Liberty despite equality: Publius and Tocqueville's new sciences of politics

The essay below compares Publius's "new science of politics" in The Federalist Papers with that of Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America. Tocqueville read The Federalist favorably, yet declared the need for "a new science of politics for a world altogether new." Both texts present popular government as the only viable path to liberty, yet both understood that popular sovereignty does not guarantee liberty. These similarities make the differences more interesting. To better understand those differences, we have put a series of questions to each text. First, we ask what end or ends each science has in view. At bottom, each seeks liberty. However, Tocqueville's understanding of liberty is more complex, including not only negative rights, but also active concern for public affairs. Next, we consider the obstacles to liberty presented by human nature. For both Publius and Tocqueville, man is capable of reason but errs often on account of ignorance and passion. Tocqueville's account again proves more complex, exploring the ways equality fosters habits that unwittingly incline men toward despotism. Third, we ask what remedies Publius and Tocqueville propose for overcoming these obstacles. Our argument is that both texts present the science of politics as a form of prudence, i.e., the discovery of the available means to overcome the barriers to good government to the extent that human nature and circumstance allow. Whereas Publius's science relies more heavily on institutional arrangements to prevent tyranny, Tocqueville is more concerned with educating the people to the idea and practice of freedom. Fourth, we consider the extent to which Publius and Tocqueville's sciences of politics depend on enlightened statesmen and whether they make adequate provision for the education of such individuals. Both Publius and Tocqueville regard leaders of a certain caliber as a sine qua non of good government. Unfortunately, neither discusses the political education of the great-souled man, leading one to question the adequacy of their sciences of politics. A comparison of these texts promises not only a sharper picture of Publius and Tocqueville's sciences of politics, but also a deeper understanding of the prospects of democratic societies today.