Chapter VIII
HOW THE AMERICANS COMBAT INDIVIDUALISM BY THE PRINCIPLE OF
SELF-INTEREST RIGHTLY
UNDERSTOOD
When the world was managed by a few rich and powerful
individuals, these persons loved to entertain a lofty idea
of the duties of man. They were fond of professing that it is
praiseworthy to forget oneself and that good should be
done without hope of reward, as it is by the Deity himself. Such
were the standard opinions of that time in morals.
I doubt whether men were more virtuous in aristocratic ages
than in others, but they were incessantly talking of the
beauties of
virtue, and its utility was only studied in secret. But since the
imagination takes less lofty flights, and every man's
thoughts are
centered in himself, moralists are alarmed by this idea of
self-sacrifice and they no longer venture to present it to the
human
mind.
They therefore content themselves with inquiring whether the
personal advantage of each member of the community
does not
consist in working for the good of all; and when they have hit
upon some point on which private interest and public
interest meet
and amalgamate, they are eager to bring it into notice.
Observations of this kind are gradually multiplied; what was
only a single
remark becomes a general principle, and it is held as a truth
that man serves himself in serving his fellow creatures and
that his
private interest is to do good.
I have already shown, in several parts of this work, by what
means the inhabitants of the United States almost always
manage
to combine their own advantage with that of their fellow
citizens; my present purpose is to point out the general rule
that enables
them to do so. In the United States hardly anybody talks of the
beauty of virtue, but they maintain that virtue is useful
and prove
it every day. The American moralists do not profess that men
ought to sacrifice themselves for their fellow creatures
because it
is noble to make such sacrifices, but they boldly aver that such
sacrifices are as necessary to him who imposes them
upon
himself as to him for whose sake they are made.
They have found out that, in their country and their age, man
is brought home to himself by an irresistible force; and,
losing all
hope of stopping that force, they turn all their thoughts to the
direction of it. They therefore do not deny that every man
may
follow his own interest, but they endeavor to prove that it is
the interest of every man to be virtuous. I shall not here
enter into
the reasons they allege, which would divert me from my subject;
suffice it to say that they have convinced their fellow
countrymen.
Montaigne said long ago: "Were I not to follow the straight
road for its straightness, I should follow it for having found
by
experience that in the end it is commonly the happiest and most
useful track." The doctrine of interest rightly
understood is not
then new, but among the Americans of our time it finds universal
acceptance; it has become popular there; you may
trace it at
the bottom of all their actions, you will remark it in all they
say. It is as often asserted by the poor man as by the rich. In
Europe
the principle of interest is much grosser than it is in America,
but it is also less common and especially it is less
avowed; among
us, men still constantly feign great abnegation which they no
longer feel.
The Americans, on the other hand, are fond of explaining
almost all the actions of their lives by the principle of
self-interest
rightly understood; they show with complacency how an enlightened
regard for themselves constantly prompts them to
assist
one another and inclines them willingly to sacrifice a portion of
their time and property to the welfare of the state. In
this respect
I think they frequently fail to do themselves justice, for in the
United States as well as elsewhere people are sometimes
seen to
give way to those disinterested and spontaneous impulses that are
natural to man; but the Americans seldom admit that
they
yield to emotions of this kind; they are more anxious to do honor
to their philosophy than to themselves...
The principle of self-interest rightly understood is not a
lofty one, but it is clear and sure. It does not aim at mighty
objects, but it
attains without excessive exertion all those at which it aims. As
it lies within the reach of all capacities, everyone can
without
difficulty learn and retain it. By its admirable conformity to
human weaknesses it easily obtains great dominion; nor is
that
dominion precarious, since the principle checks one personal
interest by another, and uses, to direct the passions, the
very
same instrument that excites them.
The principle of self-interest rightly understood produces no
great acts of self-sacrifice, but it suggests daily small acts
of
self-denial. By itself it cannot suffice to make a man virtuous;
but it disciplines a number of persons in habits of
regularity,
temperance, moderation, foresight, self- command; and if it does
not lead men straight to virtue by the will, it gradually
draws
them in that direction by their habits. If the principle of
interest rightly understood were to sway the whole moral world,
extraordinary virtues would doubtless be more rare; but I think
that gross depravity would then also be less common.
The
principle of interest rightly understood perhaps prevents men
from rising far above the level of mankind, but a great
number of
other men, who were falling far below it, are caught and
restrained by it. Observe some few individuals, they are
lowered by it;
survey mankind, they are raised.
I am not afraid to say that the principle of self-interest
rightly understood appears to me the best suited of all
philosophical
theories to the wants of the men of our time, and that I regard
it as their chief remaining security against themselves.
Towards it,
therefore, the minds of the moralists of our age should turn;
even should they judge it to be incomplete, it must
nevertheless be
adopted as necessary.
I do not think, on the whole, that there is more selfishness
among us than in America; the only difference is that there it
is
enlightened, here it is not. Each American knows when to
sacrifice some of his private interests to save the rest...
No power on earth can prevent the increasing equality of
conditions from inclining the human mind to seek out what is
useful or
from leading every member of the community to be wrapped up in
himself. It must therefore be expected that personal
interest
will become more than ever the principal if not the sole spring
of men's actions; but it remains to be seen how each man
will
understand his personal interest. If the members of a community,
as they become more equal, become more ignorant
and
coarse, it is difficult to foresee to what pitch of stupid
excesses their selfishness may lead them; and no one can foretell
into
what disgrace and wretchedness they would plunge themselves lest
they should have to sacrifice something of their
own
well-being to the prosperity of their fellow creatures.
I do not think that the system of self-interest as it is
professed in America is in all its parts self- evident, but it
contains a
great
number of truths so evident that men, if they are only educated,
cannot fail to see them. Educate, then, at any rate, for
the age of
implicit self-sacrifice and instinctive virtues is already
flitting far away from us, and the time is fast approaching when
freedom,
public peace, and social order itself will not be able to exist
without education.
Chapter XV
UNLIMITED POWER OF THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES,
AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
THE very essence of democratic government consists in the
absolute sovereignty of the majority; for there is nothing in
democratic states that is capable of resisting it. Most of the
American constitutions have sought to increase this natural
strength
of the majority by artificial means.
Of all political institutions, the legislature is the one that
is most easily swayed by the will of the majority. The
Americans
determined that the members of the legislature should be elected
by the people directly, and for a very brief term, in
order to
subject them, not only to the general convictions, but even to
the daily passions, of their constituents. The members of
both
houses are taken from the same classes in society and nominated
in the same manner; so that the movements of the
legislative
bodies are almost as rapid, and quite as irresistible, as those
of a single assembly...
Custom has done even more than law. A proceeding is becoming
more and more general in the United States which
will, in the
end, do away with the guarantees of representative government: it
frequently happens that the voters, in electing a
delegate,
point out a certain line of conduct to him and impose upon him
certain positive obligations that he is pledged to fulfill.
With the
exception of the tumult, this comes to the same thing as if the
majority itself held its deliberations in the market-place.
Several particular circumstances combine to render the power
of the majority in America not only preponderant, but
irresistible.
The moral authority of the majority is partly based upon the
notion that there is more intelligence and wisdom in a
number of
men united than in a single individual, and that the number of
the legislators is more important than their quality. The
theory of
equality is thus applied to the intellects of men; and human
pride is thus assailed in its last retreat by a doctrine which
the
minority hesitate to admit, and to which they will but slowly
assent...
The French under the old monarchy held it for a maxim that the
king could do no wrong; and if he did do wrong, the
blame was
imputed to his advisers. This notion made obedience very easy; it
enabled the subject to complain of the law without
ceasing to
love and honor the lawgiver. The Americans entertain the same
opinion with respect to the majority...
In the United States, political questions cannot be taken up
in so general and absolute a manner; and all parties are
willing to
recognize the rights of the majority, because they all hope at
some time to be able to exercise them to their own
advantage. The
majority in that country, therefore, exercise a prodigious actual
authority, and a power of opinion which is nearly as
great; no
obstacles exist which can impede or even retard its progress, so
as to make it heed the complaints of those whom it
crushes
upon its path. This state of things is harmful in itself and
dangerous for the future.
TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY.
I hold it to be an impious and detestable maxim that,
politically speaking, the people have a right to do anything; and
yet I have
asserted that all authority originates in the will of the
majority. Am I, then, in contradiction with myself?
When I refuse to obey an unjust law, I do not contest the
right of the majority to command, but I simply appeal from the
sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty of mankind. Some
have not feared to assert that a people can never outstep
the
boundaries of justice and reason in those affairs which are
peculiarly its own; and that consequently full power may be
given to
the majority by which it is represented. But this is the language
of a slave.
A majority taken collectively is only an individual, whose
opinions, and frequently whose interests, are opposed to
those of
another individual, who is styled a minority. If it be admitted
that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that
power by
wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to
the same reproach? Men do not change their characters
by
uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence
of obstacles increase with their strength. For my own
part, I
cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should
refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any
number of
them.
Unlimited power is in itself a bad and dangerous thing. Human
beings are not competent to exercise it with discretion.
God
alone can be omnipotent, because his wisdom and his justice are
always equal to his power. There is no power on earth
so
worthy of honor in itself or clothed with rights so sacred that I
would admit its uncontrolled and all-predominant
authority.
When I see that the right and the means of absolute command are
conferred on any power whatever, be it called a
people or a
king, an aristocracy or a democracy, a monarchy or a republic, I
say there is the germ of tyranny, and I seek to live
elsewhere,
under other laws.
I do not say that there is a frequent use of tyranny in
America at the present day; but I maintain that there is no sure
barrier
against it, and that the causes which mitigate the government
there are to be found in the circumstances and the
manners of the
country more than in its laws.
