Democracy in America: Omnipotence of the Majority

Essence of Democratic Governments: The dominion of the majority is absolute; nothing outside the majority can resist it.
Artificial Augmentation: American constitutions artificially enhance the natural strength of the majority.
- Mechanism: The legislature primarily obeys the majority due to the methods of electing representatives, which includes:
- Members elected directly by the people for short terms, compelling them to represent not just general views but daily constituents' passions.
- Members sourced from similar classes to ensure quick and powerful legislative actions akin to a single assembly.
Concentration of Power: The legislative body in the United States is nearly synonymous with governance, increasing the power of the already strong while weakening what is naturally weak, namely the executive and judicial branches.
- Impact on the Executive and Judicial Powers:
- Lack of stability and independence in the executive power, rendering it subject to the legislature's whims.
- Many states allow the judicial power to be elected by a majority, increasing legislative control over judicial salaries, thereby diminishing its independence.
Emerging Customary Practices:
- A growing custom where voters dictate conduct and impose obligations on elected deputies, effectively creating an atmosphere reminiscent of direct majority deliberation.

Foundation of Majority's Power: The moral dominion is based on the belief that aggregated wisdom surpasses that of individuals, thus empowering the majority.
Theory of Equality: This doctrine undermines individual pride and is accepted slowly by minorities, who struggle to relinquish their beliefs in favor of the majority's temporary dictates.
Legitimacy Over Time: Majority power seems legitimate after prolonged existence, gaining respect after initial forceful obedience.
Historical Context: The idea that the majority has the right to govern is a product of early American settlers, having permeated societal norms and lived habits.
- Comparison with French Monarchy: In France, the monarchy assumed infallibility, leading to passive obedience; similarly, Americans view the majority's decisions as inherently just.
Shifts in Public Perception: Respect for majority rights fluctuates with the condition of political parties within society, often challenged when substantial interests compete.

Impediments to Recognition of Majority Privilege: When society divides into conflicting interests, majority privilege is often contested.
Absence of Permanent Class Struggle: Since Americans are relatively equal, class-based resistance against majority rule is less entrenched as compared to aristocratic societies.
Political Questions: Political issues in the U.S. are not viewed in absolute terms; factions recognize majority rights due to a common hope to benefit from them.
- Coalescence of Power: Once a majority opinion forms, it moves resolutely ahead, often ignoring dissenting voices until it's too late—raising concerns about the potential for harmful consequences.

Democratic Instability: Administrative instability arises naturally in democratic governance, driven by frequent changes in representatives and their substantial powers.
Rapid Legislative Changes: Sovereign authority to enact laws quickly leads to significant volatility. Examples include:
- Frequent constitutional amendments and short law durations in American states over a short period.
Contrast with European Stability: European systems maintain a more consistent, although often less fervent, commitment to social changes compared to America's rapid fluctuations.
Historical Parallels: Experiments in governance (e.g., National Assembly in France) led to undeniable instability through legislative omnipotence, although American history may not repeat these extremes due to a different social context.

Public Officials’ Role: There exists a duality of freedoms for public officials within the legislative framework, where they often exhibit high degrees of arbitrariness due to lack of defined roles.
Comparison of Control: Majority opinion governs public conduct, empowering officials to act with less restraint—leading to a social dynamic that fosters liberty habits which may later threaten it.
- Historical Example of Reforms: The prison reform movements in the U.S. illustrate the dichotomy of public zeal waning once new laws or establishments are enacted, leaving behind outdated or neglected systems.

Sovereign Power Dynamics: The majority's will is powerful but not inherently just, prompting the need for moderation, which is lacking in the U.S.
Philosophical Stance: The rejection of absolute power, emphasizing every great group must be moderated by a higher law of justice, which should constrain majority will.
Universal Justice Framework: Legal systems should emulate a jury model that represents society and upholds justice, rather than allowing majority whims to dictate laws unimpeded.
Warnings Against Absolute Power: Omnipotence invites tyranny, as power concentrated in any party—democratic, aristocratic, or monarchic—risk totalitarianism without checks.

Impact on Individual Character Development: The culture of tyranny cultivates mediocrity among outstanding individuals, curbing grand ideas and ambitions that once characterized America’s budding democracy.
Contrasting Eras: Revolutionary America saw bold leadership; modern society’s pressures diminish the visibility of truly independent figures, favoring those who flatter majority passions.
Courtier Dynamics: The dynamics of leadership in democratic states produce a spirit akin to servitude, where public figures succumb to majority pressures and ignore their principles.
Hallmark of True Patriotism: Genuine patriotism often emerges within the populace rather than leadership; a disconnect exists between public sentiment and governing bodies.

Misuse of Power: The concentration of power can destabilize governance, as the majority, unchecked, can lead to oppression and subsequently chaos.
Historical Predictions on Governance: Founding Fathers like Madison and Jefferson cautioned against such tendencies, emphasizing that liberty would falter not due to impotence of government but through tyranny of the majority.
Consequences of Despotism: A lack of protections ensures that eventual state of anarchy may arise not from weakness but from an overreaching majority that alienates minorities, prompting a desperate recourse to power.