Questioning de Tocqueville

Here is a glimpse at Alexis de Tocqueville's thoughts on the tension between character and Constitution:

"When the people are enlightened, awakened to their interests, and habituated to thinking about them...the collective force of citizens will always be more powerful to produce social well-being than authority of government" (DIA, Part 1, Ch. 5).

From the ratification debate surrounding the Constitution onward, a central theme of American political debate has revolved around whether the foundation of society lay in the efficacy of its laws, or in the virtue of its citizens. It seems that Tocqueville came down more on the Anti-Federalist side of the debate; I'm still wondering where to place myself.

Perhaps the most fruitful way to proceed through this subject is to define it, to draw its borders into focus, and give us a space in which to think. Before I can outline a firm position on this subject, I need to answer several questions.

Is the law essentially a tool for restraining corrupt human nature, or a tutor for cultivating virtue? Can it be both?

The Founders took pride in the fact that the Constitution does not fight human selfishness, but is fueled by it--does seeking an improved society through increased legislation expand a system that encourages vice?

In other words, can the "authority of government" ever legitimately (i.e. Constitutionally) be brought to bear on something outside the realm of self-interest? Perhaps the text of the Constitution itself could help us here; thinking quickly, it seems to me that the Framers intentionally took pains to limit the efficacy of government regarding traditional seats of virtue (i.e. religious, family, communal life). Legislation on such matters usually must proceed in a roundabout fashion (i.e. the Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce).

Tocqueville spoke of the people's "interests"; Aristotle was convinced that any just society required a shared view of the common good--do American citizens as a whole even have a concept of a shared interest, such that a grassroots movement could truly effect social change?

I learn one fact, and, like pulling a thread from the dazzling tapestry of life, I draw ten questions along with it. Paul put it well: "If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know" (1 Cor. 8).