Democratic Despotism

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville explores American democracy discovering the importance of the tyranny of the majority and how that manifests and shapes various social states including individualism. Tocqueville distinguishes individualism from egoism, noting that while egoism derives from immaturity and passion, individualism is rooted in the desire to defend yourself. He writes that individualism “disposes [people] not to think of their fellows and turns indifference into a sort of public virtue” (Tocqueville 510). In this sense, individualism is not inherently selfish, but it fosters a sense of detachment from communal responsibilities. This isolationist tendency, Tocqueville argues, can ultimately pave the way for democratic despotism.   

The form of despotism Tocqueville refers to is not characterized by a traditional tyrant wielding unchecked power. Instead, it manifests in a more subtle, insidious way, one that is “more widespread and milder, it would degrade men rather than torment them.” (Tocqueville 691) In this version, individuals withdraw into themselves losing any sense of belonging and involvement in a political community. This paternalistic form of control infantilizes individuals, stripping them of their agency not by force, but through ignorance. People become so disconnected from civic life that they are unaware of their own disempowerment, living in a state comparable to that of children under the guardianship of an all-knowing parent. This passivity prevents citizens from managing their own lives and contributing to the health of their communities. As individualism grows, local communities weaken. Society becomes fragmented, eroding the foundations of a thriving democracy. While individualism isolates people, it also unites them in pursuit of homogenous goals, fostering a tyrannical majority complicit in the rise of democratic despotism.  

At the heart of American democracy is the notion of "the people," who represent the collective will and power of the general populace. In the democratic system, decisions are made by the majority, which is seen as the voice of the people. Tocqueville explains how the majority rule introduces a significant problem: the possibility of the tyranny of the majority. Tocqueville suggests that because decisions are made by the largest group, the system can oppress minority interests. This means that rather than having a truly egalitarian society where all voices are heard and respected, the majority can use its power to enforce its preferences and values, often at the expense of minorities. The tyranny of the majority manifests in many big and small ways in America, including, paradoxically, individualism. At first glance, individualism—the idea that each person is responsible for their success and pursues their path—seems to promote personal freedom. However, Tocqueville argues that individualism can lead to conformity as people follow the same trajectory striving to attain success.   

With conformity and isolation, individuals no longer interact with each other in the spirit that Tocqueville admired in New England townships, one where citizens actively worked together to address common challenges. The townships exemplified a model of democracy that fostered a strong sense of community responsibility and interdependence. Tocqueville was concerned that individualism would weaken the social fabric by making people indifferent toward public life, losing the civic engagement necessary to sustain democratic institutions. A strong sense of self and desires existed within each individual in the township but was complemented with unity. The disjointedness found in the state of individualism could lead to the rise in democratic despotism in which the state fills the void left by disengaged citizens.   

Furthermore, trust and camaraderie with your neighbors were essential in the township, but with individualism, people grow wary and suspicious of their neighbors. This perfectly primes a despot to rise to power as “a despot will lightly forgive his subjects for not loving him, provided they do not love one another” (Tocqueville 509). A despot benefits from division, isolation, and distrust among citizens. As long as people do not unite or feel connected to one another, a despot can more easily consolidate power. Simply put, with greater individualism in American society, democratic despotism becomes more likely.   

Whether due to indifference or distrust, when individuals choose to prioritize their self-interest, overcoming the collective action dilemma becomes impossible. In such a society, the absence of cooperative habits makes the population vulnerable to despotic power, as people lack the social cohesion needed to resist it. Tocqueville reframes self-interest, a core aspect of individualism, not as an individual concern but as a community-wide dilemma. This is why he advocates for the cultivation of small, everyday sacrifices as essential to a healthy democracy. These sacrifices are not “sublime” or transformative but rather habitual actions that serve both the individual and the collective good. Tocqueville emphasizes that these sacrifices are not necessarily for moral reasons, but rather individualistic ones, "American moralists do not pretend that one must sacrifice himself for his fellows because it is a fine thing to do so. But they boldly assert that such sacrifice is as necessary for the man who makes it as for the beneficiaries” (Tocqueville 525). These sacrifices can be considered habits and they go beyond just social welfare. As Allen asserts, “habits stabilize and shape the public sphere” (Allen 10) Habits reinforce political and social structures. Thus, when habits change to individualistic ones, so will the political state of the nation.   

While individualism can lead to the descent into despotism, absolute power also becomes the death of individualism. A despot can manipulate individualism to maintain control, often through fear-mongering and creating division. Today, Donald Trump employs hateful rhetoric against immigrants in the United States. He points to this group as a scapegoat for national problems such as unemployment. This feeds into the defense and distrust aspects of individualism as people want to protect their self-interest, whether it be national security, the economy, or cultural preservation. This powers the tyranny of the majority as they collectively turn against immigrants. The irony here is that, while individualism drives the initial division, people are no longer acting as independent individuals; instead, they become part of a collective effort to suppress a perceived common enemy, abandoning true individualism in favor of conformity to the leader’s narrative.   

While it is true that unchecked individualism can lead to a breakdown in social cohesion, modern democratic societies have safeguards in place that mitigate the risk of descending into mild despotism. One key reason for this is political polarization. Today, rather than a single unified tyranny of the majority, there are multiple competing factions. Political polarization, while problematic in its own right, creates a balance of power between opposing forces, each of which checks the power of the other. In such a system, it becomes harder for a single group to seize total control or impose a despot because there is no unified majority that can dominate the political landscape. Thus, even though the two parties deepen divides, it still allows for there to be a sense of community on both sides combatting the isolation found in individualism.   

Tocqueville’s insights, while written almost 190 years ago, still strike as remarkably timely, highlighting a core tension between personal freedom and collective responsibility. Individualism is woven into the fabric of the United States and its route to despotism is one that every individual should be aware of. While Tocqueville’s idealized vision of New England townships is not necessarily the end goal, it serves as a reminder that a balance between individual ambition and civic responsibility is essential. By actively participating in democratic processes—voting, engaging in open discourse, and fostering connections within our communities—while still striving to achieve our personal goals, we can create a society that values both individual liberties and the collective good.  

Sources:  

Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville  

Talking to Strangers by Danielle Allen 

Authors Note:

Given the current political state of the United States, this essay rings as particularly salient. I find myself often echoing Tocqueville’s words serving as almost a litmus test for the democratic republic.