Photo by Tim Savage on

Alexis De Tocqueville was arguably one of the most insightful writers to ever detail the intricacies of American Democracy. Tocqueville’s journey sounds like an unlikely one. Something analogous to an intellectual version of the excursions taken by Lewis and Clark. A royal magistrate from France traveling throughout North America in only nine months. Even spending some time with local tribal nations. Based upon his keen observations of American political culture Tocqueville made many predictions. Some of his lofty inferences fell flat and resulted in nothing more than faulty speculation.  What was truly impressive about his insights is what he got right.  He did possess an uncanny aptitude for being able to foreshadow various political and societal shifts in America. Much of his writing was quite prescient.

Any modern reader of Democracy In America can’t help but wonder if Tocqueville predicted the phenomenon of “cancel culture”. The present trend in which individuals guilty of engaging politically incorrect speech is de-platformed. Whether it be shadow-banning on twitter or having their radio talk show pulled from the airwaves. Tocqueville shared many of the same concerns that James Madison voiced in Federalist Papers #51. Both men understood how the collective passions of the people could veer into the territory of authoritarian mob rule. That is precisely what “cancel culture” has morphed into, figurative lynching-mob. Relishing the downfall of anyone transgressive of the virtue of political correctness. Resorting to de facto censorship to prevent such subversive individuals from having the ability to transmit any more socially intolerable ideas.

Tocqueville shrewdly points how often any minority must contend with institutional barriers when it comes to seeking justice. The outcry for prohibiting offensive speech targets individuals who are out of lock-step with the majority opinion, effectively infringing upon their First Amendment rights. The true intention of codifying protections for free speech is meant to protect the expression of unpopular opinions. Where is an individual to turn their right to free expression is violated, but their views are perceived as being reprehensive by society?

“My main complaint against the democratic government as organized in the United States is not its weakness, as many Europeans claim, but rather its irresistible strength And what I find most repulsive in America is not the extreme freedom that prevails there but the shortage of guarantees against tyranny.

When a man or a party suffers from an injustice in the United States, to whom can he turn? To public opinion? That is what forms the majority. To the legislative body? That represents the majority and obeys it blindly. To executive power? That is appointed by the majority and serves it as a passive instrument. (Tocqueville, P. 294-295. Transl. Isaac Kramnick).”

He could easily see that those with unpopular opinions could very well have little recourse in enforcing their liberties. It’s easy to defend someone’s right to denouncing racism. It is profoundly more difficult to defend the right of someone to publish racist literature.  This is mainly due to societal pressures. In the present climate defending the First Amendment rights of a bigoted person is tantamount to be racists. While this assumption rests on a rickety premise, public opinion only seeks to promote this fallacy. Due to public passions being more concerned with social justice, there is a willingness to mischaracterize people and to even dispense with critical rights if they do not comport with the grand objective of “tolerance”.  Both Madison and Tocqueville intuitively understood the social dynamics of crowds which would later be expounded upon by social psychologists. Not only to members of the crowd feel a decreased sense of individual responsibility, but there is an emotional amplifier effect. Having either attribute present will make an individual less apt to rely on reason and more apt to go along with the mob. Even if their outrage and indignation are hyperbolic.

The shrewd Frenchman not only understood how popular passions would overwhelm sound reason and effectively alienate minorities, but he foresaw the development of Progressive ideology. Tocqueville noticed that democracy had a proclivity for drifting towards equality. He wrote at length detailing the lack of social stratification in the United States. Even noting that the capitalistic tendencies of America could provide a man from a poor family with the opportunity for exorbitant material success if he is willing to work for it. Democracy as a whole has an equalizing effect on society.  The people elected officials that represent their will. The whole notion of “the government works for the people”.  An idea completely foreign to continental Europe in the 19th century (foreign in practice, not so much in theory). Tocqueville audaciously claims that disposition towards equality implies perfectibility within human nature.

“As classes disappear and grow closer, as a tumultuous mass of mankind, it practices, customs, and laws alter, as new facts emerge, as new truths come to light, as old opinions disappear and are replaced by others, the image of perfection in an idealized and fleeting form is offered to the human mind.

….. Some changes improve his lot and he concludes that, in general, man is endowed with the faculty of indefinite improvement. . (De Tocqueville, P. 522-523. Transl. Isaac Kramnick).”

It is the tendency towards  “indefinite improvement” that lays the groundwork for Progressive ideology. Progressivism generally holds that people are capable of constant betterment. The goal is to keep striving towards an idealized world where all the ills have been neutralized. Most adherents of Progressivism do not mind using the levers of government or other institutions to help lead people in the right direction. One of those corralling techniques would be punishment for veering off the path of social improvement. Such as making a culturally insensitive joke. This would explain the functionality of “cancel culture”. The de facto censorship is one of the means utilized to keep people on the straight and narrow.  If you say something offensive you will be ostracized and have your career ruined. The logic being you will avoid making such a social faux pas when faced with the severity of the consequences. Why? Because followers of the Progressive movement believe that you can do better. Some even sincerely believe that a world without prejudice could exist. Unfortunately, is nothing more than a pipe-dream. Nothing more than good intentions knocking on the door of utopianism. If man is fallible, the odds of offensive speech dissipating is unlikely. Such an assumption demonstrates an unrealistic perception of human nature. We can mold people into the image we desire through social pressure and coercion.  Rather, they need to come to their conclusions not to be forced into socially desirable opinions. There may be immorality in racism. However, there is also immorality in weaponizing social conventions to callously achieve social goals. Especially when innocent parties have their comments taken out of context and are used against them. Making these innocent bystanders nothing more than collateral damage.

8 thoughts on “Did Alexis De Tocqueville Predict “Cancel Culture”?

  1. Great post, again! I wonder whether “cancel culture” is just another example of America’s “Puritanical” tendencies. Some people don’t like second- hand smoke, so we have prohibit everyone from smoking in public. We want to save lives, so we require everyone to wear seat-belts, etc. etc. We abhore racism, so we have to “cancel” anyone who even hints at such views. Frankly, I wish we were a more of a libertarian society, where people could decide for themselves what to do (or what to believe in)…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It’s interesting that you mention that cancel culture being merely a modern manifestation of Puritanism. De Tocqueville did have admiration for the social networking and work ethic in New England. The Frenchman was quintessentially America’s Impartial Spectator. He was able to point out the America’s blind spots as well as the nation’s triumphs.
      While writers such as Mencken serve as the country’s harsh critic. Tocqueville also saw the fault in New England’s moral virtue signaling and the potential for the fervor of moral indignation devolve in to a persecuting majority faction. Both the key ingredients in today’s contemporary cancel culture movement.

      New England still has a tinge of Puritanical tendencies. Peripherally, codified in archaistic blue laws most people ignore. Directly, it lives on in its modern form on college campuses and the affluent communities of Vermont and the metro-Boston.

      Once you leave these “woke” subsections of the region the mentality is very different. Start conversing with a resident of Cranston, Rhode Island about intersectionality they will convey how such a concept defies common sense.

      However, the resident of Cranston adheres to their own form of Puritanism. Outside of an unquestionable support for NE sports teams. I would argue it seems from a faith in government. Many of the Democrats in RI wouldn’t last two seconds in the Bay Area. They are loyal to the party out of habit and because they believe public works, social safety net programs, and regulations are an inherent good. Privatization of such devices would result in greedy corporations attempting to enrich themselves and providing an inferior service. This makes me wish more New Englanders would acquaint themselves with the concept of behavioral symmetry and public choice literature. Political rhetoric rife with anti-market bias. Resulting in the state adopting many policies hostile to business. Sure we don’t want crony capitalism. However, Rhode Island, Massachusetts , etc. takes it too far. Then the residents complain about a sluggish job market.

      I believe my journey to a classical liberal/ libertarian world view started when I realized the folly of NE. Moving to Arizona certainly helped me realize some of the faults in New England’s culture.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. That’s very true. Granted, I made these observations on a micro-level. I have always found the lay out of electoral districts to be interesting. Especially a red district in a blue state and vice versa.

          There are a few variables we can utilize to speculate upon the differences. One observation I have is that the degree of conservatism tends to be correlated with population density. Now, this isn’t based on any data, but this would be an interesting observation for a graduate student to validate for doctoral thesis.

          The south has always been more rural, agrarian , and conservative than the North. This tends to be exemplified by gun control laws that vary from state to state.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. This may be me deluding myself into thinking I am utilizing a priori ( because the starting premise needs to be axiomatically true).

          Population density & # of regulations

          A.) If an area is less densely populated the odds externalities caused by poor decisions on the part of a neighboring person harming someone else is significantly reduced.

          B.) Therefore it can be surmised that less laws are necessary for governing such areas.

          C.) The voters living in rural areas grow to favor minimal rules. That is what has worked for generations.

          D.) The voters from rural districts vote for elected officials and policies that reflect limited government.

          E.) Consequently Conservatives purportedly believe in limited government.

          However, like you previously stated odds are it isn’t quite so linear. There are probably other factors at play. The waters are even further muddied from a historical standpoint. The modern parties have both evolved over the years. It really wasn’t until mid-20th century we start to see the genesis of the modern political philosophy. +1 Barry Goldwater for clarifying some of the confusion in his pamphlet The Conscious of A Conservative.

          Not that I necessary champion Conservatism but clarity is always appreciated.

          Liked by 1 person

        3. I remember reading that one, believe you sent me the link.

          I actually didn’t have that paper in mind when I devised this reasoning. I suppose the the core principles of the paper may have seeped into my subconscious. Therefore, influencing my reasoning without me even realizing it.

          Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.