During the first half of the 19th century one of the most perceptive minds pondered the future of democracy. After visiting the United States and examining our political institutions, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote his two volume masterpiece; Democracy in America. The first deals primarily with the particularities of American government and culture. In it, Tocqueville demonstrates that America was profoundly influenced by the religious and democratic spirit of New England townships. The second volume, published five years later, includes Tocqueville’s more sober meditations on the possible fate of democracy. Although he was a supporter of the new regime, especially in America, he also pointed out the potential dangers that come from within democratic societies.
One of the most striking concepts that Tocqueville developed is called “soft despotism.” In the democratic age, he observed the weakening of social and familial ties coupled with a tendency towards the centralization of state power. The simultaneous impulses to become both more individualistic and more reliant on bureaucracy would lead to a new form of social control in which the government attempted to care for all of society’s needs. This new despotism “would be more expansive and milder, and it would degrade men without tormenting them” (trans. Mansfield and Winthrop). Hence the term “soft.”
Whether or not we have reached the state that Tocqueville described, many indications of soft despotism could be listed. The government, for example, can regulate the amount of food you produce, even if it is only for your personal consumption. Additionally, from 1960 to 2019 the number of pages of federal regulation increased by over 100,000 touching numerous aspects of American life. Furthermore, Mark Zuckerberg, recently revealed that the Biden Administration pressured Meta into censoring content in the name of public safety.
Indeed, if one surveys modern leftist thought, it appears their main goal is to bring about the nanny state that Tocqueville feared. California, for example, currently coerces retailers into promoting the left-wing narrative surrounding gender. Many want the government to influence every single aspect of an individual’s life. Although they might not intend to use the harsh methods of the Soviet gulag, their actions tend towards a greater centralization and expansion of the scope of government.
This tendency was recently put on full display when the surgeon general released a “General Advisory on the Mental Health and Well-Being of Parents.” No one doubts that parenting has always been a stressful endeavor. Literature from literally any period in human history that deals with parent-child dynamics will reveal this reality (along with many others). Despite this fact, no government in human history has ever concerned itself with the “mental health” of parents. There have been efforts to improve the economy, or other aspects of society that indirectly reduce stress, but caring about an individual mother’s stress has never been the concern of the government.
In the past, this was reserved for people like grandparents, husbands (although maybe as likely to increase stress), friends, and the like. Perhaps this expansion in governmental concerns is a result of the decay in social relations and increase in isolation (which Tocqueville also warned about). After all, 43 percent of marriages end in divorce and nearly 40 percent of children are born out of wedlock. As responsible behavior declines, people rely on government to fill the gap and government is eager to grow.
Indeed, one can see the nanny state emerge in the campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris. Aside from her actual policies (which are ambiguous) her campaign has all the features that signal a penchant for paternalism. She is presented as the candidate of “joy” and is fond of telling voters how her step-children refer to her as “Mamala.” Anyone who is moderately well-socialized probably wouldn’t fall for such nonsense. People with strong friends groups and intact families don’t need “joy” or “Mamala.” They need a competent leader who can deliver effective policies.
In order to avoid the soft-despotism that Tocqueville warned about, there must be a two-pronged approach. In addition to reducing the scope of government, individuals must also take the necessary steps to support the lives they want to lead. Social bonds need to be reawakened in order to promote a fulfilling life that the government can never deliver. It is for this reason that proponents of limited government cannot exist without the help of social conservatives who promote family values. This was recognized by the great 20th century intellectual, Frank Meyer, who promoted Fusionsims; the idea that conservatives must promote both liberty and virtue. His efforts at National Review helped unify various strands of the conservative movement, culminating in the election of Ronald Reagan eight years after his death. In a 1981 speech, Reagan touched upon the profound influence of Meyer who “reminded us that the robust individualism of the American experience was part of the deeper current of Western learning and culture.” The future success of America depends upon reawakening the wisdom of men like Tocqueville who understood that freedom depends on culture just as much as it depends upon political institutions.
Did Tocqueville ever write about the future if things progressed as he predicted. Which is where we are no!