AMERICA’S ARISTOCRACY
When Alexis De Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America, he observed the class distinctions between Americans during the years of 1831 and 1832 . He was particularly interested in these distinctions as they related to the governance of our society.
What follows are a portion of the contents of Chapter 10, Volume 1 (of 2).
Remains Of The Aristocratic Party In The United States
It sometimes happens in a people amongst which various opinions prevail that the balance of the several parties is lost, and one of them obtains an irresistible preponderance, overpowers all obstacles, harasses its opponents, and appropriates all the resources of society to its own purposes. The vanquished citizens despair of success and they conceal their dissatisfaction in silence and in general apathy. The nation seems to be governed by a single principle, and the prevailing party assumes the credit of having restored peace and unanimity to the country. But this apparent unanimity is merely a cloak to alarming dissensions and perpetual opposition.
This is precisely what occurred in America; when the democratic party got the upper hand, it took exclusive possession of the conduct of affairs, and from that time the laws and the customs of society have been adapted to its caprices. At the present day the more affluent classes of society are so entirely removed from the direction of political affairs in the United States that wealth, far from conferring a right to the exercise of power, is rather an obstacle than a means of attaining to it. The wealthy members of the community abandon the lists, through unwillingness to contend, and frequently to contend in vain, against the poorest classes of their fellow citizens. They concentrate all their enjoyments in the privacy of their homes, where they occupy a rank which cannot be assumed in public; and they constitute a private society in the State, which has its own tastes and its own pleasures. They submit to this state of things as an irremediable evil, but they are careful not to show that they are galled by its continuance; it is even not uncommon to hear them laud the delights of a republican government, and the advantages of democratic institutions when they are in public. Next to hating their enemies, men are most inclined to flatter them.
Mark, for instance, that opulent citizen, who is as anxious as a Jew of the Middle Ages to conceal his wealth. His dress is plain, his demeanor unassuming; but the interior of his dwelling glitters with luxury, and none but a few chosen guests whom he haughtily styles his equals are allowed to penetrate into this sanctuary. No European noble is more exclusive in his pleasures, or more jealous of the smallest advantages which his privileged station confers upon him. But the very same individual crosses the city to reach a dark counting-house in the centre of traffic, where every one may accost him who pleases. If he meets his cobbler upon the way, they stop and converse; the two citizens discuss the affairs of the State in which they have an equal interest, and they shake hands before they part.
But beneath this artificial enthusiasm, and these obsequious attentions to the preponderating power, it is easy to perceive that the wealthy members of the community entertain a hearty distaste to the democratic institutions of their country. The populace is at once the object of their scorn and of their fears. If the maladministration of the democracy ever brings about a revolutionary crisis, and if monarchical institutions ever become practicable in the United States, the truth of what I advance will become obvious.
The two chief weapons which parties use in order to ensure success are the public press and the formation of associations.
When Tocqueville visited America, the Federal Government largely existed for only one purpose, to protect the rights of the people. That made for a Federal Government far less complex to manage. Moreover, most of the activities of government were conducted at the local level. Even state governments, though at that time they had much greater power, did not intrude nearly as much into the life of ordinary citizens as they do today.
The small size of government made government easier to manage and thus more subject to the ordinary citizen. As a result, the aristocratic elements of society then exercised far less control.
Good Post. I agree that the Federal Government should only exist to protect the rights of the people. The rest is up to us as individuals.
Somehow, I always think of government workers as being pretty mid-wage-earning, hard working people. Unfortunately, these are the people who are thrown under the bus when government is “reduced.” The people making the real bucks and those who are power mongers get to stay and increase their own salaries and stations in life. Thus, the middle class gets smaller and smaller, as does the aristocracy which, ironically, becomes increasingly more powerful and wields that power not only through government but industry. The rest of us are relegated to the peasant class.
Katherine Gotthardt – Government workers get thrown under the bus? I would like to say let’s not make it us versus them, but that is kind of hard to do. What I suggest you consider is the fact that government workers, via their unions, compose one of the most highly organized special interest groups. Moreover, during these hard times, unions have made power quite evident. For example, did you note where much of the money went from the so-called stimulus package?
That fact is I cannot by myself not make it us versus them. So long as people strive greedily to fill their pockets with money from our government’s coffers, we have a problem. That is why Tax Freedom Day is in May, and the deficit is ballooning. If we keep up this sort of reckless spending, we will wreck the economy. Then everybody will be thrown under the bus, especially our children.
If our economy were actually “well run,” our government would not be in the business of giving various groups “rights” at the expense of the taxpayers. Because such “rights” employ too many special interests, they are too costly.
Because government spending has become such a drag on the economy, we would all be better off if lots of government workers went looking for jobs in the private sector. To pay for the things our government must do, most of us need to work in the private sector. That is just the way it is.
The few people who work in local government but earn a pittance don’t have unions. Many are proud to serve their communities but don’t get credit for it. Then, those same people are put on furlough or are laid off. That’s what I mean about being thrown under the bus.
Katherine Gotthardt – I don’t accept your description of the people who work for local government, but that is another discussion
What is relevant here is equating losing one’s job with being thrown under the bus. Our jobs do not belong to us. That is just a figure of speech. When we are employed, we are working for pay. We exchange our labor for a paycheck. So long as our employer (In the case of government jobs, that is the public.) has the money and sees our services as sufficiently desirable, he will pay us the paycheck we want. Otherwise, he will not. In any event, we can always go looking for another position.
When we quit one job for another, do we consider that throwing our employer under the bus? No? Why is that? Is it because the job does not belong to us, and we don’t belong to our employer? Would you like to change your status? Slaves don’t get thrown under the bus — at least not so long as they are considered valuable.