Chapter 4 the second part
In the first part, I mainly discussed the various institutions and laws of the United States and its political organization in the book.However, in order to truly understand the American democratic system, it is far from enough to rely on these investigations. We also need to understand a more fundamental and fundamental thing, that is, the power of the people.It is the highest power in the United States, and it can change or abolish the systems and organizations mentioned above according to its own will.
Then I come to the second part of the book, in which I examine the power of the American people in detail.And explain the nature and characteristics of this power above the law, how it is exercised, what factors affect its progress, what impact it has on the United States, and its future fate.
The people of the United States, in addition to electing legislators and law enforcers, will also be members of the juries that punish lawbreakers.All institutions are based on democracy and function for it.People's deputies are completely elected by the people and are re-elected every year. They must be loyal to the people and accept their supervision.
The people are the fundamental and dominant force in American society.The development direction of society and the country is completely determined by the opinions, preferences, interests, and emotions of the people. Their influence on society and the country is all-round, and no force can do anything about it.
In my opinion, political parties can be divided into two categories: large parties and small parties.The so-called big parties are those parties that regard general principles and ideas as more important than individual facts and people.Noble behavior is the general characteristic of this type of political party, giving people a solemn and serious image, courageous actions, and pragmatic beliefs.It deftly conceals the private interests of party representatives under a veil of public interest.On the contrary, small parties are generally those parties that have no political beliefs and lofty goals, and have marked their character with the brand of naked selfishness.Although they are always fierce and passionate in words, they are indecisive in action and do not play much role.
Generally speaking, although the big party will bring social upheaval and cause it to fall into division, and sometimes even take on the function of disrupting the original social order, it can finally save the whole society from the fire.Small parties harass the society, corrupt the atmosphere, and cause social disorder without benefiting the society.
At the end of the War of Independence, there were two mainstream views in American society: one advocated limiting the power of the people, and the other hoped to expand the power of the people indefinitely.Although the two opinions are in dispute, it is not violent in the least.Moreover, the two parties have the same views on some major issues, and neither of them wants to subvert the original social order in order to defeat the other.The faction that regards restricting the opinions of the people as its goal strives to use its own ideas as the main basis for formulating the Federal Constitution, hence the name Federalist Party.The faction that ardently supported freedom established the Republican Party.
Because freedom and democracy are loved by the American people, the Federalists have always been in the minority, but almost all the great figures created by the War of Independence were members of the Federalist Party.In particular, the United States was facing the danger of the disintegration of the Federation at that time, and people were all worried that society would fall into anarchy. Coupled with the fact that the Federalists had extensive moral power, people sided with the Federalists one after another.The Federalists presided over the country for ten or twelve years, during which time they applied their principles to the government of the country.
However, the Federalist Party's ruling did not make the Republicans depressed. Their ideas and strength became stronger and stronger. In 1801, they finally won the ruling power.Thomas Jefferson became president, and he won widespread support by virtue of his good name, popularity, and outstanding talents.Since the Republican Party came to power, the Federalist Party, which became the opposition party, has never recovered.The overwhelmingly dominant majority opposed the Federalists, feeling pessimistic and disappointed as they felt they were becoming an increasingly insignificant minority.Over time, the Federalist Party, isolated at home, split into two parts: one part joined the Republican Party, and the other parted from it.
Today, big political parties no longer exist in the United States, there are only a large number of small parties.They follow behind public opinion, showing differences everywhere on some trivial issues, and elevating them into different political opinions.In the past, it was easy for people to establish a political party; but now, it is no longer an easy task.
But there are still ambitious people who try to establish political parties.They know that it is impossible to pull down the people on the stage by themselves.Thus, in the United States, the full range of politicians' tricks is on display in party building.As a politician, he must be clear about his own interests, be good at gathering the same interests around himself, and respect a theory or principle that is consistent with the organization he will establish as a banner, and start working hard for his own interests Campaigns are launched to give new organizations the freedom to develop.From then on, a new political party was born in the political arena.
Once the balance between parties is broken in a multi-party country, and one political party becomes a dominant majority, it will suppress its political opponents and serve its interests in the name of society.The repressed party temporarily retreated into silence.Since then, the whole world has presented a lifeless tranquility.Under the illusion of "unifying the world" of this kind of thought, undercurrents are surging, hiding deep differences and substantial confrontations.
When the Democratic Party of the United States replaces the Republican Party as the majority, the power of the country falls into its hands, and the political party constantly changes the people's conditions and laws of the entire country according to its own ideas and principles.
Freedom of the press has a great influence on the opinion of the people, the mood of society, and the reformation of laws in a country.In this chapter, I will focus on examining the impact of American freedom of the press on American politics.
The existence of publication censorship is an absurd and dangerous thing in a country where the theory of popular sovereignty is popularized and enforced.When every citizen has the right to manage the country, it must be guaranteed that they have the right to identify and make choices about various opinions and behaviors in society.Freedom of the press and popular sovereignty are inseparable, but censorship of the press and universal suffrage are antithetical to each other and cannot coexist for long in the same political system in the same country.Never in the history of the United States has anyone dared to propose restrictions on the freedom of the press.
It is rare to see such incidents in the United States where the judiciary punishes the press.This is because once Americans accepted the doctrine of popular sovereignty, they immediately applied it to every corner of society.They never faltered or backtracked in their implementation of the doctrine of popular sovereignty.They firmly believe that attacking existing laws is not a crime as long as they are not violently violated.In their eyes, it is impossible for the courts to completely control the newspapers. Due to the expressive skills of human beings in language, they can always escape the control of judicial authorities.Therefore, to effectively deal with the press, there must be a court that is not influenced by the surrounding public opinion and is committed to maintaining the existing order.And the object of punishment by this court is not the language that expresses freedom of the press, but the motives for using this language.If the courts functioned as instruments of social despotism, they could have eliminated the writer along with his works, and it would be superfluous to pursue freedom of the press.
The solution to this problem in the freedom of the press is either to allow or to submit, and there is no other choice.To enjoy the benefits of a free press, one must endure the inevitable pains it creates.It is impossible to enjoy benefits and avoid pain at the same time.And this is precisely the fantasy that a country often harbors.
In the United States, there are not many big cities, and manpower and material resources are scattered across the vast land.The light of wisdom possessed by the people is not gathered in the center and scattered around, but they shine separately and complement each other.Americans have never stipulated the general policy of thought and work in any aspect. They are polycentric, which all stems from the influence of local self-government, and the law has played a strengthening role.
In the United States, it is extremely easy to create a newspaper, because there is no need to apply for registration or license from the relevant departments.Any newspaper can survive as long as readers subscribe to it.This has led to an unbelievably large number of journals in the United States.The excessive dispersion of publishing power also reduces the influence of various newspapers.There is a principle in American political science that the only way to reduce the influence of the press is to increase the variety of the press.
Almost any town in the United States has its own newspapers for its residents, but so many newspapers have never united to support or oppose the government, but are committed to establishing their own opinions and showing their abilities.This has made it impossible for American newspapers to gather into a torrent that can overwhelm all solid levees, to establish order and to act in unison.
At the same time, it is precisely because it is not difficult to run a newspaper that it leads to excessive competition among newspapers and periodicals, and it is impossible for any kind of newspaper to obtain huge economic profits. As a result, many savvy and capable industrialists are reluctant to set foot in this field.
And freedom of the press has not always been a positive influence on the United States.Some Americans have abused this freedom.For example, it is a common practice of American journalists to stimulate the emotions of those they oppose, harass their private lives, and expose their shortcomings and flaws with crude and direct writing.Sermon handouts were never their thing.
While we deeply regret this abuse of the freedom of the press, the press remains a powerful and influential power in American society.It not only spreads political life, but also reveals political secrets, and often pushes some politicians to the court of public opinion judgment.It can attract people's attention to a certain doctrine or theory, wave the flag for a political party, and enable political parties to communicate with each other through it as a medium.Especially when a large number of newspapers advance together on a subject, its influence becomes irresistible, and any kind of public opinion that is against it will eventually succumb to their blows.
The United States is the easiest country in the world to establish political associations, and the United States is also a country that closely combines the establishment of political associations with various purposes.In addition to some permanent associations established in the name of townships, counties, and cities, there are various associations established and developed by citizens on the principle of individual voluntariness everywhere.Why are Americans so keen on establishing various political associations?
The reason starts with the unique sentiments of the United States.Americans have established the concept of self-reliance and hard work since childhood.They generally distrust administrative authorities and do not turn to them unless they are absolutely helpless.They have gradually developed their own self-independence habits since they were in elementary school.They will formulate rules when playing the game, so that the whole game will be carried out under the guidance of the rules, and those who violate the rules will be punished.As adults, they apply this habit to all aspects of social life.For example, when there is a traffic jam due to a road failure, before someone reports the accident to the competent authority, people have spontaneously organized to study the solution.They will temporarily select an executive agency, and under the organization of this agency, they will troubleshoot themselves.During the celebration, people will automatically set up an activity group, so that the whole celebration will be carried out in an orderly manner under the leadership of the group.People will form corresponding organizations against various morally corrupt behaviors and lead everyone to carry out actions, such as organizing everyone to fight against alcoholism.To promote commerce and industry, as well as public safety and religious activities, they also established societies to ensure the development of these activities.In short, no matter what kind of desire and purpose it is for, people can realize it by setting up collective organizations.
Generally speaking, there are three stages for citizens to exercise the right of association: In the first stage, a society is formed by those who agree with a certain theory or proposition, and by formulating corresponding organizational provisions, it is ensured that all members of the society can contribute to the promotion of the theory. Act with the victory of your claim.These men and the supporters of their societies gather together, and their enthusiasm grows with numbers, and they are united towards the same goal.
The second stage is the exercise of the right of assembly.When an association develops to a certain extent, with the expansion of its activities and the strengthening of its influence, it will set up an activity center in an important place in the country to facilitate people's gathering, meeting, and communication.
The third stage is to politicize the nature of associations.The association's supporters began to form an electoral college, electing representatives to the national legislature to represent the association.At this stage, associations, representative systems, and political parties have been organically combined.
People have unlimited freedom of association in the US, especially when it comes to politics.And this freedom has not had any serious political consequences in the United States.Freedom of association has become an important part of American living habits and sentiments.
In today's society, freedom of association is becoming a necessary safeguard against majority tyranny.Once a political party in the United States becomes a majority and seizes power, it will take all the power of the country into its own hands.Its party members attained various official positions and controlled all organizational forces.The opposition party is in the opposition position, and can only rely on all the moral forces of the minority to oppose the powerful material forces that suppress them.Even its most famous party members could not break down the barriers that excluded them from power.
Most unlimited authority is turning into a potential crisis, which has done great harm to the American republic.So how do we limit this harm?There is only one answer, which is to protect citizens' freedom of association.The more democratic the country is, the more it is necessary to use freedom of association to prevent the dictatorship of political parties or dictators.
The last right the American people have chosen to accept is freedom of political association among all freedoms.The reason is that it tends to plunge the people into anarchy.This freedom has dangers and disadvantages, but it also has a valuable point: the freedom of association completely eliminates the occurrence of secret associations.In America there are only partisans, not conspiratorial rebels.
In my opinion, freedom of association is second only to personal freedom of citizens, and it is also the most natural freedom. Freedom of association, like personal freedom, is inalienable.Violations of the right to association are bound to cause damage to society itself.However, differences in the understanding and use of freedom of association have produced different results in different countries.In some countries, freedom of association is a positive force that can promote and accelerate prosperity; in other countries, due to incorrect understanding and abuse of freedom of association, it has become a completely destructive force, causing harm to the country.It is therefore instructive for all governments and political parties to compare how freedom of association is understood and used differently in different countries.
People living on the European continent believed that associations were only weapons or tools to meet the needs of fighting.A society is like an army.It is often established hastily, that is, quickly put into the battlefield.They didn't even have time to explain the purpose of the association to the members of the association, so they rushed to the enemy.
But in the hearts of Americans, the right of association is not like this.The reason why people form associations is mainly to protect the interests of their own minority, to demonstrate and enhance their own strength through association, and to be more conducive to competing with the majority.They always hope to persuade more people, pull the majority of citizens into their camp, and finally seize the ruling power in the name of the majority.American political associations are moderate in purpose and legal in their means.
Such differences exist mainly because Europeans and Americans practice freedom and democracy differently.Europeans often use freedom of association as a tool to attack the government, which makes the right of association have a notable violent nature.Europeans lack practical experience. When a community is strong, it will naturally have the idea of "convincing others with force", and never "convincing others with reason".Moreover, some parties are completely separated from the majority of citizens, which makes them not supported by the majority, but they are often too convinced of their own strength, which makes them not want to persuade but want to fight.
Americans are very different from the above description.The implementation of universal suffrage has greatly reduced the violent nature of the right to political association.Under conditions of universal suffrage, the strength of political parties is clearly visible, and no single party can pretend to be a majority.Organizations whose viewpoints do not agree with those of the majority are absolutely no match for associations occupying a position in the majority. They must try their best to persuade and win over the majority.As long as a society or political party has the majority, it has the power to change the law, and there is no need to beg for the law to be reformed.
However, almost all European associations regard themselves as the inevitable representatives of the will of the majority, and what drives them to act, to fight, to issue orders is blind self-confidence.These societies have distinct characteristics and norms of military organization and military life.Their power is concentrated in the hands of a few leaders, and members of the society are accustomed to obey orders, like soldiers.The tyranny within these societies is often more unpleasant than the tyrannical domination of society by the government they attack.
However, in the United States, each member of a community is completely independent, and they never give up their autonomy and rationality. They are like uniting many wills and rationales in society to advance for a common cause.
The only democracy in which people can judge correctly is that of the United States.The nature of democracy is naturally revealed there; its whole picture is fully displayed there; all its activities are unfettered and without any restrictions.Democracy gives men unhindered control over the country, with no danger to fear and no harm to retaliate against.The study of American democracy will provide useful experience for promoting human society to better move toward democracy.
Universal suffrage is a right fully enjoyed by Americans.However, the implementation of universal suffrage did not guarantee that Americans would make the best choice and elect the most suitable person for leadership.Generally speaking, Europeans believe that the greatest advantage of universal suffrage lies in the ability to elect to public office those most trusted by the public.In their view, although the people want the country to be prosperous and strong, they cannot manage themselves well, and the people hope to elect the most competent person to preside over the government affairs.On the contrary, in the United States, the truly outstanding talents are hidden among the people, and very few people stand out among the rulers of the country.You may be surprised by this discovery.But it is indeed a commonplace phenomenon in the United States that few of the most eminent people enter politics.And this is the result of democracy exceeding all its original limits.
A person must be observed and studied over a long period of time in order to fully understand him.But few people can do this, and even great men will inevitably err in judgment in this respect.Ordinary people do not have the time and means to do the work of examining candidates.They tend to make hasty decisions on the surface of things.Therefore, those who are most loyal to the people may not be able to win the trust of the people, but all kinds of liars who are good at using tricks to please the people can always win the support of the people.
In addition, people are unwilling or unwilling to democratically elect some people to the positions that are most suitable for them.Under the influence of the democratic system, although the gap between people has been greatly flattened, what it can never fully satisfy is people's earnest desire for true equality.This has inspired strong jealousy in people's hearts from another aspect.The people may not hate the upper classes of society, but they are unlikely to welcome them, and this alone is enough for the people to prevent them from being selected; To praise them and dote on them; the people may not be afraid of genius-like figures, but it is impossible for the people to cherish them especially and hold them in high esteem.
One reason is that such natural instincts exist in the masses of the people that prevent eminence from being elected, and the other reason is that these people are also actively keeping themselves out of politics.Because they don't want to slip into degeneration and lose themselves in the political competition. "The most competent men will be deliberately dull and passive in order not to be elected in the popular vote"-this was an opinion published in the United States in 1830 and no one opposed it.
The reason for discussing this point is to show that the idea that universal suffrage guarantees the people the best choice is a mere fantasy.Perhaps universal suffrage has many advantages, but it never counts.
Special historical periods and events will suppress people's enthusiasm for democracy, but this will only have a short-term impact on the development of democracy.Only the level of knowledge of the people, and especially the sentiments of the people, will have a not only strong but lasting influence on the tendency of the passions.
Take New England as an example. The people have always paid little attention to the concept of wealth and family status, but they have a public sentiment that respects knowledge and morality. These factors have also led to the better development of democracy in New England.And here, you'll find people making the best choices more than anywhere else.
In the southern states, however, the situation was significantly worse.There, education is poor and the principles of morality, religion, and liberty have not become a major part of the people's sentiments.Therefore, among the administrators of those states, you will hardly find a person who is virtuous, talented, or both.The situation in the southwestern states, where social organization was new, was even worse.All people see are adventurers and speculators, and the power to manage society is completely controlled by a few people.
The above examples give a strong proof of the important influence of public opinion on democracy.But is it not possible for one to remedy the evils of universal suffrage?No, the answer is no.Next, I will use the difference between members of the House of Representatives and members of the Senate as an example to illustrate the value of two-level elections.
If you had the opportunity to enter the halls of the House of Representatives in Washington, you would be amazed at the vulgarity of the representatives here.You don't see a single famous person here, almost all mediocrity.Most of the parliamentarians here are lawyers and businessmen from the countryside, and there are also people from the lower classes, and even illiterate people.But in the Senate Hall a few steps away, it was a completely different scene.Everyone gathered here reminds you of his reputation, eloquent barristers, famous generals, able administrators, and famous state activists.The speech here is like a debate at its best.
What is the reason for this situation?As you know, these people are all elected by the people.Here's the secret: Representatives are elected directly by the people, while Senators are elected in two classes.The so-called two-level election means that the citizens of each state elect the electoral college of the state, and the electoral college elects the senators who can represent the state.Because these electoral colleges are subject to the people of the states, the people are still the ultimate power-grantors of the senators, who are essentially the result of popular election.However, there have been obvious changes in the general suffrage after the two-level election. The electoral college representing the will of the people has a more solemn and serious form, and it also appears more cautious and serious in exercising power.The Electoral College elects a Senate that often effectively represents the majority that governs the country, but also represents the noble ideas and spirit that guide the country forward.With them you will certainly not see a trace of the narrow-mindedness and obsession that would throw the country into turmoil.
Therefore, two-level elections are a powerful guarantee to prevent people from falling into the trap of democracy, and it is also the only way for people of all classes to enjoy political freedom. The United States will inevitably become stronger because of the two-level election system.
The interval between elections can be long or short, which has a direct impact on the stability of the country.If the interval between elections is too long, every time an election comes, all political parties and candidates will go all out and try their best to seize the rare opportunity.They may do anything to win the election.Every election therefore exposes the country to the danger of unrest.
If the election interval is too short, there will be another opportunity every few days, and the temporarily defeated political parties and candidates will be able to endure for a while in order to try to make a comeback.But this does not eliminate the danger, since frequent elections not only make society periodically experience turmoil and unrest, but also keep government affairs in a continuous state of constant change.
In other words, either let the country suffer from minor illnesses, or let the country face the risk of a possible revolution every time a serious illness occurs.Other than that, there is no other option.Americans choose the first option.They would rather endure a continual series of ailments than contract an incurable disease.Democracy has developed an unaccustomedness to instability into a penchant for change, and as a result, American legislation is surprisingly fluid.
From the point of view of maintaining democracy, the establishment of a government is not a good thing, on the contrary it may be a disaster.Because it requires the people to give officials certain powers.In a certain sense, power is the source of evil.
However, the quality of American civil servants is rare, and they have a deep understanding of the power in their hands: the reason why they have the power to issue orders to others is based on their good behavior and style.They are not qualitatively different from the masses, nor are they superior to others.They are approachable, down-to-earth, friendly when asking questions, and kind when answering.
So what is the reason why American civil servants have such characteristics?This is not only related to the quality of Americans, but also inseparable from the basic principles of democracy in American society.Under a democratic electoral system, people are elected to public office for a fixed term, and no one can keep the office permanently.These factors make public servants never feel that they are different, that they have something great to show off.
Public officials in the United States do not serve for a long time, and once their term ends, they become ordinary people.
The traces they leave in social activities are more pronounced and lasting than in domestic life.The United States mostly relies on oral and traditional customs for administrative work, and there are few written regulations.This led to a marked instability in American administration.No one studies the methods of administrative work, no one sums up experience, no one collects documents and materials left in the work, and few people keep official documents in their hands.
However, administrative management is also a science, and its development and progress cannot be separated from the continuous summarization and inheritance of previous experience.The process of human progress is the process of gradually establishing various sciences on the basis of summarizing various experiences.However, in the United States, those engaged in administrative management generally lack the necessary scientific knowledge to do the job well. When they guide social work, they only rely on their own accumulated experience and knowledge.Administrative staff never learn from each other, which has become the biggest problem in the United States.
What does a frugal government look like?The answer is obvious if we compare a democratic republic with an absolute monarchy.Because the expenditure of a democratic government is much greater than that of a monarchy.Under autocratic conditions, the government will not steal the fruits of the working people even though it impoverishes the people by hindering their development of production.It puts far more emphasis on what it already has than on creating new ones, thus drying up the government's resources.The government under democratic conditions not only has abundant resources, but also spends far less than its income.On the whole, all democratic countries are compared with undemocratic countries in the same way.Below I will conduct a comparative study of countries under various democratic conditions in order to understand in detail the impact of democracy on national finances.
Society can be regarded as an organism whose existence and development have inherent characteristics.One of the important aspects is that society always has certain classes and strata.Generally speaking, a nation can be divided into three major classes: the rich class, the middle class who live well, and the poor class with little or no property.The last class lives entirely by laboring for the first two classes.The number of these three classes varies depending on the social situation, but it is a fact that no one can deny that every society has these three classes.
The social class structure can greatly affect a country's finances, because each class has its own financial management requirements.If the laws of the country are made by the rich, they may seldom think about saving money, and they don't care about large financial taxes.For them, these taxes are a drop in the bucket.If the laws of the country were made by the middle classes, they would think of economy, and would oppose the taxation of small fortunes.And, though not the most knowledgeable and generous government, the government in which the middle classes are in power is the most economical.
A more complicated problem arises in the third case, that is, the poor class holds the legislative power.This period will be a golden opportunity to substantially increase government spending.the reason is:
First, the poor do not have much taxable property, and the increase in government spending will only benefit them. They always try their best to put the burden of taxation on the rich.This has led to a democratic government in which the poor are in power, the least cost-effective government, and the only government that allows those who propose tax legislation to avoid paying taxes.As long as universal suffrage persists, the poor will monopolize the legislative power as a majority.In all countries today, the vast majority of people have no property.Universal suffrage is in fact a system that favors the poor in governing society.
In this case, however, democracy can also have devastating effects on state finances.Legislators will always act according to the will of the voters, taking care of their preferences and interests.Excessive spending on relief for the poor risks draining the treasury.
But this danger gradually diminishes as the people become richer.This is because when the poor also become rich, he no longer requires much money from the rich, and they themselves lose by taxing property.In America, where the vast majority of its citizens own property, universal suffrage poses less danger than in France, and in France less than in England, where nearly all taxable property is in the hands of a few .
Second, the poor people's feelings about suffering make them devote themselves to making use of their strengths and avoiding weaknesses, improving the status quo, and using government expenditures to promote the development of causes that are conducive to improving the living conditions of the poor.The upper classes have no real sense of the suffering of the poor, and for them they can ask for nothing as long as the people live in poverty.The governments they hold are focused on maintaining the status quo rather than improving it.When the people are in power, those in power will seek advantages and eliminate disadvantages everywhere, and will show generosity to the cause of increasing social welfare, and all of these will consume the state's finances.
Third, there is a cause common to all democratic governments, which is the inherent instability of democratic governments themselves.Due to the election of a democratic government, it often changes its staff, and its goals and careers will not be very consistent, either constantly changing, or giving up halfway.In the first case, the state spends money but does not achieve its goals; in the second case, it spends money but receives nothing.
There is a very strange phenomenon in the United States, that is, the salaries of its low-level civil servants are higher than those of other countries, while the salaries of senior civil servants are much lower than those of other countries.This is because the people formulate salary standards for the lower-level public servants and the higher-level public servants after comparing their contributions according to their own living conditions.
In the eyes of the people, it is reasonable for lower-level civil servants to live a life that is consistent with their status, and Americans generally live relatively well-off, which makes the salaries of their lower-level civil servants also very high.But they know very little about the needs of the upper classes.Perhaps a small sum of money for the rich is a huge fortune for the poor.If you tell them that high-ranking civil servants, as representatives of the country, must at least show a certain dignity in front of foreigners, they immediately think of their shabby living quarters and the meager income they earn through hard work, and therefore disagree with you.A Governor who earns twelve hundred dollars a year is considered a happy and enviable man in their eyes.At the same time, low-level civil servants who are roughly on the same level as the people can also arouse their sympathy, while high-ranking civil servants above this level can arouse their envy.
While democracy can lead a largely satisfactory life for senior civil servants, it has a tendency to mistreat and miserly treat them.And in order to meet the needs of the people and promote people to live and work in peace and contentment, it can spend huge sums of money.
民主制度与贵族制度的最大不同之处就在于此，民主制度用于公务人员的费用少，然而花在人民群众的费用则较多。贵族制度与此相反，它把国家的财政收入主要用于统治阶级身上了。
假借人民的名义发号施令的政府是最难抗拒的政府，因为它总是假借人民的意志所形成的道义力量来实现独裁者的意志并为之服务。可是当国家面临外部威胁时，倒是这样的政府更可以战胜这种威胁，而很难说一个民主政府在国家发生危机时能作出多大的努力。
美国联邦政府成立以来已经有五十多年，这段时间里，它只遇到过一次关乎生存的危险，这就是独立战争。战争之初，人们还能以极大的热情为国家效劳。但随着战争进入持久阶段，国民过去拥有的自私自利念头便又重新抬头：他们拒绝去应募参军，也不再向国家交钱。尽管人们想要独立，然而却不乐意为此付出代价。从那以后，美国就再也没有进行过一场能坚持到底的残酷战争。
原因何在呢？原因就是征兵制不符合美国人的思想，也不是美国的政治习惯和法律规定。在美国人看来，要我去当兵就得给我钱。让实行人民主权原则的国民接受强制服役制是相当困难的。
我们必须承认，民主制度更适合于治理和平环境下的社会，虽然它是鼓舞人心的重要力量，但用它来作为关乎国家生存的巨大危险的防御显然是不太保险的。热情虽给人不畏艰险的勇气，但远不如冷静深思焕发的力量更能让人长期顶住风险。激情可以用来鼓劲，但要想取得胜利的果实则全凭最初的干劲坚持下去。
当下的利益才是民主所关注的，它很少让人们重视从知识和经验中形成关于未来的科学认识。眼前的苦难虽然很大，但并不可怕，可怕的是没有去想因克服不了眼前的苦难而产生的更大的苦难。
随着时间一点点过去，我相信，民主政府一定会逐步提高社会中的力量，由其治理的国家一定会比专制国家更加富有、繁荣和强大。尽管它在未来还会多次遭受专制国家侵犯的危险。
考虑到未来的利益，民主需要暂时克服的，是民众的激情和压制民众的过度需求。但美国人很难做到这一点，这在一些小事情上有所表现。
举例来说，在成立不久的西南各州，接连不断地发生凶杀案。原因是人们完全自己行使司法权。粗野和无知让他们认为，与其诉诸法律，还不如彼此以决斗的方式了结。
生活在费城的人们使我了解到，美国的几乎所有犯罪行为都是由酗酒引起的，因为酒十分便宜，就算是最底层的人们也可以尽情畅饮。于是我便问他们：“为什么你们不对酒水课税呢？”他的回答是：“我们的立法者何尝不想这样做，但是慑于民众的反对，他们就放弃了。因为谁投票赞成这项法律，他就必然不会再当选。”我不得不说：“这样看来，嗜酒者是你们国家的多数，禁酒在你们这里是不得人心的。”
后来，当我向美国的高层官员谈到这个问题时，他们说的只是：“让时间去解决一切问题好了，痛苦的体验最终使得人民清醒，并了解到什么才是真正需要的”。And it is true.虽然民主制度失误的机会较一个国王或一群贵族要多，但一旦它认识到自己的失误，它回到正确道路上的机会也多。因为民主制度本身一般没有与大多数人对抗的权力，它也从来不会与理性为敌。只是，只有那些经过实践的检验之后，人们才能认识到民主制度的真理性，然而，往往是许多国家还没有来得及通过实践，就已然消失在尘埃之中。
美国人之所以明智和优越，就是源于他们在犯了错误之后能及时改正错误。
所以为了能够做到从过去的失误中吸取经验教训，民主制度的实施应当以人民达到一定的教育和文明水平为前提。有些国家因初等教育很差，激情、无知和偏见往往决定了人民性格的形成，以至于自己找不到不幸的根源，被其不了解的灾难压倒。
联邦宪法授权总统和参议院处理国家的外交事务，不需要交由人民决定。这就使总统和参议院在制定外交政策时可以摆脱人民的直接和经常的监督。因此，美国对外交事务的管理和处理绝不能说是民主的。
有两个人曾在历史上对美国的对外政策的形成产生了不可磨灭也不可否认的深远影响，他们的名字是华盛顿和杰斐逊。
在华盛顿看来，美国外交政策的基本原则是：扩大美国与外国的贸易往来，尽量不与外国发生政治关系，尽量信守同外国已经签订的条约。他认为，欧洲国家因彼此之间有其互相牵涉的一套根本利益，它们必然会陷入持久的纠纷与冲突之中。而这些利益不是与美国基本无关，就是关系极为疏远，美国不能卷入欧洲国家间的政治斗争，否则将是极其不明智的。华盛顿还提出，美国地理特点是独处一隅，这就为美国采取与众不同的外交原则提供了优越的条件。美国要保持令人尊重的中立立场，这不但可以避免引狼入室而带来的物质损失，又可以使陷入军事斗争的各个国家不能寄希望于从美国身上获利。选择是和是战的依据只能是美国的利益和正义。而放弃独特的地理位置给美国带来的好处，离开自己的基地跑到外国的基地去，把美国人的命运与欧洲人的命运绑在一起，让美国的和平与繁荣与欧洲人的野心、对抗、利益和为所欲为联系起来，实在是引火烧身的不明智行为。美国不能和任何国家永远结盟，要永远保持美国不受束缚而自由的有利地位。遵守已经订立的条约，但不对原来的条约加以扩充或者产生新的条约。华盛顿的这些思想，给美国的对外政策带来的影响是深远的，同时，也给美国人民带来了巨大的益处。在世界上其他所有国家卷入战争的时候，他却使自己的国家保持了长期和平。决不介入欧洲的内部纠纷这一点不仅是他的行动准则，更是美国人的根本利益所在。
但是，另一个伟人，也就是杰斐逊始终在对外政策上信守一条：美国人绝对不向外国要求特权，以免自己不得不给它们出让特权。这两个人提出的这些外交原则，不但蕴含着清晰可见的公正性，还易于被美国人理解并接受，它们使美国的对外政策大为简化。
从目前来看，美国还没有遇到真正对手的时候，它就能根据自己特殊的地理位置，坚持不介入欧洲事务。它既不袒护动乱，又不支持动乱。这使它避免了自身陷入动乱的危险。简而言之，美国的对外政策就是一种观望政策，它的根本要求是有所不为，而不是有所为。
然而也不是每一个美国人都会想到这一点。在政治上服从感情而不服从理智，因一时的冲动而放弃成熟的长期计划，这样的民主激情也经常俘虏着大多数美国人。例如在法国爆发大革命时期，很多美国人都会有强烈的支持法国的心情，而要求美国向英国宣战。危急存亡之秋，华盛顿，这个深受人民爱戴并拥有着不屈不挠坚定性格的人阻止了它的发生。这位伟人的理智与同胞们的激情形成了鲜明的对照，他也曾因此险些失去他的国家对他的爱戴。也有许多人当时大力责备他的政策，但现在，全国人民都支持这个政策。
History cannot be assumed.但是如果联邦宪法没有授予总统处理对外事务的权力，那华盛顿想要阻止美国人是不可能的，美国当时也一定会被那场战争所波及。
我的看法是，美国的政治结构只是民主国家可以采取的政府形式之一，绝不是民主国家应当建立的唯一一种形式，也不是最好的形式。而且我也不认为类似美国人从其民主政府中获得的利益，只能依靠同样的那些法律才可以获得。
民主政府的缺点和弱点，一般来说是非常容易让人察觉的，但它的优点却比较隐秘，人们只能长期慢慢加以体会。美国的法制就有着明显的不足，如它的法律不但经常变更，还时而侵犯既得权益，甚至容忍侵犯行为。但是这些弊端又没有影响美国共和制度的持续存在和发展，这是为什么呢？产生这样的原因就是民主和法制是由公民中的多数制定的，它倾向于维护社会上大多数人的利益。公民中的多数虽然可能犯错误，但它没有与自己对立的利益。与此相反，贵族的法制是由占人口少数的贵族制定的，它的目的是确保少数贵族阶级垄断国家的财富和权力。所以民主的立法与贵族的立法相比更有利于人类福祉的实现，民主制度是有益于人民的制度。在民主条件的熏染之下，选民十分重视自己的权力，他们能有效防止自己选出的代表偏离其利益的行为的发生。如果选民选出的行政官员滥用权力，人民是不会让他们长期留任的。
统治者的才德对于一个国家来说十分重要，但统治者没有和人民大众的利益相对立的利益似乎更为重要。因为如果两者不一致，则统治者的才德或许会被用于维护他们个人的利益，甚至用于干坏事。而统治者具有同全体被统治者的利益一致的利益也很重要，但好像还没有什么地方曾出现过这样的利益。
到今天为止，还没有出现过对社会所有阶级一视同仁的，而且可促进所有阶级繁荣发展的政体。在一个国家里面通常是有几个阶级就有几种不同的利益，把一个阶级的命运完全交给另一个阶级去掌握深藏隐患。在由富人阶级统治国家时，穷人的利益总是会受到损害。而在由穷人控制了政权时，富人的利益便要遭受严重的危险。如此来说，民主的优越性体现在何处呢？民主的真正价值在于，它并不是以促进所有阶级的兴盛为目标，其目标是维护、保障最大多数人的利益。
美国的联邦政府官员的才能可能会比贵族国家的掌权者要差，但他们的利益与大多数国民的利益却相一致。尽管他们难免不恪尽职守、犯错误，但他们决不敌视大多数人的利益，他们也不可能使政府的施政行为变得垄断和专制。政府的公务人员并没有使自己居于优势的阶级利益，政府的日常工作仍然是有利于人民的。
世界上的爱国心有两种。一种主要是源于国民对其出生地的本能的、无私的深厚情感。这不仅仅包括对古老的传统的热爱、对祖先的尊敬、对历史的一种怀恋，也包括自己珍爱属于自己的国土。拥有这种爱国心的国民，会沉迷于祖国的安宁中，遵守在祖国养成的温和习惯，他们感觉生活在这样的国度里是一种幸福和自豪。这种爱国心本身就是一种宗教，人们对它的虔诚，完全不是来自理智，而是来自信仰和情感。
另一种爱国心，主要是来自于理智思考自己的国家。它深深植根于对国家利益和个人利益的正确理解。这样的国民内心很清楚，国家的利益对于他个人的利益具有重要影响；关心国家的繁荣，为国家利益贡献力量，本身就是在做对己有利的事情。这种爱国心，它虽然可能不够热情，但非常坚定和持久。
我认为，让人人都关心国家命运的最好的办法，甚至说是唯一的手段，就是让人人都去参加政府的管理。在我们这个时代，爱国心与政治权力的行使是密不可分的。
对于美国人来说，移民国家的特殊国情对于让国民产生本能的爱国心来说是十分困难的。因为他们都是刚刚认识，彼此之间并没有什么共同的历史习惯和难忘的回忆。但是，为什么美国人都像关心自己的事情一样关心本地区的公共事务呢？这是因为美国人的公民精神、政治权利和爱国心的有机统一。
每个美国人都知道，他们自身的幸福源于整个社会共同繁荣。所以每个人都积极参与社会的管理，每个人都为社会的繁荣作出自己的贡献，都愿意为国家的富强而服务。在他们看来，社会的公共财富中本身就有属于他们自己的一份。
我的看法是，道德观念是唯一可与权利观念相媲美的，甚至可以说两者本质上根本就一致，权利观念就是道德观念在政治领域的应用。权利的观念令人们得以明确了什么是跋扈、暴政，何为正直、独立和自主。屈服于暴力就是对自己尊严的背叛，就是自卑和自取其辱。它虽然服从于公共权力的指挥，但它本身却是给予这种权力的主人。所有伟大人物都具有高尚的德行，而从来没有一个伟大的民族不尊重权利，理性与良知在一起的原因是彼此吸引而不是强制结合。
让人们养成权利观念有什么方法呢？在我看来办法只有一个，就是让所有的人都平等地分享一定的权利。一个儿童的能力和经验都来自后天的习得，这是众所周知的。当他开始尝试活动时，一切在周围他能用手碰到的东西，他都会本能地将其据为己有。对于他来说，世上根本不存在什么财产观念，他没有这是属于谁的财产的观念。但随着他逐渐成长，明白财产的观念，他就开始懂得既然他能抓住，别人也是可以抓住的，他已经抓住的东西别人也是会来抢的。这时，他就慎重多了，他就知道要想期望别人尊重自己，首先自己得尊重他人。
在美国，每个人都有保护自己财产的需要，所以人人都承认财产权；因为政治权利是每个人都拥有的，所以人人都珍视政治权利；为使自己的政治权利不受侵犯，他们也不攻击别人的这项权利。民主的最大贡献就在于，它把政治权利的观念普及给了每一个公民。
法律的制定，会因人民的参与，具有巨大的权威，立法者将因自己的群众基础的扩大而壮大自己的力量。民众的意志是一支最强大的力量，任何想与其为敌的人都会慑于它的力量而最终选择逃逸。因此，没有一个党派不想去争取民众中的多数：在已经投票的人中不能形成多数时，它就会去不参加投票的人中争取多数；而当这些人还不足以凑成多数时，各党派便到没有投票权的人中去找多数。
拥有选举权的美国人都能对立法产生直接或间接的影响。攻击法律的方法，一般只有两种手段：要么设法改变全国的舆论，要么践踏人民的意志。
一般来说，遵从法律是美国国民所一般会选择的，从来不会有为数众多的人主动与法律为敌。即使他们对某一项法律不甚满意，他们也不会聚众闹事。因为任何一项法律都是社会上大多数人所承认的东西，都反映着多数人的利益。如果他是多数中的一员，那这项法律本身也是他自己的作品，他们把这项立法看成是一项契约，认为自己也是契约的参与者。对抗法律实质上就是在损害自己的权利。如果他不是多数中的一员，他也不能对抗这项法律。因为如果他不是这项立法上的多数，但在其他立法上他或许就是多数；一时是少数，并不代表永远都是少数；现在不尊重多数人的意志，那么以后有什么理由让别人尊重自己的意愿呢？所以，美国社会上的所有阶级均会对国家的法律表示信任与尊重，都把自己看作为法律的缔造者。
民主政府的好处，不在于保护所有人的利益，而在于保护大多数人的利益。民主的法律虽然不会令所有人心满意足，但它总是会得到大多数人的遵从。打算违犯某一法律的人，总会选择放弃，这是因为担心别人会反对他参与制定的法律。
此外，美国人愿意服从法律，也是因为他们可以努力去修改损害他们利益的法律。也就是说，他们首先把法律作为自己加在身上的灾难来接受，然后又把法律作为随时可以解除的灾难来对待。
第一次去美国的时候，你可能会不习惯于它的喧闹：无数的喊叫声充斥在你的周围，它们中的每一个人都在对社会表达着自己的需求。放眼全是人们参与的场景：一些人在讨论如何建立一座教堂；一些人为选举议员而奔波不休；一些人正要赶赴乡镇去研究地方事务；一些人在制定他们乡修路或建校的计划。积极参与政治社会生活是美国人与生俱来的天性，这也令他们作为享受而乐此不疲。
相反的是，有些国家的国民总是厌恶并且反感法律授予他们的政治权利。他们把参与公共事务当做浪费时间，他们总是沉溺于自我封闭的、狭小的、自私的空间，为自己的个人利益惶惶不可终日。在美国人看来，完全陷身于私事会让他们的生活失去一半的乐趣，他们会因此感到无限的空虚和莫大的痛苦。也许民主的好处就在这里，它虽不能给予人民最精明能干的政府，它却能给整个社会带来活力和积极性，并且不断地创造奇迹。
社会中的多数统治下的政府是民主政府的本质。在民主条件下，谁也无法和社会中的多数对抗。
大部分美国的州立宪法都有意加强了社会中的大多数人所拥有的权力。国家所有政权机构里，最容易被多数所控制的就是立法机构。美国的立法机构的议员是由人民选举任命的，他们的任期也被规定的很短。这就使得他们不仅服从选民的长远观点，而且服从选民的临时动议。
在控制了立法机构后，社会中的大多数人还以此为媒介进一步控制了行政机构。立法机构不但没有给行政权带来稳定性、独立性，反而又在尽力使行政机构屈从于立法机构，甚至把民主条件下行政官员本身应有的一切权力也强拿走了。
此外，他们还将司法权渐渐控制在自己手中。美国一些州的立法者就把司法权的行使改为投票选举表决。而所有州的司法人员的薪金的决定权都在立法机构，立法者使司法人员的生活都依附于立法机构。
造成美国社会中的多数在国家政治生活中压倒一切的地位的究竟是什么呢？多数者的力量和影响又来自于何处？
第一，“多数人联合产生的才智和力量要远胜于个人”的思想使得多数的道义影响逐渐扩大。这一思想的观点是，参加立法工作的人数要远比选举的形式重要得多；我们应该努力制止个人自命不凡行为的产生；要用法制的方式保障多数者的权利。或许多数的权利刚开始应该依靠强制来获取，但它要想赢得人们的尊重，就必须要成为法制生活的重要一部分。移民们是带着“多数者有权管理社会”的观念来到新大陆的，在创造自由国家的过程中，这一观念已经风行于社会，深入到日常生活的各个方面。
第二，“多数者的利益要优先于少数者的利益”的原则给多数者在社会中的优势地位带来了保证。所有美国的党派无疑都承认多数者的权利和地位，因为他们都希望有朝一日可以依靠多数的名义给自己带来利益。在某些国家，社会中的少数永远也不想把多数拉入自己的队伍，除非他们甘愿放弃他们反对多数的斗争目的本身。如果你想让贵族变成多数，就必须让贵族放弃手中拥有的特权；但假如贵族愿意让出特权，它自己就不再是贵族体制了。
美国社会里，多数不但拥有管理国家的大权，而且还占据着社会舆论的主导地位。只要多数提出一项动议，一切可能的障碍，如阻止通过决议，推迟表决动议，或是留出一点时间听取反对者的呼声，都会不战自败。多数在社会上是所向披靡、战无不胜的。
但是上述情景无论如何总是会对社会的未来造成危害的。
多数所拥有的无限权威增加了美国民主政府所固有的缺点前面的论述中，我们已经讲过民主政府一贯具有的缺点，这些缺点正随着多数在社会上所拥有的权威的提高而扩大。
第一，立法的不稳定性与授予立法者的权力和行政手段的增加成正比。民主条件下凭借着选举，不断更换新人执掌国家政权，这样的内在特点决定了立法的不稳定性。美国的立法机构具有最高的权力，它可以迅速地极容易地实现自己的每一项动议。还有，每年都会有新的议员加入立法机构，使得立法机构议员的意见变化无常，并且助长着民主的不稳定性。最直接的表现就是美国是当今世界上法律寿命最短的国家。三十多年来，美国各州不但几乎都修改过州的宪法，而且也都修改过它的立法原则。美国的立法者没有一刻不在进行着立法活动：颁布新法律、修改旧法律。美国人民对多数的顺从几乎使民主的不稳定性本能发挥到了极致。
第二，多数的无限权威也导致了美国法律的执行和行政活动的多变性。多数是公职人员必须倾尽全力阿谀奉承的唯一权威。多数提议的工作就是公职人员需要密切关注的工作，多数的注意力的改变直接引导着公职人员注意力的改变。但在那些拥有独立行政权的欧洲国家，行政机构是不会因为立法机构的注意力的转移而停滞原有工作的。一般来说，美国人对待改革事业比较热心和积极，但不够连续；欧洲人虽然力量投入不多，但能更加持久。
人民中的多数有权决定管理国家的一切事务，这是一个非常著名的政治格言。但在我看来，它是违反宇宙之大道的，也是容易让人不悦的。可事实确是如此，人们政治活动中的一切权力根源于社会中的多数。这的确有些自相矛盾。
一个国家最公道的法律是由人民中的多数来制定并通过的。当然，就整个世界来说，只有由世界上的多数公民制定并通过的法律才是最公道的法律。国家就像主持公道的大陪审团，它的权力来自社会的授予。但是，国家应当居于社会之上吗？我若拒绝服从一项法律，并不是要否认多数者在社会中应该享有的权利，而是认为应从依靠人民的主权转向依靠人类的主权，它需要融入更多的人道主义精神。
就美国来说，其民主政府是最令人担心的，因为它拥有的力量太强大了，而且它对多数的暴政这种现象处置不力。比如，当一个公民或政党遭受到不公正的情形时，就没有去申诉的地方。第一，他不能向舆论请求援助，因为舆论是由多数产生和控制着的。第二，他也不能向立法机构请求援助，因为立法机构就代表着多数的利益，必须服从于多数。第三，他也不能向行政当局请求援助，因为行政首长是由选民中的多数选出来的，他必须要顺从多数。第四，向公安机关也不行，因为警察就是多数掌握下的军队。第五，向陪审团也不想，因为陪审团就是拥有宣判权的多数，甚至某些州的法官就是由多数选派的。总而言之，不管你要申诉的事情如何不正义和荒唐，你都不可能胜诉，你得照样服从。
面对这样的困难，我们该怎么办呢？如何才能建立一个既能代表多数又不受多数控制的立法机构呢？如何才能让行政权有自主其事的权力呢？
如何保持司法机构的独立呢？提出这问题，并不是说美国的多数经常使用暴政，而只是想指出美国目前尚没有制定出防范暴政的有效措施。而美国今天之所以没有发生暴政的实际危险，与其说是因为它的法律，倒不如说是得益于它的特殊的地理位置和民情。只有解决了这些问题，我们才能建立起一个民主的政府，而又没有暴政肆虐