De Tocqueville’s early observations that the central, or federal, government in the U.S. was relatively limited in its size, scope and reach provided a base for grave insight to state and local governments. Relevance and accessibility, in my opinion are two components that are necessary for community involvement. Perhaps De Tocqueville was fortunate to live in an era where greed did not dictate agendas.

Over time, at any level of government, greed and moral weakness has forced officials to accept both, ‘information overload’ tactics and reactive strategies in regard to how government is run. ‘Information overload’ refers to the specific governmental jargon provided to citizens, leaving it to citizens to decipher through the language in hopes of taking an informed stance. Reactive strategies refers to an elitist mentality by officials-“we’re here…people know we’re here meeting so they should come to us”, and we will proactive illicit the public’s opinion only when pressing issues are on the table. Together, ‘information overload’ and reactive strategies, mixed with other factors cause a growing divide between citizens and officials, hence lessening the relevance and accessibility. This growing divide decreases the amount of personal efficacy citizens truly believe they have-next along the continuum is apathy.

The current structure works wonders for the 2-3% of citizens who wish to continue to exercise their power and have the ability to influence big decisions. “We are keeping the majority of the population ignorant to the issues that affect them the most…and at the end of the day our base response is that we were here for them, they just didn’t come to the meeting”. Well sorry, unfortunately for those at the top, that logic has grown old-people elect officials so officials have a responsibility to work for the people, and how can I work for my boss if I am not tracking him down in some form or fashion to see what he truly wants done? So to answer Professor Nylen’s question, no, local institutions are not still “schools of democracy”. Local institutions are not doing nearly as much as they should to educate the people and more importantly the youth. We have truly removed ourselves from the whole notion of passing the torch to the next person-greed and complacency has caused that demise.

As someone not as informed in Tocqueville as in other theoreticians and commentators of a more recent trend, I’m curious as to whether he saw the foundation of local government and its organs – as in councils, or mayors, or similar entities – or the semi-political, social capital-building civic organizations as more important (or equally important) in contributing to America’s participatory nature. I’m curious because as the size, diversity, and even definition of ‘communities’ has changes since those times, so has the nature of the civic organizations that underpin the social organization inside those communities. In “Bowling Alone” Putnam also comments on Tocqueville’s view of American society and builds a thesis on the significant shifts (on a more recent scale at least) in participation in organizations, and its effect on the gradual degradation of social capital and political activity. Were these organizations more prolific in Tocqueville’s time, and could they possibly explain the stronger sense of activity in local government of that time, or was local government simply much much stronger, considering the rural nature of society in those eras?