 |
||||||||
 |
|
 |
||||||
 |
||||||||
Ask Sam
VM: But you said he ran into trouble because he has only one word to cover both concepts.
US: It was what we spent the most time on, he and I, in our long discussions, and I wasn’t sure he got it until I read his book. You have to remember, Tocqueville was a legal scholar, and he came to the United States to study our laws and legal institutions. I don’t think he was prepared for what he was going to find here, but I aver he rose to the occasion.
Alexis de Tocqueville
VM: Can you tell us what you told him? I think most Americans would like to understand what you say we already know in our hearts, without having to read Tocqueville.
US: We have, as you say, a love of liberty. The Revolution was fought for liberty, for the independence or separation of the colonies from Britain. It’s not a coincidence that the imagery of the Revolution is heavily laden with symbols of liberty: trees, the pileus, and of course the goddess herself. When the war was over, however, it was found that the mere fact of independence was not enough to ensure our survival. Liberty could release us from vassalage to the crown, but it could not unite us as one nation. When the delegates gathered in Philadelphia to draft a federal constitution, it was a recognition that freedom, in its original sense as a community of free people, had to be another cornerstone of our democracy. It was what united the United States. The Spirit of 1776 was liberty. The Spirit of 1787 was freedom.
VM: So we have liberty to thank for our independence, but freedom to thank for our democracy?
US: You could say that, if it helps you understand, but be careful not to draw overly firm distinctions. The two concepts are both distinct and inseparable. This is perfectly expressed by our national motto: E Pluribus Unum, “Out of Many, One.” Since they stopped teaching Latin in the schools, the vernacular, “Unity in Diversity,” has become popular.
VM: I’m beginning to understand. But I wonder if the nuance of this would be lost on most Americans today.
US: Alas, I expect so.
VM: Are you not bothered by that?
US: It’s cause for some concern, but the fact of the matter is, few could have articulated the shades of meaning even in 1787. Discoursing on such things has never been the modus operandi of the American mind. We put things into practice and let others do the theorizing.
VM: Those French philosophers.
US: Yes, and probing thinkers like Hobbes and Locke, whose works inspired the Revolution.
VM: Looks like I have some reading to do!
US: An educated citizenry is the surest bulwark against despotism.
VM: And yet, you just said that Americans are not highly educated about the very ideals on which the nation was founded. Are we exposing ourselves to despotism?
US: Were it not for a strong second line of defense, our laws and institutions, I would say we were. Sadly, as the citizenry becomes less watchful of its freedom, cradled, as it were, in the bosom of Liberty, those institutions must constantly be shorn up, laws must be bolstered, and consequently the sovereignty of the people is tempered, the door through which a despot could enter left ajar.
VM: It’s a good thing we were placed on such firm footing in the beginning.
US: No matter how perfectly conceived or firmly established, no matter how just and impartial, laws are constructs, and cannot be a substitute for an engaged and educated citizenry.
VM: But according to Tocqueville, our democracy has been sustained not by education, or even active citizenship, but by good fortune, just laws, and the customs of liberty and freedom.
US: I do not speak for Messr. Tocqueville, but he did observe there was not a great intellectual tradition in America, chiefly because there was no leisure class. A good citizen need not comprehend the laws and customs of his country, only respect and obey them, ever mindful that every great injustice in history has been codified into law and sanctioned by custom, at one time or another.
VM: The outstanding example in our history being slavery, I suppose?
US: Aye, indeed. It was customary, at least in some quarters, and legal under the Constitution until we amended it, but it was certainly unjust.
VM: So a good citizen can obey the laws and abide by the customs of his country, but practice injustice?
US: In a democracy, where the citizenry is the final arbiter of the laws—yes. But the beauty of a democracy is that it is self-correcting. When laws are found to be unjust, or not in harmony with the ideals of freedom and liberty, they can be changed. The Framers, recall, set out to form a more perfect union. Why do you think they qualified that statement?
VM: Did they know they were practicing injustice, by keeping slaves?
US: Some, perhaps even most of them, did. But a forceful minority carried the day, on the ground of natural law, the final refuge of every great injustice.
VM: Would you say that we have a more perfect union today, from the Framers’ standpoint, or are we losing ground?
US: Great progress has been made, but much work remains. They would be heartened by the fact that the republic has survived, and in many ways astounded by the modern conceptions of freedom and liberty, but also perturbed.
VM: Perturbed…by what?
US: So as not to range too far afield, I shall give one example, already touched upon in our discussion. You recall that I chided you about confusing liberty with license?
VM: Must I be reminded?
US: Clearly, someone here is perturbed. But in all seriousness, for you have asked a serious question—how the Framers would find that democracy is losing ground in America—and here is one way, if I am a fair spokesperson for that noble class of lawgivers.
VM: You are, in my humble estimation, and theirs too I have little doubt.
US: Very well. Now mark carefully what I say. For a democracy to succeed, liberty, in the original sense of being released from restraint, must be tempered with freedom, that is, the bonds of kinship and mutual respect that are the underpinnings of a free society. Liberty cannot endure if freedom devolves into base licentiousness, which eventually manifests as anarchy. Anarchy, in due course, spawns its opposite, tyranny. They are as two sides of the same coin.
VM: Our conception of liberty is too…libertine?
US: Too centered on the self, yes. Tocqueville dwells at length on the strong current of individualism in American democracy, and warned that, if unchecked, it could lead to the unraveling of the social fabric. Men would tend to focus entirely on their own private affairs while neglecting public business, abandoning the latter “to the sole visible and permanent representative of the interests of the community…the state.” He said the main objective of his book was to combat this tendency.2
VM: And he was writing in…the 1830s? If he was worried then, what would he think of our modern consumer culture, with its incessant need to gratify every whim and desire, and the equation of freedom with consumption?
US: He would be recoiled by it, as would the Framers. But he would not despair of a reawakening. I suspect he would set to work on another book.
VM: We haven’t, at least, descended into anarchy. There’s still hope.
US: As long as the state exists, there is little danger of absolute anarchy, although the threat of anarchy could be used to impose something arguably worse, tyranny.
VM: The analogy of a coin was used. Speaking of coins, didn’t we used to put Liberty on them? I mean the goddess.
US: Right you are. The first coins minted by the United States government were large cents with her head on them, a bad likeness, but I still keep a few in my pocket.
| Home | About Us | Store | Shopping Cart | My Account | Online Help | Contact Us |
 |
|
Copyright © 2010 Legacy Americana LLC
|
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Customer Service: 1-800-675-5838 |