Tocqueville On Parties Today

What if the very thing that makes politics feel unbearable is also what keeps a republic free? We dive into Tocqueville’s sharp take on political parties—why they inflame passions, tempt narrow thinking, and yet remain essential to preserving liberty against the pull of majority rule and central power. With Dr. Paul Carrese, we connect Madison’s Federalist 10, Washington’s Farewell Address, and Montesquieu’s insights to a living portrait of how American institutions absorb faction without losing the thread of self-government.

We unpack the founding-era clash between Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, the constitutional guardrails the Federalists left behind, and how Jacksonian democracy accepted those limits even as the egalitarian spirit surged. From the tariff crisis and South Carolina’s nullification to the looming fracture over slavery, we trace moments when parties nearly tore the country apart—and why Tocqueville still preferred the messy churn of organized opposition to the quiet drift of civic apathy. The throughline is a sober optimism: parties can be schools of persuasion that complicate power, protect minority rights, and keep citizens engaged.

Fast-forward to today’s polarization and media echo chambers, and Tocqueville’s warnings feel eerily current. We explore practical takeaways: strengthen local associations, reward lawful dissent, and keep politics inside durable rules that force rivals to bargain. The goal isn’t to end conflict, but to civilize it so liberty and equality stay in dynamic balance. If you value smart, historically grounded conversation about how a free society survives its own heat, this one’s for you. Subscribe, share with a friend, and leave a review to tell us where you see parties harming or helping our civic life.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:46

Welcome back to Civicston here. We are going back to our friend Alexis DeTocville because the very honest answer is I didn't know a whole lot about democracy in America and Alexis De Tocqueville, and he is a multi-dimensional person. And just doing one episode on him was not enough. So we're doing multiple and have Dr. Paul Careese with me today. And Dr. Careese, today we're going to talk about Tocqueville on political parties, which we do have kind of a whole little series on political parties in America. But now we're looking at how a leftist of Tocqueville kind of thought of it. So what does Tocqueville observe about political parties in his work, Democracy in America?

Parties Beyond The Constitution

Madison, Washington, And Moral Warnings

Grand Parties And The Founding Clash

Equality’s Triumph And Constitutional Restraints

SPEAKER_01 1:30

Yes, thank you, Liz. You are right. Democracy in America is a complicated work, but the better way to think of it is a very rich, enduringly important view about this big complicated thing, America, the United States of America, our democratic constitutional republic, as he describes it. And it is an evergreen work in that even though it was published 170 longer, 190 years ago, it it reads like it could be kind of a long-form, you read a section of it, a chapter, it reads like it could be a long-form journalism essay written last year or last week about some insight into American politics. And this is one of them that parties will remain an important part of America, even though there's no mention of parties in the Constitution, nor in the state constitutions. And parties are a mixed thing. They're both bad and good. So Tookville is in part drawing on the view, you can see it in Madison, Federalist number 10, and we know he cites the Federalist regularly in Democracy in America, strong in the view that parties are a problem, or parties the more political science-y term is faction, right? That the problem for a democracy or republic is that you need the whole community to stick together, despite all the disagreements that free people have with each other, because there's a long record going back to ancient Athens and ancient Rome. Once you have parties and factions, they're ultimately self-destructive. They tear apart a free people, either because they come literally to the point of civil war with each other, or there's so much anger and disorganization and chaos, lack of civic unity, that some big bully in the neighborhood, a monarchy or an empire or somebody else, comes along and is able to overturn a democracy or republic. So that story was thousands of years old, and Tocqueville knew that, and and Madison knew that. Madison thinks is a free Democratic Republic in America can't do away with factions. How can we mitigate them? Mitigate the effects of factions. And in a way, Tocqueville takes up that story. You would have to eliminate liberty or press liberty to a substantial degree to do away with the phenomenon of certain points of views about public policy issues or politics coalescing and forming into factions or parties. Trevor Burrus So Tocqueville's view is that the complex republic of America has enough features built into it. It's an extension of Madison's argument in Federalist 10. We are a federal republic. We are a republic, not a democracy. With those two elements, there's enough kind of complexity that America can deal with the reality of having parties, and parties won't go too far and become too extreme is that they're a threat to the perpetuation existence of a common American Union, a common republic. Now, one difference, I think, from Federalist No. 10 on the one hand, and Tocqueville on the other hand, is that Tocqueville does include some more of the negative language about parties, sort of the moral warning about the downside of parties. It's almost as if he had recently been thinking about reading Washington's farewell address, which has these famous warnings about the dangers of parties going too far. Of course, the the party system that Tocqueville is talking about, that there's a kind of Federalist Party, and then there's the Republican or Democratic-Republican Party. That arises in Washington's first administration and his second administration. So Tocqueville Tocqueville might be giving Washington some credit for warning about how parties can be just passionate and angry and narrow-minded and extreme and lose some sense of the common good. That's clearly what's behind Washington's warnings in the farewell address. So Tocqueville's agreeing with Madison. He doesn't literally cite Federist number 10, but I think he's got it in his mind. But he's also bringing in some elements, I think, of Washington's farewell address to say, but beware about the moral danger of these things. And yet, he he he's you know he has some good news for America that that the kind of parties that have been so dangerous in Europe, like think of the party that takes over with the French Revolution, right? The Jacobin Party and makes the French Revolution so extreme. Tokfill's clearly got that on his mind, right? Tuke says about America in the 1830s, well, you know what? The era of those great or grand or revolutionary parties, that's over with. There was a grand party conflict. And he doesn't mention Washington's administration by name, but this is what he's talking about. The rise of the party system. It's the Federalist Party versus the Republican or Democratic Republican Party. We would think of this as Alexander Hamilton versus Thomas Jefferson and then the various other players involved. And Tocqueville says that's over with. Clearly, ultimately, the Democratic-Republican Party won, or the Democratic Party, the Party of Equality won. But he also has this nice little kind of eulogy in Volume 1 of Democracy in America for the Federalist Party. Okay, they eventually lost. They're basically gone now by the 1830s, Tookville's around him. But boy, it was a good thing that that Federalist Party was around because they basically produced the Federal Constitution, a more complicated form of government that has some non-democratic elements to it. And he doesn't name Washington or Franklin or John Adams by name, but he's got them in mind. So we have these institutions like the Senate and the single executive as the president and the judiciary, which have survived into the 1830s. So to sort of tie this all up, right? Tocqueville's writing in the era of Jacksonian democracy in the 1830s. And he's saying the Democratic Party, the Egalitarian Party of Equality won the great party contest of the founding era. And yet we still have a party that is this party of equality. And then there's sort of smaller factions or parties that are still around. He doesn't even mention the Whig Party by name. It's like it's not even significant enough to even bother mentioning it. But the constitutional order also has survived into the 1830s. So this suggests to Tocqueville that while he does want to warn that parties are sort of in the spirit of George Washington, they're petty, they're small-minded, they're narrow-minded, they emphasize passions and narrow interests, not the common good, not large thinking needed. All the things, look, all the things we would talk about today, let's translate this to 190 years later. We talk about polarization and anger across two polarized factional views about some political issue. And we talk about getting into silos in your own echo chamber. And we especially talk about this with social media now, right? So you know, 75 years ago we would have talked about it with newspapers. Tokyo talks about newspapers being party newspapers and being narrow-minded and angry and passionate. So now we talk about TV or or or media or social media being that way. He describes all of that kind of narrowness, the sort of race to the bottom anger, passion at politics. But he says, the Party of Equality in the 1830s, the Democratic Party, the dominant party, has accepted the Constitution. They sort of moderated themselves to govern under the Constitution. So in this paradoxical way, he he kind of continues Madison's argument. There's something good about this continuation of parties in America. There's a kind of activity and spirit of liberty to it that despite all its downsides, maybe it's a good thing after all.

SPEAKER_00 10:44

So then his comments on parties are part of Tocqueville's larger interest in this tension between the principles of equality and the principles of liberty in American politics, correct?

Polarization, Media, And Party Passions

Liberty Versus Equality As Core Tension

Tariffs, Nullification, And Fragile Union

SPEAKER_01 10:56

Yes. It's a theme throughout Democracy in America that that there are these two great principles from the founding, the spirit of liberty and also the spirit of equality or democracy. And again, he's he could have entitled the book A Constitutional Republic in America, which is what he's really a fan of. He thinks this is a great thing. The federal constitutional republic is a good thing, and then more democratic constitutions of the states. But he knows that the energy of America, again, he's arriving in Jacksonian America America, the democratic spirit in America. So he calls the book Democracy in America, and there just are repeated warnings about the spirit of equality going too far and democracy going too far, and how to keep alive this spirit of liberty, this principle of liberty, to keep the two in a kind of dynamic tension with each other. Now, he does have a warning about parties in the 1830s that is kind of a preview of what happens with the Civil War. He talks about the tariff controversy of 1831 to 1832. I'm sorry for the listeners, who cares about tariffs? It's totally irrelevant. Why would anyone be taught? It's like ancient history. Anyway, tariffs coming out of the Federal Congress and the Presidency about regulating America's trade and trying to protect certain industries or products or things like that. The Southern states are really angry about the tariff that's just passed. They think it's bad for their economy in the South, basically the slavery implantation economy. And there's a convention in Philadelphia in 1831 that Tuckfield writes about. And he says that this is what political association and parties and the freedom to form parties, this is what can happen in America, and it can be really dangerous. Because the next year in 1832, the state of South Carolina takes it a step further and declares a principle of nullification. We're not going to respect and abide by this federal law about terrorists because it's unconstitutional. And Andrew Jackson comes down like a ton of bricks. The state of South Carolina says, you will not do that while I'm President of the United States, and basically threatens South Carolina. And then Henry Clay steps in and kind of brokers some deal. So Tookville, you know, again, that sort of spirit from Washington and the farewell address observes what's happening in 1830 and says this could go too far. And he has some other parts of the Tookville's of Democracy in America where he says, you know, maybe the slavery issue could threaten the continued existence of the Federal Republic. So if you put these passages together, you might say, well, why doesn't Tocqueville just come completely come down on the side of Washington and say parties are bad? You know, okay, the Federalist Democratic-Republican Party, that conflict from the 1790s, that's over with. Why do we need any parties at all? But he doesn't say that. And it's because, I think, of this concern about the spirit of liberty. So he says that the contestation between different factions and parties. Yes, the Democratic Party is dominant, but there are these parties and factions that arise at particular policy issues. We know going forward that the Whig Party basically dissolves and the Republican Party replaces it. All of that activity and ferment is better than not having it. Because he's worried that the principle of equality will become so dominant that the health of America may survive, but it may be this sort of shell of itself where citizens don't really care about politics, and citizens don't care to be participating in politics. So even though there are all kinds of dangers to parties, there's still something better about having them around than not.

SPEAKER_00 15:11

So you were suggesting that Tocqueville extends Federalist 10, like that analysis of faction and parties while he notes the dangers that parties pose. There is a larger problem with civic apathy and government centralization that parties could help address.

Parties As Antidote To Apathy

Checking Majority Tyranny Through Dissent

SPEAKER_01 15:32

And you've already done an episode, I think, right, on Tucville about individualism and the kind of civic apathy as a problem. And Tucville, many listeners might know of Tuckville about Tuckville writing on associations and the good thing that Americans form associations and join associations and get active in civil society, pre-sort of the private side of civic life. But he also connects that to political associations and Americans being active, you know, they sort of blend and bleed into each other. Civil society and associations, what Robert Putnam writes about, you know, but bowling alone being a problem. So associations on the civil society private side are in the same culture with the culture of parties and political associations, which can be sort of factions and narrow-minded interest groups, we call them on the negative side. But Tocqueville thinks being involved in that way in politics, even if you get riled up and angry and passionate and narrow-minded, it's better than sitting on your sofa and just watching TV or doom scrolling or being totally isolated. Of course, he doesn't know about those technologies, right? But be totally totally isolated in your own little life, your family, your friends, maybe not even your family, right? It's better to be engaged and riled up about politics than to be isolated and apathetic and let somebody else deal with government. I don't really have to be a self-governing citizen. So that's one dimension to it. Putting together political associations, parties with a strong, healthy civil society and civil associations, all of that he wants to encourage. And so one danger is civic apathy. The other danger is majority tyranny. So the spirit of equality becoming so dominant that if a Democratic majority persuades itself and the government persuades itself this is the right thing to do, then laws can be passed that violate the rights of minority groups or of individuals, just what Madison warns about in Federalist Libre 10 with factions and parties. So here again, there's this kind of paradoxical argument, just like Madison has a paradoxical argument. Well, have Tocqueville says, well, having parties around can can complicate political life, so it blocks majority tyranny from occurring. There's enough space to dissent, to disagree, to persuade. So he's he's trying to encourage the Americans to use parties as peaceful, law-abiding modes of persuasion. He warns about what happened with the tariffs in 1831 to 1832, but but hopes that Americans can form political associations, factions, parties, even one big rival party to the Democratic Party, the Party of Equality, right? And they can they can do it in a peaceful way. It won't ever become the revolutionary, violent parties that occur in Europe. But also, again, we know the end of the story. What happens in the 1850s is eventually you get in a way, well, how to describe it? A party morally concerned about abolition that faction forms in the United States. And the the pro-slavery party has to be more and more explicit to oppose anything like abolition, saying that, you know, the Democrat the Declaration of Independence was just phony. It was always phony. No rational person ever believed in equal natural rights. They're always superior people and superior races. That was just then. We needed that in 1776, right? So you get this polarization, the party of abolition, party of pro-slavery talk. Tocfield doesn't quite describe that, but he sees the danger of the union splitting up over slavery. But still, the writ to Tocqueville, the risk of the downside of parties and factions is better than going down the railroad tracks of apathy, civic apathy, and individualism, where you don't care about self-government. And the risk of parties and all the ferment and activity of political parties is better than majority tyranny being accepted, especially dominant governmental views, without any dissent and contesting of those kinds of political views. I will add one more thing for the really nerdy people and the listening audience. Tocqueville is drawing on Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, a chapter in the Spirit of Laws. It's in book 19. It's on the English Constitution, in which Tocqueville talks about the political culture of the English constitutional order of liberty with its separated powers. You know, there's the legislative power and the executive power and the judicial power. What's it really like? And he talks about parties there. And Montesquieu says all the negative things about parties and factions that Madison mentions and that Tocqueville mentions. But Montesquieu says, but you know, it's still better that there's this ferment, even so if it is angry and stupid and narrow-minded, because at least the English are interested in being self-governed and self-governing. That's better than just leaving government to the nobility or to the experts or or to a few people. Tocqueville's really carrying on that kind of spirit of argument, and he's applying it to America. So parties for Tocqueville are a kind of mixed thing, but it's better to have them and make the best of them as long as you can persuade people to stay within the rule of law and to stick to reasonable persuasion and and not go anywhere near revolutionary parties and violence. Thank you, Liz.