In juli 2002 verkondigde de Nederlandse opiniemaker Ian Buruma dat ‘Alexis de Tocqueville an admiring book about American democracy’ had geschreven. Volgens Buruma had deze Franse aristocraat tijdens zijn reizen door de Oostkust van de VS in de eerste helft van de negentiende eeuw, gemerkt dat zich aldaar — in de woorden van Buruma — een ‘uniquely free society’ had ontwikkeld. Tenminste, zo zag mijn oude vriend zich genoodzaakt eraan toe te voegen: ‘for white people.’ Maar ook dit is onjuist, aangezien in deze ‘uniek vrije samenleving’ Amerikaanse witte vrouwen geen stemrecht bezaten. Opnieuw bleven vrouwen in zijn wereldbeeld een te verwaarlozen detail, en kenmerkend genoeg, repte hij met geen woord over het feit dat ook Amerikaanse mannen zonder bezit niet mochten stemmen. Bovendien was Tocqueville’s werk over de VS zeker niet uitsluitend of voornamelijk ‘bewonderend.’ Integendeel zelfs: de scherpzinnige Fransman zag toen al wat de fundamentele problemen van de zogeheten Amerikaanse ‘democratie’ waren. Zo schreef hij bijvoorbeeld dat ‘the ablest men in the United States are rarely placed at the head of affairs,’ terwijl het bovendien bijzonder moeilijk was ‘to imagine a state in which all the citizens would be very well informed, as a state in which they should all be wealthy,’ immers:
Long and patient observation and much acquired knowledge are requisite (een vereiste. svh) to form a just estimate of the character of a single individual. Men of the greatest genius often fail to do it, and can it be supposed that the vulgar will always succeed? The people have neither the time nor the means for an investigation of this kind. Their conclusions are hastily formed from a superficial inspection of the more prominent features of a question. Hence it often happens that mountebanks (bedriegers. svh) of all sorts are able to please the people, whilst their truest friends frequently fail to gain their confidence.
Moreover, the democracy not only lacks that loudness of judgement which is necessary to select men really deserving of their confidence, but often have not the desire or the inclination to find them out. It cannot be denied that democratic institutions strongly tend to promote the feeling of envy in the human heart; not so much because they afford to every one the means of rising to the same level with others, as because those means perpetually disappoint the persons who employ them. Democratic institutions awaken and foster a passion for equality which they can never entirely satisfy. This complete equality eludes the grasp of the people at the very moment when they think they have grasped it, and ‘flies,' as Pascal says, 'with an eternal flight’ […] Whatever transcends their own limits appears to be an obstacle to their desires, and there is no superiority, however legitimate it may be, which is not irksome (hinderlijk. svh) in their sight.
Met betrekking tot de inwoners van de Verenigde Staten wees Tocqueville ook nog op het ingebakken wantrouwen tegen talentvolle en intelligente individuen:
In general, every one who rises without their aid seldom obtains their favor. Whilst the natural instinct of democracy induce the people to reject distinguished citizens as their rulers, an instinct not less strong induce able men to retire form the political arena, in which it is so difficult to retain their independence, or to advance without becoming servile.
Dit voerde Tocqueville in 1862 tot de conclusie dat ‘I hold it to be sufficient demonstrated, that universal suffrage is by no means a guaranty of the wisdom of the popular choice.’ Men hoeft nu alleen maar naar de afgelopen vier decennia neoliberale democratie te kijken en het is duidelijk hoe juist Tocqueville’s observatie was, en hoe bedrieglijk Buruma’s bewering is dat ‘Alexis de Tocqueville an admiring book’ schreef ‘about American democracy.’ Het opmerkelijke is dat Buruma’s propagandistische werk nu juist Tocqueville’s opmerking bewijst dat vaak ‘bedriegers van allerlei slag in staat zijn de mensen te behagen,’ en bij gebrek aan gewicht als vanzelf naar boven drijven. Bovendien, zo schreef deze Franse intellectueel van adel met betrekking tot het Amerikaanse volk:
A nation which asks nothing of its government but the maintenance of order us already a slave at heart — the slave of its own well-being, awaiting the hand that wil bind it. By such a nation the despotism of faction is not less to be dreaded than the despotism of an individual. When the bulk of the community are engrossed by private concerns, the smallest parties need not despair of getting the upper hand in public affairs. At such times it is not rare to see on the great stage of the world, as we see in our theaters, a multitude represented by a few players, who alone speak in the name of an absent or inattentive crowd: they alone are in action, while all others are stationary; they regulate everything by their own caprice; they change the laws and tyrannize at will over the manners of the country, and then men wonder to see into how small a number of weak and worthless hands a great people may fall.
Al meer dan anderhalve eeuw geleden waarschuwde Tocqueville voor het feit dat:
In het hoofdstuk ‘Why Americans Are So Restless in the Midst of Their Prosperity’ van het tweede deel van Democracy in America schreef Tocqueville de volgende kritiek:
It is strange to see with what feverish ardor the Americans pursue their own welfare, and to watch the vague dread that constantly torments them lest they should not have chosen the shortest path which may lead to it.
A native of the United States clings to this world's goods as if he were certain never to die; and he is so hasty in grasping at all within his reach that one would suppose he was constantly afraid of not living long enough to enjoy them. He clutches everything, he holds nothing fast, but soon loosens his grasp to pursue fresh gratifications.
Their taste for physical gratifications must be regarded as the original source of that secret disquietude which the actions of the Americans betray… He who has set his heart exclusively upon the pursuit of worldly welfare is always in a hurry, for he has but a limited time at his disposal to reach, to grasp, and to enjoy it.
The recollection of the shortness of life is a constant spur to him. Besides the good things that he possesses, he — every instant — fancies a thousand others that death will prevent him from trying if he does not try them soon. This thought fills him with anxiety, fear, and regret and keeps his mind in ceaseless trepidation (onrust. svh) which leads him perpetually to change his plans and his abode (woonplaats. svh).
If in addition to the taste for physical well-being a social condition be added in which neither laws nor customs retain any person in his place, there is a great additional stimulant to this restlessness of temper. Men will then be seen continually to change their track for fear of missing the shortest cut to happiness.
It may readily be conceived that if men passionately bent upon physical gratifications desire eagerly, they are also easily discouraged; as their ultimate object is to enjoy, the means to reach that object must be prompt and easy or the trouble of acquiring the gratification would be greater than the gratification itself. Their prevailing frame of mind, then, is at once ardent and relaxed, violent and enervated…
The same equality that allows every citizen to conceive these lofty hopes renders all the citizens less able to realize them; it circumscribes their powers on every side, while it gives freer scope to their desires. Not only are they themselves powerless, but they are met at every step by immense obstacles, which they did not at first perceive. They have swept away the privileges of some of their fellow creatures which stood in their way, but they have opened the door to universal competition; the barrier has changed its shape rather than its position. When men are nearly alike and all follow the same track, it is very difficult for any one individual to walk quickly and cleave a way through the dense throng that surrounds and presses on him. This constant strife between the inclination springing from the equality of condition and the means it supplies to satisfy them harasses and wearies the mind.
It is possible to conceive of men arrived at a degree of freedom that should completely content them; they would then enjoy their independence without anxiety and without impatience. But men will never establish any equality with which they can be contented. Whatever efforts a people may make, they will never succeed in reducing all the conditions of society to a perfect level; and even if they unhappily attained that absolute and complete equality of position, the inequality of minds would still remain, which, coming directly from the hand of God, will forever escape the laws of man. However democratic, then, the social state and the political constitution of a people may be, it is certain that every member of the community will always find out several points about him which overlook his own position; and we may foresee that his looks will be doggedly fixed in that direction. When inequality of conditions is the common law of society, the most marked inequalities do not strike the eye; when everything is nearly on the same level, the slightest are marked enough to hurt it. Hence the desire of equality always becomes more insatiable in proportion as equality is more complete.
Amongst democratic nations, men easily attain a certain equality of condition, but they can never attain as much as they desire. It perpetually retires from before them, yet without hiding itself from their sight, and in retiring draws them on. At every moment they think they are about to grasp it; it escapes at every moment from their hold. They are near enough to see its charms, but too far off to enjoy them; and before they have fully tasted its delights, they die.
Tocqueville’s kritiek blijft dus niet beperkt tot enkele eenvoudig oplosbare vormkwesties, maar betreft direct de kern van de democratische cultuur. De kwalen van die democratie zijn onoplosbaar omdat ze juist onlosmakelijk verbonden zijn met de democratie, zeker zodra die een consumptiemaatschappij is en de politici de massa moet blijven behagen.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Ook Losurdo vestigde de aandacht op het feit dat Tocqueville het volgende had beklemtoond:
the ‘restless and insatiable vanity of a democratic people’ was self evident. This was confirmed, in particular, by the transatlantic republic: ‘The Americans, in their intercourse with strangers, appear impatient of the smallest censure and insatiable of praise... Their vanity is not only greedy, but restless and jealous.’ We are dealing with an excessive ‘national pride,’ an ‘irritable patri-otism’ (patriotisme irritable), which did not tolerate criticism of any kind. This was a demand for primacy that sought utter exclusivity. If a foreigner admired the ‘freedom’ enjoyed by Americans, they would react by accepting the compliment, but immediately rendering it more emphatic and more exclusive: ‘few nations are worthy of it.’ If a foreigner admired their ‘purity of morals,’ the American interlocutor (gesprekspartner. svh) would react by denouncing ‘the corruption that prevails in other nations.’
Typerend voor liberals is dat ook Tocqueville geenszins een voorstander was van democratie voor allen. Integendeel. Zo benadrukte hij in zijn Democracy in America dat:
[a]ll free nations are vainglorious (ijdel. svh), but national pride is not displayed by all in the same manner. The Americans, in their intercourse with strangers, appear impatient of the smallest censure and insatiable of praise. The most slender eulogy is acceptable to them, the most exalted seldom contents them; they unceasingly harass you to extort praise, and if you resist their entreaties, they fall to praising themselves. It would seem as if, doubting their own merit, they wished to have it constantly exhibited before their eyes. Their vanity is not only greedy, but restless and jealous; it will grant nothing, while it demands everything, but is ready to beg and to quarrel at the same time… Men living in democracies love their country just as they love themselves, and they transfer the habits of their private vanity to their vanity as a nation.
In zijn Counter History van Liberalism documenteerde Losurdo nauwgezet de verregaande hypocrisie van de westerse liberale vrijheidsideologen, door ondermeer de aandacht te vestigen op de concrete realiteit:
When he turned to the international rivalry between the countries making up the community of the free and the West, Tocqueville did not hesitate to speak harshly of the United States. Writing to an American interlocutor, and referring to attempts to expand southwards also made by ‘private’ adventurers, the French liberal wrote:
‘Not without concern, I have seen this spirit of conquest, even of rapine (plunderingen. svh), exhibited among you for some years. It is not a sign of good health in a people that already has more territory than it can fill. I confess that I could not but be sad if I came to learn that the [American] nation had embarked on an operation against Cuba or even worse entrusted it to its lost sons.’
The American interlocutor might easily have retorted by recalling de Tocqueville’s enthusiastic support for France’s policy of ‘conquest’ and ‘rapine’ in Algeria. But the key point is different. Far from damping it down, the common waving of the flag of liberty further fueled international rivalry. After the February Revolution (de Revolutie van 1848 in Frankrijk. svh), Tocqueville declared that ‘starting from 1789’ France once again donned the ‘role’ of ‘savior’ ‘of peoples whose liberty is in danger.’ An ‘empire for liberty’ was thus evoked whose capital was Paris, and which tended to come into conflict with the ‘empire for liberty’ cherished by Jefferson.
participation in political life was not an essential element of liberty; and in the second place, labor relations and material living conditions pertained (behoren tot. svh) to an eminently private sphere, so that it was absurd and legitimate to seek to change them through political action.
Vandaar dat de afgelopen vier decennia overal in de ‘Westerse samenlevingen,’ die volgens Buruma ‘nu democratischer [zijn] dan ooit,’ een politiek is gevoerd van zowel dereguleren en privatiseren als bezuinigen op sociale uitgaven, een beleid dat voor de rijken zo succesvol is geweest dat anno 2019 ‘de 26 rijkste individuen op aarde evenveel bezitten als de armste helft van de mensheid.’ Met andere woorden: gezien de groeiende kloof tussen straatarmen en schatrijken is de bewering over een almaar toenemend democratisch gehalte van de westerse maatschappijen een klinkklare leugen. Desondanks blijft dit een oude en beproefde propagandatechniek van de elite en haar woordvoerders. Losurdo zet uiteen dat:
The realism with which the most lucid representatives of the liberal tradition analyzed the persistence of national rivalries, despite their shared reference to the ideal of liberty, had another aspect to it: the candid, avowed chauvinism presiding over the international policy program. This applies to Tocqueville in particular. The principle of consent by the governed as a criterion for legitimizing political power gave impetus to national movements in Europe as well. Prima facie, it would seem that the liberal world as a whole should have felt unequivocal (ondubbelzinnig. svh) sympathy for them. In this case, we are dealing not with colonial peoples, but with peoples regarded as more or less civilized, who primarily came into conflict with the Habsburg Empire that is, a power which had remained foreign to liberal development. Yet Tocqueville proved cool, or frankly hostile. A partial explanation of this attitude can be found in the social demands that contaminated such movements and imperiled the traditional liberal delimitation of the political sphere. The Mazzinian republic established in Rome was ‘the red republic’ and against it, and ‘the anarchical party in Rome and the rest of the world,’ no blows should be spared.
Ter verduidelijking: Giuseppe Mazzini was een republikein die maar één doel had: de eenwording van een democratisch en republikeins Italië. Mazzini stond aan het hoofd van de beweging La Giovine Italia (‘Het Jong Italië’) dat de unificatie van Italië voorstond, en daarnaast een overkoepelende samenwerking tussen alle naties in een democratische liga. Maar dit beviel Tocqueville, inmiddels de Franse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, geenszins. Losurdo merkte over hem op dat een '[i]deological fury impelled the French liberal to speak of his political opponents in Italy as ‘a whole category of political criminals.’ Daarnaast sprak hij ‘harsh and even cynical about one of the protagonists of the Hungarian national revolution.’ Losurdo:
Over and above rejection of radicalism, what motivated this attitude was ‘irritable patriotism,’ concerns of a chauvinistic kind, as emerges in particular from Tocqueville’s furious polemic against ‘our imbecile agents’ in Germany, who were guilty of not countering the prospect of that country’s ‘political unification’ more firmly and effectively. Certainly, ‘the population’s passion for this idea seems sincere and profound’; but ‘nothing would be more frightful for us.’ But did this not ride roughshod over (negeren van. svh) the liberal principle of self-government and consent by the governed as a criterion of the legitimacy of any government? That was a problem de Tocqueville did not pose. He hoped for ‘the victory of the princes’ and the Prussian army to put paid to (vernietigen van. svh) ’excessive decentralization’ that encouraged the swarming of ‘revolutionary breeding grounds.’
In relation to Italy, chauvinistic concerns should have played a more modest role. Yet in September 1848, in his capacity as Foreign Minister, Tocqueville summarized his position as follows: ‘preservation of the old territories... and real, significant changes in institutions.’ As we can see, there was no place for demands for national unity. And the principle of consent by the governed? Having invited the organization of ‘a Roman demonstration’ in favor of restoring the Pope’s temporal power, de Tocqueville continued as follows:
‘In my opinion, this is indispensable. And, in order to achieve this result, if we do not also have the reality, it is absolutely necessary to produce at least the semblance. This is the only way to connect the expedition with one of the main objectives we have always assigned it and on which the National Assembly has always wished to stand firm coming to the aid of the real will and hidden desires of the people of Rome.’
Tocqueville’s beleid is in dit opzicht te vergelijken met wat vandaag de dag ‘responsibility to protect’ heet, maar dat in werkelijkheid altijd en overal allereerst de belangen van de eigen elite consolideert, en doorgaans de landen waar de interventies plaatsvinden in chaos achterlaat. Dus wanneer de liberal Ian Buruma bepleit dat ‘we too must do the dirty work, and take the risk of being held accountable,’ en dat ‘wij’ Europeanen de Amerikanen niet al ‘het smerige werk’ kunnen laten doen, en zelf ‘het risico moeten lopen' dat wij voor onze oorlogsmisdaden ‘verantwoordelijk worden gesteld,’ voor het International Criminal Court in Den Haag dan is dit opnieuw een bewijs dat, net als in de negentiende eeuw, liberalen nog steeds met twee maten meten. Zij gaan er vanuit dat de vrijheid een mooi goed is, maar dan alleen voor de elite en haar pleitbezorgers, terwijl de rest genoegen moet nemen met een ondergeschikte positie. Het ten voorbeeld stellen van de Verenigde Staten, zoals Mak, Buruma, Heijne doen — evenals talloze andere mainstream-opiniemakers van de polderpers— is ronduit verwerpelijk, zeker ook vanwege Tocqueville’s waarschuwing ‘I know no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America,’ waaraan hij toevoegde:
In that immense crowd which throngs the avenues to power in the United States, I found very few men who displayed that manly candor (oprechtheid. svh) and masculine independence of opinion which frequently distinguished the Americans in former times.... It seems at first sight as if all the minds of the Americans were formed upon one model, so accurately do they follow the same route.
Meer hierover in de volgende aflevering.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten