The Book Club: Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville with Pete Peterson | The Book Club

Welcome to the book club. This month we will be discussing two things that have fallen out of favor as of late. Democracy in America by Alexei de Tocqueville. But first, in our fast-paced world, it is tough to make reading a priority. At least, it used to be. At thinker.org, they summarize the key ideas from new and noteworthy nonfiction, giving you access to an entire library of great books in bite-sized form. You can read or listen to hundreds of titles in a matter of minutes, from old classics like Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People, to recent bestsellers such as Jordan Peterson's Twelve Rules for Life. If you want to challenge yourself, if you want to, let's say, expand your horizons, perhaps, if you want to impress other people at cocktail parties, which I think we all do, then you've got to go to thinker. T-H-I-N-K-E-R.org. No E. There is no time for that. Start a free trial and put your mind in motion. Now, we will put our minds in motion, just as this great revolution of democracies and equality has been set in motion some centuries ago that Alexei de Tocqueville chronicles in this very important book. I'm joined by my friend Pete Peterson, the Dean of the Pepperdine Graduate School of Public Policy. Pete, thank you for being here. Great to be with you, Michael. This is one of the most requested books on the show, not only from the audience, but from speakers as well, and I have had to tell people. I'll be totally open about it. I've had to tell some people, no, this book is too important. We need someone who can really give it all it's worth, and you are that man, Pete. So would you mind, in one minute, summarizing what this book's about? Well, it's essentially a travelogue story written by one Alexei de Tocqueville, who traveled from France in 1831 for over the course of nine months, traveled around the United States for reasons that we can get into, but suffice it to say, distilled his thoughts about what it was like to see this incredible Republican experiment in self-governance in the United States, much different than anything that he had seen, obviously, in Europe. The book itself described, and I see we both have, the best edition by Harvard's Harvey Mansfield and his late wife, Debo Winthrop. They describe at the beginning of the book, in their introduction, that Democracy in America is at once not only the best book ever written about democracy, but the best book ever written about America. And so to understand both the democracy and the democratic part of this new nation and what was going on, again, back in the 1830s and in comparison to what was happening in the revolutions in Europe, but also what was so unique about America, I think it's such an important book for all Americans today to read because they will see things that they'll have a wry smile and realize that this is very much the America they see today, but they also will read some, essentially, what I call Tocqueville's prophecies that he cast back in the 1830s, things that I think are very true today and worth considering. One of the job requirements of being a talking head, a political commentator, is that you never predict anything right. And you get everything wrong and you say, this is what's going to happen in the election, and then the election's two weeks later, it's all the opposite. And then for some reason, you go back on TV and make the same sorts of predictions. Alexei de Tocqueville is sort of the opposite of that. His observations at the moment rang true. They have been proven truer every day. You refer to his prophecies. I'm reminded of this idea that a prophet is not just someone who predicts the future. A prophet is someone who can see the truth around him at a time when other people cannot. And so it appears that he is predicting the future. And he predicts some things that are good, and he predicts some things that are not so good. Right. Yeah, no, I think it's right. I think it's fair to say first that when Tocqueville comes to America in 1830 with his friend Gustave de Beaumont, their initial task was to write about, learn about, research America's prison system as a way of essentially reflecting back to France, some things that they might learn from what they're hearing is happening in America. But over the course of this nine-month trek that he travels all the way from New York up to Canada, down to New Orleans, and back up through DC, he sees so much of not just American government, which he describes very much, pretty much in volume one, which is published in 1835, but then gets into the political culture, what he would call the mores that sustain this democratic republic and the things that are so different that he sees in the United States in comparison to France. So it's fair to say that he initially was writing really for a French audience to reflect back to his countrymen to say, freedom and democracy is really the trend line and future for all civilized peoples. And in understanding that, we need to understand in the example of the United States, what we can learn from that experience. And this is an important point that he begins with. It's not merely that he is saying, this is the best form of government, right? Or this is preferable to some other form, which we might choose. He is making an historical claim, which is, this is the way government is now. If a government doesn't look like this yet, it soon will. We have left the age of aristocracy. We are in the age of democracy. The defining feature of the age of democracy is equality. So get used to it. Right. Exactly right. Probably the better translation of the title is On Democracy in America. And you really have to look at this book through those two lenses. One is a study of democracy and the related issues of equality and freedom. And the other is what it looks like in the American context. And in that, the whole discussion around not just the features and structures of American government, and he certainly goes into that, everything from the organization of local governments, all the way up to the U.S. Constitution and how the federal government is organized in the states. But also just about the mores that are necessary to support that, the issues of self-governance and civic participation and civic engagement, which are necessary for supporting this level of freedom and equality that he is witnessing in America. But as you say, understands that it's coming to the rest of the world. So he's looking at the evolution of America from 1620, the pilgrims get there, through 1776, through the 1780s. And he points out, he says, that the American revolution ended at precisely the moment that the French Revolution, our own revolution for his audience, begins. So what makes, these are obviously very different revolutions, very different experiences. What makes America unique? Well, first off, I think it is worth noting how deeply impacted Tocqueville was personally by the French Revolution. His great-grandfather was guillotined. The great-grandfather's daughter, or what would have been Tocqueville's great-aunt, was also guillotined. Tocqueville's parents were both put in prison over the course of the revolution and afterwards. And there had been a series of these revolutions, both monarchical and republic, over the course of that time period from 1776, 1779, through 1830. In fact, Tocqueville's reason for coming to the United States is there had just been another revolution in 1830 in France, which essentially put Tocqueville on the outs because he was attached to the preceding administration. He was coming to America, in many ways, trying to leave the revolutionary situation that was going on in the United States, or back in France. But at the same time, he had also seen a country that had been convulsed over the course of 50 years from the French Revolution. And what sets America apart in that sense really goes back to the origin story. And for Tocqueville, what he sees is to understand America of 1830, you have to see the American, not from 1776, but from 1620, as you say. And it was really this American experience which started not with a nation-state, but with these small villages and communities of, for the most part, religious refugees from Europe that were seeking both to govern themselves in very local levels, but very much have this sense of the importance of the mission that they were on related to their faith, and the importance of faith and self-governance. That melding was happening almost immediately. And so, as opposed to other nations, which start really from the nation-state or some sort of monarchy and that trickles down, America started with a very different experience. And again, not from 1776, but from 1620, which starts from this very, what he would call the village freedoms that happen at the local level, the importance of faith in shaping not only ethical behavior, but also the sense of community that comes out of that. And that's the origin story for America that then gets brought all the way up to the Revolution and obviously with the creation of the Constitution. Now, you would expect that the lack of hierarchy, the lack of lots of tradition, the lack of a landed gentry, the lack of all of these things that had given stability to the old world, you would imagine this would cause chaos in America. And yet, Tocqueville says it's actually the opposite. You actually get more stability even if you have less to hold on to. Yes. No, that's absolutely right. One of the great fears that many in the European continent had about this Democratic-Republican revolution that was happening in the United States was that, didn't it just mean you were really disconnecting from all the traditions and forms of identity? Won't people just be running off as individuals and what would be called selfish individuals? And what Tocqueville talks about here in one of the great concepts of the book is Americans created this concept known that he describes, that Tocqueville describes as self-interest rightly understood, which is this combination of freedom and self-governance, but at the same time understanding that as individuals in a democratic society, we really need others to get things done. And so this sense of associativeness, Tocqueville says, this importance of working outside of government, but in civil society, one of the great lines in this book in comparing Americans to Europeans, he says at once, at the start of every great undertaking where you will see the government official in France and the Lord of the Manor in England count on it, you will see the association in America. So whether it was bridges or schools or road systems, Americans were not relying on government or some sort of hierarchical system. They understood that if we're going to get this done, we're going to have to work together. So this sublimation of selfish interest in the interest of the community really helps to define how Tocqueville understands this self-interest rightly understood. In the American idea of class, which shouldn't really exist at all, it's sometimes said that there are three classes in America. There's the middle class, the upper middle class, and the lower middle class. And Tocqueville puts it a little more eloquently than that, but he makes much the same point. And he says, it's not that the middle class is happy and content. They're not. They want to rise. They're pursuing their own interests as voraciously as they can. But the fact that there is this middle class gives us stability so the rich don't fear that they're going to get robbed. And the poor don't fear that they're going to be oppressed because the middle class are just, they're there concerned with their own interests and they kind of lend a certain stability to the whole system. Right. And related to that, I think another important point that Tocqueville makes is not only is there, and I think it's important to point out that opposed to Europe and what he sees in Europe, especially with these hereditary systems and aristocracy, where you start is where you're going to finish in life. When you come to America, all the opportunities are open to you and the stories are now becoming well-known, even as early as the 1830s of those who start in poverty and work up to positions of either political or economic prominence. That at the same time, there's also this feeling, this attitude among Americans that they will not bow to anyone. And so even as Tocqueville would say, even those of the lower class that back in Europe would be very subservient to others, there's just this general attitude toward Americans that no matter where you are on the economic rung, you're not going to be subservient to anyone. So he says, and he really says this from the very beginning of the book, perhaps I'll even quote the man directly. He says, the very first line of the introduction, among the new objects that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, none struck my eye more vividly than the equality of conditions. That's right. So, you know, we as, I'll speak for myself, I as a conservative, we try to downplay the role of equality in the American tradition, but that's right where he begins. Yeah. And I will join you in that conservative moniker, but also just to add that it's important to say equality of conditions. Now it's worth noting at this point that Tocqueville has much to say on slavery, much to say on the treatment of Native Americans. This was also a time in the 1830s where we're seeing the beginning of the Trail of Tears. He travels through slaveholding states and makes really condemnatory appraisals. He and both Gustave de Beaumont, his fellow traveler who went on to write a book just about slavery in the United States after this visit, but this equality of conditions is really essentially about this quality of opportunity. And again, always referring back to where he comes from and speaking to the audience that he is initially at least writing this book for, this equality of opportunity is just a powerful thing to witness for somebody that, again, had been brought up over centuries in Europe to see a social state where where you started was essentially where you were going to finish. He lands in New York and almost immediately begins to see such a thriving energetic nation where somebody starts at one place in their life, goes up to some great height economically, and then it all may get cut out from under them a month later. So this turbulence in life related to at least economic achievement is all made possible about this, by this equality of opportunity. But he points out, too, the flip side of that is you've got this incredible opportunity for everybody unseen ever in the history of the world. But because it is directing people's passions and desires and intellect in a certain way, you'll see less brilliancy. You'll see more general well-being. That's right. But the highs won't be quite as high as aristocracy. The lows won't be anywhere near as low. That's right. But the highs won't be as high. You see a dramatic leveling for everybody. Yes. No, that's very, very good point. And again, it is worth saying this isn't just a paean or a celebration of democracy. This is about describing what he sees and warning his countrymen about what to be looking for. And in this aspect, he is very forthright about saying when it comes to the arts, when it comes to certain accomplishments, whether it's on the battlefield or politically, when it comes to philosophy, when it comes to even freedom of thought, there really is a very tight, there's a much tighter band of what's possible, he would say, in the United States versus Europe. He says quite explicitly that in America, you know, in theory, you've got all this freedom of thought, and yet in practice, you have pretty much none. Yeah. And this relates to something I think is one of the several reasons why it's important for Americans to read this book now. That leveling of what he calls this really lack of a freedom of expression or inquiry is related to the power of public opinion. And of course, this again is something very different than what he's seeing in Europe, where the culture makers and decision makers are very much set within the aristocracy. Democracy is not just about a democratic or republican democratic system politically. It's also that way when it comes to economics and then broader culture making. And so the power of public opinion at one point, he says, that opinion is so powerful that once Americans set their minds on something, nothing can set a position on an issue. There's nothing that can stand in its way. And it's important to understand that the ways in which it's often that powerful quote from Andrew Breitbart, that politics is downstream from culture. This is essentially the argument that Tocqueville is making almost 200 years ago, that that culture, that public opinion that is set on particular issues, really does limit what's possible. And certainly we're seeing today with this cancel culture, what's possible to talk about and what's not. And that band of what's possible is narrowing. And it shows you the difference between the theory and the practice. How Americans, for instance, in Tocqueville's diagnosis, they only care about stuff and maintaining their own nice homes. And then just as their beautiful home, the home of their dreams, is about to be completed, what do they do? They sell it and they get a new home. That's right. And they just constantly, but yet, even despite this focus on material stuff, they're very, very religious. They are. At one point, Tocqueville says that religion is the first of America's political institutions. And he means that in a couple of different ways. One is, and again, going back to the Puritan pilgrim experience of the 1620s, that the churches really were those little laboratories of democracy. These many cases, certainly on the side of Protestant churches, were little self-governing communities. And so at one point, Tocqueville talks about the fact that many people learn about governance, government, political organizations through service to their church governing bodies. At the same time, he also sees the importance of religion, and particularly Christianity, as being a faith that really prepares people for freedom. At one point, he says, Christianity may not necessarily dictate that people are free, but it nonetheless facilitates their use of freedom. And in that, the importance of morality, the importance of having these essentially self-governing mechanisms about human behavior, which are present through religion and especially through the Christian religion, are vital to a very free people. You mentioned the P word, Protestantism. We think of America as a Protestant country. 1620, those were the most Protestant Protestants ever to walk the earth. And yet, Tocqueville says, actually, Catholicism has a very important role in America. He even goes so far as to say that Americans will end up over time becoming Catholic. Even the ones who don't want to be Catholic, they're just going to be drawn to Catholicism, or they're going to give up Christianity entirely. How do you make sense of that in the land of the Puritans? Well, and again, it's a very interesting point that Tocqueville makes, and you're right to say his views on Catholics. Now, obviously, he's coming from a Catholic nation, but one that was very hierarchical, obviously, all the way up to the Pope and various, and the mixture of religion and politics was very deeply intertwined in the European experience. When it comes to the United States, certainly, the Catholic Church is the same church, but at the same time, he sees a more democratized version of Catholicism. And in that, he sees that it's really, in many ways, a terrific preparation for democratic people, in that it does certainly keep the same Christian traditions and values, which are important to a free people. But at the same time, this view of the church as an institution separate from politics, the fact that this was, by and large, a majority Protestant nation, meant at the same time that a minority Christian tradition, the Catholic Church, really had to find its own way politically. And in that, because it didn't come in as the dominant branch of the Christian faith, it really did find a way to work within the system, both through schools and also through preparing and celebrating the freedom that they had to practice as Christians in America. Because he makes the point, too, I think it's just before he kind of lands on his prophecy about Catholicism in America, he says that Americans are given to some sometimes fairly eccentric religious impulses, that because they spend all their time working, and they're not thinking about these things, and they're the most Cartesian people, they live Rene Descartes, they've never read a word of his philosophy, they don't think about religion and philosophy, that when they get the spur for religion, sometimes it doesn't make any sense. Sometimes they could be, I don't know, running around inventing whole new cults and religions. Yeah, and of course that was something that he witnessed in the 1800s, you know, whether we're talking about the Shakers or a variety of other Christian or semi-Christian sects that were then operating in the United States. But again, that really would be a natural result of a nation where there wasn't this church-state hardened relationship. And so there was a lot of experimenting going on, both in religion as well as a number of other areas of life. So, we have this progress of equality, we have this progress of democracy. It's probably a good thing, but even if you don't think it is, too bad, it's going to happen anyway. What's the danger? Well, it really is towards the end of the book. And again, this single volume that we have today is really comprised of two volumes that Tocqueville wrote, the first in 1835 and the second in 1840. The first volume really gets into the systems of government and analyzing the Constitution and a little bit into the mores, but it's really in the second volume where he really gets into the social conditions that are important for a democratic state. And one of those areas that he really does call out really towards the end of the book is what he would describe as soft or mild despotism that can naturally result in a democratic people's. Now, it's important to say that he is speaking to a democratic society more broadly. This is not something that he's seeing, but to your point that you raised at the beginning, he is seeing truths in present tense that he is then reading into where this all might be going. And this, what he is saying is that as Americans become more successful economically that you would expect in a free people, that gradually this self-interest rightly understood that he describes earlier where Americans understood they had to rely on one another that with this economic success, eventually our attentions turn inward. They turn away from these civil associations that he's talked all the book about as being so important that people begin to look away from in participation in local government that really is all about protecting what they have. At one point he has this great sentence that he says, as Democrats with this success begin to draw into themselves, they may have a family, but they no longer have a native country. And so we begin to draw back. And again, this is an important part about Tocqueville that this national identity is really founded locally. It starts with the local identity that allows for the national identity. And as we begin to draw into ourselves, we begin to detach from these civil societies, civic organizations, and begin to look for government as a protector of what we have. And in describing that state, essentially what he is describing is a form of government that is not essentially meant to ensure the behavior or the governance of a free people, but it's essentially every individual looking for the government for self-protection. And that is where he describes what he calls this immense tutelary state that is essentially sought by Americans, not again to protect their freedoms, but protect their stuff. And in such a way that Democrats will essentially give up their freedoms so long as they have this protection from the government. Because you might think at this time in history, you might think that the real fear for democracies would be anarchy, that you'd get rid of all the social control and people would go do whatever they want. And in that time in America, there were no kings and the people did what they thought was right in their own eyes. But he says, no, that's actually not the fear. The fear is they're going to talk a good game about not wanting to give power to a central authority, but they're going to want to give that power. They're going to want to give their power away. They're going to want to see that central authority grow. Their very individualism is going to make them feel so vulnerable and weak that they're going to give it away to this more collective authority. Could I read that passage from there? This, again, is from really towards the end of the book, and he's talking about this mild despotism. He says, I want to imagine with what new features despotism could be produced in the world. I see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Each of them withdrawn and apart is like a stranger to the destiny of all the others. His children and his particular friends form the whole human species for him. And then just to jump down, above these an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, regular, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if like that it had for its object to prepare men for manhood, but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood. So, this fear that Tocqueville has that with this freedom and this materialism that can sometimes result in that, and he talks about there can be what he might call a legitimate materialism, that we keep things in their place. But if that balance is thrown off, then that self-interest rightly understood, which he said Americans are doing such an incredible job of balancing their freedom with their responsibilities, that begins to come off, that could, again, he's looking into the future, and one might say we're living in that future. I believe we may, it ain't 1830 anymore, that's true. That's right. If you turn to page 666 of the copy that we share. Interestingly paginated. Interestingly, page 666, the very first sentence of this brand new chapter, it says, I believe that it is easier to establish an absolute and despotic government in a people where conditions are equal than in any other. So, you thought you'd have despotism in the Ancien Regime in France, uh-uh, it's actually easier to do it in a place like this. And I think that if such a government were once established in a people like this, not only would it oppress men, but in the long term, it would rob each of them of their, of several of the principal attributes of humanity. So, before I let you go here, Pete, we're now almost 200 years after this book was written. Some might see such a government arising among us. One first question, is Tocqueville right, broadly? And two, three questions. Two, how far along are we on his prophecy? And three, what do we do about it? Well, I'll start with the last question first, um, because, and maybe just to jump to the second question, I think we are very far along. I think Tocqueville was very prophetic in this. The ways that we respond are the ways that Tocqueville, in describing what he was seeing in the 1800s, again, with the foibles and challenges to equality of conditions that we've already allowed. But to say, first and foremost, Americans need to get back to this understanding of self-interest rightly understood. And I think Americans at their best today are doing that. We are a very civically engaged people still today. We still are much more philanthropic than any other people in the world. We are very much connected to our local communities in ways that many other people aren't. So, a focus on the local, a focus on the importance of civil society, certainly importance on religion. And religion, I'm going to say something that may seem counterintuitive, but to understand the importance of, as Tocqueville says, the political aspects of religion. I think so many people today are almost ipso facto, the church and state need to be separated and really never the twain shall meet. What Tocqueville understood was religion was essential to the formation of engaged self-governing citizens. And so, that kind of understanding. And then I would say, finally, that Dennis Prager is very fond of saying, the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen, and the smaller the citizen, the bigger the government. That is essentially straight out of Tocqueville. And so, if we are not going to be a self-governing citizen, we should expect government to take that larger role. But we should also be aware of these prophecies and do all that we can to maintain the self-governance and the freedoms that we have been given. Be a good citizen. Go to church. It's an important thing. Live a good life. Self-interest rightly understood. And one thing you could do to get started, read Alexei de Tocqueville. Read Democracy in America. Pete, thank you so much for coming on. Thanks so much. I'm Michael Knowles. This is The Book Club. We will see you next time. Happy reading. Thank you so much for watching this episode of The Book Club on PragerU. PragerU is a 501c3 nonprofit organization, so we rely on donations from viewers like you to keep this content on the air. Please consider making a tax-deductible contribution today to help keep this content coming. Thank you very much.