Tocqueville, Napoleon, and History-Writing in a Democratic Age

In Democracy in America, Tocqueville posited a contrast between the way history is written in “aristocratic” and “democratic” ages. In the former, historians tend to assign great weight to the actions of individuals; in the latter, they privilege great impersonal forces that act upon the mass. The essay examines Tocqueville’s views of Napoleon Bonaparte in light of these reflections. It concludes that despite his occasional vulnerability to the lure of Napoleonic grandeur, and despite his own desire, as an aristocrat writing in a democratic age, to effect a synthesis of the two modes of historical writing, in the end he fundamentally viewed Napoleon’s actions as determined by the forces of democratic equality and revolution.

Democracy in America?

It is officially known that democracy in the United States of America became the main idea more than two hundred years old. For a long time, it was considered the most progressive and standard for the whole world. But now people are increasingly asking questions about whether there really is a democracy in America. Is United States is really a democratic state? This article examines various aspects of the democratic structure of the state, including theoretical, historical and legal, as well as the current political situation in the United States. Based on the analysis of the US electoral legislation and the work of the American electoral system, it is concluded that, on the one hand, the citizens of the country are not guaranteed the exercise of their active and passive electoral rights. And on the other hand, key laws and political decisions are made without relying on the opinion of the citizens of the country, which does not allow us to classify such a way of governing the country as unambiguously democratic. The presidential election-2020, with its numerous violations and mass riots, was particularly criticized. To a large extent, this situation in the American electoral system is explained by fact, that the orientation of The Founding Fathers of the United States was not to ensure democratic governance of the country. They argued for strengthen American federalism, which reflected the complexity and archaic nature of the electoral system. Its allows us to conclude that neither formallyconstitutionally, nor in fact, the United States is not a democracy. The system of power that has historically developed in the United States is most accurately described by the term “oligarchy”, which generates a number of both political and constitutional-legal consequences.

Mature Enough to Disobey Jurors, Women, and Radical Enfranchisement in Tocqueville’s Democracy in America

While many have pointed to Tocqueville’s admiration of the jury system as a schoolhouse for civic participation, I argue that Tocqueville sets up, but forgoes, the opportunity to make jurors empowered enough to counter the ills of democracy that he enumerates, specifically the tyranny of the majority and soft despotism. The education of American women, Tocqueville remarks, prepares them to be independent, confident and astute observers of social conditions, but these characteristics are eclipsed by their domestic responsibilities as wives and mothers. Juxtaposing two sections of Democracy in America that are normally thought of separately (juries and women), I show that Tocqueville falters in his perception of the radical enfranchisement of jurors and women because of his fears about the instability of democracy (with its delusions of equality) just as he provides some of the best arguments for the importance of their political interventions.

Tocqueville’s Politics of Grandeur

In his defenses of empire, Alexis de Tocqueville emphasized the need to achieve grandeur for France, and his writings on Algeria have shaped our understanding of his political career. In pursuing empire abroad as a remedy for weak politics at home, scholars maintain that Tocqueville abandoned the participatory politics of Democracy in America. This essay argues, however, that the focus on Tocqueville’s international turn has obscured his interest in the greatness of domestic party politics. It demonstrates that Tocqueville championed a version of grandeur tied to the latent energies of the lower classes and distinct from the Bonapartism and aristocratic nostalgia that characterized his thoughts on empire. This version of grandeur was a political reclamation of disagreement and debate that supported great party opposition to counter the malaise of bourgeois rule. The essay concludes by comparing Tocqueville’s attitude toward foreign others, whose freedoms had to be sacrificed to the cause of French nationalism, with his description of the lower classes within his own nation, whose inclusion in the franchise could foster great politics. This comparison enables us to draw modest lessons for interpreting political grandeur in the present day.

Disciplining the Rich: Tocqueville on Philanthropy and Privilege

This article inquires into the moral successes and failings of the superrich in America. To do this, we turn to Alexis de Tocqueville who outlines a set of expectations for any privileged elite. Drawing from his Old Regime, Memoir on Pauperism, and Democracy in America, we argue that the superrich are obliged to a particular kind of charity, which we specify as philanthropy. To fulfill their philanthropic duties, the superrich must steadfastly attend to three obligations: maintaining their local communities, safeguarding local liberties, and providing moral leadership. In the conclusion, we suggest how the superrich might be disciplined unto this virtue.