Deep Story

EP.9- Tocqueville Wants You Sleep Well: the Dance of Freedom

• MPT

Share episode

-Inspired by-
-The Old Regime and the Revolution
-Buy from Amazon: https://amzn.to/3Dl59iu

-What can a 19th-century thinker teach us about modern governance and social order? Join us as we uncover the overlooked insights of Alexis de Tocqueville, exploring his work on France’s transformation and its striking parallels with global historical upheavals. From revolutionary cycles to the tension between centralized power and local autonomy, we delve into timeless lessons on freedom, reform, and the power of community accountability. Discover how Tocqueville’s reflections continue to resonate in today’s world in unexpected and thought-provoking ways.

Support the show

Speaker 1:

Let's be real here, say it, dig it and analyze it. That's Deep Story. Thanks for tuning into Deep Story. I'm MPT. So today we're talking about this book called the Old Regime and the Revolution. Yeah, I know you're probably wondering why is this book so popular, besides some big names giving it a shout out? I mean, just look at the title the Old Regime and the Revolution. It sounds like it is just begging to be controversial.

Speaker 1:

The author, that's Alexis de Tocqueville, a French guy who lived 200 years ago. And let me tell you this wasn't his only hit. He also wrote Democracy in America. Those book titles Pure clickbait for anyone with an interest in politics. Both of them are like emotional landmines for people these days. So it's no surprise they're still flying off the shelves.

Speaker 1:

Tocqueville was born in 1805 in Normandy, france. And get this. He came from a noble family. Fancy right, he lived to be 54, and then he clocked out in 1859. But don't let the powdered wigs fool you. His life was straight up chaos. I mean, think about it. He was born during the Napoleonic era. Then, bam, monarchy is back. Oh wait, monarchy's out, republic's in, then monarchy again and back to republic. It's like political musical chairs, only with guillotines.

Speaker 1:

Now, despite all the drama, tocqueville managed to climb pretty high up the career ladder. He even served as Minister of Foreign Affairs. But his true passion, that's scholarly research. That's what gave us these two masterpieces and made him a big deal in French intellectual history. But let's get real. Doing research back then wasn't exactly free. You had to have money, and a lot of it. You can't just sit around writing books for fun, unless your wallet's thicker than your manuscripts. Now, his family was noble, but they weren't exactly rolling in it. Why? Because you know, the French Revolution happened, and when I say revolution that's just a polite way of saying massacre. Nobles were kind of the main course on that menu.

Speaker 1:

Tarquivel's family got hit hard. His grandpa, his cousins, they were all killed during the revolution. His parents, oh, they almost didn't make it either. They were thrown in prison, lined up for execution. And back then executions were like Amazon Prime super fast. It took about one minute from the prison cell to off with your head. But luck was on their side. Just days before his parents were about to be executed, robespierre got taken down and the Jacobin reign of terror ended. Boom. Tocqueville's parents walked out alive. Now, it wasn't exactly a clean getaway. His dad was just 24 years old and completely gray-haired from the stress. His mom, she had a fool on mental breakdown. But here's the silver lining the revolution wiped out so many relatives that Tocqueville ended up inheriting their wealth. So, ironically, the chaos of his family's near destruction gave him the financial freedom to just sit down and write.

Speaker 1:

Now here's the thing. I didn't bring this book today and honestly, I'm not even recommending it. Why? Because it's impossible to read. Yeah, I said it. Sure, it's a bestseller, but I bet most people who bought it never made it past the first few pages. Even for a professional bookworm like me, reading this thing feels like intellectual rock climbing without a harness. And that brings up a question why are so many classics so hard for us to read today? Well, the answer is simple We've lost touch with the problem the author was originally trying to solve. At the end of the day, every great piece of social science was someone's desperate attempt to answer the big question of their time, and once that question disappears, all that's left are a bunch of words that feel heavy and meaningless. So what was the big question Tocqueville was tackling in the old regime and the revolution? To get that, we've got to rewind to early 19th century France.

Speaker 1:

Here's the deal back in the 17th and 18th centuries France was the European superpower. Louis XIV, akiye, the Sun King, ruled over a France that had 20 million people. I know 20 million doesn't sound like much today, but back then that was huge. For comparison, england at the time had a population that was barely one third of France's. France was flexing hard. Now let's talk about Central Europe back then, which was known as the Holy Roman Empire, and, oh boy, the French had zero respect for it.

Speaker 1:

You remember Voltaire, right, the man with the zingers. He famously said what is the Holy Roman Empire? It's neither holy nor Roman, nor an empire. Ouch, basically, the Holy Roman Empire stretched from modern day Germany to Evilly, and even if you lumped all those people together, france still had a bigger population. But France wasn't just about sheer numbers. Their cultural influence was absolutely wild. I mean Russia, I mean Russia. Russia, a whole frozen continent away, was obsessed with France Back then. If you were a Russian noble who couldn't speak French, you were basically a nobody. You couldn't even say bonjour at a party without getting side-eyed. France was like the cool kid in the 17th and 18th centuries, dominating Europe politically, militarily, economically, you name it.

Speaker 1:

And then boom a revolution. And not just any revolution. This was one for the history books, the kind where heads literally rolled. According to records, over 400,000 people were formally sentenced to death, and just during the Jacobin reign of terror, paris alone sent 70,000 heads to the guillotine. Let's put that into perspective. That's thousands of people per month getting set up like French bread In the countryside. It was just as brutal, sometimes worse. In some areas they ran out of bullets and ropes, so they just started shoving people into rivers to drown them. I'm not kidding, families would go downstream just to fish their loved ones out of the water. Paris, though? Paris was next level. The phrase Rivals of Blood wasn't even metaphorical anymore.

Speaker 1:

And here's a little story for you. Ever heard of Lavoisier? He was one of the few true giants of French science, the father of modern chemistry, but during the revolution he apparently said a few things that leaned a little too pro-aristocracy, and that was all. It took off to the guillotine. Now this is where the story gets very French scientist. Before his execution, Lavoisier supposedly approached the executioner and said you know, nobody really knows how long the human head stays conscious after decapitation. How about this? You chop off my head and I'll blink as many times as I can. You just count and let the world know. And according to legend, the executioner chopped his head off and the guy blinked 11 times. 11, that's dedication. It's the kind of story that's dark, insane and, honestly, kind of impressive.

Speaker 1:

So what did France learn when the revolution finally ended? Two huge questions haunted the country. First, how the hell did we let this happen? Seriously, the level of violence was staggering. Even the French were horrified and Europe couldn't wrap its head around it either. Historically, massacres were driven by things like race or religion. Even in medieval France you'd have atrocities here and there, but they kill a few thousand people. Tops the French Revolution 400,000 deaths, people killing their own people. Edmund Burke, the British thinker, couldn't believe it. He said look at us. We had the glorious revolution in England, peaceful, bloodless. Even the American Revolution, which was a war, only cost a few thousand lives. What's up with the French? Did you really need 400,000 corpses to make your point? The second question what happened to France after that?

Speaker 1:

Because, let's face it, after the revolution, france's national power took a nosedive. Napoli on, gave them one last hurrah, but after him they couldn't catch a break. In the 19th century they muddled through the Crimean War. In the 20th century they got smacked around in both world wars. Sure, they ended up on the winning side, but not without getting absolutely pummeled first. And let's be honest, they only won because the Brits and Americans showed up and bailed them out. Want proof of how far France had fallen? Let's talk about the Lei Ching dynasty in China corrupt, incompetent, couldn't win a war to save its life. And yet during the Sino-French war on the Vietnam border, guess what the Qing army actually won? They defeated the French and the French cabinet back home had to resign out of sheer embarrassment. Imagine that, getting beat by the Qing government, that's like losing an arm wrestling match to someone with no arms. So yeah, post-revolution France not exactly Europe is MVP anymore.

Speaker 1:

The trauma of the French Revolution hit France hard, and you could see it all over their economy. I'm not even exaggerating. France stayed in an economic slump for over a century. It wasn't until 1965, yes, 1965, that France's GDP finally pulled ahead of Britain's, and even then the difference was so tiny that it didn't matter who was number one or number two. Basically, the revolution may have overthrown the old regime, but it left France paying a very hefty price. The country spent the next century hobbling along, unable to reclaim its former glory, unable to reclaim its former glory.

Speaker 1:

Now, imagine being talk-quivel during that time. He's standing there in a France that's barely recovering, a country still scarred, broken, and trying to figure out what the hell just happened. Everyone, and I mean everyone, was asking the same question how did we get here? At that time, two major camps emerged. First you had the restoration crowd, or the royalists, who thought they had it all figured out. After Napoleon was defeated, the British said you know what would be funny? Let's send the Bourbons back. So Louis XVIII, who was the brother of Louis XVI, came back to the throne. Fun fact, louis XVII, the son, never made it. He died in prison back in 1795. So Louis XVIII shows up with a bunch of aristocrats who'd been chilling in exile and their big idea let's turn back the clock To the royalists.

Speaker 1:

The problem was simple. The French Revolution itself was the disaster. Their solution Just restore the monarchy and rebuild the old aristocratic system, you know, because that worked out so well the first time. But on the other side of this argument were the liberals, tocqueville's team, and let me tell you, they thought the royalists were completely delusional. The liberals argued that the revolution didn't just happen out of nowhere, it wasn't some weird, random accident. It exploded because the old regime, the monarchy, the feudal system had become so outdated, so rotten that society couldn't move forward anymore. The liberals wanted to build a new society, one that preserved freedom and maintained stability Not an easy combo, but hey, they were optimists.

Speaker 1:

This is where Todd Quivell's brain kicked into gear. He wasn't just looking at the mess around him. He wanted to understand the why. Why did the revolution happen in the first place? Why did France tear itself apart? And, most importantly, how can we make sure this kind of disaster never happens again? That's the core of the old regime and the revolution, and Tocqueville had some pretty solid points.

Speaker 1:

First, as much as the revolution was a bloody mess, you couldn't just erase it, like it or not, the revolution gave the French freedom, and freedom once tasted is pretty hard to give up is pretty hard to give up. So when the royalists came in and tried to say, hey, everyone, let's pretend none of that happened, it was morally ridiculous. What were the French supposed to just roll over and say, yeah, sure, take away all the rights we just fought and died for we just fought and died for A, plus those aristocrats coming back from exile. They had lost all credibility.

Speaker 1:

Here's the thing about politics. It's not like fixing a broken machine. You can't just swap out a part and expect the whole thing to run smoothly again. History doesn't work like that. Take China, for example. Remember Yuan Shikai. After the Qing dynasty fell, he thought you know what? Let's bring back the monarchy. I'll be emperor Spoiler alert. It did not go well. The guy was humiliated into failure. Go well, the guy was humiliated into failure. Why? Because the monarchy was dead. Even if people liked the idea of imperial rule, yuan didn't have the centuries of legitimacy the Qing emperors had. Some things in history are one-way streets. You miss the exit and that's it. The same was true for France. The revolution had shattered the aristocracy. The old social order Gone. The royalists trying to rebuild it were like a guy desperately trying to glue together a broken vase and pretending it's good as new. Sorry folks, that ship sailed.

Speaker 1:

The second reason Tocqueville gave in the old regime and the revolution is this the revolution wasn't a fluke. It was the result of centuries of built uptension. The royalists thought they could turn back time to pre-revolution France and everything would be fine. But Tocqueville called that out for the nonsense it was. He said that's like having a fever, taking some medicine to bring your temperature down and thinking you're cured. No, buddy, the infection is still in there. If you don't deal with the real problem, you're just going to get sick all over again, and that's the thing. The revolution wasn't the disease, it was the symptom. The old regime had been crumbling for ages. The inequalities, the corruption, the system that just didn't work anymore. Those were the real issues. And if France didn't learn that lesson, the same chaos would come back to bite them.

Speaker 1:

Tocqueville looked at French history and came up with a fascinating question why were the French aristocrats so hated? I mean, sure, chopping off heads might have been a little extreme, but let's be real. No other country in history had a revolution as blood-soaked as France's. Why? Tocqueville's answer was simply it was the collapse of feudalism. So what's feudalism, you ask?

Speaker 1:

Tocqueville explained that in the days before modern administration and advanced management systems, if you wanted to rule a large territory, feudalism was pretty much your only option. Here's how it worked the central ruler couldn't directly manage everything, so they broke the land into pieces and handed them over to nobles and handed them over to nobles. These nobles became the managers of their areas and they in turn divided up their land again to lower ranking vassals. It was a giant pyramid scheme of power. Imagine today's society under feudalism, a middle manager reports only to their department head. The department head reports to the CEO, but the CEO's orders don't directly affect that middle manager at all. This system led to one of Europe's most famous sayings the vassal of my vassal is not my vassal god. Translation a king might reward a duke or count, but the duke's underlings didn't owe the king's squat. They only answered to their immediate lord.

Speaker 1:

Now, the catch with feudalism was that it thrived on inequality. It had to. Feudal society needed a rigid division between nobles and peasants, otherwise the whole system would collapse. Inequality was the bedrock of stability back then. But starting in the 11th century, french feudalism began to crumble. More and more people gained their freedom. Self-sufficient farmers or yeoman farmers began to own their land and gain independence. And here's where things went sideways. These farmers started allying themselves with the king to chip away at the nobles' power. The result the feudal system disintegrated and the delicate balance between nobles and commoners disappeared. And what happens when that balance goes A chios. Here's the kicker.

Speaker 1:

Under feudalism, a noble wasn't just a landowner lounging around with a goblet of wine. They had responsibilities. Nobles weren't just entitled to power. They were expected to oversee public affairs in their region. In a sense, they earned their privileges by managing the community.

Speaker 1:

But once feudalism collapsed, everything changed. The king's power reached further into the countryside, sending officials, governors, inspectors you name it straight from Paris. Suddenly, the local nobles weren't in charge anymore. And what did they do? Well, they moved into their castles, locked the doors and partied. They turned into a bunch of overgrown frat boys, drinking, gambling and running their family estates into the ground.

Speaker 1:

Now we've all heard the medieval horror stories about these nobles. You know the ones who abused peasants, bullied their way through villages and claimed Droid du Seigneur, the so-called right to sleep with a bride on her wedding night before she could even see her husband. They became tyrants, plain and simple. And here's the poetic part At the same time, they were up in their castles wreaking havoc. Out in the fields, there was always a tree growing. As one French poet put it, the tree grows until it becomes the gallows on which the tyrant hangs. That wasn't just a metaphor. That was the mood of the entire country.

Speaker 1:

So when you see those pre-revolution political cartoons of nobles literally riding on peasants' backs, you might think come on, isn't that a bit much? And sure, the French nobles were bad, but they weren't as bad as, say, russian serfs, lords or German barons still clinging to their medieval playbooks. But here's the difference in France, the nobles stopped doing their jobs. They kept all the perks of power, wealth, privilege, parties, but abandoned the responsibilities that came with it. Here's a modern analogy.

Speaker 1:

Think about a wealthy entrepreneur. Let's say they've built a business, created jobs, sparked innovation. We can respect that right. They've earned their wealth. But now imagine their kid, the classic trust fund baby. No skills, no work ethic, just coasting on daddy's money. Worse still, let's say they're out there being reckless, throwing wild parties, wasting the family fortune or just plain being terrible people. Do we respect that Hell? No, that kind of person is asking for people's anger.

Speaker 1:

And that's exactly what happened in France. The nobles turned into the ultimate trust fund kids. They enjoyed power without purpose. They lived in luxury while ignoring the struggles of the people outside their castle walls. And when they dared to abuse that power, well, the people's rage had to go somewhere. So when the revolution exploded, it wasn't just about politics or economics, it was personal. The French people looked at their soul, called betters and thought you've had this coming for a long time. That rage, that deep resentment, that was the spark that lit the revolution.

Speaker 1:

So Tocqueville comes to a striking conclusion it was the collapse of feudalism that ultimately led to the French Revolution. But then, plot twist, he pivots to a much bigger question, a question so profound that even 200 years later, it still has something to teach us, and that is after a revolution has torn apart a society's structure, how do you rebuild its middle layers? Now, what the heck are these middle layers? Well, tal Quiville was the first to highlight their importance in political science, and when he says middle layers, he's talking about groups like the feudal aristocracy.

Speaker 1:

Sure, it's easy to imagine nobles as a bunch of fat cats sitting in castles, sipping wine and causing trouble, but here's the thing they also served vital roles in society. They were the local public servants. They maintained law and order, served as judges in disputes, and during times of famine or disaster, they were the ones providing relief and protection. Believe it or not, there was a softer, almost protective side to the relationship between nobles and peasants In medieval Europe and peasants In medieval Europe. When a farmer hit hard times, whether it was war, famine or bandits he'd often voluntarily write up what was called a submission letter. Basically, he'd say look, I can't survive on my own. I'll serve you for life if you promise to feed me and keep me safe. And so the noble would become both his protector and his guardian. This relationship created a middle class of sorts, a buffer zone between the common people and the central authority.

Speaker 1:

But here's what happened during the French Revolution when the nobles were wiped out, that buffer vanished overnight. What was left? A society where each individual citizen, weak, isolated and atomized was now directly facing the full force of the centralized state. And let's be clear, that's not necessarily a good thing. Tocqueville worried that this direct relationship between the state and its citizens could easily slide into tyranny. When there's no middle layer to mediate power or provide local leadership, the government can do whatever it wants. It's like trying to build a house without support beams. Sure, it looks fine for a minute, but one strong wind and the whole thing collapses. A so which is better, a feudal society or a centralized one? Well, back then that was a tough call.

Speaker 1:

Feudalism had its advantages. For starters, the aristocracy, the middle layer, was an elite group with its own standards. Being a noble wasn't just about inheriting land or wealth. You had to live up to certain expectations. Nobility came with a code of conduct in what we'd now call noblesse obligis the end. Here's the part that's hard for us modern folks to rocks to wrap our heads around.

Speaker 1:

Grud in feudal Europe, nobles felt a stronger connection to each other than they did to their countries. It's wild but true. Back then, aristocrats across Europe saw themselves as one big, interconnected family. They married each other, socialized together. It was like an exclusive club that stretched across borders. But the flip side the nobles didn't see themselves as being part of the same world as their peasants At all. A nobleman could literally eat, sleep or do anything else in front of his servants without a second thought, because in his mind they weren't even in the same category of human. The rules of conduct applied only between nobles, the peasants. They were basically background extras in the movie of noble life.

Speaker 1:

I want an example of this aristocratic family mindset. Here's a good one Young Otto von Bismarck. One young Otto von Bismarck, you know the Iron Chancellor of Germany, spent some time in Russia as a diplomat. The Russian Tsar loved the guy, thought he was smart, capable and even offered him a job to stay on and serve in Russia. Can you imagine that today, a German politician taking a job with the Russian president? That'd be treason, but back then totally normal. Bismarck politely declined and went back to Prussia and it was considered a classy move. Why? Because back then the idea of national loyalty wasn't as strong as class loyalty. If you were a noble you were part of a European white club that transcended borders, the peasants and commoners. They weren't part of that world. That's why it didn't seem weird for a noble to jump between royal courts in different countries. Today this sounds insane. Can you imagine an American official getting a job offer from the British Prime Minister and saying, yeah, sure, why not? It'd be international scandal city. But that's because in the modern world national identity has replaced class identity. Countries matter more than classes now, and that's the thing.

Speaker 1:

In Tocqueville's time society was moving away from the old feudal order and toward a centralized national one. That shift came with a massive cost the loss of that middle layer, the local nobles who once provided public service, leadership and protection. Once they were gone, society was left with a void. The French Revolution didn't just decapitate people, it decapitated an entire social structure. And Tocqueville's question still lingers today when the middle layers disappear, how do you rebuild them? Who steps in to fill that gap? It's a question that modern societies, where power often feels distant, centralized and unaccountable, still haven't fully answered. Tocqueville points out that feudalism had a second major advantage it brought a human touch to governance. Politics wasn't as cold, mechanical or impersonal as it became under centralization. Let me tell you a story to illustrate this.

Speaker 1:

In 19th century France, the government rolled out a nationwide education reform. The idea was simpler All elementary school teachers had to be formally qualified. Anyone who didn't meet the standards out. Now, from the perspective of the bureaucrats in Paris, this policy made perfect sense. Better teachers mean better education, right, logical, efficient who could argue with that? But down in the countryside, places like Brittany or Normandy, this reform hit hard In these small villages. Some teachers weren't particularly well-educated, sure, but they were beloved. They were pillars of the community. They taught generations of families. They weren't just teachers, they were symbols of stability and honor. Teachers, they were symbols of stability and honor. I heard a story about one elderly village teacher who was forced into retirement. Tears in his eyes he said I'll never set foot in that school again. It's my greatest shame.

Speaker 1:

Before this reform, when there was a wedding or a festival in these villages, the local noble or mayor would invite this teacher as a guest of honor. People respected him not for his credentials but for the decades of wisdom and decency he brought to the community. But when the government's decree arrived, boom, none of that mattered anymore. The state had spoken. This is the code reality of centralized governance. Decisions are made based on efficiency, metrics and logic, but personal relationships and local traditions tossed out the window. Now, in a feudal society, this would have played out differently. The local noble could have said you know what old Monsieur Dupont has been teaching here for 40 years? He's staying. The noble could tailor policies to the realities of their community. That kind of flexibility, the ability to govern with a human face, was something feudalism was uniquely good at. You can see this same principle in medieval England.

Speaker 1:

After the Norman conquest, england's feudal lords were tasked with defending their lands. What did they do? They built castles, lots of them. Stone fortresses went up all over the place, particularly along the borders with Scotland and Wales. Why? Because it was in their own best interest. Protecting their land meant protecting their people and their wealth.

Speaker 1:

But as England became more centralized, this local initiative faded. The crown started taking over defense projects like Hadrian's Wall. Yeah, I know it's from Roman times, but bear with me, it makes the point. But bear with me, it makes the point. The king would summon peasants and soldiers from all over the country to march north, build walls and fight the Scots. But here's the problem those guys had zero skin in the game. A farmer from southern England couldn't care less about the Scottish border. Why should he? It wasn't his land, his people or his problem. The result Low morale, grumbling soldiers and a half-hearted effort. Under feudalism, the opposite was true. If you were a local lord and your borders were under threat, you personally led the defense. You built the castles, you rallied your troops. You didn't need a memo from the king to tell you to act, because the threat was immediate and it was yours.

Speaker 1:

Feudal defense might have been patchy and decentralized, but guess what? It was also highly motivated and responsive. Compare that to the central government's own-size-fits-all approach, which often left everyone frustrated and resentful. This same pattern shows up in the early days of the Arab Caliphate. The Caliphs held supreme power, yes, but local governance was left to provincial governors and tribal leaders. Take North Africa, for example. Local leaders handled tribal disputes, resolved conflicts and managed taxes based on what made sense for their region. Based on what made sense for their region. Governance was personal, it was tailored to local needs and because of that it worked.

Speaker 1:

But then the caliphate centralized. The central government began sending out its own officials to impose uniform policies, particularly on taxation. Did they care about local realities? Nope, the tax rates were set in stone, no matter how poor or struggling a region was. Local leaders suddenly found themselves stripped of authority and respect. Resentment grew. Some tribes revolted. The central government might have increased efficiency on paper, but in reality they trampled over local flexibility, local customs and the relationships that made governance work in the first place. And that's the trade off Tocqueville was getting at. Centralized systems can deliver uniformity, efficiency and order, but they often do so at the expense of human connection and local nuance.

Speaker 1:

A feudalism, for all its flaws, understood that governance isn't just about rules and policies, it's about relationships. It's about balancing power with responsibility, authority with care. So when the French Revolution wiped out the feudal middle layers, the nobles, the local intermediaries. It left behind a vacuum. Suddenly, every individual citizen was standing alone, face To face with a code, impersonal central government. And sure you can call that progress. But you can also see the danger in it. Without a middle layer to mediate, protect and provide that human touch, governance risks becoming efficient but cruel. Governance risks becoming efficient but cruel. It risks losing its soul. And here's the kicker. That's not just a problem for the 18th century. It's a question we still grapple with today. How do we balance efficiency with empathy, uniform policies with local needs, logic with humanity?

Speaker 1:

Tocqueville's warning was clear a society without its middle layers is vulnerable, because people need more than orders and decrees. They need a system that sees them. In the feudal era, tribal leaders and local nobles had a significant amount of autonomy. They could manage affairs based on the specific needs of their regions, which often reduced the tension and resistance that comes with top-down governance. France was no different. But when feudalism collapsed and the aristocracy, the middle layer of society, disappeared, tocqueville asked the million-dollar question where do we go from here? You might think, what's the big deal? The nation is still the nation. The people are still the people. Life goes on right Wrong.

Speaker 1:

Tocqueville warns that when individuals are isolated, what he calls itemized, and are left to face the massive centralized power of the state alone. They're powerless, they can't negotiate, they can't resist and they have no one to protect them. And this isn't some abstract theory. Fast forward to the 20th century, and what do you see? Germany, for example, when its middle class landed gentry, like the junker landlords, lost their influence, there was no one left to check the power of the state. And that's how you get Hitler, the atomized individuals of German society. He manipulated them, he bullied them and he sent them, guns in hand, marching to whatever battlefield he chose. The horrors of the 20th century, those brutal, tyrannical regimes we still shudder to think about, were born from precisely this dynamic. Tocqueville saw this coming even back in the 19th century, and his warning remains relevant today.

Speaker 1:

This isn't just France's problem. It's a question for every advanced civilization that has watched its feudal structures collapse. Once those middle layers are gone, societies must find a way to rebuild them, or they risk descending into tyranny. So what's the solution? Different societies have tried different approaches. Tocqueville didn't believe there was a one-size-fits-all answer, but two historical models stand out as examples of how to deal with this challenge.

Speaker 1:

The first approach local autonomy or the king's power stops at the village. In medieval England, for instance, the king's authority often didn't reach the countryside, especially the more remote regions. Local governance fell to the gentry and the lords, who acted as the real managers of these communities. They handled disputes, organized public works and even funded the building of schools and churches. In small English villages you'd see this all the time. If a road needed fixing or a bridge needed building, the local gentry would gather funds and get the job done. Why? Because those public works directly affected their own lives and the lives of their neighbors. The king and his bureaucrats didn't need to get involved because the locals handled it themselves. This informal tradition of local self governance reduced the burden on the central government and strengthened the bonds of the local community. By staying out of the day to day affairs of villages, the crown avoided overreach and governance was flexible, efficient and human.

Speaker 1:

The second approach ideological constraints on central power. In France during the Bourbon monarchy, the king may have wielded absolute power, but he wasn't unchecked. Two forces acted as powerful constraints the Catholic Church and the intellectuals. The Church, for example, often saw itself as the guardian of morality. Priests and bishops believed it was their divine duty to speak truth to power, even if it meant calling out the king's abuses. Then you had the philosophers, the intellectuals like Voltaire. Now, voltaire lived under an absolutist regime, but that didn't stop him from being a thorn in the king's side. He criticized tyranny, mocked the masseuse of power and championed ideas of reason and freedom. And here's the funny part the more the monarchy tried to suppress him, the more famous he became. Persecuting intellectuals often backfired, turning them into martyrs and heroes whose ideas would echo through history. This created a strange, almost paradoxical dynamic. The king was all powerful, but he still had to think twice before silencing his critics. The church and the philosophers might not have had armies or land, but they wielded something even more potent moral authority. So there you have it.

Speaker 1:

When the feudal middle layers vanish, societies face a choice. One path, like medieval England, relies on local autonomy, empowering communities to govern themselves. The other, like Bourbon France, uses ideology and moral authority to keep centralized power in check. The challenge Tocqueville laid out still haunts us today. How do you balance the efficiency of centralization with the flexibility of local governance? How do you give people a voice, a sense of belonging and protection from the overwhelming power of the state? Ah, because when societies fail to answer that question, history has shown us what happens the middle disappears, the individuals are left defenseless and the door opens to tyrants, demagogues and the unthinkable tragedies that follow.

Speaker 1:

Tertocqueville wasn't just writing about 19th century France. He was writing about all of us. This French tradition of intellectuals speaking truth to power. What de Tocqueville witnessed firsthand, shares striking similarities with China's ancient idea of bloody paper or scholars dying to remonstrate the principle when a ruler makes a grave mistake, moral duty requires you to call them out, even at the risk of your life or freedom. It's the ultimate act of courage and it works as a powerful check on authority. In France, these intellectuals saw themselves as the moral compass of society. Much like Chinese scholars believed, they bore the responsibility of safeguarding the Dao Yai, the moral order. Their presence made it impossible for kings to rule with absolute impunity. With absolute impunity, after all, when philosophers like Voltaire or Montesquieu criticized tyranny, their ideas didn't just disappear. If you silenced them, you made them martyrs. If you ignored them, you looked like a fool. Either way, their words would ripple through society for generations.

Speaker 1:

But beyond France and China, tocqueville also saw a third solution to this problem of centralized power the British model? Ah yes, the British ever the pragmatists. Tocqueville admired their approach, though he admitted that it was uniquely British and, frankly, impossible to replicate in France. What was their secret? Evolution, not revolution. While France opted for sudden, radical upheaval, britain preferred slow, incremental change. It's like comparing a demolition crew to a gardener. It's like comparing a demolition crew to a gardener.

Speaker 1:

The British didn't tear down their institutions. They pruned and reshaped them over time. Take their aristocracy, for example. Tocqueville called it a natural aristocracy. What did he mean? Oh well, in Britain, being a noble wasn't just about having a fancy bloodline stretching back to some guy in chain mail.

Speaker 1:

The system was relatively open. You could earn your way into the ranks of the nobility through merit, accomplishment or even good PR. And this openness still exists today. Think about it. How many times have you heard someone getting knighted by the queen? Or now the king Is Sir Alex Ferguson, the legendary Manchester United manager, was knighted. Hong Kong business tycoons like Lee Kay Shing and Run Run Shaw A knighted. Even foreigners get the nod, like Karl Popper, the great philosopher of Austrian descent. But perhaps the most bizarre example of all, sir Francis Drake. Yes, a pirate. Drake spent his days raiding Spanish ships, plundering their silver and, let's face it, generally living the pirate dream. But when the Spanish Armada came knocking, drake and his naval prowess helped save England. So what did Queen Elizabeth say? Pirate Nah, knight Boom, sir Francis Drake. That's the beauty of the British system it was adaptable, inflexible and open to anyone who proved their worth.

Speaker 1:

Ta Quiville, though, wasn't fooled into thinking this was a solution France could copy in the old regime and the revolution, he wrote, learned from Britain. Impossible why? Because Britain's system wasn't something you could install overnight. It had grown organically like a living organism over centuries. It was deeply rooted in British history, traditions and culture, something that France, after the revolution, had irrevocably lost. So what was left? Tocqueville's answer looked west.

Speaker 1:

In 1831, when Tocqueville was in his 20s, he took a leap of faith and set his sights across the Atlantic Ocean to America. Now you might be wondering why did he go? Oh well, officially it was a work trip. He was sent to the United States to study prison systems. Exciting stuff, right, but let's be honest, prisons were just an excuse. Tocqueville wasn't there for the jail cells, he was there to see America itself.

Speaker 1:

In May of 1831, tocqueville landed in New York, and from there he hit the road. And when I say he traveled, I mean he traveled. He went from New York to the Great Lakes, america's wild frontier at the time. Then he headed south, following the mighty Mississippi River all the way to New Orleans. From there he swung back east through the southeast and finally made his way to Washington DC. By the time he was done, tocqueville had spent nearly a year traversing the United States. He interviewed countless people politicians, farmers, intellectuals, merchants and even everyday citizens. He saw the vast landscapes, the bustling cities, the chaotic frontier towns, and he was absolutely thrilled. To him, everything in America felt fresh, exciting and alive.

Speaker 1:

When Tocqueville returned to France, he couldn't contain his enthusiasm. In 1835, he published the first volume of his masterpiece, democracy in America. And that book wasn't just about America's prisons or laws. It was about the American spirit, the American experiment and the future of democracy itself. But here's the thing Tocqueville didn't just see America as a land of opportunity. He saw it as a laboratory, a place where, for better or worse, the problems of centralized power, individual freedom and the loss of middle structures were being worked out in real time. And that's why, nearly 200 years later, democracy in America still resonates, because Tocqueville wasn't just writing about America. He was writing about the struggles of every modern society, trying to balance freedom, equality and power.

Speaker 1:

So in the end, tocqueville's journey across the Atlantic wasn't just a trip. It was a search, a search for answers to the question that haunted his own country After the collapse of feudalism where do we go next? And while France wrestled with revolutions and uncertainty, tocqueville found a glimpse of possibility in the new world. So why was Tocqueville so excited? What did he see in America? A simple he saw a revolutionary solution to an age-old problem how to build a functioning society without a noble class. At the time, this was mind-blowing. You've got to understand the context here.

Speaker 1:

In Tocqueville's day, the world was run by kings, emperors and aristocrats. Everywhere you looked Europe, asia, anywhere there was a crown and a throne. The idea that a country as big, as dynamic and as young as America could exist without a king, without lords, without hereditary titles that was inconceivable to Europeans. Yet here it was, america, thriving and full of life, and the government was so invisible that you almost couldn't see it. That was the most shocking part for Tocqueville. So how did this country govern itself? What Tocqueville discovered amazed him.

Speaker 1:

America had developed a deeply ingrained tradition of citizen self-governance. Whether you were in a small village or a bustling city, problems were solved locally from the bottom up. Need to fix the streets? The townsfolk organized it themselves. Church roof needs repairing? The congregation took care of it. Local safety, they'd handle it.

Speaker 1:

Americans didn't run to the government for every little thing. They rolled up their sleeves and figured it out. Tocqueville was stunned by this contrast to France. He wrote that even in French colonies overseas the French didn't have this instinct for self-reliance. The moment they stepped outside their own gates they thought everything beyond their fence was the government's problem. And Tocqueville wasn't alone in noticing this. Spanish historian, arturo Perez-Rivert, once said Of all the peoples of Europe, the French and Spanish are the most alike in this regard. But America, america was different. Tocqueville couldn't get over how many autonomous organizations and associations existed across the country. And it's still true today.

Speaker 1:

One of the most unique and mystifying features of American society is its endless collection of civic organizations, big and small, serious and quirky, mainstream and bizarre. Take one of the biggest, for example the National Rifle Association, nra. Now, I know guns are a touchy topic, but hear me out, this is peak talk-weevil. The NRA is one of the largest civilian organizations in the United States boasting four or five million members. And what do they do? First, they're a club. Members share tips on shooting, hunting and target practice. Sounds harmless, right. But here's the kicker the NRA is also a political powerhouse.

Speaker 1:

See, in America, the question of gun rights whether to ban guns or not is one of the most hotly debated political issues ever. And the NRA has planted itself smack dab in the middle of that debate. Their headquarters, with 300 full time staff, sits in Virginia. They spend around $80 million a year 80 million on what? Lobbying Congress? Their message is loud and clear you ban guns and you take away Americans' rights to bear arms. You think we're going to let that happen? Nope, this isn't just a bunch of guys in camel hats shaking their fists. The NRA plays hardball. They pour money into election campaigns, back candidates who support gun rights and crush the ones who don't. After every major election, they release reports bragging. In this Senate race, in this House race, we defeated X number of anti-gun candidates. Here's our scorecard and the result.

Speaker 1:

In American politics, very few legislators are brave or foolish enough to take the NRA head on. They're a force of nature. If you cross them, you can expect to pay for it come election season. Now here's the funny part. Doesn't this sound a bit like aristocracy? Think about it. The NRA behaves like a modern day noble class. They're wealthy, influential and organized. They don't rule from castles, they rule from boardrooms and lobbying offices. They rule from boardrooms and lobbying offices and, just like nobles of old, they exert their power not through titles or bloodlines, but by wielding influence over the people who hold political power. This is what Tocqueville saw as America's genius. The aristocracy was gone, but it had been replaced by something else voluntary associations.

Speaker 1:

In America, citizens didn't wait for kings or bureaucrats to solve their problems. They formed groups, clubs, churches, unions, political organizations to handle things themselves, to handle things themselves. These groups filled the role that nobles once held protecting interests, maintaining order and balancing power. So when Tocqueville marveled at America, he wasn't just looking at a country without a king. He was looking at a society where power had been decentralized, where citizens came together voluntarily, enthusiastically, to solve problems, where the middle layers of society weren't lords and barons, but civic organizations and associations. And that's the big lesson Todd Quivel took home with him. If you want to build a free and stable society without aristocrats, you need something to fill the gap. You need citizens who are willing to take responsibility. You need communities that can govern themselves. You need people who don't wait for the government to fix everything, but roll up their sleeves and get to work.

Speaker 1:

Because in America, tocqueville didn't just see democracy, he saw self-reliance. He saw a people who understood that freedom isn't given to you, it's something you have to build, defend and preserve Together. So how is this different from the European nobles of the Middle Ages? Well, let's think about it. A medieval noble had his own land, his own resources and, most importantly, his own authority. He could stand up to the king Hell. He could even team up with other nobles to challenge the throne itself. Now fast forward to 19th century America and what do you have? Organizations like the National Rifle Association. It's not land and castles anymore, but power still exists. It's just organized differently. The NRA, for example, operates as a self-organized body of citizens that plays a role similar to the old noblest. It counters centralized power, it lobbies for its own interests and it makes itself impossible to ignore. But here's the kicker this spirit of self governance doesn't just exist on a national level in America, it trickles down to the smallest, most mundane aspects of daily life.

Speaker 1:

I remember the first time I visited America, I was staying at a friend's house and I complimented him Nice place you've got here. He waved it off and said oh, it's rented. I actually bought a plot of land nearby but I can't build on it yet. Eh, why not? I asked. The homeowners association hasn't approved my design. The what now? Deiza, the HOA, our neighborhood council. I have to submit my building plans and they have to sign off on everything, down to the style of the house. Ah, wait a second. I said. This is your land, your house. Shouldn't you be able to build whatever you want? Isn't this the land of the free? He laughed and said Not. When it comes to this, america's not as free as you think when it comes to community rules. Here's the thing America's version of freedom isn't about doing whatever you want, it's about self-governance. You're free as long as you respect the rules of your community. Let me give you another example.

Speaker 1:

I read this news story not too long ago. Don't ask me which city. I'm not here to throw shade. A TV anchor was keeping several dogs at home and those dogs barked all night long. The neighbors were losing their minds. They called the police, but every time an officer showed up, the dogs magically stopped barking. So what could they do? Nothing. But in an American neighborhood governed by a homeowner's association, there would have been rules like the three bark rule. Yep, you heard me right. In some communities, your dog is allowed to bark up to three times. After that, your neighbors have every right to call the authorities and you'll be slapped with a heavy fine. Or here's another one.

Speaker 1:

I was visiting a friend in the States and we drove to his house. He parked his car on the street and I noticed that every couple of hours he'd run outside, start the car, drive it around the block and park it in the same spot. I asked him what are you doing? He said neighborhood rules Visitors' cars can't park on the street for more than two hours, otherwise it looks messy. If I don't move it, I'll get fined. And this is what blew my mind.

Speaker 1:

We think of freedom as this idea of doing whatever you want as long as you don't break the law. Doing whatever you want as long as you don't break the law. But in America, freedom doesn't work that way. It's layered, it's built on local governance, local rules and local accountability. You have freedom, sure, but only if you follow the community's rules. This is exactly what Tocqueville found so fascinating about America. He didn't get bogged down in little details like barking dogs or HOA meetings that wasn't his style, but he saw the bigger picture. America's genius, he realized, was its tradition of local self-governance. People didn't wait for the government to step in. They organized themselves. They created their own rules, their own councils, their own structures. In America this goes all the way down to the grassroots Neighborhood associations, church groups, volunteer organizations. They're everywhere.

Speaker 1:

Tocqueville called this a great discovery, because it offered a solution to a problem that had haunted France since the collapse of feudalism how do you balance individual freedom with collective order? And here's what Tocqueville saw so clearly without these local institutions, these self-organized communities', freedom can't survive. Why? Because without them you're left with two extremists chaotic anarchy or overbearing central power. The genius of America, he thought, was that it struck a balance. People had freedom, but they also had responsibility. They governed themselves, and that act of self-governance created order. So when you think about American freedom, don't picture some cowboy riding into the sunset, living by his own rules. Picture a guy moving his car every two hours because his HA said so. Picture a dog owner counting how many times his dog barked. It might not look glamorous, but that's what Tocqueville saw as the foundation of American democracy citizens organizing themselves layer by layer, rule by rule, to build a functioning society.

Speaker 1:

In a way it's like the medieval nobles, but without the titles or castles Instead of lords, you have associations Instead of knights, you have HOA presidents. Instead of barons, you have associations Instead of knights. You have HOA presidents. Instead of barons, you have the NRA. And what ties it all together is this belief freedom doesn't mean no rules. It means rules that you create together.

Speaker 1:

The funny thing is, even the Americans back then didn't fully understand what they had. They just grew into it naturally, like a tree sprouting roots, without knowing how deep they went. I mean, I've got this book here. It's from the 1980s, written by an American journalist who retraced Tocqueville's steps through the United States. It's called Journey Through America. And you know what's fascinating? Americans feel proud of Tocqueville's discovery. It's like he showed up representing old Europe and said hey, do you realize? You've just created something revolutionary. Tocqueville uncovered the real gift America had to offer the world, and that's where we'll leave Tocqueville's work for now. But the two questions he raised still echo loudly today. First, what happens when a society's middle layers disintegrate? How do you rebuild them? Second, can the tradition of citizen self-governance America's great discovery be replicated elsewhere? These are questions that remain deeply relevant to our world Because, let's be honest, whether you're in Asia, europe or anywhere else, society spent most of their history under monarchies or aristocratic rule.

Speaker 1:

What did that create? A total lack of public spirit. People's thinking was simple the affairs of the nation are the king's or the noble's problem. I'll just mind my own business. As long as they don't push me too hard, I don't care how they govern, and that's why, in societies ruled by elites, you often see stunning private achievements but weak public infrastructure. Nobles would spend fortunes building exquisite private museums, but you wouldn't see many public libraries. They had beautifully manicured private gardens, but public parks hardly a priority. Even public toilets yes, toilets only became widespread with the advent of industrialization and urban expansion in modern times.

Speaker 1:

Under this kind of tradition, two unhealthy extremes tend to emerge. The first is total state control. If no one cares about public matters, the state steps in and says fine, we'll handle everything. But over time, societies have learned through painful experience that when the state tries to manage every aspect of public life, the results are rarely ideal. The second extreme is what I'd call pseudo-libertarianism. This is the attitude of people who claim to be liberal but chant only two slogans what's it to you and what's it to me. They think freedom means total disconnection from others. Your problems are yours, my problems are mine, and that's the end of it. Some people ask me hey, don't you call yourself a liberal too? Yeah, I do, but my version of liberalism is very different. I believe in individual freedom under the light of public spirit.

Speaker 1:

Here's the thing human beings as a species are wired for community. It's in our DNA. Take tigers, for example. They live alone, except during mating season. Lions Lions are born to live in prides, in groups. Humans are the same way. We're a social species. Even in prisons, the cruelest punishment isn't physical abuse, it's solitary confinement. Lock someone in a room alone, even with food and books, and eventually they'll start to lose their mind. We can't escape it. Humans are social creatures and the moment we live together, a ton of public issues arise that need to be handled.

Speaker 1:

But here's the catch, ri. If we don't want to hand over all that power to the government, because that leads to corruption and inefficiency, what's the alternative? What happens when everyone shrugs and says what's it to you, what's it to me? How does society even function? That's where Tocqueville's insight becomes so important.

Speaker 1:

In America, he saw a society that didn't wait for the state to step in. Instead, citizens organized themselves, they took responsibility for their communities, whether it was building a church, fixing a road or running a school. They understood that freedom doesn't mean disconnecting from others. It means working together voluntarily to solve shared problems. If we think about it, this is still a lesson worth studying, especially in today's world, because everywhere, no matter the country, people are wrestling with the same question. No matter the country, people are wrestling with the same question how do we balance individual freedom with collective responsibility? If we refuse to engage with our communities, if we retreat into our private bubbles and say it's not my problem, then the only thing left is the state, and history has shown us where that leads. So Tocqueville's discovery of America's tradition of self-governance isn't just an interesting historical footnote. It's a call to action. It's a reminder that freedom isn't free. It requires participation, it requires public spirit, it requires citizens who understand that true freedom comes not from saying what's it to me, but from saying this is my community, these are my people. Let's fix this together. And that, I think, is why Tocqueville's work is still so powerful. He didn't just describe America. He gave us a blueprint for how free societies can survive and thrive A blueprint we might still need today.

Speaker 1:

Some might argue, of course Americans have public spirit. I've taken taxes in New York or London and listened to drivers passionately discuss government policies or international affairs. Isn't that public spirit? Well, no, not quite True public spirit. What Tocqueville admired in America has two essential qualities. First, it's about caring for the small local things far more than big national issues. Let me tell you a story to illustrate this.

Speaker 1:

I once read about a western community where the elevator in a high-rise building broke down. Out of four elevators, two were out of service and it was chaos during rush hour. Frustrated residents wrote a letter to the government yes, the government. The letter was heartfelt too. We have pregnant women and elderly residents in this building. Our children are late for school. This elevator issue is causing enormous inconvenience and emotional distress. Please help us fix this problem Now. I don't know about you, but when I read this I thought wait a minute, it's just a broken elevator. It, it's just a broken elevator. Can't you pool some money together and fix it yourselves, why ask the government to intervene? Many Western communities have maintenance funds for exactly this kind of issue, so why not take some initiative, work together and solve the problem directly? But that's the thing. Many communities have come to expect a neutral, impartial referee, aka the government, to step in and fix their problems. But seriously, what are the residents themselves doing? If everyone chipped in a little money, the elevator would be up and running in no time. This is what Tocqueville was getting at.

Speaker 1:

True public spirit doesn't mean getting emotional about national politics. It starts with fixing what's right in front of you. It's about solving the small everyday issues that make a community run smoothly the second quality of public spirit under citizen self governance. It's about finding solutions, not just indulging in emotional outbursts. Let's look at a few examples of what this looks like. Look at a few examples of what this looks like and doesn't look like in different countries. Take New Jersey, for example.

Speaker 1:

There was a dispute about building a chemical plant near a residential area. The plant met all environmental standards and scientific data confirmed its safety. And scientific data confirmed its safety. But the moment residents heard chemical plant, they lost it. Panic and mistrust took over and the protests turned emotional. Residents ignored the data, shouting slogans like Jet out of our community. In the end, the project was scrapped, but at what cost? In the end, the project was scrapped, but at what cost? The economic benefits were lost and the community was left with unresolved waste management issues. Compare this to Japan. In Yokohama, a chemical plant was built near a residential area, separated only by a highway. Now did the residents panic? No, the government handled it differently. They released detailed environmental reports, provided clear monitoring data and engaged in transparent dialogue with the community. Over time, the residents came to trust the project and accepted the plant's presence. This approach reflects the rational spirit of public governance finding solutions that optimize the outcome for everyone involved, instead of simply demanding victory for one side.

Speaker 1:

Or consider Germany in one residential area, noise pollution became a major issue, but the source wasn't construction or traffic. It was an outdoor music festival. Every summer, the loud music kept residents awake at night. Now did they stage dramatic protests demanding the festival's cancellation? No, instead, the residents came together, negotiated with the organizers and found a solution. They raised funds to install directional noise reduction equipment and agreed that performances would end by 10pm. The result the festival continued, cultural traditions were preserved and the community got its peace and quiet Win-win.

Speaker 1:

And then there's South Korea. You know BTS, right, the global phenomenon. Their fanbase ARMY often gets criticized for blind idol worship, but let me tell you, these fans display some of the most organized and rational collective behavior you'll ever see. In 2019, bts posted a tweet that went viral, attracting millions of replies. But here's the kicker RMY deliberately capped the number of comments at 13.1 million. Why? Because 1310 represents BTTSS's debut anniversary. That level of coordination A mind-blowing. What's even more impressive is their public spirit. At an event celebrating the 60th birthday of a veteran Korean actor, bts fans showed up not with flashy banners about their idols, but with messages like the BTS ARMY congratulates our respected elder. By keeping a low profile, they avoided awkward misunderstandings and gave the event the dignity it deserved. That's public spirit thoughtful, mature and considerate.

Speaker 1:

What do these examples show us? Whether it's solving community disputes, managing noise complaints or coordinating fan activities, people have an innate ability to self-organize and govern themselves, as long as they have the right environment. Public spirit thrives when people approach problems rationally, with an eye for solutions, rather than just venting their frustrations. And that brings me back to a powerful truth about humanity. We're not tigers, solitary, territorial and indifferent to others. We're lions, social creatures who need each other to survive.

Speaker 1:

In prisons, the harshest punishment isn't physical, it's solitary confinement. Lock someone up alone for too long and they'll lose their mind. Humans are wired for community and the moment we live together, we inherit shared responsibilities, problems that must be addressed for the good of all. So what happens if we refuse, if we all shrug and say what's it to you, what's it to me? Well, either society grinds to a halt or the government steps in and takes over everything, but, as history shows us, that leads to corruption, inefficiency and a loss of freedom.

Speaker 1:

That's why Tocqueville's insights still matter today. He showed us that citizen self-governance isn't just possible, it's necessary. If we want freedom, if we want functioning societies, we can't just care about big, abstract issues. We need to fix the small things. We need to come together, organize ourselves and solve problems rationally. As someone once said, if you want a future, it has to be a future you build with others. Public spirit is the foundation of that future. Without it, we're just tigers, alone, isolated and lost With it. We're lions strong, isolated and lost With it. Were lions strong, coordinated and unstoppable.