For
Tocqueville, the grab for centralized power by the absolutist Bourbon
monarchs, followed by the French Revolution and Napoleon’s Empire, had
destroyed the good with the bad in France’s neo-feudal order. Decades
later, the new order was still in flux.
In
Tocqueville’s imagination, at least, the old order’s subjects had been
eager to protect their particular liberties and jealous of their spheres
of independence. They understood that they were embedded in a web of
obligations, powers, responsibilities, and privileges that was as large
as France itself. Among the French of 1835, however, “the doctrine of
self-interest” had produced “egotism…no less blind.” Having “destroyed
an aristocracy,” the French were “inclined to survey its ruins with
complacency.”
To
the “sick” France of 1835, Tocqueville counterposed healthy America,
where attachment to the idea that people should pursue their
self-interest was no less strong, but was different. The difference, he
thought, was that Americans understood that they could not flourish
unless their neighbors prospered as well. Thus, Americans pursued their
self-interest, but in a way that was “rightly understood.”
Tocqueville
noted that “Americans are fond of explaining…[how] regard for
themselves constantly prompts them to assist each other, and inclines
them willingly to sacrifice a portion of their time and property to the
general welfare.” The French, by contrast, faced a future in which “it
is difficult to foresee to what pitch of stupid excesses their egotism
may lead them,” and “into what disgrace and wretchedness they would
plunge themselves, lest they should have to sacrifice something of their
own well-being to the prosperity of their fellow-creatures.”
CommentsFor
Tocqueville, France’s sickness in 1835 stemmed from its Bourbon
patrimony of a top-down, command-and-control government, whereas
America’s health consisted in its bottom-up, grassroots-democratic
government. Give the local community enough control over its own
affairs, Tocqueville argued, and one “will see at a glance…the close tie
which unites private to general interest.” It was “local freedom which
leads a great number of citizens to value the affection of their
neighbors and of their kindred, perpetually brings men together, and
forces them to help one another, in spite of the propensities which
sever them.”\
Nearly
two centuries have passed since Tocqueville wrote his masterpiece. The
connection between the general interest and the private interest of
individual Americans has, if anything, become much stronger, even if
their private interest is tied to a post office box in the Cayman
Islands. Indeed, no private-equity fortunes were made over the past
generation without investing in or trading with the prosperous North
Atlantic industrial core of the world economy.
And the Republicans gathered in Tampa to celebrate the rule – to say that the America that Tocqueville saw no longer exists: Americans no longer believe that the wealth of the rich rests on the prosperity of the rest. Rather, the rich owe their wealth solely to their own luck and effort. The rich – and only the rich – “built” what they have. The willingness to sacrifice some part of their private interest to support the public interest damages the souls and portfolios of the 1%.Perhaps the moral and intellectual tide will be reversed, and America will remain exceptional for the reasons that Tocqueville identified two centuries ago. Otherwise, Tocqueville would surely say of Americans today what he said of the French then. The main difference is that it has become all too easy “to foresee to what pitch of stupid excesses their egotism may lead them” and “into what disgrace and wretchedness they would plunge themselves.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/democracy-in-tea-party-america-by-j--bradford-delong
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου