American Institutions And Their Influence

A >> Alexis de Tocqueville >> American Institutions And Their Influence

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49

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 that happiness which enables
it to discuss them. But when he comes to study the secret
propensities which govern the factions of America, he easily
perceives that the greater part of them are more or less
connected with one or the other of these two divisions which have
always existed in free communities. The deeper we penetrate into
the workings of these parties, the more do we perceive that the
object of the one is to limit, and that of the other to extend,
the popular authority. I do not assert that the ostensible end,
or even that the secret aim, of American parties is to promote
the rule of aristocracy or democracy in the country, but 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.

To quote a recent example: when the president attacked the bank,
the country was excited and parties were formed; the
well-informed classes rallied round the bank, the common people
round the president. But it must not be imagined that the people
had formed a rational opinion upon a question which offers so
many difficulties to the most experienced statesmen. The bank is
a great establishment which enjoys an independent existence, and
the people, accustomed to make and unmake whatsoever it pleases,
is startled to meet with this obstacle to its authority. In the
midst of the perpetual fluctuation of society, the community is
irritated by so permanent an institution, and is led to attack
it, in order to see whether it can be shaken and controlled, like
all the other institutions of the country.

* * * * *

REMAINS OF THE ARISTOCRATIC PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES.

Secret Opposition of wealthy Individuals to Democracy.--Their
retirement.--Their tastes for exclusive Pleasures and for
Luxury at Home.--Their Simplicity Abroad.--Their affected
Condescension toward the People.

It sometimes happens in a people among which various opinions
prevail, that the balance of the several parties is lost, and one
of them obtains an irresistible preponderance, overpowers all
obstacles, harasses its opponents, and appropriates all the
resources of society to its own purposes. The vanquished
citizens despair of success, and they conceal their
dissatisfaction in silence and in a general apathy. The nation
seems to be governed by a single principle, and the prevailing
party assumes the credit of having restored peace and unanimity
to the country. But this apparent unanimity is merely a cloak to
alarming dissensions and perpetual opposition.

This is precisely what occurred in America; when the democratic
party got the upper hand, it took exclusive possession of the
conduct of affairs, and from that time the laws and customs of
society have been adapted to its caprices. At the present day
the more affluent classes of society are so entirely removed from
the direction of political affairs in the United States, that
wealth, far from conferring a right to the exercise of power, is
rather an obstacle than a means of attaining to it. The wealthy
members of the community abandon the lists, through unwillingness
to contend, and frequently to contend in vain, against the
poorest classes of their fellow-citizens. They concentrate all
their enjoyments in the privacy of their homes, where they occupy
a rank which cannot be assumed in public; and they constitute a
private society in the state, which has its own tastes and its
own pleasures. They submit to this state of things as an
irremediable evil, but they are careful not to show that they are
galled by its continuance; it is even not uncommon to hear them
laud the delights of a republican government, and the advantages
of democratic institutions when they are in public. Next to
hating their enemies, men are most inclined to flatter them.

Mark, for instance, that opulent citizen, who is as anxious as a
Jew of the middle ages to conceal his wealth. His dress is
plain, his demeanor unassuming; but the interior of his dwelling
glitters with luxury, and none but a few chosen guests whom he
haughtily styles his equals, are allowed to penetrate into this
sanctuary. No European noble is more exclusive in his pleasures,
or more jealous of the smallest advantages which his privileged
station confers upon him. But the very same individual crosses
the city to reach a dark counting-house in the centre of traffic,
where every one may accost him who pleases. If he meets his
cobbler upon the way, they stop and converse; the two citizens
discuss the affairs of the state in which they have an equal
interest, and they shake hands before they part.

But beneath this artificial enthusiasm, and these obsequious
attentions to the preponderating power, it is easy to perceive
that the wealthy members of the community entertain a hearty
distaste to the democratic institutions of their country. The
populace is at once the object of their scorn and of their fears.
If the mal-administration of the democracy ever brings about a
revolutionary crisis, and if monarchical institutions ever become
practicable in the United States, the truth of what I advance
will become obvious.

The two chief weapons which parties use in order to ensure
success, are the _public press_, and the formation of
_associations_.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XI.

LIBERTY OF THE PRESS IN THE UNITED STATES.

Difficulty of restraining the Liberty of the Press.--Particular
reasons which some Nations have to cherish this Liberty.--The
Liberty of the Press a necessary Consequence of the Sovereignty
of the people as it is understood in America.--Violent Language
of the periodical Press in the United States.--Propensities of
the periodical Press.--Illustrated by the United
States.--Opinion of the Americans upon the Repression of the
Abuse of the Liberty of the Press by judicial
Prosecutions.--Reasons for which the Press is less powerful in
America than in France.

The influence of the liberty of the press does not affect
political opinions alone, but it extends to all the opinions of
men, and it modifies customs as well as laws. In another part of
this work I shall attempt to determine the degree of influence
which the liberty of the press has exercised upon civil society
in the United States, and to point out the direction which it has
given to the ideas, as well as the tone which it has imparted to
the character and the feelings of the Anglo-Americans, but at
present I purpose simply to examine the effects produced by the
liberty of the press in the political world.

I confess that I do not entertain that firm and complete
attachment to the liberty of the press, which things that are
supremely good in their very nature are wont to excite in the
mind; and I approve of it more from a recollection of the evils
it prevents, than from a consideration of the advantages it
ensures.

If any one can point out an intermediate, and yet a tenable
position, between the complete independence and the entire
subjection of the public expression of opinion, I should perhaps
be inclined to adopt it; but the difficulty is to discover this
position. If it is your intention to correct the abuses of
unlicensed printing, and to restore the use of orderly language,
you may in the first instance try the offender by a jury; but if
the jury acquits him, the opinion which was that of a single
individual becomes the opinion of the country at large. Too much
and too little has therefore hitherto been done; if you proceed,
you must bring the delinquent before permanent magistrates; but
even here the cause must be heard before it can be decided; and
the very principles which no book would have ventured to avow are
blazoned forth in the pleadings, and what was obscurely hinted at
in a single composition is then repeated in a multitude of other
publications. The language in which a thought is embodied is the
mere carcase of the thought, and not the idea itself; tribunals
may condemn the form, but the sense and spirit of the work is too
subtle for their authority: too much has still been done to
recede, too little to attain your end: you must therefore
proceed. If you establish a censorship of the press, the tongue
of the public speaker will still make itself heard, and you have
only increased the mischief. The powers of thought do not rely,
like the powers of physical strength, upon the number of their
mechanical agents, nor can a host of authors be reckoned like the
troops which compose an army; on the contrary, the authority of a
principle is often increased by the smallness of the number of
men by whom it is expressed. The words of a strong-minded man,
which penetrate amid the passions of a listening assembly, have
more weight than the vociferations of a thousand orators; and if
it be allowed to speak freely in any public place, the
consequence is the same as if free speaking was allowed in every
village. The liberty of discourse must therefore be destroyed as
well as the liberty of the press; this is the necessary term of
your efforts; but if your object was to repress the abuses of
liberty, they have brought you to the feet of a despot. You have
been led from the extreme of independence to the extreme of
subjection, without meeting with a single tenable position for
shelter or repose.

There are certain nations which have peculiar reasons for
cherishing the press, independently of the general motives which
I have just pointed out. For in certain countries which profess
to enjoy the privileges of freedom, every individual agent of the
government may violate the laws with impunity, since those whom
he oppresses cannot prosecute him before the courts of justice.
In this case the liberty of the press is not merely a guarantee,
but it is the only guarantee of their liberty and their security
which the citizens possess. If the rulers of these nations
proposed to abolish the independence of the press, the people
would be justified in saying: "Give us the right of prosecuting
your offences before the ordinary tribunals, and perhaps we may
then waive our right of appeal to the tribunal of public
opinion."

But in the countries in which the doctrine of the sovereignty of
the people ostensibly prevails, the censorship of the press is
not only dangerous, but it is absurd. When the right of every
citizen to co-operate in the government of society is
acknowledged, every citizen must be presumed to possess the power
of discriminating between the different opinions of his
contemporaries, and of appreciating the different facts from
which inferences may be drawn. The sovereignty of the people and
the liberty of the press may therefore be looked upon as
correlative institutions; just as the censorship of the press and
universal suffrage are two things which are irreconcileably
opposed, and which cannot long be retained among the institutions
of the same people. Not a single individual of the twelve
millions who inhabit the territory of the United States has as
yet dared to propose any restrictions to the liberty of the
press. The first newspaper over which I cast my eyes, after my
arrival in America, contained the following article:

"In all this affair, the language of Jackson has been that of a
heartless despot, solely occupied with the preservation of his
own authority. Ambition is his crime, and it will be his
punishment too: intrigue is his native element, and intrigue will
confound his tricks, and will deprive him of his power; he
governs by means of corruption, and his immoral practices will
redound to his shame and confusion. His conduct in the political
arena has been that of a shameless and lawless gamester. He
succeeded at the time, but the hour of retribution approaches,
and he will be obliged to disgorge his winnings, to throw aside
his false dice, and to end his days in some retirement where he
may curse his madness at his leisure; for repentance is a virtue
with which his heart is likely to remain for ever unacquainted."

It is not uncommonly imagined in France, that the virulence of
the press originates in the uncertain social condition, in the
political excitement, and the general sense of consequent evil
which prevail in that country; and it is therefore supposed that
as soon as society has resumed a certain degree of composure, the
press will abandon its present vehemence. I am inclined to think
that the above causes explain the reason of the extraordinary
ascendency it has acquired over the nation, but that they do not
exercise much influence upon the tone of its language. The
periodical press appears to me to be actuated by passions and
propensities independent of the circumstances in which it is
placed; and the present position of America corroborates this
opinion.

America is, perhaps, at this moment, the country of the whole
world which contains the fewest germs of revolution; but the
press is not less destructive in its principles than in France,
and it displays the same violence without the same reasons for
indignation. In America, as in France, it constitutes a singular
power, so strangely composed of mingled good and evil, that it is
at the same time indispensable to the existence of freedom, and
nearly incompatible with the maintenance of public order. Its
power is certainly much greater in France than in the United
States; though nothing is more rare in the latter country than to
hear of a prosecution having been instituted against it. The
reason of this is perfectly simple; the Americans having once
admitted the doctrine of sovereignty of the people, apply it with
perfect consistency. It was never their intention to found a
permanent state of things with elements which undergo daily
modifications; and there is consequently nothing criminal in an
attack upon the existing laws, provided it be not attended with a
violent infraction of them. They are moreover of opinion that
courts of justice are unable to check the abuses of the press;
and that as the subtlety of human language perpetually eludes the
severity of judicial analysis, offences of this nature are apt to
escape the hand which attempts to apprehend them. They hold that
to act with efficacy upon the press, it would be necessary to
find a tribunal, not only devoted to the existing order of
things, but capable of surmounting the influence of public
opinion; a tribunal which should conduct its proceedings without
publicity, which should pronounce its decrees without assigning
its motives, and punish the intentions even more than the
language of an author. Whosoever should have the power of
creating and maintaining a tribunal of this kind, would waste his
time in prosecuting the liberty of the press; for he would be the
supreme master of the whole community, and he would be as free to
rid himself of the authors as of their writings. In this
question, therefore, there is no medium between servitude and
extreme license; in order to enjoy the inestimable benefits which
the liberty of the press ensures, it is necessary to submit to
the inevitable evils which it engenders. To expect to acquire
the former, and to escape the latter, is to cherish one of those
illusions which commonly mislead nations in their times of
sickness, when, tired with faction and exhausted by effort, they
attempt to combine hostile opinions and contrary principles upon
the same soil.

The small influence of the American journals is attributable to
several reasons, among which are the following:--

The liberty of writing, like all other liberty, is most
formidable when it is a novelty; for a people which has never
been accustomed to co-operate in the conduct of state affairs,
places implicit confidence in the first tribune who arouses its
attention. The Anglo-Americans have enjoyed this liberty ever
since the foundation of the settlements; moreover, the press
cannot create human passions by its own power, however skilfully
it may kindle them where they exist. In America politics are
discussed with animation and a varied activity, but they rarely
touch those deep passions which are excited whenever the positive
interest of a part of the community is impaired: but in the
United States the interests of the community are in a most
prosperous condition. A single glance upon a French and an
American newspaper is sufficient to show the difference which
exists between the two nations on this head. In France the space
allotted to commercial advertisements is very limited, and the
intelligence is not considerable, but the most essential part of
the journal is that which contains the discussion of the politics
of the day. In America three quarters of the enormous sheet
which is set before the reader are filled with advertisements,
and the remainder is frequently occupied by political
intelligence or trivial anecdotes: it is only from time to time
that one finds a corner devoted to passionate discussions like
those with which the journalists of France are wont to indulge
their readers.

It has been demonstrated by observation, and discovered by the
innate sagacity of the pettiest as well as the greatest of
despots, that the influence of a power is increased in proportion
as its direction is rendered more central. In France the press
combines a twofold centralisation: almost all its power is
centred in the same spot, and vested in the same hands, for its
organs are far from numerous. The influence of a public press
thus constituted, upon a sceptical nation, must be unbounded. It
is an enemy with which a government may sign an occasional truce,
but which it is difficult to resist for any length of time.

Neither of these kinds of centralisation exists in America. The
United States have no metropolis; the intelligence as well as the
power of the country is dispersed abroad, and instead of
radiating from a point, they cross each other in every direction;
the Americans have established no central control over the
expression of opinion, any more than over the conduct of
business. These are circumstances which do not depend on human
foresight; but it is owing to the laws of the Union that there
are no licenses to be granted to the printers, no securities
demanded from editors, as in France, and no stamp duty as in
France and England. The consequence of this is that nothing is
easier than to set up a newspaper, and a small number of readers
suffices to defray the expenses of the editor.

The number of periodical and occasional publications which appear
in the United States actually surpasses belief. The most
enlightened Americans attribute the subordinate influence of the
press to this excessive dissemination; and it is adopted as an
axiom of political science in that country, that the only way to
neutralise the effect of public journals is to multiply them
indefinitely. I cannot conceive why a truth which is so
self-evident has not already been more generally admitted in
Europe; it is comprehensible that the persons who hope to bring
about revolutions, by means of the press, should be desirous of
confining its action to a few powerful organs; but it is
perfectly incredible that the partisans of the existing state of
things, and the natural supporters of the laws, should attempt to
diminish the influence of the press by concentrating its
authority. The governments of Europe seem to treat the press
with the courtesy of the knights of old; they are anxious to
furnish it with the same central power which they have found to
be so trusty a weapon, in order to enhance the glory of their
resistance to its attacks.

In America there is scarcely a hamlet which has not its own
newspaper. It may readily be imagined that neither discipline
nor unity of design can be communicated to so multifarious a
host, and each one is constantly led to fight under his own
standard. All the political journals of the United States are
indeed arrayed on the side of the administration or against it;
but they attack and defend it in a thousand different ways. They
cannot succeed in forming those great currents of opinion which
overwhelm the most solid obstacles. This division of the
influence of the press produces a variety of other consequences
which are scarcely less remarkable. The facility with which
journals can be established induces a multitude of individuals to
take a part in them; but as the extent of competition precludes
the possibility of considerable profit, the most distinguished
classes of society are rarely led to engage in these
undertakings. But such is the number of the public prints, that
even if they were a source of wealth, writers of ability could
not be found to direct them all. The journalists of the United
States are usually placed in a very humble position, with a
scanty education, and a vulgar turn of mind. The will of the
majority is the most general of laws, and it establishes certain
habits which form the characteristics of each peculiar class of
society; thus it dictates the etiquette practised at courts and
the etiquette of the bar. The characteristics of the French
journalist consist in a violent, but frequently an eloquent and
lofty manner of discussing the politics of the day; and the
exceptions to this habitual practice are only occasional. The
characteristics of the American journalist consist in an open and
coarse appeal to the passions of the populace; and he habitually
abandons the principles of political science to assail the
characters of individuals, to track them into private life, and
disclose all their weaknesses and errors.

Nothing can be more deplorable than this abuse of the powers of
thought; I shall have occasion to point out hereafter the
influence of the newspapers upon the taste and the morality of
the American people, but my present subject exclusively concerns
the political world. It cannot be denied that the effects of
this extreme license of the press tend indirectly to the
maintenance of public order. The individuals who are already in
possession of a high station in the esteem of their fellow
citizens, are afraid to write in the newspapers, and they are
thus deprived of the most powerful instrument which they can use
to excite the passions of the multitude to their own
advantage.[Footnote:

They only write in the papers when they choose to address the
people in their own name; as, for instance, when they are called
upon to repel calumnious imputations, and to correct a
mis-statement of facts.

]

The personal opinions of the editors have no kind of weight in
the eyes of the public: the only use of a journal is, that it
imparts the knowledge of certain facts, and it is only by
altering or distorting those facts, that a journalist can
contribute to the support of his own views.

But although the press is limited to these resources, its
influence in America is immense. It is the power which impels
the circulation of political life through all the districts of
that vast territory. Its eye is constantly open to detect the
secret springs of political designs, and to summon the leaders of
all parties to the bar of public opinion. It rallies the
interests of the community round certain principles, and it draws
up the creed which factions adopt; for it affords a means of
intercourse between parties which hear, and which address each
other, without ever having been in immediate contact. When a
great number of the organs of the press adopt the same line of
conduct, their influence becomes irresistible; and public
opinion, when it is perpetually assailed from the same side,
eventually yields to the attack. In the United States each
separate journal exercises but little authority: but the power of
the periodical press is only second to that of the
people.[Footnote:

See Appendix P.

]

* * * * *

The Opinions which are established in the United States under the
Empire of the Liberty of the Press, are frequently more firmly
rooted than those which are formed elsewhere under the Sanction
of a Censor.

In the United States the democracy perpetually raises fresh
individuals to the conduct of public affairs; and the measures of
the administration are consequently seldom regulated by the
strict rules of consistency or of order. But the general
principles of the government are more stable, and the opinions
most prevalent in society are generally more durable than in many
other countries. When once the Americans have taken up an idea,
whether it be well or ill-founded, nothing is more difficult than
to eradicate it from their minds. The same tenacity of opinion
has been observed in England, where, for the last century,
greater freedom of conscience, and more invincible prejudices
have existed, than in all the other countries of Europe. I
attribute this consequence to a cause which may at first sight
appear to have a very opposite tendency, namely, to the liberty
of the press. The nations among which this liberty exists are as
apt to cling to their opinions from pride as from conviction.
They cherish them because they hold them to be just, and because
they exercised their own free will in choosing them; and they
maintain them, not only because they are true, but because they
are their own. Several other reasons conduce to the same end.