Tocqueville would have been proud. Last November, the American electorate unleashed the most sweeping changes in both governmental configuration and policy since the 1940's. Democratic politicians found themselves thrown clear from the speeding vehicle of public will, while the well-worn "business-as-usual" road map was hurled out the window in favor of a hard right turn into the uncharted territory of orphanages and isolationism in the 21st century. The People had spoken, and now green and untested legions of actors, cosmetic surgeons, dentists, businessmen, as well as diminished but more traditional cadre of lawyers and career politicians will soon be arriving to serve in Congress and in the Senate. In January, Washington D.C. promises to look something like the infamous cantina bar scene from Stars Wars. Such dramatic changes undoubtedly call to mind Tocqueville's adage that "there is an amazing strength in the expression of the will of a people; and when it declares itself, even the imagination of those who wish to contest it is overawed..." (197).
While Tocqueville drew a clear line between liberty and democracy and worried about "the tyranny of the majority" (250), he considered democracy to be a superior if imperfect system. When elections are rare, as in despotic systems (the most prevalent system of the time), they expose the state to violent crises. When they are frequent, as in democratic systems, they keep the government in a state of feverish agitation. Americans have chosen the second of these disadvantages, which Tocqueville believed was a necessary consequence of a system that generally garnered positive results (Tocqueville 202).
Tocqueville felt that liberty engenders particular hatreds in regard to equality, while also finding the democratic system to be "wild and robust" (93). Such a system was far more advantageous to despotism, which he believed was responsible for general indifference among th...