Striking how Tocqueville isn’t really talking about democracy at all. Not in the way we usually do today anyway. He’s looking past the scaffolding. Past all constitutions and checks and balances. As if he already knows they’re secondary.
I'm no expert on Tocqueville but from this article he seems to imply that freedom doesn’t start with rights. It starts with people who know how to stop themselves. Who accept that not everything bends to them. That kind of thing isn’t written anywhere.
And once equality turns sour once it stops meaning shared worth and starts meaning flattening difference something slips. Quietly but surely. The paperwork gets done. Everything looks fine from the outside. But it’s thinner. More fragile. That's a scary place to live.
The danger is slow drift. Character dissolving without anyone really noticing. Is that why he talks about manners? They go first. So maybe asking whether democracy survives is the wrong scale. Too big and too clean a question. The real question is smaller and more messy:
Do we still live in ways that train us for freedom at all?
« I'm no expert on Tocqueville but from this article he seems to imply that freedom doesn’t start with rights. It starts with people who know how to stop themselves. Who accept that not everything bends to them. That kind of thing isn’t written anywhere. »
This reminds me of the words Camus was told his father said during his military service in North Africa, after his father heard of some horrors French troops had committed : « un homme, ça s’empêche. » A man has to stop himself. Applied to humanity and our yearning for both freedom and equality, as Albert Camus did, it’s all the more important. Perhaps that lesson is one the French, with their sometimes contradictory but violent love of liberty, are uniquely placed to understand… at any rate, I’ve not found better than Alexis de Tocqueville and Albert Camus to articulate it.
By manners he means culture. Compared to the early 19th century the US culture, as in Europe, has changed. The West, in general, went from a more aristocratic privilege-obligation-honor-divine order culture to a sacred victim, entitled parasite culture.
Preach! I'd also like to add we let the vile Banker class which the founding father never wanted to let intonthis country that led to the Federal Reserve to be created. We must take back our sovereignty as we are close to losing it, to some it's already lost.
Thanks. I'm not as well-versed in financial matters but I thought the original purpose of central banks was to prevent boom-and-bust cycles. I would think the problem more about fiat money started by Nixon. But I may be wrong!
I have trouble with this line of thought for two reasons:
Banks or corporations cannot harrass with threats of legal prosecution that can result in throwing people into jail or worse, because,
Banks and oorporations don't have armies or police – men with guns.
They may be coerced or willingly comply with the desires of the men with guns and jails but they don't necessarily control them. But, I do agree that wealthy donors to politicians have a lot of influence. That said, there will always be powerful men who exert influence one way or another, no matter what political or economic system exists.
Policy mistakes (tight money, banking failures) worsened the collapse
Better central banking mattered as much as having one.
Net assessment
Central banks:
✔ Reduced panic-driven instability
✔ Smoothed normal business cycles
✖ Did not eliminate booms and busts
✖ May contribute to large, systemic bubbles if policy is miscalibrated
A useful summary:
Central banks traded many small crises for fewer but bigger ones.
If you want, I can compare specific countries, eras (gold standard vs fiat), or dig into whether modern macroprudential policy really improves on this tradeoff.
The Fed isn't even part of the government and is a private entity owned by the central bankers of old(everyone knows who they are just follow the money) . Look how long we as a nation went without it that and the foolish income tax, then how many problems started after both were established. Especially when we lost the gold standard to fiat currency though If anything were to replace it, that should be bitcoin. I put $100 dollars every week to buying bitcoin. A good man told me stack sats and get off Zero.
Yes, I agree, although I would more broadly call it character. It’s the concept that there’s no “magic dirt” that transforms people into a civilization; witness the Somalis (and other translators-based people) who will never cast off their ways. The idea of “assimilation” is today deemed racist, and so we continue our downward slide as more and more third-world people arrive.
The problem isn’t people from the developing world, who mostly work every hour they are physically able; it’s people from the developed world who have abandoned character for victimhood and culture for consumption.
I respectfully disagree. People from the "developing" world (excepting Latin America, for the most part) bring such cultural practices as female genital mutilation, subjugation of women, tribalism, and a lack of appreciation for free speech. All of these are extensively documented.
Cut the head of the serpent and watch 2 more arrive in its place. Our current leaders are bought and paid by a certain foreign country even though they claim they are not.
Interesting read, and looking forward to reading Plato's Republic. On the topic of individualism, his commentary reminds me of Martin Niemöller's poem on opposing the Nazi regime, "First They Came" -
Tocqueville is somewhat correct. Was it Franklin, Jefferson, or Adams (I can't remember) who said that the United States republic is made for a wholly religious people and no other?
Doesn't matter really who said it. What matters is the ultimate point: That the character of a wholly religious people (which were predominantly Christian at the time and, hence, that is arguably the religion inferred) is the backbone of our republic.
In other words, the Founding Fathers were clear that without Christian people, principles, and purpose, the United States republic would be vulnerable to tyranny and collapse. So, in a way, Tocqueville took a roundabout journey to the same conclusion the Fathers had warned.
I don’t know your quote, but I don’t believe they had in mind the current Christian agenda. Surely, they meant the opposite! Current Christian politics is as far from “manners” as you can get.
Christian Nationalist, Trumplican, anti-democratic politics. The traditional Christian teachings of love your neighbor, the Golden Rule, and following the Ten Commandments are completely compatible with maintaining our republic. Unfortunately, as has happened many times in the history of the world, the loudest, most powerful religious voices in this country have hijacked religion to form a self-serving cult that is pursuing anti-Christian behavior.
There are are some on the right who are extreme. But others support Trump and just want to see Christianity respected in America again, as it was from the beginning. What is wrong with that?
And what exactly about Trump and supporting him is anti-democratic? The people voted him into office through the legal process established by this republic.
He won fair and square. And he’s doing what the people voted for. Protecting the legal citizens of the United States from threats both foreign and domestic. That is the established roll of the executive branch.
Tocqueville. I haven't read him, a fancy, a couple of centuries. The article is concise and clarifies many of his thoughts. Time to peruse more writings of his.
It’s not quite “manners”. It is “mores” which are more like social customs or norms, though manners might come under that. For example, he thought that because of the countries many immigrants had come to America from, they had the customs of localised cooperation which invigorated their democracy. It certainly makes sense that this has deteriorated, especially since the 80s and even more so now.
Is it? Odd since mores is a word available in English. Anyway I’m just parroting what was hammered into me by my uni prof 25 years ago who was a de Tocqueville scholar (superfan?) almost to the exclusion of teaching us about anyone else. 😆
Clearly, I look at this from the current geopolitical reality.
As a Jeffersonian Realist, I critique Tocqueville’s geopolitical prophecy of an inevitable bipolar U.S.-Russia rivalry as overly deterministic and Eurocentric, failing to anticipate the multipolar landscape of 2026 where China emerges as the ascendant superpower, India surges toward its economic peak in the next decade, and Russia fades into a secondary, resource-dependent actor.
Tocqueville envisioned America and Russia as providential giants, with liberty clashing against autocracy. In today’s reality, under Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) emphasizes pragmatic “America First” diplomacy, managing relations with a declining Russia through de-escalation and spheres of influence while confronting China’s technological and economic dominance—such as its mastery of the “electric stack” in AI, renewables, and supply chains. Additional, India, projected to become a global superpower alongside the U.S. and China by mid-century, adds complexity with its rapid growth in population and tech sectors, challenging Tocqueville’s binary view.
The NSS’s focus on transactional balances of power aligns with Jefferson’s aversion to entangling alliances, enabling the U.S. to navigate this multipolar world through economic leverage and deterrence rather than ideological crusades, proving Tocqueville’s trends too rigid for adaptive realism.
Tocqueville’s warnings of “soft despotism” via bureaucratic centralization hold partial validity but underestimate the Jeffersonian resurgence of decentralization and sovereignty in 2026 America, particularly as the NSS prioritizes Western Hemisphere control—echoing a modern Monroe Doctrine—to address borders, migration, and foreign influence, contrasting sharply with the EU and UK’s economic decline, military weakness, open borders, and eroded sovereignty.
The EU faces paralysis from weak governments and populist pressures, while the UK’s post-Brexit malaise exacerbates its diminished global role, leaving both vulnerable in a multipolar order dominated by U.S.-China competition. Under the NSS, the U.S. counters these risks by emphasizing economic sovereignty through tariffs, industrial resurgence, and near-shoring, harnessing self-interest to dismantle globalist overreach and reinforce states’ rights—much like Jefferson’s ward republics—though it demands vigilance against executive centralization, highlighting how Tocqueville overlooked national agency in mitigating cultural decay.
Finally, Tocqueville’s concerns over equality fostering individualism, materialism, and majority tyranny are prescient yet fatalistic. 2026’s realist NSS pivot channels these tendencies toward communal national strength via energy dominance, domestic production, and rejection of abroad democracy promotion, while addressing hemispheric control to counter vulnerabilities seen in the EU/UK’s open-border crises and India’s impending peak as a counterweight to China.
By prioritizing core interests over utopian globalism, the strategy reinvigorates Jeffersonian self-governance and restraint, mitigating isolation through interest-driven alliances in a world where China’s rise and India’s growth diffuse power.
As a Jeffersonian Realist, I view this as affirming America’s exceptional adaptability, though it requires eternal vigilance against populist excesses; Tocqueville undervalued how grounded leadership can redirect democratic flaws toward enduring liberty rather than inexorable decline.
The EU faces paralysis from weak governments and populist pressures, while the UK’s post-Brexit malaise exacerbates its diminished global role, leaving both vulnerable in a multipolar order dominated by U.S.-China competition. Under the NSS, the U.S. counters these risks by emphasizing economic sovereignty through tariffs, industrial resurgence, and near-shoring, harnessing self-interest to dismantle globalist overreach and reinforce states’ rights—much like Jefferson’s ward republics—though it demands vigilance against executive centralization, highlighting how Tocqueville overlooked national agency in mitigating cultural decay.
Finally, Tocqueville’s concerns over equality fostering individualism, materialism, and majority tyranny are prescient yet fatalistic, as 2026’s realist NSS pivot channels these tendencies toward communal national strength via energy dominance, domestic production, and rejection of abroad democracy promotion, while addressing hemispheric control to counter vulnerabilities seen in the EU/UK’s open-border crises and India’s impending peak as a counterweight to China. By prioritizing core interests over utopian globalism, the strategy reinvigorates Jeffersonian self-governance and restraint, mitigating isolation through interest-driven alliances in a world where China’s rise and India’s growth diffuse power. As a Jeffersonian Realist, I view this as affirming America’s exceptional adaptability, though it requires eternal vigilance against populist excesses; Tocqueville undervalued how grounded leadership can redirect democratic flaws toward enduring liberty rather than inexorable decline.
Beautifully written, clearly showing the prophetic dangers of the consolidation of powers. The President, legislative branch and the Supreme Court specifically, have failed Americans. No more silently sitting at home, wringing our hands. I am reassured every time I see citizens speak up for our neighbors, mindfully choose where to shop and actively make our voice heard. There is some of the “collective good” left in our citizens and that will beat out our individual needs every time.
Eloquent and on point but misses the main problem in our time with Democracy which is how fake and incestuous world finance is. We are not being run by the "mobs." It's much worse than that. We're not even run by local sentiments. The desired outcome is whiteboarded out in round table groups and think tanks. Then it's decided what combination of false flags, entitlement baiting, bribes of foreign assets, blackmail, and paid shills are needed to bait both sides of the astroturfed dialectic.
Everyone talks about “saving Democracy” like it’s something sacred, but nobody seems to take the time to define what they are talking about. If you define democracy as simply allowing people to vote and let majority rule, then you have to define who is allowed to vote. Should only citizens be allowed to vote? Should only citizens who own property be allowed to vote? Should only male citizens be allowed to vote? All of these have been voting criteria in “Our Democracy,” but not today. Now we allow everybody that happens to reside in the US to vote, in some cases, it’s been reported that even dead people, illegal aliens, and felons in prison have all voted in elections. Not to mention that some of our politicians are lobbying to reduce the voting age to 16 years old. So, are you wanting to allow that “majority” to rule?
Yes, I’m all for democracy in theory, but there are a lot of “democracies” in the world that are not worth saving. Russia had an election, is it a democracy? Venezuela had an election, is it a democracy? There are several counties that are “democratic socialists,” are they democracies? To say that we should “save democracy” is about as nebulous as “saving freedom” or “saving equality.” It requires more definition because those terms can mean different things to different people, and the people seeking power can certainly use them to mean something completely different from what most of us think they it should mean.
That’s exactly what it is “American Democrary,” as in America’s interpretation of Democracry. I say this because Democracy has never been realized in the United States.
In 1963, a government scientist imagined an “Intergalactic Computer Network.” He wasn’t dreaming about memes or ads he was imagining a new kind of democracy.
Tocqueville’s emphasis on “manners” is often read culturally, but it also functioned structurally.
Those informal norms worked as buffers in a low-speed, low-feedback system. Once scale, media saturation, and continuous optimization enter, manners stop stabilizing outcomes and start getting arbitraged.
The problem isn’t that Americans forgot Tocqueville, it’s that the conditions under which his stabilizers worked no longer exist.
Striking how Tocqueville isn’t really talking about democracy at all. Not in the way we usually do today anyway. He’s looking past the scaffolding. Past all constitutions and checks and balances. As if he already knows they’re secondary.
I'm no expert on Tocqueville but from this article he seems to imply that freedom doesn’t start with rights. It starts with people who know how to stop themselves. Who accept that not everything bends to them. That kind of thing isn’t written anywhere.
And once equality turns sour once it stops meaning shared worth and starts meaning flattening difference something slips. Quietly but surely. The paperwork gets done. Everything looks fine from the outside. But it’s thinner. More fragile. That's a scary place to live.
The danger is slow drift. Character dissolving without anyone really noticing. Is that why he talks about manners? They go first. So maybe asking whether democracy survives is the wrong scale. Too big and too clean a question. The real question is smaller and more messy:
Do we still live in ways that train us for freedom at all?
To answer your final question most don't Justi. It's those of us who still have common decency that still do our best to live freely.
We need to course correct soon or we'll witness the end of the American Experiment.
« I'm no expert on Tocqueville but from this article he seems to imply that freedom doesn’t start with rights. It starts with people who know how to stop themselves. Who accept that not everything bends to them. That kind of thing isn’t written anywhere. »
This reminds me of the words Camus was told his father said during his military service in North Africa, after his father heard of some horrors French troops had committed : « un homme, ça s’empêche. » A man has to stop himself. Applied to humanity and our yearning for both freedom and equality, as Albert Camus did, it’s all the more important. Perhaps that lesson is one the French, with their sometimes contradictory but violent love of liberty, are uniquely placed to understand… at any rate, I’ve not found better than Alexis de Tocqueville and Albert Camus to articulate it.
By manners he means culture. Compared to the early 19th century the US culture, as in Europe, has changed. The West, in general, went from a more aristocratic privilege-obligation-honor-divine order culture to a sacred victim, entitled parasite culture.
Preach! I'd also like to add we let the vile Banker class which the founding father never wanted to let intonthis country that led to the Federal Reserve to be created. We must take back our sovereignty as we are close to losing it, to some it's already lost.
We the people need to stand up and fight!
Thanks. I'm not as well-versed in financial matters but I thought the original purpose of central banks was to prevent boom-and-bust cycles. I would think the problem more about fiat money started by Nixon. But I may be wrong!
It's something way before Nixon. Follow the money and you find the source of the problems.
I have trouble with this line of thought for two reasons:
Banks or corporations cannot harrass with threats of legal prosecution that can result in throwing people into jail or worse, because,
Banks and oorporations don't have armies or police – men with guns.
They may be coerced or willingly comply with the desires of the men with guns and jails but they don't necessarily control them. But, I do agree that wealthy donors to politicians have a lot of influence. That said, there will always be powerful men who exert influence one way or another, no matter what political or economic system exists.
Wondering how many boom/bust cycles have happened since the central bank was created?
I asked ChatGPT: Were boom-and-bust cycles controlled or diminished by the advent of central banks?
It said:
What central banks changed
Central banks introduced several stabilizing tools:
1. Lender of last resort
They can:
Provide emergency liquidity
Halt bank runs
Prevent cascading failures
This alone significantly reduced pure panic-driven collapses.
2. Monetary policy
By adjusting interest rates and money supply, central banks aim to:
Cool overheating economies
Stimulate during downturns
This smoothed ordinary business-cycle volatility, especially after WWII.
3. Financial system backstopping
Deposit insurance, supervision, and macroprudential tools (often tied to central banks) further reduced instability.
Evidence of improvement
Fewer banking panics in advanced economies after central banks matured.
Post-1945 period saw longer expansions and milder recessions than the 19th century.
The so-called Great Moderation (mid-1980s to 2007) featured lower output and inflation volatility.
So in a narrow sense: yes, central banks diminished classic boom-bust cycles.
But not the whole story
1. Crises didn’t disappear—they changed form
Instead of frequent small panics, we got:
Less frequent but much larger crises (e.g., 1929, 2008)
Asset bubbles rather than bank runs as the main trigger
2. Policy can amplify cycles
Central banks may:
Keep rates too low for too long
Encourage excessive leverage and risk-taking
Create “moral hazard” (belief they’ll always intervene)
This can inflate booms, making busts more severe.
3. The Great Depression is a cautionary tale
Central banking alone is not sufficient:
The Federal Reserve existed in 1929
Policy mistakes (tight money, banking failures) worsened the collapse
Better central banking mattered as much as having one.
Net assessment
Central banks:
✔ Reduced panic-driven instability
✔ Smoothed normal business cycles
✖ Did not eliminate booms and busts
✖ May contribute to large, systemic bubbles if policy is miscalibrated
A useful summary:
Central banks traded many small crises for fewer but bigger ones.
If you want, I can compare specific countries, eras (gold standard vs fiat), or dig into whether modern macroprudential policy really improves on this tradeoff.
The Fed has accomplished creating “too big to fail,” Protection for only one industry- banking.
While I’m an aware of the excesses of our Fed, I don’t see how a large, 21st century nation can function without a central bank.
Serious question: what should replace it, in your opinion?
The Fed isn't even part of the government and is a private entity owned by the central bankers of old(everyone knows who they are just follow the money) . Look how long we as a nation went without it that and the foolish income tax, then how many problems started after both were established. Especially when we lost the gold standard to fiat currency though If anything were to replace it, that should be bitcoin. I put $100 dollars every week to buying bitcoin. A good man told me stack sats and get off Zero.
Yes, I agree, although I would more broadly call it character. It’s the concept that there’s no “magic dirt” that transforms people into a civilization; witness the Somalis (and other translators-based people) who will never cast off their ways. The idea of “assimilation” is today deemed racist, and so we continue our downward slide as more and more third-world people arrive.
The problem isn’t people from the developing world, who mostly work every hour they are physically able; it’s people from the developed world who have abandoned character for victimhood and culture for consumption.
I respectfully disagree. People from the "developing" world (excepting Latin America, for the most part) bring such cultural practices as female genital mutilation, subjugation of women, tribalism, and a lack of appreciation for free speech. All of these are extensively documented.
Cut the head of the serpent and watch 2 more arrive in its place. Our current leaders are bought and paid by a certain foreign country even though they claim they are not.
Interesting read, and looking forward to reading Plato's Republic. On the topic of individualism, his commentary reminds me of Martin Niemöller's poem on opposing the Nazi regime, "First They Came" -
"First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me"
Tocqueville is somewhat correct. Was it Franklin, Jefferson, or Adams (I can't remember) who said that the United States republic is made for a wholly religious people and no other?
Doesn't matter really who said it. What matters is the ultimate point: That the character of a wholly religious people (which were predominantly Christian at the time and, hence, that is arguably the religion inferred) is the backbone of our republic.
In other words, the Founding Fathers were clear that without Christian people, principles, and purpose, the United States republic would be vulnerable to tyranny and collapse. So, in a way, Tocqueville took a roundabout journey to the same conclusion the Fathers had warned.
Benjamin Franklin--"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom." Seehttps://nccs.net/blogs/articles/only-a-virtuous-people-are-capable-of-freedom
I don’t know your quote, but I don’t believe they had in mind the current Christian agenda. Surely, they meant the opposite! Current Christian politics is as far from “manners” as you can get.
Some of it, yes. But so we’re on the same page, what specific “Christian politics” are you referring to?
Christian Nationalist, Trumplican, anti-democratic politics. The traditional Christian teachings of love your neighbor, the Golden Rule, and following the Ten Commandments are completely compatible with maintaining our republic. Unfortunately, as has happened many times in the history of the world, the loudest, most powerful religious voices in this country have hijacked religion to form a self-serving cult that is pursuing anti-Christian behavior.
There are are some on the right who are extreme. But others support Trump and just want to see Christianity respected in America again, as it was from the beginning. What is wrong with that?
And what exactly about Trump and supporting him is anti-democratic? The people voted him into office through the legal process established by this republic.
He won fair and square. And he’s doing what the people voted for. Protecting the legal citizens of the United States from threats both foreign and domestic. That is the established roll of the executive branch.
You misspelled role. Or did you?
Tocqueville was brilliant. He must be spinning in his grave right now.
Tocqueville. I haven't read him, a fancy, a couple of centuries. The article is concise and clarifies many of his thoughts. Time to peruse more writings of his.
It’s not quite “manners”. It is “mores” which are more like social customs or norms, though manners might come under that. For example, he thought that because of the countries many immigrants had come to America from, they had the customs of localised cooperation which invigorated their democracy. It certainly makes sense that this has deteriorated, especially since the 80s and even more so now.
Manners is the 19th century translation of « mœurs ».
Is it? Odd since mores is a word available in English. Anyway I’m just parroting what was hammered into me by my uni prof 25 years ago who was a de Tocqueville scholar (superfan?) almost to the exclusion of teaching us about anyone else. 😆
Well, « moeurs » comes from the Latin mores, so that’s hardly surprising.
But the 19th century translation of Tocqueville in English uses manners for moeurs/mores, a word that has changed meaning.
I am not an expert on Tocqueville.
Clearly, I look at this from the current geopolitical reality.
As a Jeffersonian Realist, I critique Tocqueville’s geopolitical prophecy of an inevitable bipolar U.S.-Russia rivalry as overly deterministic and Eurocentric, failing to anticipate the multipolar landscape of 2026 where China emerges as the ascendant superpower, India surges toward its economic peak in the next decade, and Russia fades into a secondary, resource-dependent actor.
Tocqueville envisioned America and Russia as providential giants, with liberty clashing against autocracy. In today’s reality, under Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) emphasizes pragmatic “America First” diplomacy, managing relations with a declining Russia through de-escalation and spheres of influence while confronting China’s technological and economic dominance—such as its mastery of the “electric stack” in AI, renewables, and supply chains. Additional, India, projected to become a global superpower alongside the U.S. and China by mid-century, adds complexity with its rapid growth in population and tech sectors, challenging Tocqueville’s binary view.
The NSS’s focus on transactional balances of power aligns with Jefferson’s aversion to entangling alliances, enabling the U.S. to navigate this multipolar world through economic leverage and deterrence rather than ideological crusades, proving Tocqueville’s trends too rigid for adaptive realism.
Tocqueville’s warnings of “soft despotism” via bureaucratic centralization hold partial validity but underestimate the Jeffersonian resurgence of decentralization and sovereignty in 2026 America, particularly as the NSS prioritizes Western Hemisphere control—echoing a modern Monroe Doctrine—to address borders, migration, and foreign influence, contrasting sharply with the EU and UK’s economic decline, military weakness, open borders, and eroded sovereignty.
The EU faces paralysis from weak governments and populist pressures, while the UK’s post-Brexit malaise exacerbates its diminished global role, leaving both vulnerable in a multipolar order dominated by U.S.-China competition. Under the NSS, the U.S. counters these risks by emphasizing economic sovereignty through tariffs, industrial resurgence, and near-shoring, harnessing self-interest to dismantle globalist overreach and reinforce states’ rights—much like Jefferson’s ward republics—though it demands vigilance against executive centralization, highlighting how Tocqueville overlooked national agency in mitigating cultural decay.
Finally, Tocqueville’s concerns over equality fostering individualism, materialism, and majority tyranny are prescient yet fatalistic. 2026’s realist NSS pivot channels these tendencies toward communal national strength via energy dominance, domestic production, and rejection of abroad democracy promotion, while addressing hemispheric control to counter vulnerabilities seen in the EU/UK’s open-border crises and India’s impending peak as a counterweight to China.
By prioritizing core interests over utopian globalism, the strategy reinvigorates Jeffersonian self-governance and restraint, mitigating isolation through interest-driven alliances in a world where China’s rise and India’s growth diffuse power.
As a Jeffersonian Realist, I view this as affirming America’s exceptional adaptability, though it requires eternal vigilance against populist excesses; Tocqueville undervalued how grounded leadership can redirect democratic flaws toward enduring liberty rather than inexorable decline.
continue from above
The EU faces paralysis from weak governments and populist pressures, while the UK’s post-Brexit malaise exacerbates its diminished global role, leaving both vulnerable in a multipolar order dominated by U.S.-China competition. Under the NSS, the U.S. counters these risks by emphasizing economic sovereignty through tariffs, industrial resurgence, and near-shoring, harnessing self-interest to dismantle globalist overreach and reinforce states’ rights—much like Jefferson’s ward republics—though it demands vigilance against executive centralization, highlighting how Tocqueville overlooked national agency in mitigating cultural decay.
Finally, Tocqueville’s concerns over equality fostering individualism, materialism, and majority tyranny are prescient yet fatalistic, as 2026’s realist NSS pivot channels these tendencies toward communal national strength via energy dominance, domestic production, and rejection of abroad democracy promotion, while addressing hemispheric control to counter vulnerabilities seen in the EU/UK’s open-border crises and India’s impending peak as a counterweight to China. By prioritizing core interests over utopian globalism, the strategy reinvigorates Jeffersonian self-governance and restraint, mitigating isolation through interest-driven alliances in a world where China’s rise and India’s growth diffuse power. As a Jeffersonian Realist, I view this as affirming America’s exceptional adaptability, though it requires eternal vigilance against populist excesses; Tocqueville undervalued how grounded leadership can redirect democratic flaws toward enduring liberty rather than inexorable decline.
Beautifully written, clearly showing the prophetic dangers of the consolidation of powers. The President, legislative branch and the Supreme Court specifically, have failed Americans. No more silently sitting at home, wringing our hands. I am reassured every time I see citizens speak up for our neighbors, mindfully choose where to shop and actively make our voice heard. There is some of the “collective good” left in our citizens and that will beat out our individual needs every time.
Recently, I heard that young people of USA have affinity for socialism. Cause
is clear. The gap between rich and poor is too large.
Add
I do my best to be paid subscriber as soon as possible.
My mother.............................orz
What source did you hear this from, I can tell you this is false. Young Americans do not want socialism.
報道19:30
Sorry.
As you say, almost all of young
Americans probably love
democracy.
Eloquent and on point but misses the main problem in our time with Democracy which is how fake and incestuous world finance is. We are not being run by the "mobs." It's much worse than that. We're not even run by local sentiments. The desired outcome is whiteboarded out in round table groups and think tanks. Then it's decided what combination of false flags, entitlement baiting, bribes of foreign assets, blackmail, and paid shills are needed to bait both sides of the astroturfed dialectic.
Everyone talks about “saving Democracy” like it’s something sacred, but nobody seems to take the time to define what they are talking about. If you define democracy as simply allowing people to vote and let majority rule, then you have to define who is allowed to vote. Should only citizens be allowed to vote? Should only citizens who own property be allowed to vote? Should only male citizens be allowed to vote? All of these have been voting criteria in “Our Democracy,” but not today. Now we allow everybody that happens to reside in the US to vote, in some cases, it’s been reported that even dead people, illegal aliens, and felons in prison have all voted in elections. Not to mention that some of our politicians are lobbying to reduce the voting age to 16 years old. So, are you wanting to allow that “majority” to rule?
Yes, I’m all for democracy in theory, but there are a lot of “democracies” in the world that are not worth saving. Russia had an election, is it a democracy? Venezuela had an election, is it a democracy? There are several counties that are “democratic socialists,” are they democracies? To say that we should “save democracy” is about as nebulous as “saving freedom” or “saving equality.” It requires more definition because those terms can mean different things to different people, and the people seeking power can certainly use them to mean something completely different from what most of us think they it should mean.
That’s exactly what it is “American Democrary,” as in America’s interpretation of Democracry. I say this because Democracy has never been realized in the United States.
De Tocqueville said that when the central government got too strong, the media would abandon local reporting and all would be lost.
In 1963, a government scientist imagined an “Intergalactic Computer Network.” He wasn’t dreaming about memes or ads he was imagining a new kind of democracy.
https://substack.com/@sheikhrakeshzaman/note/p-187534407?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=7eksta
Tocqueville’s emphasis on “manners” is often read culturally, but it also functioned structurally.
Those informal norms worked as buffers in a low-speed, low-feedback system. Once scale, media saturation, and continuous optimization enter, manners stop stabilizing outcomes and start getting arbitraged.
The problem isn’t that Americans forgot Tocqueville, it’s that the conditions under which his stabilizers worked no longer exist.