Alexis de Tocqueville and James Madison
Alexis de Tocqueville and James Madison had two distinctly different philosophical views when it came to the problem of “majority tyranny.” In Tocqueville and the Tyranny of the Majority, Morton J. Horwitz discusses in length the writings of the Frenchman when he came to and became fascinated by America. Horowitz argues each man believes the public’s best interests and freedoms were being terrorized. The former (de Tocqueville) believed that society itself is a monster, but the latter (Madison) believed danger came from a temporarily impassioned majority making lasting decisions in government.
The problem that has prevented us from solving tyranny in government is the lingering ignorance combined with the open interpretation of each person’s and each branch of government’s role. Madison was more partial to the belief that the size of the growing nation would also allow for growth of more separate interests to prevent one majority. The encompassing social pressure, however, is something that Madison didn’t account for. What Madison hoped was, “…that no common interest or passion will be likely to unite a majority of the whole number in an unjust pursuit.” (Kernell, pg.349)
“ Madison's conception was basically "political" while Tocqueville's was fundamentally "social" or "cultural." Where Madison was worried about tyranny of a majority through the instrument of government and law, Tocqueville pondered the oppressions of a democratic society that did not need to use political institutions as instruments of coercion. If they both feared tyrannical majorities, then, they were, nevertheless, thinking about very different kinds of majorities.”
While Madison was somewhat of an elitist and very distrusting of the knowledge of the people, in Federalist #68 he and his comrades, outlined in a less insulting way that the point of the Electoral College is to preserve "the sense of the people," while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen "by men most capable
The problem that has prevented us from solving tyranny in government is the lingering ignorance combined with the open interpretation of each person’s and each branch of government’s role. Madison was more partial to the belief that the size of the growing nation would also allow for growth of more separate interests to prevent one majority. The encompassing social pressure, however, is something that Madison didn’t account for. What Madison hoped was, “…that no common interest or passion will be likely to unite a majority of the whole number in an unjust pursuit.” (Kernell, pg.349)
“ Madison's conception was basically "political" while Tocqueville's was fundamentally "social" or "cultural." Where Madison was worried about tyranny of a majority through the instrument of government and law, Tocqueville pondered the oppressions of a democratic society that did not need to use political institutions as instruments of coercion. If they both feared tyrannical majorities, then, they were, nevertheless, thinking about very different kinds of majorities.”
While Madison was somewhat of an elitist and very distrusting of the knowledge of the people, in Federalist #68 he and his comrades, outlined in a less insulting way that the point of the Electoral College is to preserve "the sense of the people," while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen "by men most capable
Bibliography: James Madison By: Samuel Kernell http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm “The Federalist No. 68: The Mode of Electing the President” Independent Journal Wednesday, March 12, 1788 City Life, “The Tea Party is counting on Joe Heck” Published: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 http://archives.lasvegascitylife.com/articles/2012/03/22/opinion/damned_pundit/iq_52089906.txt Tocqueville and the Tyranny of the Majority By: Morton J. Horwitz