Who are we as Americans?

We Americans are obsessed with defining who we are culturally, politically or geographically. We could travel to countless numbers of places in the U.S. steeped in identity culture.

The trick is when does our group identity, if it ever does, become “American” – whatever that is. Whatever we are, we are a moving target. The ongoing cultural synthesis that seems to define America is undergoing more scrutiny of late because of Hispanic migration and political divisiveness – both encouraging even more populist carping about our “two Americas.”

It might sound silly and a waste of time to read what a 25-year-old aristocratic Frenchman thought about us in 1835, but in some respects Alexis de Tocqueville might be more relevant than presidents Andrew Jackson or John Adams, both of whom he met. So it seemed worthwhile to examine Tocqueville’s conclusions about us in 1835; and if they bore some resemblance to new millennium America. Strange as it may seem, his two volume “Democracy in America” has had broader acceptance around the U.S. as college texts than anything these two iconic presidents ever wrote. It is ponderous, difficult to read, having been translated from the stylish old French of the early 1800s. Yet some of his observations really get you thinking.

He was an intellectual during those years of political upheaval in France. America had been a political experiment in democracy, so it was logical for him to explore and write about those very issues relevant to France then, which surprisingly resonate as hot button issues today in the U.S.: democracy, class structure, race, religion, the role of government in our lives and so on.

Tocqueville was clearly writing for a French audience of that time that was unsure of its own political future, but at times he sounds eerily like Nostradamus, another intellectual Frenchman from the 15th century. Tocqueville saw things about us then that still seem relevant today.

Tocqueville came over when the U.S. was about 50 years old, which was after early English colonization, and during the period of northern and western European immigration. This predated the massive influx of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. So one has to wonder, to what extent have we changed as a people? He touches upon that, noting, “Americans had the chances of birth in their favor; and their forefathers imported … equality of condition and intellect into the country …The early settlers bequeathed to their descendants, customs, manners and opinions which contribute most to the success of a republican form of government …”

He also observed that the U.S. was “favored” by not having any “neighbors.” Well, times have changed. (Bear in mind that in Europe at that time kings enjoyed the sport of invading their neighbors, and redrawing boundaries.) Mexico, with a population of only 600,000 – about that of Sarasota-Bradenton – wasn’t a threat then. Texas had just gained its independence as a republic.

“The immigrants who fixed themselves on the shores of America at the beginning of the 17{+t}{+h} century severed the democratic principle from all the principles which repressed it in Europe and transplanted it unalloyed to the new world. It has been allowed to spread in perfect freedom,” referring to the democratic revolution as “irresistible … the most permanent tendency … found in history.”

But what clue do we have that we are still carrying on that American spirit 175 years later? Tocqueville noted, “Americans care about politics. Almost the only pleasure of which an American has any ideas, is to take a part in the government … attend public meetings, listen to political harangues.”

Boy, if that isn’t the truth today. We go from one contentious election to another without catching a breath. And this: “In America there are numerous factions, but no conspiracies.” (In the European sense at that time.) Still true. Every week we read about another coalition for or against something. Nobody can tell what they stand for by their name or even keep up with their acronyms. He goes on, “There is nothing more striking to a person newly arrived in the United States, than the kind of tumultuous agitation he finds in civil society …” Maybe we have carried on the culture of that day after all. We are still at each other’s throats.

He also was not a fan of American “national pride,” grousing, “Nothing is more embarrassing … than this irritable patriotism of the Americans.” Except for the “weather” a “foreigner can’t speak freely.” This is surely evident in 2009. Left-wingers – the “international wing” of the Democratic Party are likewise irritated with right-wing flag waving patriotism.

One observation he made that seems right on – given Iraq – successful or not: Democracy is “better adapted for peace rather than “prolonged endurance” of war … People are more apt to feel, than to reason … They do not have a view to the future.” He was very concerned about the “prodigious actual authority of the majority; it can “crush those in its path … This state of things is fatal in itself and dangerous for the future.” And he believed that in the United States, even as now, “the “poor rule … the rich have always some reason to dread the abuses of their power.” (The “populist persuasion,” a tool of socialist politicians, is still alive and well.)

Tocqueville optimistically observed: “A great advantage of the American consists in their being able to commit faults which they may afterwards repair.” Given that he was a well educated elitist, it is no surprise that he punctuated that with the observation, “The men who are entrusted with the direction of public affairs are frequently inferior.” Interestingly, he thought the federal government was weakening; that “America is preeminently the country of provincial and municipal government.” While this may still be true today, it is because Democratic “big city” governments are bankrupt and are in league with each other to tap the federal government for all the cash they can get. To that extent, they like big government.

Tocqueville believed that “A national character is forming … a common type.” History seems to teach us that – strange as it seems – that each successive generation of immigrants “Americanized” with that same “national character,” as he defined it in 1835. The last wave ending in about 1920 was absorbed into the “Greatest Generation and since then the number of foreign born plummeted on a descending curve to a low of 4.7 percent in 1970. Ironically, the “Boomers” are more native born than not, and I have argued represent a cultural change – the first American counter-culture. They are now the shakers and the movers at precisely the time when the number of immigrants has tripled to historic levels.

What would Tocqueville say in the 21{+s}{+t} century? Well, Texas, a Republican state that is currently regarded as our most successful large state economically, has the largest population of Mexican “colinias,” which as the Republican governor says contains “Texas’ neediest citizens.” Demographers say they will outnumber Texan Anglos by 2034 when the state is expected to then vote Democratic along with California and New York.

But that’s what we voted for: Change.

John Reiniers, a regular columnist for Hernando Today, lives in Spring Hill.