Further, Madison’s solution — not to outlaw free association, but to so reduce the power of the state that no single group can use it to impose its interests on everyone else — maintains the value of associations while defanging their capacity to cause mischief. So in that model, the National Dietary Association might provide resources, fellowship, and guidance to those interested, but could not pressure the state to impose its agenda on everyone else (say, by forcing everyone to give up eating trans-fats).

Unfortunately, while Madison has been proven correct, Tocqueville’s approach won the day. We’ve been paying for it ever since.

But that is probably a subject for another day.

There are a lot of Tocqueville resources available here. Hopefully, you can find what you’re looking for. Tocqueville has an entry in the old Catholic Encyclopedia, but I didn’t find it very helpful.

Thank you for this interesting and insightful post.

I’d be interested to hear on Tocqueville, especially about the intellectual and cultural milieu amidst which he worked and to which he uniquely responded.

In the meantime, can you recommend a good intellectual biography or helpful intellectual overview of his historical ‘era’?

You conclude with, “Nevertheless, I think that Madison’s views can serve as a useful reality check to the more optimistic opinions of Tocqueville and JPII.”

So it would be fair to say their ideas do not necessarily conflict?

i.e., factions are both good and bad, and in both cases they are a human reality whether we recognize them or not?