Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift by Paul Rahe is an important new book for anyone interested in history of the future direction of modern democratic societies. Here’s part 4 (of several) of my summary and review of the book. Others: Part 1-Montesquieu Part 2-Personal Reflections Part 3-Rousseau
In the third main section of Soft Despotism, Paul Rahe examines the works and ideas of Alexis de Tocqueville, a Frenchman who visited America in the 1830’s. He published his reflections on American democracy in France, hoping to influence the development of his native land’s government. Tocqueville realized that monarchy and the nobility were forever lost and only democracy or tyranny remained as viable forms of national government. The monarchy was lost since every major development in western civilization for the last 1000 years had been toward equalization. All long term tendencies were ‘democratizing’ as they raised the commoner and lowered the relative privilege of nobility. Clergy could come from any rank; the legal profession was increasingly the source of authority rather than the whims of the sovereign; international trade brought dispersion of goods and ideas; firearms gave a small band the power formerly wielded only by large royal armies; the Protestant Reformation questioned the rights of the restricted priesthood to be sole arbiter of the grace of God; rising literacy gave common man new powers; and the discovery of the Americas gave any European opportunity to build any life they could imagine in a vast and fertile land.
In a democracy, the majority rules all. Non-compliant ideas are dismissed and ineffective. Tocqueville lamented that in these conditions leaders would simply appeal to the masses, ‘prostituting and degrading’ themselves, resulting in very few great statesmen or great ideas. He saw in America that men free from tradition and class distinction ‘sorted things out for themselves’, but that this freedom could be too overwhelming and confusing.
Men totally free would be overwhelmed by their options. Unable to make all decisions deliberately, men would trust ‘public opinion’ as the only remaining authority. Independence brought isolation and confusion, so men sought comfort in majority opinion. The useful is preferred to the beautiful since beauty was subjective and thus resistant to consensus. Practicality would rule the day while imagination and aspiration constricted. Men would seek petty advantage and thus surrender their hearts.
Since men saw themselves as equal with one another, there was no ideal to aspire to, thus no limit to perfectibility. Men would strive always, feeling an obligation to always pursue. Thus prosperity and unlimited freedom brought unease, though ‘equal opportunity’ seemed freeing at first glance. However, equality means all men are equally weak and face barriers of competition, resource limits, etc.
Tocqueville feared that the great equality produced men ‘disgusted with life in the bosom of abundance’. Faced with general malaise rather than crises of hunger or persecution, democratic man was unlikely to stage a revolution, but were susceptible to a ‘gentler, softer despotism that would degrade men without tormenting them’. Men loved freedom, yet want security, to be coddled.
Tocqueville observed that Americans seemed independent and happy enough to avoid this coddling mindset. He noted four characteristics in America that made America ‘exceptional’. First, the township structure of America led to neighborly cooperation and communal work. Second, judicial power in which lawyers fulfilled the intermediary roles formerly reserved to European nobility. Common law driven by precedent limited the options of an unbridled equality. Third, associations in America in which small groups were formed spontaneously to build schools, hospitals, churches, newspapers, or to further a political cause. Fourth, Christianity’s prominence stabilized the young democracy. Divine law gave men an internal sense of righteousness amidst a political liberty with few rules.
Tocqueville saw domestic tranquility and family life were key to the health and happiness of American society. American women had unprecedented freedom and many personally chose their husbands, a practice not widely practiced in Europe. These free women were thus fiercely loyal and loving to the families they were actively building. Their domestic dedication made the American home a place of calm and peace in a world of frantic change and growth.
While Tocqueville saw religion’s value in constraining a ‘ridiculous’ wild liberty otherwise possible, he worried that religion would lose it’s strength and thus its healthful effect. Democratic man, ever susceptible to ‘public opinion’ would desire to mold his beliefs and actions to fit the consensus. Religion would be seen merely as ‘morally useful’ but devoid of revelatory power. Tocqueville lamented that ‘as the light of faith is obscured, the vision of men narrows’. When men lose a vision of eternity, their focus devolves into petty, immediate satisfaction of earthly desires.
The familiarity that Rahe cites within Tocqueville’s work, I think is a key to the well functioning society. A personal familiarity is integral to healthy townships, associations, families, and religious churches Tocqueville saw as essential to American exceptionalism. Familiarity requires a limit to the size of any association or group. Personal knowledge of group members is essential to trusting one another. Without trust, only procedures and rules can keep the group on target. While necessary in larger groups, these are always limiting and restrictive to some degree. What size limit is appropriate for groups of differing purposes? I’ll return to this question in a later review segment.
Rahe follows the section on Tocqueville with a look at how democracies in America and Europe have developed since Tocqueville’s day. Our continuing review of Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift will focus on that in part 5.