Democracy and Freedom; J. Denson

John V. Denson DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM A common error in political dialogue today is the interchangeable use of the words ((democracy" and ((freedom," as though they mean the same thing. They definitely do not; in fact, democracy can be a severe threat to freedom and individ ualism. One of the most astute and intel ligent observers of the American ex periment with democracy was a Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville. His classic, Democracy in America was published in 1835, soon after his visit to America. The book is more pertinent today than when it was written. Tocqueville then theorized about the nature of democracy and its dangers to freedom, but these Mr. Denson Is an attomey In Opelika, Alabama and writes a regular column of libertarian viewpoint for several newspapers In which he holds an Interest. theories have been proven correct, to a great extent, in the 20th Century. Tocqueville recognized that aris tocracy, monarchy, and such forms were quickly dying out in the West and that democracy was the wave of the future. The Old-World system of legalized pri vilege, which was in herited, and rule by the few, was being overthrown in favor of equal ity of opportunity and mass political control. Tocqueville stated very prophetically that, ((The destiny of the world will be in the hands of America and of Russia; these two great nations, each going a different way, will determine what will hap pen."

Tocqueville further stated that ((Democracy is irresistible, it is going to come." ((Democracy has enormous benefits . . . but also 399 400 THE FREEMAN July democracy has the most dangers. We had better prepare for it so we take advantage of the benefits and avoid the dangers. Democracy is po tentially the best of all forms of society and government; it is also one of the most dangerous forms of all society and government." Potential Tyranny One danger that Tocqueville saw was the potential tyranny of the majority and loss of individualism due to enforced conformity by an uninformed, and possibly, manipu lated public. He also saw a threat to both civilization and culture in democracy. He pointed out that in aristocratic societies you saw in stances of great wealth and extreme poverty, great learning and extreme ignorance. In a democratic society, the extremes would be more or less eliminated and a much higher gen eral standard of Iiving would be available. He stated, tta state of equality is less elevated but it is more just; and its justice constitutes its greatness and its beauty."

Tocqueville warned that a democ racy must be very careful not to stamp out dissent which provides meaningful change. He recognized that differences of opinion often pro duce the most progressive changes and that conformity produced by a democracy could severely restrict such progress. Tocqueville also saw that centralization of power in a government run by an unelected bureaucracy would continue to be the great threat to individual liberty in the democratic system just as it had been under the old, autocratic sys tems. He felt that centralization of power and democracy may be even more of a threat in a democratic state since the public would tend to be less suspicious of a government when the people possessed the right to vote and to elect their representa tives. When kings and aristocrats ruled, the people knew they had to be sus picious and careful of government since they realized that they had little influence or power. However, democracy had the potential to create a false sense of security from the force of government. One of the architects of the American system of democracy, George Washington, continued to recognize the true na ture of government, even though democratic, when he stated: ttGov_ ernment is not reason, it is not eloquence-it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

Following the lead of Tocqueville in analyzing democracy, two En glish libertarians, in a later period, seemed to grasp, better than Tocqueville, that democracy would not necessarily change the true na ture and danger of government.

1980 DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM 401 Herbert Spencer stated: uWhen we have made our constitution purely democratic, thinks to himself the earnest reformer, we should have brought government into harmony with absolute justice. Such faith, though perhaps needful for the age, is a very erroneous one. By no pro cess can coercion be made more equitable." The Initiation of Force Spencer's student, Auberon Her bert, correctly perceived that it was the initiation of force which was the key to tyranny and he stated: ttMa_ jority rule is not founded-any more than the emperor's rule-on reason or justice. There is no reason or justice in making two men subject to three men ... no one has the moral right to seek his own advantage by force. This is the one unalterable, inviolable condition of a true soci ety. Whether we are many or whether we are few, we must learn only to use the weapon of reason, discussion, and persuasion."

One of the authorities on Tocque ville's Democracy in America is his tory professor Henry Steele Com mager. He recently appeared on the television program, ttBill Moyers' Journal," and analyzed Tocque ville's book. Commager commented that' all governments, even democ racies, advance like gravity in a natural flow, towards centraliza tion, but that liberty does not. He stated: ttLiberty must be worked at, must be achieved, and it has rarely been achieved anywhere in the whole of history. It requires a most extraordinary self-control, self denial, wisdom, sagacity, vision to protect liberty in the face of all the forces that mitigate and militate against it. And Tocqueville regarded centralization as the most danger ous of all the threats to liberty." Commager's quote about the na ture of government gives special emphasis to the earlier warning: UEtemal. vigilance is the price of liberty."

Commager also reminded us that Nazi Germany was a result of the democratic process and ttis perhaps the outstanding example in modern history of how an overwhelming ma jority can exercise the most ruthless tyranny over a minority." Govern ments throughout the democratic West continue to grow larger and to become more oppressive, especially in the area of taxation. Government domination of education and regula tion of almost every form of human conduct, especially in economic mat ters, is far more extensive today under democratic governments than existed in the Old-World autocratic systems of the past. Our present situation in demo cratic America, where we are being threatened with a peace-time draft and actually have a large portion of our Army stationed in Europe and 402 THE FREEMAN other foreign countries coupled with numerous entangling treaties, would have been unthinkable condi tions to our founding fathers. Demo cratic governments in the 20th Cen tury hav; shown strong militaristic tendencies and have produced the most widespread wars known to man kind. The noted historian, Arnold Toynbee, author of the massive, six-volume A Study ofHistory, ques tioned the assumption that democ racies were automatically more peace-loving or anti-militaristic than other forms of government. He also found Uthe suicidalness of militarism" by far the most common cause of the breakdown of civiliza tions.

Professor Commager, at the con clusion of Bill Moyers' interview, and after being asked to comment upon the future of democracy, said, Democracy in America UI feel like Justice Holmes, late in life, when some of his young clerks came back to him and he said, (I myself have little hope for change, but I'm happy to see that the younger generation consults its hopes and not its fears.' " We must continue to recognize that democracy, while being the best form of government, nevertheless, like all government is potentially dangerous, depending upon its size and·power. No government, even a democ racy, should have the right or power to initiate force; it should only repel or defend against force. Government must be kept extremely limited in its scope of influence, and individual rights must be carefully protected. We should never lose sight of this goal nor lose hope of achieving it. ® IDEAS ON LIBERTY OUR contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions; they want to be led, and they wish to remain free: as they cannot destroy either one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large that holds the end of his chain.

ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE ALL educated Americans are aware that the eighteenth century was an era of intense international conflict, if for no other reason than the fact that the French and Indian War and the American Revolution were minor parts of the great interna tional conflicts raging from England to India. Fewer of them are aware that the Americans were able to win their war against the far more powerful British precisely because theirs was a minor war, almost a side-show, in the bigger struggle which kept the British pinned down Dr. Douglas.s Professor of Sociology at the Univer sity of California at San Diego, though his studies of human action range beyond the usual professional or academic bounds of anyone discipline. He has written and edited twenty-five books on various aspects of the social sciences and his articles have appeared In many professional Journals and other publications.