Democracy in Justice Kennedy's America: Reading Obergefell with Tocqueville

Justice Anthony Kennedy cites Alexis de Tocqueville in support of the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges. But Kennedy's citation leaves much out of Tocqueville's original text. Looking at what Kennedy erases in his quotation of Tocqueville indicates some of the broader cultural and historic erasures that are present in the Obergefell decision (and in the Supreme Court's latter-day treatment of marriage and the family in general). Standing Obergefell next to Tocqueville yields suggestive possibilities for evaluating the evolution of recent Supreme Court jurisprudence—and recent American political thought, more generally speaking—on questions of marriage and family. Specifically, reading Obergefell with Tocqueville reveals the intellectual and political weakness of the contemporary Supreme Court.     

Das Tocqueville Problem: Individualism and Equality between Democracy in America and Ancient Regime

This article argues that there is a major inconsistency between Tocqueville's arguments about individualism and equality of conditions as described in his books Ancient Regime and the Revolution and Democracy in America. In the latter, which is the basis for conventional analysis of Tocqueville in America, individualism is taken as a spontaneously emerging feature of the modern, enlightened society, heralding the European future. In the Ancient Regime, however, leveling individualism is conceptualized as a by-product of the centralizing political dynamic of the modern European state, crushing all intermediate sources of social authority. If we accept this theory, America would be the last place one would expect to find individualism or equality, because the American institutions of a modern, centralized state were much weaker than in Europe, yet Tocqueville does look to the United States as such an example. It is argued in this article that the different genealogies of individualism developed by the French thinker cannot be satisfactorily reconciled; the alternative approach suggested here is to combine Tocqueville's analysis from Ancient Regime with modern historical research about early England and America which confirm them, making the analysis of individualism from Democracy in America largely superfluous.     

Tocqueville and the End of History

Abstract

We argue for the relevance of a contemporary return to Shakespeare because his work prompts thinking about the “Body Politic,” perhaps the most vivid and enduring image in speech describing political community ever proposed. Shakespeare's meditation on this image invites us to reflect on the conditions under which a body politic can be made whole; that the constitution of any formal commonwealth requires a self-conscious articulation of the body politic and that this articulation could not happen without the parts themselves being aware of their partial character within the whole political order. The need for the consent of those parts in the political order to which they would belong thus becomes suddenly more evident. Shakespeare's plays show that this need for consent always emerges within discrete political communities. As such, the constituent parts of those communities must grant consent, exercise and enjoy their rights, and participate in the whole within the limitations circumscribed by their political boundaries and borders. His dramatic works thus help us reconsider contemporary attacks on the nation-state and illuminate the body politic as an essential means for bringing into being the preconditions and framework required for healthy political life, including liberal democracy, to flourish.     

Mill and Tocqueville: a friendship bruised

Having first met in 1835, John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville began ‘an extremely interesting and mutually laudatory correspondence'; but their splendid friendship did not last. A popular thesis focuses on letters exchanged in 1840 to 1842 that reflect conflicting views on the Eastern Question and argues that Mill initiated the ‘strange interruption’. Given Mill's commitment to the ‘agreement of conviction and feeling on the few cardinal points of human opinion’ as a prerequisite of genuine friendship, such interpretation sounds plausible. However, circumstantial evidence, most notably Mill's willingness to have a frank discussion with Tocqueville on pending issues, contradicts the assertion that Mill was enraged by Tocqueville's 1841 letter. This essay suggests focusing attention on two additional cardinal differences between them—their contrasting views of François Guizot and confrontation vis-à-vis benevolent imperialism. Moreover, personal matters such as Harriet Taylor's dislike of Tocqueville and Mill's departure from the London and Westminster Review are also believed to have largely led to Mill discontinuing correspondence with Tocqueville.     

Tocqueville on Pantheism,Materialism, and Catholicism

Abstract

It is widely acknowledged that Leo Strauss was an extraordinary scholar and teacher who strove to open up forgotten vistas of philosophical inquiry. Gigantic controversy rages, however, about the sorts of political and social changes, if any, that he hoped to promote. The fire has been fueled by the alleged contributions of Straussians to the Iraq War—and by the publication of Strauss's 1933 letter that commended “fascist, authoritarian, and imperial” principles. This article reviews and then updates the assessments proffered in my 2009 book (Straussophobia) about the state of the “Strauss Wars.” Critics such as Shadia Drury continue to embarrass themselves in prestigious venues, but newer voices are using innovative strategies to argue that Strauss was attempting to undermine the principles of American democracy. Whereas William Altman relies on “esoteric interpretations” of Strauss's writings, Alan Gilbert illuminates Strauss's behind-the-scenes efforts regarding policy disputes. Although I maintain that Gilbert and especially Altman have made invaluable contributions, I argue that they both overreach.     

Montaigne,Tocqueville, and the Politics of Skepticism

Abstract

Shakespeare shows how enforceable contract not only undergirds the city of Venice, which makes a multicultural society possible, but its corrosive effects on non-contractual relationships like friendship, love, and marriage. This is evident in the decisions, actions, and relationships of Antonio, Bassanio, Portia, and Jessica. Although Shakespeare concludes the play on a happy note, the conclusion one can reach is that, despite its advantages, regimes based on commerce and contract fail to create the conditions for friendship, love, and marriage to flourish.     

Alexis de Tocqueville: Selected letters on politics and society

This article reflects on the relationship between historical writing and enquiry and philosophy, and more particularly the manner in which the pursuit of a particular natural philosophy can influence historical narratives. The article begins with a comparison of Roman and Greek approaches to history, employing a distinction between narrative and logic. It goes on to consider the impact of Christianity, the relationship between enlightenment narratives and philosophical developments regarding the nature of causation, and the Hegel/Marx critique of the kinds of empiricism associated with Hume. The article ends by considering the counterfactual historical analysis and the proper relationship between history and philosophy for modern historians.     

Tocqueville: Democratic Politics and the Modern Soul. Introduction

Abstract

This paper explores Prince Hal's relationships with his great friend Falstaff and his great enemy Hotspur, who dominate the young prince's life as he prepares to rule England and conquer France. Hotspur and Falstaff could not be more different, and seem deliberately drawn by Shakespeare to represent distinctive and opposing points of view: Hotspur is an honor-loving and courageous warrior who covets danger and fame, Falstaff a selfish and dishonorable rationalist who has no regard for danger or fame. I will argue that the lessons Hal learns from Hotspur and Falstaff, especially concerning honor, are the key to his stunning political success. While Hal seems to stand somewhere between these two extremes, and so might be characterized as moderately attached to honor, I will question this conclusion and suggest another.     

The Modern Revolution and the Collapse of Moral Analogy: Tocqueville and Guizot

Abstract

I locate the Leveller John Lilburne within the broader literature on the history of political thought and I challenge scholars who associate Lilburne's Leveller political thought with Hobbesian liberty, with proto-libertarianism, or with proto-bourgeois political thought. I advance an understanding of Lilburne as creatively merging central tenets of proto-liberalism with central tenets of republicanism. To develop this amalgamation of ideas, I go considerably beyond the Agreement of the People and the Putney Debates to explore the larger Leveller corpus. Through this investigation I articulate Lilburne's account of key concepts in the history of political thought including: liberty, tyranny, rights, rule, political participation, popular sovereignty, civic virtue, self-interest, harmony, antagonism, and institutional design. I conclude by arguing that we should consider the Levellers, particularly John Lilburne, as offering an early example of what has come to be called liberal-republican political thought, a way of theorizing found within the writings of English Commonwealthsmen.