Sustaining America's "Happiest Circumstances"

Unity is a matter of choice, not coercion.

In “Democracy in America”, Volume I (1835), Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:

“In America I saw the freest and most enlightened men placed in the happiest circumstances that the world affords, it seemed to me as if a cloud habitually hung upon their brow, and I thought them serious and almost sad, even in their pleasures.”

What de Tocqueville witnessed was a recognition of how difficult it is to maintain those "happiest circumstances" and time has done nothing to disabuse anyone of how truly difficult it is to keep people pulling on the oars together.

Presidential candidates always promise to “unify” the country in some form, roundly attacking their opponents for being “divisive” as if unification would remove America’s seemingly perpetual melancholy.

Now that the 2024 election cycle has begun, I doubt you will see or hear a Democrat candidate without hearing at least one of them say those very words – or something darn near close. President Obama was fond of saying “this is not who we are” – and like a good many Americans, I still don’t know what he meant by that - or even if he knew what it meant (or even cared what it meant).

So, what do they mean? Unify America around what? If something is “not who we are”, then who are we? How is it possible to unify a country of nearly 340 million individuals of all races, faiths, genders, and so on?

One must then ask if unification is possible or even desirable – and if it is, how much “unity” can a country withstand without falling into totalitarianism?

Alexis de Tocqueville noted that it was the nature of Americans to be at unrest. In Volume I of his “Democracy in America” (1835), he wrote:

“One can conceive of men having arrived at a certain degree of freedom that satisfies them entirely. They then enjoy their independence without restiveness and without ardor. But men will never found an equality that is enough for them.

Whatever a people’s efforts, it will not succeed in making conditions perfectly equal within itself; and if it had the misfortune to reach this absolute and complete leveling, the inequality of intellects would still remain, which, coming directly from God, will always escape the laws.”

How, therefore, can a diverse America – one far more diverse in 2022 than in de Tocqueville’s time – ever hope to find common ground?

If one accepts de Tocqueville’s observations as the truth, one can conclude that such restive diversity is the direct enemy of conformity, of unity. An individual can be satisfied in some things but rarely in many. He further observes that comity does not rest in the efforts to create equality, as such a thing cannot be created through law.

The answer lies in de Tocqueville’s words – Americans are so diverse and independent that unity will only be found in the smallest number of things; therefore, it is only achievable through agreement and fealty to the smallest possible set of principles that protect and benefit all. All other matters must be left to the individual and be guided by his own set of principles…and as long as one’s exercise of those principles do not interfere with another’s free exercise; people must resist the temptation to turn to the law as a balm for every other irritation or disagreement.

Obama’s admonition of “that’s not who we are”, as are Biden's calls for "unity" as he slams half of America as domestic terrorists, was never about principles upon which we all agree; it was an attempt to shame Americans who didn’t share his views of the country.

Any candidate who spouts off about “diversity” – a term equally as vacuous as the aforementioned phrase – and then tries to pull the “unity” card is being equally facetious and tendentious.

The only way true unity can be achieved is to get government back in the can and bounded by the least number of laws possible and let people live lives independent of government control and coercion.

After all, unity is a matter of choice, not of coercion.