America Will Be ‘Great’, When America Is ‘Good’, Again

0
647

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his seminal work, On Democracy in America, that “America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great”

De Tocqueville, for those who are unfamiliar with his great work, was a French diplomat, historian, and political scientist. He came to America in the early 19th century to study the ‘fledgling’ American political society and its various forms of political associations.

His travels took place less than 40 years after the revolution that overthrew the French monarchy and aristocracy. Many historians believe Tocqueville’s intentions in coming to America were to study the new ‘experiment’ that was America and to find examples that would help the French people better understand their own position between the fading aristocratic order and their newfound democracy.

De Tocqueville saw democracy as an equation that balanced liberty and equality, concern for the individual as well as for the community, and he was adamant about finding examples of that balance.

One of these keys to this “balance” was the dichotomy between liberty and responsibility. De Tocqueville noted that the people of the United States enjoyed their liberty while showing great constraint, responsibility, and character.

When liberty is realized, it removes many of the obstacles, barriers, and constraints that are in place in our society. The danger we face in removing many of those constraints is that it will also remove the consequences for actions that could negatively affect our society. When such exterior constraints are removed and people enjoy immense amounts of freedom, then interior constraints are required to keep a cohesive, functioning society.

De Tocqueville wrote:

“I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers – and it was not there… in her fertile fields and boundless forests and it was not there… in her rich mines and her vast world commerce – and it was not there… in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution – and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.”

The church was the foundation of the interior constraint shown by so many, the reason why they could enjoy such liberty. It was foundational to the philosophy of America and the core culture of those who settled and built the nation we have inherited. If we want to see a return to the greatness and goodness of the past, perhaps its time we look at what made Americans good and great!

For some, it will the teachings of their church, mosque, or synagogue; and for others, perhaps it is a non-theistic guideline, but regardless of the basis of a person’s chosen philosophy, there must be something in it that builds that interior constraint – those guardrails that keep a person on the ‘straight and narrow’. In a society that values liberty, where the government is small, where there are few “external constraints” there is a need for each individual to be aware of their responsibilities to society as a whole.

De Tocqueville wrote:

“Nothing is more wonderful than the art of being free, but nothing is harder to learn how to use than freedom.”

A truly free society requires that each person not only effectively handle their own affairs, but also be on the lookout for others who are struggling, and be willing to help their fellows when their struggles become unbearable.

As libertarians, we often talk about shrinking government and cutting welfare programs (among many other things). We speak about private charity and how it would replace governments “re-distribution”. However, I sometimes wonder if we truly understand the reality each individual would face if we got what we “wished for”.

Currently, it’s easy to ignore the poor, the widowed, and the orphaned. We really don’t have to do anything as individuals. The ‘safety net’ for any who struggle supposedly comes out of the taxes we already pay, and as a society, few of us give it a second thought.

However, if we got our way today – if the government were minimized, and many of the programs the government currently administrates were cut – what would we do with the many people who are unable to support themselves? There is likely a large number of people who are capable of supporting themselves, who would be forced to take responsibility for their own lives, but there are many others who, for many reasons, are unable to help themselves.

The orphan, the single mother (or father), the disabled person, many of these people would still need help and would still be the social responsibility of society at large. We can do away with taxes and take their care out of the hands of the government but that does not mean their need will go away!

As a society made up of free individuals, we would have to take that responsibility upon ourselves. No one could force anyone to help another in need, so it would be up to the character of the individuals that make up society. It would be up to the life philosophy of each individual to take upon themselves the responsibility of caring for those who are less fortunate.

If we can’t do that, if we cannot look within ourselves and honestly say that we would help private charities and that we would help shoulder the responsibility of caring for those in need, then we should think very carefully pushing for the shrinking of government and the removal of the safety net provided by the state.

The government’s “benign” hand, reaching out to support and shape and mold society, can be very dangerous; but we must realize what that means to each individual, what the removal of that hand means and the responsibility it places on each of our shoulders.

In the past, it was up to families, associations, churches, and communities to help each other, and support those in need. That is what used to happen in “small government” America; people were required to take on responsibility for the change they saw was needed in society.

There is a story told of Colonel Davy Crockett (then a congressman) who rose when a bill was brought forward in the House of Representatives. The bill was proposing that money be appropriated for the widow of a distinguished naval officer, and it seemed that everyone was in favor of passing it. After all, who would oppose supporting a widow whose husband so bravely dedicated his life to the service of his country?

The story goes as follows:

“The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make a speech in support of the bill. He commenced:
‘Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House; but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living.
I will not go into argument to prove that Congress has no power under the Constitution to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.
We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.
Mr. Speaker, I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.’
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as no doubt it would, but for that speech, it received but a few votes and was lost.”

Charity is difficult, it requires so much more from each of us than does government programs. It’s easy to vote in favor of giving away someone else’s money. It’s easy to feel good after handing the responsibility of those in need over to someone else. It’s easy to feel like you are the truly compassionate one, the one that cares about the disenfranchised when that ‘giving’ requires nothing from you except what you are already forced to give.

I believe it is incredibly important that those of us who seek a free society take to heart those aspects of what De Tocqueville discovered it was that “made America great” and look within ourselves to make sure we are ready to take on the responsibilities that truly free society brings.

The following two tabs change content below.
Art.Cleroux@yahoo.ca'

Arthur Cleroux

Arthur Cleroux likes to ask questions in an attempt to understand why we do what we do and believe what we believe. He balances idealism with a desire for an honest, logical, and objective approach to issues. Arthur has always found it difficult to accept dogmatism and sees the pursuit of truth as his highest value no matter how controversial that truth may seem.
Art.Cleroux@yahoo.ca'

Latest posts by Arthur Cleroux (see all)