Democracy in America

Where aristocratic periods saw individuals extol virtue for its own sake, Americans instead argue that virtue and some degree of sacrifice are practical and useful. As Tocqueville points out, “they complacently show how the enlightened love of themselves constantly brings them to aid each other and disposes them willingly to sacrifice a part of their time and their wealth to the good of the state” (502). It may not produce “virtue through the will, but it brings them near to it insensibly through habits” (502). Tocqueville regards this form of selfishness as “enlightened […] not. Each American knows how to sacrifice a part of his particular interests to save the rest” (503). Helping all citizens understand this will be key to the survival of democracy.

Tocqueville then turns to whether self-interest motivates religious belief: Do Christians only do good to merit eternal life? Are self-interested people drawn away from religion? He decides that the answer is no, specifically citing religious philosopher Blaise Pascal, who exhorted men to “wager” that God exists because the reward is immense and the negative consequences—namely a life in hell—are not worth risking (504). Americans take Pascal’s advice, and their religious leaders also address contemporary concerns, including support for political freedom.

Tocqueville argues that both Europeans and Americans are increasingly interested in “material well-being” (506). Aristocrats “hardly imagine another” existence than being rich, so they are not as emotionally engaged with the pursuit of material goods. Similarly, in this social state poor people become “habituated to poverty” (507). Social leveling introduces the search for well-being to all groups, which originates in a “middle-class passion” for material things (507). Most rich people in America maintain this focus, as few of them have always been well-off.

Tocqueville asserts that the pursuit of wealth does not necessarily erode society in democracies as it does in aristocracies. While in the latter it can lead to “sumptuous depravity and a brilliant corruption” (508), in democracies, in contrast, the material gain is a “contained passion […] about adding a few toises to one’s fields, planting an orchard, enlarging a residence, making life easier and more comfortable at each instant” (509). The rich moderate their tastes so as not to be too far outside the public norm, and generally material pursuits do not threaten social order and cohesion.

Materialism is not the only intellectual trend Tocqueville observes. This leads some Americans to turn to “an exalted and fierce spiritualism that one scarcely encounters in Europe,” as a kind of reaction to their society’s dominant intellectual current (510).