After explaining that not all countries could adopt a federal system similar to America’s because other countries face greater political challenges than America, such as stronger enemies and greater political divisions, Tocqueville turns his attention to political parties in America. On the theme of America being blessed with fewer political divisions, Tocqueville notes: “All the domestic controversies of the Americans at first appear to a stranger to be so incomprehensible and so puerile that he is at a loss whether to pity a people which takes such arrant trifles in good earnest, or to envy the happiness which enables it to discuss them (p. 204)”. I often think the same of our own country, but it is hard to keep this perspective.

 

Is the creation of a national childcare program an “arrant trifle,” or does it strike at the heart of a free society? Is the family private and the basic political unit, or is the government responsible for the raising of children? If equality is essential to maintaining democracy, does the government need to step in to help equalize society by ensuring that every citizen gets a good start in life?

 

On the one hand, the question seems puerile (no pun intended), but on the other, it seems to get at the heart of what Tocqueville considers the major divide in every society. “… I affirm that aristocratic or democratic passions may easily be detected at the bottom of all parties, and that, although they escape a superficial observation, they are the main point and the very soul of every faction in the United States (p.204)”.

 

Viewed through that lens, those fighting for a national daycare program are trying to equalize society by ensuring that all get a good start in life, with the hope that this will translate into better economic outcomes and the ability to participate in political life, democratizing society. Those opposing it are content with the way things are, likely because they themselves have the resources to provide their children with a good start in life. They don’t see a problem with wealthier people in society being able to provide a better start and better life for their offspring, perpetuating a class, to a certain extent.

 

This is one interpretation, at least, for there are other reasons, such as religious beliefs or fiscal sustainability, that lead people to resist the encroachment of government in the raising of children. And on the flip side, purely selfish motives, such as having your children’s daycare paid for by others and having a place to leave your kids more readily, are at play for those who support national childcare programs. But I think it suffices to show that Tocqueville was on to something, for on the surface, the issue may seem a trifle, but deeper down, it reflects the basic currents of political divisions. For, at root, they are part of the war between democratic and aristocratic tendencies.

 

But what, really, does it mean to be aristocratic? For Tocqueville, aristocratic or democratic means whether people think there should be limits to what the voters can enact or whether the people has every right to impose anything upon its members: “…the nation was divided between two opinions – opinions which are as old as the world, and which are perpetually to be met with under all the forms and all the names which have ever obtained in free communities – the one tending to limit, the other to extend indefinitely, the power of the people (p.201)”. So it is not, as we might immediately assume, necessarily about only allowing the upper class or wealthier class to rule (even though limits on what the people can do may help preserve these classes), but about whether there should be any limits on what the group can legislate its members to obey.

 

Let’s use the issue of supply management of milk in Canada to see what impact imposing or not imposing limits to legislation may have. Can the government say to a person, “I’m sorry, but for the good of our existing dairy farmers, no one else is allowed to set up a dairy farm without purchasing the right to produce milk from an existing dairy farmer. Also, no citizen is allowed to buy milk from an American”? Or is that a violation of a person’s rights, both their right to make a livelihood from milking a few cows and their right to simply buy cheaper milk from an American dairy?

 

This is a really interesting one because, in this case, the people are actually worse off with a democratic government than they would be with an aristocratic government. For without supply management, the people would have cheaper milk and we wouldn’t artificially be perpetuating a class of established dairy families. So an aristocratic government that limited the ability of people to pass certain laws, such as restrictions on who can sell something, would, in this case at least, be good for “the people”.

 

When governments try to do this, however, through free trade agreements, the people see it as undemocratic. I suppose this goes to show that just because something is undemocratic, doesn’t mean that it is bad for the people. It brings to mind a passage in the previous chapter: “A false notion which is clear and concise will always meet with a greater number of adherents in the world than a true principle which is obscure or involved (p.188)”. It is easier to say “free trade destroys jobs” to make the case against free trade than it is to promote free trade by explaining that destroying jobs is good because others are created and the economy will be more efficient and industry will be more competitive and the savings from cheaper goods and services will leave more money in people’s pockets to spend elsewhere in the economy, etc., etc.

 

I think we in Canada, or the modern world for that matter, have been trained to think of aristocracy as an inherently bad thing. But if it simply means that there should be limits to what the people are able to do with government, that doesn’t sound so scary. Really, the difference is between who has political right: individuals, or the group. For if the group has rights, it can pass whatever laws it wishes. But if individuals have rights, then there are certain laws or even types of laws that it would not be right for the group to impose. We are all, in some sense, aristocrats, for no one would think society could take children away from every parent to be raised collectively by the state in order to equalize all families. We all feel parents have a right to raise their own children (assuming they’re not abusing or neglecting them, of course).
So where does this discussion leave us? First, I think it shows that political communities will always struggle with the balance between the rights of the individual and the aspirations of the community, and that this is an important struggle. Our task as citizens is to try to find the right balance as new challenges emerge given the advancements and changes in technology and society. Perhaps, also, it is a warning that we should beware the “false notion which is clear and concise”. In short, the political choices we make, even when they don’t seem grandiose, are important, and we ought, as citizens, to treat them as such.