Democracy in America, Take 3

To move on past my irritations concerning Toqueville, I would have to say that I found the latest selection of reading interesting in light of our class discussions today.  Toqueville concerns himself with the weaknesses of a democracy, which, while limiting some aspects of their growth, do not bring about the "downfall" one might expect in other nations.   One example of this is on page 232 of his book when he compares an aristocracy to a democracy, saying, "An aristocracy is infinitely more skillful in the science of legislation than democracy can ever be...it is not subject to transitory impulses; it has far-sighted plans and knows how to let them mature until the favorable opportunity offers...A democracy is not like that; its laws are almost always defective or untimely...but its aim is more beneficial"(232).  We talked briefly about this phenomenon in class today: that a democracy has a difficult time conceiving great plans and concepts for themselves beyond the near future.  Our class example was that of going to the moon, which, while an obsession for a time, gave way to other endeavors and has largely not been continued anticipated at the time.   This has been one of the most difficult concepts of Toqueville's for me to grasp while reading his book.   I think this is largely due to my personal lens, being an American born and raised in a time well past its founding, in which America has been one of the dominating world powers (again, my bias shows through.)   In my own examining of America's history, I find us to have had large endeavors which have aided us in continuing prosperity: manifest destiny, the industrial revolution, The Civil Rights Movement.  I also have an extremely difficult time maintaining focus when Toqueville contrasts democracies with aristocracies and gives lists of reasons why aristocracies are better at producing an enlightened, intelligent, arts-producing, inventing populous.  Frankly, it just makes me annoyed, because in RETROSPECT, I think he is wrong on many counts, plus it is nearly impossible for me, a firm believer in democracy and the rights of the PEOPLE to acquiesce to the idea that a small group of privileged souls should ever rule an entire nation.  Besides,  America has produced some of the greatest inventors of our age, as well as excellent writers, poets, and the largest film industry in the world. 

Each time I feel this way, I have to take a step back and say: Katie.   You are reading this over a hundred years later.   Try, really hard to think of this as he wrote it and take the ideas he is getting at, not the specifics.   And then it becomes a bit more clear.  Democracy IS messy.  It is probably about as messy as governments come.   I take a look at my home state of Wisconsin right now, and I think to myself...no, I don't believe this level of protesting would have been allowed in a strict aristocracy in Europe in the 19th century.  Democracy is chaotic, and often transient, just as Toqueville writes.   We pass laws, and half of the nation waits with baited breath for the electing of new officials, to turn over the majority in the legislating body, to reverse the laws.   The minority constantly seeks to convert the majority, or at least force it to compromise.   In some ways, it is a wonder that America has lasted this long, but I think in the end Toqueville was right on one point.  The aims of democracy reach much farther than that of an aristocracy.  Touching more people, we work together to persevere, a nation which continues to face adversity and reemerge strong, a process continuing to this day.