The Book Club: Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville with Pete Peterson | The Book Club
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Could anyone have predicted the future of America 200 years ago? Alexis de Tocqueville foresaw a society fraught with materialism and “soft despotism" in his classic study of self-governance, freedom, and equality, Democracy in America. Pete Peterson, Dean of the Pepperdine School of Public Policy, and Michael Knowles discuss what we can learn from de Tocqueville’s prophetic words.
#bookclub #prageru #michaelknowles #democracyinamerica
🚨 PragerU is experiencing severe censorship on Big Tech platforms. Go to www.prageru.com/ to watch our videos free from censorship!
SUBSCRIBE today 👉 www.prageru.co...
WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. thank you.
Sick of people not understanding this.
De Toqueville knew that a republic is not the same as a democracy, especially greek-like pure democracy. The title was using terms that were familiar. Seeing republicanism as a divergence from democracy (the American way of doing democracy as some say) can be useful.
@@libertyandjusticeforme1236 True, but calling America a democracy can be quite destructive it isn't truly a democracy or even a representative democracy. The LIE of "democracy" has led to *_erosion of our Republic!_* In the early 20th century it was the 17th Amendment which *_robbed states of their representation_* and gave it to the people, when they already had representation in the House. Today, that erosion from *_poor understanding_* continues with the push to eliminate the Electoral College.
@keepitreal, I agree! Too many people do not understand this or *_misunderstand_* it. This has led to numerous erosions to our Republic and Constitution, like the 17th Amendment and the modern push to eliminate the Electoral College. *_What most people don't understand is that the Founding Fathers feared Concentrated Power._* And democracy is *_"Power to the People,"_* which, by the way, is a *_Communist slogan!_*
In reality, our government is *_Power FROM the People._* And power is dispersed amongst many centers -- the people, the local governments, the states and the federal government. The erosion has taken the form of concentrating more and more power in the Federal Executive and in the people. And the people, being emotional, uneducated beings (by design) can easily be controlled by the "new" technology called "Marketing." So, in reality, you get virtually all power in the hands of the Federal Executive. This is a distortion and corruption of our Republic and the Constitution of these United States.
A Republic is a type of democracy, just not a direct one
My favorite quote: "Unlimited power is in itself a bad and dangerous thing. Human beings are not competent to exercise it with discretion. God alone can be omnipotent, because his wisdom and his justice are always equal to his power. There is no power on earth so worthy of honor in itself or clothed with rights so sacred that I would admit its uncontrolled and all-predominant authority. When I see that the right and the means of absolute command are conferred on any power whatever, be it called a people or a king, an aristocracy or a democracy, a monarchy or a republic, I say there is the germ of tyranny, and I seek to live elsewhere, under other laws."
Democracy leave it open for tyranny. That's why we are a representative republic
Yes. De Toqueville knew that a republic is not the same as a democracy, especially greek-like pure democracy. The title was using terms that were familiar. Seeing republicanism as a divergence from democracy (the American way of doing democracy as some say) can be useful.
I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there. I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her fertile fields and boundless forests, and it was not there. I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her rich mines and her vast world commerce, and it was not there. I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her public school system and her institutions of learning, and it was not there. I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution, and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great. Alexis de Tocqueville
Anything about God or religion in America has been edited out for school use.
Unfortunately Tocqueville never wrote this in his book Democracy in America. It's a misattribution to Tocqueville. And in Democracy in America Tocqueville actually argues for other reasons about what makes America "great". Such as self-interest.
I'm reading "Democracy in America" now and I have to keep reminding myself that it was written almost 200 years ago!
Read it in 1994. When I was 15.
Glad it's catching on.
Love your show..!!!!! Continue
Well done, gentlemen. It is fascinating how brilliant and spot on Alexis de Tocqueville was.
This book has been on my 'to read' list for several years but I've hesitated due to its length. I've just adjusted my book list and scheduled this one as my next in line to read.
Love the book reviews. Thanks!
PragerU
This is one of my favorite books to research when I earned my history and political science bachelor degrees.
I hope you will include “John Adams” by the great historian David McCullough, please. Or at least one of McCullough’s works.
Michael Knowles has praised the historian several time on his Daily Wire podcast.
Keep up the great work - love these shows
The stories of poverty to wealth started not in the 1800's. They started in the 1600's.
By the standard of the times, the farmer barely surviving on his own land, compared to his English, lord-dependent counterpart, was wealthy -- and he knew it. Washington's men knew why they were fighting.
My recommendations would be One Flew over the Cuckoos Nest, The Giver, and Fahrenheit 451. Love this series!
It's a good review!
One huge omission (Knowles', or de Tocqueville's? - not sure) is the subject of business. What transformed America from an agricultural backwater in 1800 to an industrial giant in 1900 was partly that government was too small to prevent it, but predominantly that people strove to achieve it, plowing back profits in a true capitalist manner.
How could de Tocqueville miss that? Was it not yet evident by 1830?
It was the industrial revolution, just like the one being forced on us by the globalists of the WEF and more.
I take it that Tocqueville having grown up past the French Revolution close in hindsight when he wrote the book may have influenced his disposition towards wealth and luxury, and thus influenced the concepts of trade and business to be rather different to how the Anglo-American view and dispositions have developed when they encountered the early developments of industrialization.
However, I am just assuming, that due to the harsh history of living under kings and clergy who conducted business at the expense of the wider population, the bad experiences from that may have been a barrier to that consideration on the role of business in French discourse.
In mainland Europe at the time, aristocracy prevailed and was well entrenched; and they were the only section of society that seemed to have the freedom to do business as opposed to the regular folk who were farmers, laborers, or artisans who historically fell under the ward of nobility and aristocracy, i.e. serfs.
This feudalism and monarchism was first overruled in the UK during the Glorious Revolution, which raised the power of parliament which itself is a step towards democracy in the modern sense we know today. And that tradition was transported to the colonies and after the American Revolution the steps continued further beyond a parliamentary system. In fact, I think the way American government was created back then was in response or repudiation of how the British ruled, and the reasons why can go without saying.
France at the time had their similar revolution to a more democratic system much later than the UK and the US, so wealth distribution by a free market which the US and UK developed did not happen in France to as large a degree. The US and UK created a democracy that allowed for more people to do business and create their own private enterprises whilst France lagged behind on that.
Therefore, Tocqueville's context such as it was may perhaps explain the limited nature on the subject of business you point out. When Tocqueville made his observations, the UK had a society closer to a free market for almost a century, the US had one for a few decades, France did not have that head start to have people fully grasp the concept as deeply as the UK and US in the 1830s. This is my guess however as I see it.
Robert Nisbet’s The Quest for Community should be featured.
Read F. A. Hayek's essay "Why I am not a conservative." He makes a the argument that socialism and conservatism share some similarities.
What do I need with twelve brand-new rules, when the original ten were already serving their purpose.
Materialism is not what is causing this countries losing battle with Democracy. We only became known as a Democratic society, and not what the founding fathers referred to as a REPUBLIC, only after the CIVIL WAR when the States lost most of their power to self Govern.
They need to make his trip into a movie
Stop complaining over word usage-“democracy” or “constitutional republic”. Just read the book! It’s a classic.
Exactly. De Toqueville knew that a republic is not the same as a democracy, especially greek-like pure democracy. The title was using terms that were familiar. Seeing republicanism as a divergence from democracy (the American way of doing democracy as some say) can be useful.
The Bible warned us thousands of years ago. Read the Book of Daniel. Do not get too comfortable and do not change your ways & traditions. Orthodox Jews and the Amish understand this well.
Another homerun Michael Knowles... excellent...
You all need to learn the difference between a REPUBLIC and a democracy. Go back and see what the Founding Fathers thought of a democracy.
“In short, America was founded not as a democracy but as a constitutional Republic. We pledge allegiance to the REPUBLIC for which our flag stands, not to a democracy. The Constitution requires a “republican form of government” for all states, but does not mention democracy, and neither does the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution is a binding contract, specifically enumerating limited powers which the federal government can legally exercise, prohibiting it from exercising any powers not granted in the contract. It denies federal officials the power to do whatever they claim to be necessary for the general welfare. Federal action not clearly authorized by the Constitution is illegal even if approved by an overwhelming majority of the people, because all the elastic powers of government are left with the States.” Dan Smoot, April 18, 1966. You would be soundly defeated in any debate on the type of government they established and on the merits of a republic versus a democracy.
When did you quit your godfather's job, Michael.
the bible says it. in revelation
Constitutional Republic ???
De Toqueville knew that a republic is not the same as a democracy, especially greek-like pure democracy. The title was using terms that were familiar. Seeing republicanism as a divergence from democracy (the American way of doing democracy as some say) can be useful.
@@libertyandjusticeforme1236 The Greeks had more slaves than free men. Women could not vote, yet this is considered a democracy. The demos were very selective, maybe the Greeks were right, lol. This is the same way how the United States started. You had to have skin in the game you had to have something to lose because if you didn’t you could vote the treasury to yourself.
SO THIS WHAT DEMOCRACY WORKING LOOK LIKE 🤔,THAT WHAT PEOPLESAY WE ARE DEMOCRACY, WE ARE IN A REPUBLIC CONSTITUTION, BUT DEMOCRACY SOUNDS BETTERMORE GROWUP?
Based on the protest chants, I thought it looked like insane people screaming inanities demanding that freedom be destroyed and madness codified.
@@Globeguy1337 WHAT ISN'T IT?