Corrective Mechanisms for Democratic Governance

Key Insight

While democracy has inherent flaws in selecting public officials, certain factors can partially correct these instincts. Great national perils often compel the populace to choose the most qualified citizens to avert disaster. Just as individuals rise or fall in extreme danger, nations can elevate their selection standards. This was evident during the American War for Independence, where the 'loftiness of the aim' ennobled participants, leading superior men to present themselves and the people to choose them as leaders, contrasting sharply with the 'vastly inferior' statesmen observed fifty years later.

Beyond transient dangers, enlightenment and strong mores exert a powerful and durable influence. In New England, where education and liberty stem from morality and religion, and society is 'old and long-established,' people respect intellectual and moral superiority, making better choices in governance. Conversely, in the new states of the Southwest, characterized by less venerable social bonds, less widespread education, and a 'swarm of adventurers,' talent and virtue in government are 'increasingly rare,' with public authority often entrusted to dismaying figures.

Specific democratic laws, too, can mitigate dangerous instincts. The stark contrast between the 'vulgar appearance' of the House of Representatives and the 'substantial proportion of America’s famous men' in the Senate illustrates this. Both emanate from universal suffrage, but the Senate's composition is refined by a two-stage election process. Citizens elect state legislatures, which then choose senators. This filtering process ensures that the 'popular will... is somehow refined... and emerges cloaked in nobler and more beautiful robes,' representing the nation's 'lofty thoughts' and 'generous instincts,' not its 'petty passions' or 'vices.' This mechanism is seen as crucial for the future survival of American republics.