DeTocqueville noticed three significant benefits of democracy while observing it first hand in America. Those benefits are public spirit, a notion of rights, and respect for the law. Keeping these results of democracy in mind, while reading Thoreau’s Walden a reader will wonder whether or not the author is comfortable with the notion of living in a democratic government. To answer this question, it is useful to assess DeTocqueville’s benefits of democracy and compare them with the principles found in Walden.
Of the first benefit, public spirit, DeTocqueville describes two types of patriotism. The first is based on a pride of family and country and “a reverence for traditions of the past,” resulting in a strong felt personal
…show more content…
While Thoreau also has a strong sense of rights, he is a bit more like Rousseau in his thought, assuming that all are able to put aside their greed and their tendency to put their self interest above the self interest of others, basing much of his arguments on the presupposition that the nature of man is generally good. Operating under this assumption, Thoreau “never fastened [his] door night or day. His argument was that if all were to live as he did, without striving for anything in excess of necessity, then there would be no reason for protections against robberies. Following this logic, there would be no reason for any government of any type, save to defend against people who knew not the benefits of such living. So on the issue of rights, DeTocqueville and Thoreau arrive at a similar conclusion, that virtue and rights are necessary for any good society, they arrive there coming from very different starting points.
The third benefit of democracy listed by DeTocqueville is respect of the law. In DeTocqueville’s ideal democracy every citizen would engage in the election of officials and the making of laws, all seeking to maintain the self interest of the individual. Thus, having written the law themselves, the people have a sense of ownership of the law and further desire to follow it. In Thoreau’s ideal society, many of the law written under
(Emerson 367). However, Thoreau believes that in a democracy the voice of the people as whole should be followed. Thoreau desires a “better government”, not anarchy devoid of the law where every individual follows his own set of rules (Thoreau 381). Although assuredly in favor of individuality, Thoreau recognizes that a democracy requires public consensus and popular support.
Thoreau seems to be a very educated political thinker. He can be very stubborn but humble when it comes to his beliefs, “I have contemplated the imprisonment of the offender, rather than the seizure of his goods -- though both will serve the same purpose -- because they who assert the purest right, and consequently are most dangerous to a corrupt state… ”(Thoreau 24. 218). Thoreau has lived in the woods for over six years, without paying state taxes. When the police officer asked him to pay, the non-violently compiled and spent a day in jail. Thoreau did not want to fund the American Mexican war through taxes and believed that people shouldn't be forced to do what they don't think is right. He is also a very optimistic person and believes that the people themselves should be good people, live good lives and therefore we wouldn't need as many laws, “when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.” (1. 210). Thoreau believes that the government is doing the best when doing the least, “I heartily accept the motto, -- “That government is best which governs least” …” (1. 210). Although Thoreau might have an unpopular opinion, he sticks with his beliefs throughout this essay. As he presents his opinion, he does it in the most classy yet confident arguments. He had the thought of the people in mind while writing, showing his good intentions of improving our government.
In Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, he argues that when civil laws conflict with an individual's morality, the individual should follows his conscience. Thoreau like many Transcendentalists felt a less involved government was best. Thoreau wrote, "That government is best which governs not at all." Obviously, Thoreau realized that he could afford to take this open opinion on government because of the American government. But he felt that government's authority should be limited to physical matters of the country, such as infrastructure and orderliness. He felt a government that become involved in moral matters such as sobriety and slavery was a government over-stepping its boundaries. Ultimately, Thoreau and other transcendentalists felt a utopian society would be the best.
Alexis de Tocqueville was a French aristocrat and adventurer who spent nine months traveling America during 1831. He wrote a book “Democracy in America” about his adventure and experiences in America. He was a well educated European who spoke to many important figures of the time and this helped to develop very good insight about current American culture. Some of his adventures include steamboat, visited the Eastern cities, stayed in a log cabin, and even explored the northwestern frontier. He wrote this book for the French audience, and was hoping to better explain what democracy was so it could help France transition into a democracy. He believed that Democracy was the way of the future, and he was a strong supporter of Democracy. His book
Thoreau is basically rallying for the absence of government in the lives of the citizens. He believed that everyone should govern himself. He also believed that no one should have to ride on the shoulders of the government, but instead rely on himself. He thought people should treat other people the way they wanted to be treated, and follow the natural laws of society. Martin Luther King Jr. believed there should be laws or it would be total anarchy. Thoreau believed that without the
Democracy in America has been a guiding principle since the foundation of the country. Many over the years have commented on the structure and formation of democracy but more importantly the implementation and daily function within the democratic parameters that have been set. Alexis de Tocqueville was a French political thinker and historian born July 29, 1805. He is most famously known for his work Democracy in America. Democracy in America has been an evolving social and economic reform, and has continually changed since it’s founding.
Thoreau wrote that people must be willing to go to jail if they want to change a law by disobeying the law. Thoreau went to jail instead of paying for his taxes because he believed the government used the money for unjust things. This is how Henry Thoreau thinks people can change unjust laws. He thought that if people willingly would to go to jail and quit their jobs, then the revolution will take a place and reform will come. Thoreau was willing to go to jail to change unjust laws because of his conscience.
Although liberty was explored in the Declaration of Independence and later in the Constitution, French politician and philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville best put into words why liberty is so important to the American people. He explained in his book, Democracy in America, that, “…defending [citizens'] rights against the encroachments of the government saves the common liberties of the country” (Galles). Tocqueville visited America in 1831 simply to study the nation’s prisons and consequently wrote Democracy in America after returning to France, in awe of the success of America’s democratic movement (“Alexis de Tocqueville”). He was
Henry David Thoreau was an American writer and protester, who wrote the influential essay “Civil Disobedience”. In his essay, he advocates for citizens to protest against government actions that they deem unjust and to stand up for one’s rights, putting morals before law,
"Democracy in America" was Alexis De Tocqueville's observation of American political character. His 1830s view on the laws are different now in the 21st century. De Tocqueville adds his view of property,power, and religion. He states that in 1830 "the democracy which governs American communities appears to be rapidly rising into power in Europe" thus became the idea behind Democracy in America. I figuratively sat down with Alexis De Tocqueville to talk about his views in Democracy in America and told him how different or similar some are to our democracy now.
Tocqueville’s Democracy in America arose out of the desire to understand the underlying reasons behind the difference between French and American democracies. While both societies have had moved towards democracy, New England, which Tocqueville defines as America, seems to be much more successful in organising a stable democratic society. As such, Democracy in America was written with the motive of mapping out how American society was
"Civil Disobedience," begins with the well-known motto - "That government is best which governs least" (852). This carried to its natural conclusion is no government at all, which he says will happen when people are prepared. Thoreau realizes that the immediate need is not for no government but for better government. "Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it" (853). Thoreau asks whether it is not better to decide right and wrong by conscience which everyone has. "It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right" (853).
Alexis de Tocqueville’s visit to the United States in 1831 prompted his work Democracy in America. This was supposed to be a chance for him to take a look at the American prison system. However, it was obvious from his writing that he looked at every aspect of American culture. In Democracy in America, he takes a look at how democracy works and the pitfalls that could bring about the downfall of democracy. Throughout his travels he noticed that private interest and personal gain motivated the actions of most Americans. He believed this cultivated a new concept, the concept of individualism. He believed this individualism was one of the greatest threats to
In The Politics of Friendship, Jacques Derrida boldly declares: “no deconstruction without democracy, no democracy without deconstruction.” Accordingly, this democracy to come could not exist without some semblance of freedom. This deconstructive form of freedom is certainly not an individual freedom to do as one pleases, nor is it simply freedom from constraint. The freedom which constitutes deconstruction is aporetic in nature, thus making it difficult (or rather impossible) to give a straightforward definition. However, this lack of a definition for freedom is not a problem for Derrida. In fact, the undefinable nature of freedom is the condition for its existence. If a full definition of freedom were to be given, its ability to thrive would be crushed. However, this does not mean that discussions regarding the nature of freedom are without meaning. In discussing what freedom could be, what freedom could mean, one can better understand how to maximize freedom in both societies and our individual lives. To recognize the tension that lies within the word freedom is to better understand what its existence could actually entail.