Tocqueville on warfare
In his Oct. 1 column decrying American conformity, economics professor Uwe Reinhardt resorts to a long-beloved tactic among my fellow political theorists, namely the invocation of the name of Alexis de Tocqueville in support of a critical or even condemnatory view of American democracy. While I welcome members of any discipline to come to a greater appreciation of Tocqueville, whom I regard as the greatest theorist of democracy in any age, I also invite professor Reinhardt to continue his reading of Tocqueville beyond those few passages that were pointed out to him by his daughter.
He might be surprised — and even discomfited — by what he finds. What Tocqueville portrays in his lengthy analysis of democracy in America is a society concerned almost above all with material comfort and individual satisfaction — a polity peopled by beings not unlike the "homo economicus" that most economists assume to study. Despite Professor Reinhardt's fears, Tocqueville does not portray a warlike society in which the peaceful minority must fear persecution from a militaristic majority. As Tocqueville describes in a later passage in Democracy in America, "Men who live in democratic times do not naturally have a military spirit: they sometimes take it up when they are brought despite themselves onto the fields of battle; but to rise en masse by oneself and to expose oneself voluntarily to the miseries of war . . . is an option to which man in democracies does not resolve himself." Part of the democratic spirit that informs the "tyranny of the majority," or "political correctness" as professor Reinhardt prefers to call it, would seem to be this preference for individual comfort and plenty rather than the self-sacrifice called upon by military undertakings or even non-military civic endeavors. At one point Tocqueville even praises war inasmuch as it "almost always enlarges the thought of a people and elevates its heart. There are cases where only it can arrest the excessive developments of certain penchants that equality naturally gives rise to."
Given Tocqueville's analysis, professor Reinhardt will certainly now wish to commit himself to an active resistance to the modern democratic proclivities of individualism, restlessness born of unlimited economic opportunity, political passivity, pacifism induced by comfort and the desire for a centralized welfare state that Tocqueville sees at the core of the "tyranny of the majority."
Perhaps, given his criticism toward several students who called for a military response to the terrorist attacks — namely that they should hasten to sign up for military service themselves, professor Reinhardt implicitly approves of a form of universal military or civic service that accords with the broad outlines of Tocqueville's calls for civic commitment? Or could it be that professor Reinhardt was invoking Tocqueville's name in the service of his own position without knowledge of the full implications of Tocqueville's analysis? Patrick J. Deneen Assistant Professor of Politics
Boosting a healthy cynicism
I would certainly fit your description of the "collegiate activism addict" protesting against the low wages of University workers and voicing my concerns about war. I also generally agree with Michael Frazer GS that an opinion simply for the sake of opposition has no point. Yet at the same time, I was raised in a country where one learns to be alarmed at blindly following the crowd.
In Germany, I have become suspicious of both individual opinions that claim to express feelings and beliefs of entire groups or nations, as well as declarative statements that work for the sake of order and conformity. Catchy concepts such as "moral progress" or more clumsy ones such as the "relatively just society" reveal sweeping assumptions that are not necessarily real or true.
Ironically, Frazer's approach is not any different from the beliefs and ways of these "habitual activists" that he describes. As the self-proclaimed speaker for his so-called majority, he simply opposes the minority for the sake of opposition, just as he describes the "collegiate activism addicts" who are opposing the rest of the country. He seems equally unsatisfied with being satisfied and thus seeks out the "addicted minority" as the "eye-catching evil to combat."
A healthy suspicion of the majority opinion, however, does not lead to an automatic stance of opposition, but rather to an attempt to spot and avoid the Mitleufer effect. It is a more systematic and alternative re-examination of conclusions already drawn. In the case of America's "new" war I have concluded, and I speak for myself, that peace is a more powerful option.
Edward Said warns in a recent article he published in the Observer that more "drum-beating" will further impede the understanding of America's role in the world. He points to the average Americans' misconception of the country as a "sleeping giant rather than a superpower almost constantly at war, or in some sort of conflict, all over the Islamic domains." Said concludes that "anti-Americanism in this context is not based on a hatred of modernity or technology-envy: It is based on a narrative of concrete interventions and specific depredations."
War in this case has not been an alternative, but a daily reality, for everyone except for most of Americans. This "new" war did not start on Sept. 11, but is an old one brought to American soil.
Professor Frederick Hitz '61, former inspector general at the CIA, points out that a "lack of opportunity is still a fundamental fuel for terrorism" and that relief efforts are necessary. He states that "we can't consider ourselves to be fully dealing with this problem unless we are dealing with the poverty and the hopelessness that surrounds people who are bent on this destructive path and are looking for new recruits [for terrorism]."
Violence as a policy has failed the United States in its old Middle Eastern war by causing destruction, lack of opportunities and hopelessness. The old war created the conditions for the Sept. 11 attack. In view of this fact new violence will simply continue to fuel an environment for terrorism and anti-American sentiment. Peace is the more powerful alternative for change. Jill Janaina Otto '02
Grad students initiate change
I am writing in response to the Sept. 28 article on graduate-undergraduate relations entitled, "Graduate students without football tickets express ambivalence over role on campus."
Dean John Wilson is correct in stating that there have been positive steps taken in the past few years to increase graduate student participation in campus life. However, these steps have not been due to actions initiated from above, as Dean Wilson's comments would suggest. Instead, they have largely been the result of pressure from student-led efforts.
One important result of these student-led efforts was the creation of the Graduate Student Liaison program by the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students. Under the program, organizations are encouraged to create liaison positions in order to improve their outreach and support for graduate student members. Other steps include efforts by eating clubs such as Terrace to have graduate fellows and the decision of 2 Dickinson Co-op to have graduate-student members. Finally, Lockhart Hall was seen as a possible site for graduate-undergraduate social interaction. However, the administration has prevented this from happening thanks to proximity cards that create an effective 'electronic moat' between undergraduate and graduate students. Karthick Ramakrishnan GS
Read More
USG's recent statement failed to properly represent student interests
Arman Nemati"From my experiences within USG and from seeing what other student governments have done, I find USG’s inability to directly condemn the University’s arrests to be deeply disappointing."
"From my experiences within USG and from seeing what other student governments have done, I find USG’s inability to directly condemn the University’s arrests to be deeply disappointing."
What’s the rush? Keep the old final exam schedule.
Lizbeth ReyesThe new final exam schedule is detrimental both to students’ academic achievement and mental health during the exam period. Students’ well-being and academic success should take priority over efficiency, thus the University should reinstate the old final exam schedule.
The new final exam schedule is detrimental both to students’ academic achievement and mental health during the exam period. Students’ well-being and academic success should take priority over efficiency, thus the University should reinstate the old final exam schedule.
Is Hamas deserving of Princetonians’ solidarity?
Jacob Colchamiro“Why are some of America’s brightest young minds endorsing as justifiable resistance the murder of innocent lives, and the taking of hundreds of hostages? Princeton protesters are mistaken to think that Israel is not right in defending itself. Israel’s war is a case-study in a just war.”
“Why are some of America’s brightest young minds endorsing as justifiable resistance the murder of innocent lives, and the taking of hundreds of hostages? Princeton protesters are mistaken to think that Israel is not right in defending itself. Israel’s war is a case-study in a just war.”
