- This topic has 3 voices and 4 replies.
-
Posts
-
In Democracy in America (1835), Alexis de Tocqueville critiqued the centralized political system found in Europe and the de-centralized system of the early United States. He found some benefits of governing by a strong central authority to include regularity of business, control of small disorders, upholding the status quo, and regularity in public affairs. But Tocqueville?s admiration for de-centralization?s effects was based on the pride it produced within the individual and the ?selfishness? with which he had for his local government. In the end, Tocqueville said that centralization ?excels in prevention, but not in action.? (1 DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA 5)
Today, conservatives tend to promote more autonomy at the state or local level, whereas liberals tend to promote large federal responsibility. My question is this - does de Tocqueville's statement hold true even for modern political situation? Is liberal thought better at "prevention", and is conservative thought better at "action"?Liberal thought is reactive and antagonistic to the decentralization of business and law.
Conservative thought is proactive and friendly to decentralized economics (including taxation) and law.
For example, Liberals favor labor movements that restrict the market, regulation, and taxation for the redistribution of wealth to less privileged classes. Conservatives, however, favor laissez faire trade policies, strict interpretationists of the Constitution, and the enforcement of morality via sodomy laws, blue laws etc....
Liberals act on juridical matters that can decentralize social issues such as abortion, civil unions, and euthanaysia.
These are the modern manifestations of Liberalism and Conservatism.Yes, I agree that those are the manifestations of conservativism/liberalism in modern times. Now taking this back to de Tocqueville, I think that the bare essence of what he admired (in the passage I provided) is represented more in conservative thought than in liberal (one might say that conservativism is therefore more in line with traditional Americana than liberalism). De Tocqueville saw that people care more for what is near them; they take more responsibility for their decisions and actions when their personal lives are affected by those same decisions and actions.
I think that it is the cumulative effect of local community action that spurs the great results. The centralized systems of Europe that de Tocqueville referred to can only macromanage to achieve results; however, these results won't be the kind that is associated with the greatness of a truly decentralized system where all the parts of the machine are producing.We have to be careful. The American Revolution was the most radical egalitarian movement ever undertaken…..that is untill the French Revolution surpassed it and self-destructed. The Revolution was therefore a liberal movement in the sense that it was “progressive” in its outcome. Having said this, the rhetoric that came from the Revolution was socially conservative in that it was Protestant dissenting ideology that sought not to overthrow the British system, but a restoration of what was perceived to be the “pristine.” But as the war escalated and the cause seemed in jeopardy, the revolutionaries became increasingly more radical and egalitarian….that is more liberal. The removal of an aristocratic class was the most liberal of the ideas expressed. No titles or emoluments were to be tolerated, but at the same time, slavery was preserved even though the practice was fairly much gone in Europe. By the time of the Second Great Awakening, however, conservative moralism won out and began to shape American history from thereon.
To me, the essence of liberalism is the “we know better what you need than you do” attitude that the French Revolution pioneered. The genius of the American Revolution was they didn’t try to reinvent the wheel in terms of human nature and attitudes. Actually, the Founders were marvelous students of the human condition and constructed the Constitution as an instrument in tune with what they knew of our nature, abilities, and propensities, but I digress.
As to de Tocqueville's observation, I think it's spot on and we need look no farther than very recent events to vindicate it. Observe Katrina and its aftermath. While it may be a less than apt ananlogy (of course no one could have prevented the hurricane, moonbat logic aside) we see that centralization is a poor actor. The federal government was the worst possible level of authority to respond to a crisis such as this (the best ones being, in order, the individual, the city and the state governments) because it was so far removed (in distance, experience, motivation, and everything else). It was precisely because authority and responsibility had been centralized that the more local levels of authority couldn't respond in as effective manner as possible.
The other half (the prevention by centralization) is a topic for another dayDonaldBaker wrote:We have to be careful. The American Revolution was the most radical egalitarian movement ever undertaken…..that is untill the French Revolution surpassed it and self-destructed. The Revolution was therefore a liberal movement in the sense that it was “progressive” in its outcome.
I think what you're referring to here are traditional notions of conservativism and liberalism - that of maintaining the status quo vs. brining about change. In that sense, one could say the Revolution was "liberal". However, in my original post regarding de Tocqueville, I discussed liberalism and conservativism pertaining to modern notions of the two differing viewpoints. The label "conservative" has a different connotation than it did at the time of the Revolution.
That said, I argue that the modern "conservative" is one who thinks that in many cases, local control is better than non-local control. In that way, he is more like the early American whom de Tocqueville admired.
