Alexis de Tocqueville and the American Way in Religion

Unlike in France, where after the 1789 Revolution the established church was replaced by a policy of official secularism, the U.S. has always tried to strike a balance between protecting religion and maintaining the state’s neutrality in religious matters. Ironically, writes Paul Carrese, this path owes much to two Frenchmen: Charles de Montesquieu and Alexis de Tocqueville. But what is the condition of American moderation today?

America still is largely exceptional among modern liberal democracies for the balance it holds between two principles that, as the French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville noted almost two centuries ago, are not happily aligned in most polities: liberty and religious tolerance, on the one hand, and respect for religious sources of truth, morality, and political views, on the other. Today it is the rare university graduate or member of our political or cultural elite who knows that Tocqueville defined this balance, or moderation, as America’s “point of departure.” His Democracy in America (1835/1840) considered this the foundation for our political institutions, political culture, and broader social or moral culture.

Writing shortly after the French Revolution and its campaign for secularism, [Tocqueville] saw the need for a different philosophy. He knew that French secularists of his day would be puzzled to learn that American politics was full of religious ideas and yet its liberal democracy was healthier, and more peaceful, than France’s. A Tocquevillean today would note that the secularists still would be puzzled, [but] also would notice the neglected, decaying foundations of American moderation.

Read more at American Interest

More about: Alexis de Tocqueville, American Religion, Freedom of Religion, History & Ideas, Montesquieu, Secularism

What a Strategic Victory in Gaza Can and Can’t Achieve

On Tuesday, the Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant met in Washington with Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. Gallant says that he told the former that only “a decisive victory will bring this war to an end.” Shay Shabtai tries to outline what exactly this would entail, arguing that the IDF can and must attain a “strategic” victory, as opposed to merely a tactical or operational one. Yet even after a such a victory Israelis can’t expect to start beating their rifles into plowshares:

Strategic victory is the removal of the enemy’s ability to pose a military threat in the operational arena for many years to come. . . . This means the Israeli military will continue to fight guerrilla and terrorist operatives in the Strip alongside extensive activity by a local civilian government with an effective police force and international and regional economic and civil backing. This should lead in the coming years to the stabilization of the Gaza Strip without Hamas control over it.

In such a scenario, it will be possible to ensure relative quiet for a decade or more. However, it will not be possible to ensure quiet beyond that, since the absence of a fundamental change in the situation on the ground is likely to lead to a long-term erosion of security quiet and the re-creation of challenges to Israel. This is what happened in the West Bank after a decade of relative quiet, and in relatively stable Iraq after the withdrawal of the United States at the end of 2011.

Read more at BESA Center

More about: Gaza War 2023, Hamas, IDF