something far deeper and more inclusive than my ego simply being free to follow its blind animal impulses. Answering the question of what liberation really means is the first key to actually understanding what it takes to construct real democracy. That cannot be done outside the purview of a living spiritual culture.
To employ an appropriate mythological metaphor, the realization of real democracy has long been dependent upon the “discovery of the Holy Grail.” This is the underground Christian formula for the necessary awakening into the restoration of unity between the feminine and the masculine psychological (spiritual) principles. That discovery holds the promise to light the path towards a balanced democratic unity of an enlightened “aristocracy” and the popular masses. Which is really why the grail has been sought for a thousand years. This is in fact the vital missing ingredient sought by the philosopher Plato. It takes the Grail to successfully begin to lead the masses from confinement within Plato’s cave wherein the shadows of ignorance are imagined as reality.
In this mythological frame, democracy, in the sense of the necessary liberation of the mass psyche and the restoration of social balance and unity with nature, is the real reason why the quest to discover the grail fertilizes the Western unconscious. Democracy and liberty can only bless the land when Christian man finally reunites with his long lost bride. At that point Christianity becomes more than what Joseph Campbell called “a religion of exile.” So goes the mythological tale.
This being the case I find it interesting to note that some say that the real driving purpose which fueled the European discovery of America is Christian man’s inner quest to find himself by discovering and reconciling himself with his long lost feminine side. That being the case it does strike me as meaningful that out on the West Coast in 1970 the best of the hippy chicks actually discovered that the long lost Goddess was now actually returning inside Euro-American culture. It seems to me that beneath the surface of all discussion about democracy much is now growing from that “American” discovery.
Well such is the mythic tale at least.
Yes, spirituality is crucial to democracy. After all, what better bridge between, on the one hand, the dizzying fact of our uniqueness and hence possibilities for freedom and, on the other hand, our sacred connection, and hence responsibility, to everything, to the infinite.
Democracy is only as good or bad as those who control the process.
A country is only as good or bad as the average intelligence of the populace.
There is no coincidence that the fall of the West corresponds to a corrupt Oligarchy that has “dumbed” down the society with projects such as “nobody fails” (elephant stamps all-around) and affirmative action.
Its a recipe for failure.
Here is an example from a European journalist, “In Virginia the members chosen to establish the new government assembled in a peaceful wood, removed from the sight of the people, in an enclosure prepared by nature with banks of grass. And in this simple spot they deliberated on who should preside over them.”
One should watch the movie 8 Below https://youtu.be/zz7TGf1awDo to learn how nature handles who should preside over them!!!
Beyond that it wasn’t about democracy or any manmade political ideal for Christ Jesus but rather “Father” Everything revolved around “Father.” That was the only government for him and in relation to this I dare say the single greatest political statement ever made by anyone at any time in any period in the entire history of mankind is sung here:
https://youtu.be/3PyInyZn_0M
we were never meant to be separated from our fathers either human or divine.
In the end we find ourselves back to the words of a wise king:
For lack of guidance a nation falls,
but victory is won through many advisers. Proverbs 11:14
America is a republic not a democracy so Tocqueville got off to a rough start in his book. Inane quibbles aside, this is a pretty interesting recounting and analysis of Tocqueville’s philosophy. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any solution as to the best system to oversee societies of people. I don’t think you’ll ever be able to eliminate “the materialistic drive” or competitive drive in humans because it goes to our primal nature. Its similar to the best and strongest in nature being the ones that get to continue their lines through breeding with the desirable females. Religions, not the corrupted organized religions but the original teachings, can play a role in offsetting the materialistic or competitive drive by teaching that envy and greed are not acceptable and that the ultimate reward will be in God’s kingdom. They can also form a solid foundation for living a moral and ethical life, of choosing to do the right thing. But, much of religion has been discarded or fallen out of favor, probably because of the corruption of the leaders. Still, it is one answer to how to prevent society from devolving into an anarchic, jealous society where its everyone for themselves and against everyone else.
It is always a delight to read Jimmie Moglia, cos I found history the most boring subject at school, cos history had just happened, just before I was born in 1953.
I found maths, physics, chemistry, geography and biology (far more interesting – particulary after I had given up the Catholic Religion at the age of 15)
But my Dad told me a bit of what is like, as did my Mum
I have never read Alexis de Tocqueville’s book, but both my parents, experienced much the same things in France and The USA , just after WWI
My older brothers and sisters, experienced WWII, whilst my Dad, was doing his best to get The Spitfires back in the air, and Design and Deploy the Mullbery Harbour under enemy fire.
He found it hard to tell me about these things, not because they weren’t true, but because he had signed the UK Official Secret’s Act, and as a Roman Catholic, was convinced he was going to hell, for all the sins he had committed as a single man travelling across The USA in the 1930’s to meet his ship 6 months later in New York, and then off to Shanghai
Whilst I haven’t been to the USA or China yet, nor met any of (I guess) my half brother’s and sisters…I am however a Grandad now, well past my sell by date, and worried about my Grandchildren, in a world that appears to be already in World War 3
My only saving grace and hope, is that none of my immediate family have been jabbed, and none of us have had covid, or any serious disease. My wife buys everything fresh, and I do most of the cooking. Even the Grandkids ask for a raw carrot when they get home from school.
Tony
Thank you for bringing Tocqueville to my attention. Many pearls, and a fine summary of his thinking.
I’m surprised that many of the problems of the day, was already known as early as 1830s !
I think Jimmie Moglia, is probably Italian, and I do have a special affection for Italians, which I won’t bore you with…but Italians, are different to most people in The South of England. Much more like people in The North of England. I have been to Italy, and worked with an Italian in London for about 13 years.
Italians are Full of Emotion and Love. They are naturally Friendly, even to people like me, who can’t speak a word of Italian.
But what I am trying to write about, is about the accusation, from people much younger than me, now being re-programmed at universities, not to be upset and triggered, by anything that might cause them to get upset…by the words and lyrics of the musicians, I was listening to in the 1950’s and 1960’s, as if they knew what was going to happen in the future…(next to be banned? – good luck with that)
As an example…here is Bob Dylan, from 1966..just played on Radio Caroline (yes I am that old)
How could he know in 1966? No one can predict the future, not even Bob Dylan, or Ozzy Osbourne.
and they go on now with their numerology 66 – just add another 6 (we have read the bible – number of the Beast??? – even according to the Airline Pilot?..The Lead Singer in Iron Maiden (Bruce Dickinson’s book is surprisingly good)
Could be Now – from 1966 USA Bob Dylan…nowt to do with us in England – though we always get blamed for everything, and we are guilty of most people in the world speaking English…cos we travelled from this little Island in the Atlantic Ocean, on Sailing Boats. (wish I was doing that that now – maybe later)
“Bob Dylan – Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again (Official Audio)”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kh6K_-a0c4
Take a Break. They made most of it up. At best it is an allegory, with some very good moral values, but just an exceedingly old recycled story.
God vs Evil?
Christ vs Satan?
just try and be nice in this life.
its probably the only one you have got
Tony
Excellent, Jimmie. Thank you kindly.
Steve Salmony
Freedom is and has equality built into it. It is free for all but will always be co-opted by the powerful.
It therefore follows that the fight for Liberty has to be fought again and again. I.e. These wars are cyclic.
All that is needed to understand the foundations of the US is a comparison of the British East India Company’s flag with that of the US’s.
A succint description of de Toqueville’s book and its conclusions – which is no mean feat, so thank you!
I have noticed that certain societies somehow manage quite well, no matter what happens to them – a result of their religious and philosophic outlook, their history, their understanding of the world, the possibilities of their geographies. I am thinking of my own country Greece where freedom somehow reigns, both psychologically and physically, no matter what our US-run puppet government tries to implement. And where there is a remarkable cohesion of unarticulated purpose despite the ridiculous governments, one worse than the other, and despite the rainbow draped US and British embassies that believe they run the show but are actually irrelevent. We somehow remain impenetrable….and free….