Political Parties Through the Lens of de Tocqueville, Part 4

This is part 4 of a reposting of a paper I wrote in the Spring of 2008 for Jon McFall's Democratic Political Philsophy class at Rutgers University. Certain points have been redacted for clarity, and will be noted with a *

 While we've seen* that the parties at an organizational and theoretical level can support democratic values, what happens when these parties’ policies are put into practice in legislature? What happens to one’s civil liberties? Tocqueville can be classified as a proponent of positive liberties, as shown in his support and admiration for colonial American public education and social services, (birth, marriage, and death certificate recording, estate management, etc.,) and his frustration that such services were not available in France. So when the writ of habeas corpus is effectively suspended by the executive branch and the legislative branch, Alexis de Tocqueville would be displeased.

 And that is the essence of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
 The Military Commissions Act was designed to deal with prosecution and detention of enemy combatants. However, there is a clause found in the bill that defines unlawful combatant extremely broadly. As language of the bill says, an unlawful enemy combatant is,
“a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or… a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.”  

 That is quite a long definition to essentially say that anyone could be an unlawful enemy combatant, as long as one has President Bush or Secretary Gates’s approval. In addition, the writ of habeas corpus would be suspended for unlawful enemy combatants, essentially allowing those in power to cart blanche detain anyone named as such indefinitely. This is a disgusting violation of civil liberties, and the possibility of this being abused is real. The final roll call in the Senate was 53 Republicans for, 1 against, 1 abstention. Democrats had 12 for, 32 against, no abstentions, and one Independent against. The house bill had a similar divide, and the bill passed.  
 In light of such a gross display of disregard for civil liberties, any progress Republicans made towards classical American democracy is seriously damaged. As Tocqueville says, “I know of only two methods of establishing equality in the political world; every citizen must be put in possession of his rights, or rights must be granted to no one.” 
It would appear that Republicans are leaning towards the latter.

Looking back upon the arguments constructed, there is a dualistic battle over which party effectively applies the values of classic American democracy within the realm of Alexis de Tocqueville’s observations. Democrats are able to reach out to more people, raise funds at the local level more effectively, and bring in a more heterogeneous mix. Republicans, on the other hand, do bring in the religious vote and are general on the same level of outreach and mobilization. 

However, society is fundamentally different from when Alexis de Tocqueville first published Democracy in America over 170 years ago. When Tocqueville initially visited America, America was in a time period with essentially one party politics that lasted from the end of the Federalist party in the mid 1810s to the rise of the first serious challenge from the Whig party When Tocqueville died in 1859, only 33 out of 50 states had achieved statehood, and the Civil War had not yet started. The makeup of the country has changed; the homogeneity found in Tocqueville’s time is no longer as prevalent. The population explosions and medical breakthroughs of the 1900s were still a fantasy. Social mores have changed, and moved past some of the greatest issues of the 19th century. In addition to moving past 19th century issues, new issues arose in the 20th century, such as the new acceptance of alternative lifestyles that were otherwise unspoken of or repressed in Tocqueville’s time. While there are plenty of relevant issues within Tocqueville, neither party can truly capture the values of classic American democracy with such changes to the country. *