Appearance
Excerpt
Excerpt from Democracy in America — Volume 2, by Alexis de Tocqueville
There is hardly a member of Congress who can make up his mind to go home
without having despatched at least one speech to his constituents;
nor who will endure any interruption until he has introduced into
his harangue whatever useful suggestions may be made touching the
four-and-twenty States of which the Union is composed, and especially
the district which he represents. He therefore presents to the mind of
his auditors a succession of great general truths (which he himself only
comprehends, and expresses, confusedly), and of petty minutia, which he
is but too able to discover and to point out. The consequence is that
the debates of that great assembly are frequently vague and perplexed,
and that they seem rather to drag their slow length along than to
advance towards a distinct object. Some such state of things will, I
believe, always arise in the public assemblies of democracies.
Propitious circumstances and good laws might succeed in drawing to the
legislature of a democratic people men very superior to those who are
returned by the Americans to Congress; but nothing will ever prevent the
men of slender abilities who sit there from obtruding themselves with
complacency, and in all ways, upon the public. The evil does not appear
to me to be susceptible of entire cure, because it not only originates
in the tactics of that assembly, but in its constitution and in that
of the country. The inhabitants of the United States seem themselves to
consider the matter in this light; and they show their long experience
of parliamentary life not by abstaining from making bad speeches, but by
courageously submitting to hear them made. They are resigned to it, as
to an evil which they know to be inevitable.
We have shown the petty side of political debates in democratic
assemblies--let us now exhibit the more imposing one. The proceedings
within the Parliament of England for the last one hundred and fifty
years have never occasioned any great sensation out of that country; the
opinions and feelings expressed by the speakers have never awakened much
sympathy, even amongst the nations placed nearest to the great arena of
British liberty; whereas Europe was excited by the very first debates
which took place in the small colonial assemblies of America at the
time of the Revolution. This was attributable not only to particular
and fortuitous circumstances, but to general and lasting causes. I can
conceive nothing more admirable or more powerful than a great orator
debating on great questions of state in a democratic assembly. As no
particular class is ever represented there by men commissioned to defend
its own interests, it is always to the whole nation, and in the name of
the whole nation, that the orator speaks. This expands his thoughts,
and heightens his power of language. As precedents have there but
little weight-as there are no longer any privileges attached to certain
property, nor any rights inherent in certain bodies or in certain
individuals, the mind must have recourse to general truths derived from
human nature to resolve the particular question under discussion. Hence
the political debates of a democratic people, however small it may be,
have a degree of breadth which frequently renders them attractive to
mankind. All men are interested by them, because they treat of man, who
is everywhere the same. Amongst the greatest aristocratic nations, on
the contrary, the most general questions are almost always argued on
some special grounds derived from the practice of a particular time, or
the rights of a particular class; which interest that class alone, or at
most the people amongst whom that class happens to exist. It is owing
to this, as much as to the greatness of the French people, and the
favorable disposition of the nations who listen to them, that the great
effect which the French political debates sometimes produce in the
world, must be attributed. The orators of France frequently speak to
mankind, even when they are addressing their countrymen only.
Explanation
Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (1835–1840) is a foundational work of political philosophy and sociology, offering a penetrating analysis of American democracy as observed during his travels in the 1830s. The excerpt provided comes from Volume II, which delves deeper into the social and psychological effects of democracy, including its influence on political institutions, public discourse, and national character. This passage specifically examines the nature of legislative debates in democratic assemblies, contrasting them with those in aristocratic systems (like Britain’s Parliament) while highlighting both their weaknesses and their unique power.
Context and Overview
Tocqueville writes at a time when democracy was still a novel experiment, and many European observers (including aristocrats and monarchists) doubted its viability. His work seeks to understand how democracy functions in practice, warts and all. The excerpt critiques the verbosity, self-importance, and lack of focus in American congressional debates while also celebrating their universal appeal when addressing grand questions of human liberty and governance.
The passage can be divided into two main sections:
- The "petty" side of democratic debates—their tendency toward confusion, self-aggrandizement, and triviality.
- The "imposing" side—their potential for grandeur when addressing universal truths that resonate beyond national borders.
Detailed Explanation of the Text
1. The Petty Side of Democratic Debates
Tocqueville begins by describing the self-indulgent and unfocused nature of congressional speeches:
"There is hardly a member of Congress who can make up his mind to go home without having despatched at least one speech to his constituents; nor who will endure any interruption until he has introduced into his harangue whatever useful suggestions may be made touching the four-and-twenty States of which the Union is composed, and especially the district which he represents."
Key Observations:
- Obligation to Speak: Representatives feel compelled to deliver speeches, not necessarily because they have something meaningful to say, but because their constituents expect it. This reflects the pressure of democratic accountability—politicians must appear active and engaged, even if their contributions are superficial.
- Scope Creep: Each speaker tries to address both national issues ("the four-and-twenty States") and hyper-local concerns ("the district which he represents"), leading to a mishmash of grand abstractions and petty details.
- Ego and Performance: The phrase "obtruding themselves with complacency" suggests that many speakers are more concerned with self-display than substantive debate. Tocqueville implies that democracy encourages mediocrity to assert itself because there are no rigid class-based barriers to participation.
Literary Devices:
- Irony: Tocqueville notes that speakers present "great general truths (which he himself only comprehends, and expresses, confusedly)"—highlighting the gap between their ambition and their actual competence.
- Metaphor: Debates "drag their slow length along" like a sluggish, directionless beast, rather than moving purposefully toward a goal.
Themes:
- The Tyranny of Mediocrity: In a democracy, everyone has a voice, but not all voices are equally insightful. Tocqueville suggests this is an inevitable trade-off—the price of inclusivity is sometimes incoherence.
- Localism vs. Nationalism: The tension between representing a specific district and addressing national concerns leads to fragmented, unfocused discourse.
- Resignation to Imperfection: Americans, Tocqueville observes, tolerate bad speeches because they accept that this is part of democratic life. They do not expect eloquence or efficiency but endure the flaws as necessary.
2. The Imposing Side of Democratic Debates
Tocqueville then shifts to the potential greatness of democratic oratory when it rises above pettiness:
"I can conceive nothing more admirable or more powerful than a great orator debating on great questions of state in a democratic assembly."
Key Observations:
- Universality of Appeal: Unlike aristocratic debates (which focus on particular privileges or historical precedents), democratic orators speak "to the whole nation, and in the name of the whole nation." This forces them to appeal to general principles rather than narrow interests.
- Absence of Privilege: In a democracy, there are no inherited rights or class-based arguments, so debates must rest on "general truths derived from human nature." This makes them more relevant to all people, regardless of nationality.
- Contrast with Aristocracy: In Britain’s Parliament, debates often revolve around tradition, precedent, or the interests of the nobility, which limits their broader appeal. Democratic debates, by contrast, can transcend borders because they address human concerns rather than parochial ones.
Literary Devices:
- Juxtaposition: Tocqueville contrasts the small colonial assemblies of Revolutionary America (which inspired Europe) with the British Parliament (which did not). This underscores how democratic debates, despite their flaws, can have a global impact when they tap into universal ideals.
- Hyperbole: "Nothing more admirable or more powerful" emphasizes the transformative potential of democratic oratory when it is at its best.
Themes:
- Democracy as a Universal Force: The French Revolution’s debates (which Tocqueville references) had a global resonance because they spoke to liberty, equality, and human rights—ideas that transcend any single nation.
- The Power of General Principles: When democratic assemblies discuss fundamental questions (e.g., freedom, justice, representation), their debates become philosophically and morally significant, even if the day-to-day proceedings are messy.
- The Paradox of Democracy: It is both flawed and sublime—capable of banality in its routine operations but grandeur when addressing its highest ideals.
Significance of the Passage
Critique of Democratic Institutions:
- Tocqueville is not an uncritical admirer of democracy. He acknowledges its inefficiencies, vanities, and tendency toward mediocrity, but he also sees its unique strengths.
- His observation that Americans tolerate bad speeches reflects a pragmatic acceptance of democracy’s imperfections—a theme that resonates in modern political discourse.
Democracy’s Global Influence:
- The passage explains why American and French revolutionary debates had such a profound impact on the world. Unlike aristocratic systems, which debate particularistic concerns, democracies speak to humanity at large.
- This foreshadows the 20th-century spread of democratic ideals and the idea that human rights are universal, not tied to any single culture.
The Role of Rhetoric in Democracy:
- Tocqueville highlights how oratory in a democracy must be both inclusive and elevating. A great democratic speaker does not rely on tradition or privilege but must persuade through reason and moral appeal.
- This has implications for modern political communication, where populist rhetoric often simplifies complex issues but can also mobilize people around shared values.
Tocqueville’s Prophetic Insight:
- His warning about the dangers of mediocrity in democratic assemblies anticipates later critiques of populism, demagoguery, and the decline of deliberative discourse.
- Yet, his optimism about democracy’s potential for greatness when it engages with fundamental questions remains a defining feature of liberal democratic thought.
Conclusion: The Dual Nature of Democratic Debate
Tocqueville’s excerpt captures the essential tension in democratic governance:
- On one hand, it is messy, self-indulgent, and often trivial, reflecting the diverse and sometimes conflicting interests of a free people.
- On the other, it is capable of profound moral and intellectual reach, speaking to universal human aspirations in a way that aristocratic systems cannot.
His analysis remains strikingly relevant today, as modern democracies grapple with polarized rhetoric, performative politics, and the challenge of balancing local concerns with global ideals. Tocqueville’s genius lies in recognizing that democracy’s flaws are inseparable from its virtues—and that its greatest strength is its ability to inspire, even amid its chaos.