Classics and the Western Canon discussion
This topic is about
Democracy in America
Democracy in America
>
Week 2: DIA Vol 1 Part 1: Ch. 4 - 6
date
newest »
newest »
Sorry Patrice, T's conscientious Americans vs. repressed Europeans made me a bit recalcitrant - but I should have restrained myself. And I admit, T.'s task isn't an easy one - to make his point clear he has to overstate his case. But that led me to another idea I want to try. T's taking New England as pars pro toto may help explain his popularity. When Hollywood wants to put primeval America on stage there are two possibilities. Like two sides of a coin. We are given the thrill of the frontier, or we are transported to the autumn leaves of New England. Democracy in Peyton Place, that just can't fail to touch a soft spot.
Anyway, while Americans like to admire their own country, T. and I will admire it even more. :-)
Well, the country I was born in doesn't exist anymore. And, like our author, I feel we can't swim upriver. Got to move on, make the best of it.Yet this is a nostalgic book. Readers longing for small-town American values that may have been just as ethereal as the writer's dream of the aristocracy as a positive force.
I agree with you about T, his inner conflicts. There are contradictions in his feelings and between sentiment and ratio. To me, that makes him sympathetic and interesting. I haven't found a quote that clearly demonstrates this aspect, but the matter has my attention.
Patrice wrote: "doesn’t T describe america this way, at this time? relatively speaking until recently, i think america was still this way, compared to the ussr, Venezuela,etc. israel vs saudi arabia. my kids tell ..."https://youtu.be/aNmMZaohppo
In Korea if someone saw an empty seat in a cafe with a cellphone/laptop on the table, they would wish they could take the seat, not the loot. (Not only are the free seats scarce, they are in plain sight of everyone else in the cafe and probably the security cam. Some people even leave their bags in their places as a 'mark' to show that this seat is taken.)
I don't know if this stems from 'internalized ethics' or some other different perspective or a more efficient observance system.
As T. said, "American legislators show little confidence in human honesty; but they always assume an intelligent man. So most often they rely on personal interest for the execution of laws."
However as a homogeneous group, the Korean people may be guilty of more bias and alienization of different culture or people.
I've had a hard time with chapter 5 as well. I've also been wondering whether geography or commincations had something to do with America's administrative decentralization. It may have had some role in its development but as Alexey pointed out, centralization was heavy in Russia and China. Maybe it is influenced more by the historical aspect of the country as America didn't have a previous regime before the colonies. It also may be influenced by the relatively simple aspect of the society, as I also agree that the extent of administrative decentralisation can't help being reduced as society gets more specialized and complicated. However, I still agree with T. on the importance of the longterm benefits of administrative decentralisation. It's sort of like teaching your kids early on to take care of their own stuff and chores in order to start them off to a more independent self-discipline. If you help them and guide them too much with their basic stuff and schedule because you think they're not ready to deal with such complicated stuff, you'll get a cleaner house and the science project done much more efficiently but you'll keep on helping and managing them. I think that local administration/independence should start at an earlier and simpler level in order to expand to a more complicated level.
Also, T. remarks that "when the central administration claims to replace completely the free participation of those who have the primary interest, it is mistaken or wants to deceive you. A central power, as enlightened, as skillful as can be imagined, cannot by itself encopass all the details of the life of a great people. It cannot, because such a task exceeds human power. When, on its own, it wants to create and put into operation so many different mechanisms, it either contents itself with a very incomplete result or exhausts itself in useless efforts"
This reminded me of the centralization in the former communist societies where administration of many sectors was done in a very incomplete or ineffective way.
Do you think that USSR is one example of what T. meant by saying that "there are no nations more at risk of falling under the yoke of administrative centralization than those whose social state is democratic. ... The permanent tendency of these nations is to concentrate all governmental power in the hands of the single power that directly represents the people, because, beyond the people, nothing more is seen except equal individuals merged into a common mass."?
It also reminded me of the 'Dunbar's number' and made me recall that there may be a limit to both the local and central administration.
Borum wrote: "Also, T. remarks that "when the central administration claims to replace completely the free participation of those who have the primary interest, it is mistaken or wants to deceive you. A central..."
No Russia was not a democracy when the administrative state is found, it was a Civil war. The process was pretty back and force and there was never Orwell's 1984. In any way, there is not an example of de Tocqueville's idea.
Borum wrote: "I've also been wondering whether geography or commincations had something to do with America's administrative decentralization. ... Alexey pointed out, centralization was heavy in Russia and China"I've been wondering if the fact that America started relatively small and homogeneous and then grew in length and heterogeneity has something to do with initial decentralization x increased later centralization. For instance, Russia and China were already big and heterogeneous by that time.
Monica wrote: "...then grew in length and heterogeneity has something to do with initial decentralization x increased later centralization...."Many of the rulings and institutions associated with centralization grew out of facilitating interstate commerce. I can't quote statistics or data, but Tocqueville generalizing style, I'd say as much or even far more than out of any increasing (social/cultural) heterogeneity.
I liked this thought: Every individual is, therefore, supposed to be well-informed, as virtuous, and as strong as any of his fellow-citizens.After retiring from the Navy and could be more involved in the political system. I became active in the neighborhood league and then frequented/participated in city council meetings; along with working on local & state campaigns &trying to stay informed of the details of national issues so I was an engaged voter. It frustrates me that people do not want to inform themselves in the matters & people we vote for on the local, state & national level!
Didn't quite understand T's posit that religion was the cause of long-lived prosperity of an absolute government.
Thomas wrote:Yes, there were. Shay's Rebellion in 1786 might be the most important of these in this context -- this is the rebellion that led to Thomas Jefferson's famous quote: "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." And doesn't T seem to echo this through his comment for about new generations?: Let it not be said that the time for the experiment is already past; for the old age of nations is not like the old age of men, and every fresh generation is a new people ready for the care of the legislator.
Do you know an example of such a population, Patrice?
True, T. is talking about degrees of force - and he may be right that people in New England were better behaved those in France.
Who in turn may have been better behaved than those on the American frontier .. While today maybe the most decent people are found on the former frontier ..