America Was a Wonderful Experiment in Freedom

America was a wonderful experiment in freedom and democracy which had never before been attempted by any nation. Nations either tried to give power to the people in order to prevent monarchies from rising to despotic power, or they allowed monarchs, despots and other sole figure heads to rise to power. In the case of allowing the people to rule, Europe and European's had learned many times that unbridled power in the hands of the people was no more just than the rule of despots. Mobs could become just as dictatorial as individual monarchs who sat upon golden thrones. Until America came into existence, nations could only expect to exist for a short time before political turmoil would create change of government, and the nation would start over again.

So as America grew from a fledgling nation to a powerful and economically stable country, those who had watched democracy struggle around the world watched to see the difference between what they understood from their own experiences in freedom and the American experiment. Theorists from around the world watch America develop its own version of independence and democracy which could be exercised by all people by allowing all people to have their own say in the matters of the nation. This novel idea was both idealistic and realistic. Allowing one person of group of people to have freedom without guaranteeing the same to every man was the source of democratic failure after failure in the European countries. Never before had an entire nation based their future on the rights of every man to guide the collective governance of the nation. And as such, America received more than a small amount of attention.

Alexis de Tocqueville was one of the first to write prolifically about the American experiment. As a student of political affairs, he had watched governments rise and fall, claim divine right, or claim to speak for the people only to be replaced by a more right of more 'of the people' government across the European continent. Like Madison who contributed significantly to the founding of the nation through authoring the Federalist papers, Tocqueville knew that a pure democracy was no guarantee of continued freedom. He spoke of the 'tyranny of the majority' in his essays entitled Democracy in America. Democracy had not prevented social failure. Democracy had contributed to the failure of the national political system in the same way that a monarchy had. The people could gain a heated and radical spirit which if left unabated could rise up against the national government and demand its own way, rather than the well-being of the nation.

Godkin, writing at the time of the civil war, was writing on the other side of the issue. Godkin watched powerful individuals rise to leadership by influencing the public opinions or gaining political power for themselves. Godkin, beginning as a war correspondent during the civil war, wrote about affairs of governments from the common soldier's point-of-view. After the war, and the rise of political power in the north which began to resemble the monarchies / dictatorships of the past, Godkin questioned the ability of the people to rule themselves because they could not oppose such powerful forces.

Mills also knew of the problems of mankind which arise when individuals seek to rule themselves. He also wrote during the middle of the 19th century, and his words brought into questions the direction of the developing nation. Mills, like Madison and Tocqueville, understood that when people ruled themselves, only the guarantee of freedom for all people could guarantee the freedom of the individual. He wrote: "No society, in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free!" (Mill,2000)

Freedom for our generation has become such a convoluted idea of freedom to do whatever we choose without regard to individual responsibility, or to a level of accountable responsibility to others. Mill understood, as did the Madison, that mankind has complete independence and liberty over himself, his own body and mind. The highest goal of a social order, therefore, would be to guarantee and support this freedom. However, these writers understood what our generation has forgotten, that man's actions are limited when concerning the well-being of others. In order to create a society which is built to benefit others the individual freedoms of each man must be balances by the freedoms of others and by the responsibilities which the men carry in relationship to each other.

The idea of democracy, when it is over-simplified to mean "majority rules" is the idea which Tocqueville, Mills and Godkin watched become corrupt as America matured. In theory, such a notion sounds just and efficient as a means of guaranteeing the freedoms of each individual. However, in practice, the concept of "majority rules" is much more complex. It can be implemented, but if not guarded by counteracting forces, then individuals arise who understand how to control the 'majority' for their own benefit.

The version of democracy, such as the one utilized in the United States, do more than simply guarantee a person's right to voice his or her opinion in all matters involving the public. American democracy provides a forum for the expression of such viewpoints as well as the guarantee of each individual's right to the same access, and the same level of influence. In doing so, it does not create the ability of any one individual or tyranny of the majority to bring about dramatic change.

The Federalists, who were greatly responsible for the ratification of the Constitution of the United States, recognized the impracticality of simple democracy, as did these three writers. The simple "majority rules" approach to democracy can be initiated, but not monitored against the tyranny of the mob. Because Madison, and those who shaped the nation's political theory understood the inherent weakness of pure democracy, the Federalists were realistic democrats - supporters of democracy who recognized the shortcomings of the voting. The Federalists were opposite of idealists; they were pragmatic, and it is their realism that is directly responsible for the success of democracy within the United States. These are the themes concerning which these three authors wrote.

Tocqueville, Mill and Godkin recognized and believed in the benefits of a democratic nation that could guarantee the freedoms of all peoples, but they found in the American government the first successful implementation of these theories. Tocqueville in particular understood that the freedoms constrained in the U.S. were a benefit to all the people, but he did not understand how to create it until Madison, a staunch Federalist, defined the process in the Federalist papers, and then he watched the process take form in the U.S. Madison defines a faction in The Federalist Papers No. 10 as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Madison maintained that factions, by definition, are detrimental to the good of the whole. At the same time he recognized their right to exist.

Never does Madison suggest a policy of restricting the rights of such groups. Rather the federalist papers identified that the only course to maintaining liberty was to guarantee the rights and liberties of each of these factions. Then the ongoing struggle for freedom would create political market forces which manage themselves, thus creating liberty for all members. Madison wrote: "Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency." The pragmatic nature of Madison realizes the function of "factions" and he explains within his writings why such entities will not pose problems for America- a larger Republic.

He argues that in Republics composed of larger populations, "factions" cannot play significant roles because of their decreased ability to exert influence on the larger whole. Madison continues: "The smaller the society...the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression." In other words, when all the people have power and right to express their desires, then all the people hold each other in check. It is when a small number of people figure out how to hold influence over the larger community that the smaller umber can begin to oppress and control the rest.

Mills echoes this sentiment when he warns that the disposition of mankind, whether as rulers or fellow-citizens, is to attempt to impose their own opinions and inclinations as conduct on others. This process is the natural progression of those in power. There is no force available in the public sector regarding the exercise of power that can keep individuals from building their own towers of Babel to their own aggrandizement other than a shared right of every man to pursue the same progress. The want of power is hardly ever kept under restraint by anything but someone else's want of power. Mills writes that since this power is growing it will continue to grow and pose a threat to our principles of liberty, a people must erect a barrier to stop it. Mill believed that this barrier could be of moral conviction, the founding fathers were more pragmatic in their belief that only by being accountable and responsible to each other could the desires of others counteract the universal lust for power which would distort individual freedoms.

Mill has been described as a utilitarian, because political theory was based in the belief that men would pursue that which would further the purpose of the society. Men would create utilitarian practices which when followed, would benefit the larger society. "Everyone should act in such a way to bring the largest possible balance of good over evil for everyone involved." However, the definition of good, to Mills, was not the same as the definition of Good to the rest of society. Utilitarian disagreed on this definition of Good. Mill made his distinction between happiness of the majority, and sheer personal, or sensual pleasure. He defined happiness in terms of higher order pleasure which he though of as social enjoyments, and intellectual pursuits. In his Utilitarianism, Mill described this principle this way: The ultimate end, the end with reference to and for the sake of which all other things which are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of the larger group or people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible enjoyments. Therefore, based on this statement, Mills identified three ideas

The goodness of an act may be determined by the consequences of that act on the larger scale.

Consequences are determined by the amount of happiness or unhappiness caused to others.

"good" man is one who considers the other man's pleasure (or pain) as equally as his own, therefore each person's happiness is equally important.

Tocqueville also echoed this understanding of freedom in his essays. In chapter 4 of his essays on Democracy in America, Tocqueville writes

The principle of the sovereignty of the people, which is always to be found, more or less, at the bottom of almost all human institutions... (yet)... The will of the nation" is one of those phrases that have been most largely abused by the wily and the despotic of every age. Some have seen the expression of it in the purchased suffrages of a few of the satellites of power; others... On the supposition that the fact of submission established the right to command. In America the principle of the sovereignty of the people is neither barren nor concealed... It is recognized by the customs and proclaimed by the laws; it spreads freely, and arrives without impediment at its most remote consequences If there is a country in the world where the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people can be fairly appreciated, where it an be studied in its application to the affairs of society, and where its dangers and its advantages may be judged, that country is assuredly America."

While this quote is lengthy, he identifies that in America, the rights of the people had been built together, and buttressed against one another. The results was a country which was unique in it's expression of freedoms.

Mill approached freedom from the basis of morality and ethics rather than the pragmatism of Madison or Tocqueville. He believed that the individual was essentially sovereign over his own mind and body, and given the opportunity, the individual would follow policies which would benefit himself. The only thing individuals could do justifiably to violate other individuals' autonomies was in pursuit of self-protectionism in the case where the other individual had broken into theirs first. Millsian philosophy was completely against a definition of liberty which was based in the absence of restraint. Mill also opposed the tyranny that the majority could impose on any minority, particularly the individual, by way of legislative control.

Since he built his theorized on philosophical and ethical basis, Mill strongly believed in the practice and respect of law, and that minorities of any sort should be protected and only suppressed if the greatest good for the greatest number was being harmed in an illegal way so as to harm the general populace. From this foundation, it is of no surprise that he supported individual freedom of thought and expression on the grounds of individual autonomy and minority protection. He stated that such freedom would encourage and not interfere with individual development, both social and intellectual. Just as Madison and Tocqueville had stated, individual freedoms guaranteed for all men would help in the emergence of truth.

He also passionately defended the rights of free speech and the value of individuality as part of the foundation which guaranteed individual freedoms. Mill showed the fact that because wide range of moral character was within individuals was to be found in society, and that the character of some individuals was not exactly ethically fit, believing that the majority would guarantee the freedom or the majority was not a reasonable belief. Fearing that public opinion could become a sort of tyrannical mob majority, Mill understood that such lack of character in the public political marketplace would suppress all else if society's moral character was not improved. Therefore, he advocated limits on the legitimate interference of the collective government upon the individual will. He also held a belief that liberalism and utilitarianism did not cover enough guarantee of rights. Therefore he advocates radical and progressive reforms in such areas as state action, suffrage, compulsory education, and social control in order to allow men to be free to govern themselves.