Tocqueville analyzes the effect of having a constitution in America and how it is set up. Among other things, he is comparing this with the situation in England, where Parliament is supreme, there being no body that can say “that law you made is unconstitutional.” Tocqueville believes the Americans have found a great balance and that their constitution sets them free as a people. It is in the goldilocks zone, if you will. Strong enough that it limits those in power from becoming despots, but not so easy to use that it is abused.

 

Interestingly, Tocqueville also mentions the benefits to the “public order” when discussing the constitution. This is becoming a theme in his writing. Given the disorder that his country recently went through with the Revolution, this isn’t a surprise. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note. For I feel that when we modern folk discuss changes to our voting system or other democratic institutions, we tend to neglect considering its impact on public order because we have been less exposed to such convulsions in our society. In fact, we often even look negatively on the desire for “order” by those who promote it, including viewing the motto of our governmental system cynically, or at least the middle word in our motto: “peace, order and good government.” We often take that as someone wanting to “control” the people to keep them down.

 

But I think this is a mistake. We take order for granted so much that we may fail to heed the warnings of G.K. Chesterton about taking fences down before we know the reason they are put up. In checking the source for this quote, I discovered that the quote is not as most of us believe. It’s less concise, but perhaps more instructive. Here it is in full:

 

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

 

It makes you realize that we keep making the same mistakes throughout history. Our temptation is to look at the world and see a bunch of fences getting in the way of our ideal society. Not taking the time to look into the matter, we proceed to lobby for their removal. A few voices protest and we label them backwards, traditional, conservative, or worse.

 

That said, when we take the time to understand why the fences were put up, they sometimes do need to come down. If this is the case, then we need a way for citizens to familiarize themselves with the reasons fences were put up and to gauge whether they should remain.

 

Fortunately, we have such a system. It is called a liberal education. For a liberal education is a study in why the fences were put up. Throughout history, there have often been great debates about whether to put fences up or tear them down. It’s not always easy for us to grasp the importance of these fences without reading these original conversations. By reading and discussing these conversations with a small group of people, we strengthen our ability to assess and debate the need for fences.

 

Unfortunately, ironically, a liberal education itself came to be seen as an unnecessary fence by educational reformers, or deformers, as Chesterton would say. We need to put back up the fence of liberal education. We need to say, if you go to university, you can only graduate if you know the reasons for our society’s fences, or at least, its most important ones. Imagine the impact on society today if every university graduate was practiced in seeking out and discussing the reasons for fences before tearing them down. Utopia? For the sake of the Republic, I hope not.

 

And for the sake of public order, we would do well to follow Tocqueville’s analysis with respect to this issue as we read on. For I don’t think it is as easy for us to see the reason for this particular fence. Is it the case that the fences of public order are so good at doing their jobs that they removed the original problems from sight, such that all we see is a needless barrier? Or have the problems themselves dissipated naturally over time, such that we could take the fence down, or at least, put a less restrictive fence in its place?
These are important things to consider as we seek to reform our democracies. As I write this, two of the federal political parties would move towards proportional representation if elected. Before we get too far down that road, let us take time, with Tocqueville and Chesterton, to “go away and think.”