Democracy in America and Two Essays on America (Penguin Classics)

I can't say anything new about a book this famous, so I will just give my personal opinion about why and how to read it. Why: because it is a timeless description of how American democracy works, in both theory and practice. As to how to read it, I have this book sitting next to the Bible on my bedside bookshelf, and I read in the same way. I have been reading Democracy in America in a piecemeal way over several decades, in small installments, with time in between to think and ponder and question what I have just read. It's a book that doesn't give you a straightforward narrative that's easy to follow. Rather, each section has its own character and focuses on one facet of the rough-cut jewel we call democracy. You could read Democracy in America all the way through, but that would be an endurance test, not necessarily a way to understand the wealth of ideas it contains. Some parts of the book are dry and technical, as when de Tocqueville describes township government in microscopic detail. He was a devoted student of political theory who took those matters very seriously, so he gave his readers all the data they might need in order to form a clear idea of how American intitutions operated. But he was also very good at lively observations of the social scene and the natural wonders he encountered in America. These are the parts of the book that really spring to life and make this book much more than a political science text.

To go back to the Bible/de Tocqueville analogy, Democracy in America is a book in which any reader can find a quotation (or misquotation) to support any point of view. However, it's only by sitting down and actually reading de Tocqueville's words in their proper context that you will understand the real greatness of this book.

In Part 1, de Tocqueville writes a constant stream of aphorisms, quotes, pithy remarks and general and specific observations about the American experience. Like a double-barreled shotgun blast, some of the pellets are going to find their mark and a few are going to go astray. Overall though it is well worth the read. Seldom does he get too bogged down in any one topic and his style cuts through to the essentials, leaving details for his footnotes.

Part 2 is a more general philosophical work, more a rumination on the passing away of the aristocratic age and the institution of the democratic one. Some of his observations are still insightful and relevant, and his outsider's perspective on both the strengths and weakness of democracy bear reading, thought and reflection. Are his observations still relevant today? Let me quote a few and you be the judge.

* "If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the unlimited authority of the majority" (p 311).

* "Scarcely any question arises in the United States which does not become, sooner or later, a subject of judicial debate" (p 323).

* "if despotism were to be established amongst the democratic nations of our days, it might assume a different character; it would be more extensive and more mild; it would degrade men without tormenting them" (p 868)

* "The foremost, or indeed the sole, condition which is required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community is to love equality, or to get men to believe you love it. Thus the science of despotism, which was once so complex, is simplified, and reduced as it were to a single principle" (p 852).

* "the concentration of power and the subjection of individuals will increase amongst democratic nations, not only in the same proportion as their equality, but in the same proportion as their ignorance" (p 849).

* "I readily admit that public tranquility is a great good, but at the same time I cannot forget that all nations have been enslaved by being kept in good order" (p 668).

* "they must know that liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith" (p 13). "Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot" (p 355).

* "there are no surer guarantees of equality among men than poverty and misfortune" (p 32).

* "there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality in freedom" (p 59)

* "In England the Parliament has the acknowledged right to modify the constitution; as, therefore, the constitution may undergo perpetual changes, it does not in reality exist" (p 111).

* "In the estimation of a democracy, a government is not a benefit but a necessary evil" (p 238).

* "There is another species of attachment to a country which is more rational than the one we have been describing. It is perhaps less generous and less ardent, but it is more fruitful and more lasting; it is coeval with the spread of knowledge, it is nurtured by the laws, it grows by the exercise of civil, rights, and, in the end, it is confounded with the personal interest of the citizen. A man comprehends the influence which the prosperity of his country has upon his welfare; he is aware that the laws authorize him to contribute his assistance to that prosperity, and he labors to promote as a portion of his interest in the first place, and as a portion of his right in the second" (p 279).

* "One of the most ordinary weaknesses of the human intellect is to seek to reconcile contradictory principles, and to purchase peace at the expense of logic" (p 541).

* "The advantages which freedom brings are only shown by length of time; and it is always easy to mistake the cause in which they originate" (p 617).

* "they call for equality in freedom; but if they cannot obtain that, they still call for equality in slavery" (p 619).

* "But men will never establish any equality with which they can be contented. Whatever efforts a people may make, they will never succeed in reducing all the conditions of society to a perfect level" (pp 663-664).

I've tackled - or tried to tackle - my share of the great classics. I've been disappointed as often as I've been impressed. Some of them, like "The Education of Henry Adams," simply lack the substantive content that would justify their reputations as classics. Others, like most of Aristotle's stuff, require more effort to read than a lot of people might be willing to put forth. But with Tocqueville's "Democracy in America," we have a book that both lives up to its reputation and can be easily read.

Perhaps some of the credit for the fluidity of the language should go to Gerald E Bevan, the translator of this edition. Regardless of who gets the credit, there is no reason for any ordinary reader to be intimidated by this book. It's long (over 800 pages), but the length is fully justified by the breadth, depth, and richness of Tocqueville's observations and reflections on what he has seen.

There's far too much material in the book for a detailed description of the contents, but here are a few comments that come to mind:

Tocqueville wrote for a French audience, not American. He hoped to examine and evaluate American democracy so that the French could learn lessons from America's successes and failures. The ostensible reason for Tocqueville's trip to America, believe it or not, was to study the American prison system!

Democracy was not then the universally shared aspiration of all nations that it is today. Today, even the most despotic governments claim to be democracies. But in Tocqueville's day, there was serious debate among political theorists about whether democracy was practical at all.

Tocqueville was not an uncritical admirer of American democracy by any means. He found as much to criticize as he did to praise. Even when he approved of certain democratic practices, he expressed reservations about the transportability of those practices to countries which had different cultures, geography, history, and ethnic composition from America's.

Tocqueville did not write the book for the purpose of predicting the future. Far too much emphasis, in my opinion, has been placed on the accuracy of some of his predictions about the United States and the world in general. The fact is that his predictions were wrong about as often as they were right, and those predictions are by no means the primary focus of the book.

Perhaps the most valuable aspect of the book is Tocqueville's ability to see us as others see us instead of how we would like to see ourselves. One striking example is the deluded propensity of Americans to proclaim themselves as individualists. Tocqueville puts that false notion to rest when he observes that there is "no country where there is generally less independence of thought and real freedom of debate than in America." He uses as an example the almost total absence of any public displays of religious unbelief - an example that could be repeated, verbatim, with equal truth today. (Can you imagine any admitted atheist or even agnostic ever being elected President of the United States?)

The book provides an interesting picture of what Constitutional government was like in the earlier days of the Republic, when the Constitution was much more of a living document than it is in our day, when it is seen largely as an obstacle to be circumvented when the federal government wants to undertake or regulate something which it has no power to do under the Constitution. Modern readers will chuckle at Tocqueville's assertion that the Presidency is an inherently weak office, empowered to do nothing but administer the laws which Congress has passed. Equally quaint is his interpretation of the entire federal government as nothing more than an agency for conducting foreign policy, since all domestic concerns are handled by the states and localities. As a result, the book spends a disproportionate (to modern minds) amount of its attention on the structure and practices of local and state governments, making careful distinctions between the political habits of New Englanders and frontiersmen, for example.

The book gives little support to those who would (and do) quote it for partisan political purposes. No one who isn't promoting his or her own political agenda could state with certainty that Tocqueville would today be a Republican, Democrat, Socialist or Libertarian; or a liberal or a conservative. Most of the issues that concerned people in the 1830's are far removed from our attention today, and neither Tocqueville nor anyone else of that era could have anticipated the topics of debate that preoccupy 21st century Americans.

Tocqueville credits the churches with many of the aspects of American democracy that he admires. However, he never said, "America is great because she is good, and when she ceases to be good she will cease to be great," - or anything like it.

Tocqueville discusses the problems of the African slaves and the American Indians at considerable length. (That's one way that you can tell that the people who criticize the book for a single-minded focus on White/European people haven't read the book at all.) He is justifiably pessimistic about both problems. There is nothing which we could go back to and say, "If we had only followed Tocqueville's advice, the problems of African-Americans and Native Americans would have been solved long ago." But then, there are few policy prescriptions of any kind in this book - that wasn't Tocqueville's purpose.

This book is, in my experience, incomparable and irreplaceable. I admit to not having yet read Mill, Montesqieu, or Locke. But those men were political theorists rather than observers on the ground, so to speak. If I were the Vice President of Academics for some university, I would eliminate the social science distribution requirement in favor of handing each incoming freshman a copy of "Democracy in America," and requiring an in-depth report on the book before advancement to sophomore status.

Tocqueville was a Frenchman with a strong background in the teachings of the Secularist Enlightenment era of Western Europe. He was intent on determining what aspects of American culture played the greatest role in the successes and blessings of the American people. He initially thought such success could not be achieved any way other than the Secular Humanism he had come to know.

His conclusions were that a government established on the exact opposite principles of Conservative limited government based on Judeo-Christian ethics was what propelled the United States to greatness at such a rapid pace.

This work by Tocqueville is the most concise and exhaustive account of foundational US history every compiled from a not only un-biased perspective, but more astoundingly by an individual who actually had to overcome his own biases which were inherently at odds with that which was being proven before his eyes to bring about the culture, freedoms, and ideals which brought about the greatest Nation ever to exist on earth.

The author travels the United States and provides a description of how democracy works there. It's really surprised what he see. Examples: the striking equality between people, the non-existence of social classes. Write it brings advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantages are that it could govern any uncultivated. Analyzes and says that although the system is not perfect, is the best. Basically it.

Alexis de Tocqueville looks at the United States and examines its political, social, and cultural intricacies in DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA AND TWO ESSAYS ON AMERICA. This edition of DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA is well introduced and translated by Gerald Bevan and Isaac Kramnick. This is not a basic travelogue of a French aristocrat -Intellect - statesman's journey through the American wilderness in a span of nine months, but it is a significant documentary that compares and contrasts European Aristocracy to American Democracy. At the time that Tocqueville wrote DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, both Europe and the United States experienced an enormous shift in its political and social structure. On the US side, several events occurred, Andrew Jackson was president, the Anti-Slavery movement, Indian Removal commenced, immigration was on the rise, and the industrial age was emerging; for the French and European side, the Revolution of 1830 and autocracy took precedence as well as a radical shake-up of the social class. Possibly, for Tocqueville his travels to the United States served as a respite from France's revolutionary tendencies, and the opportunity to observe US history in the making. In terms of chronology, 55 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence and 30 years before the Civil War. In essence, Tocqueville's accounts bear much significance to how the United States progressed, and where it was headed.

Tocqueville writes and thinks in a Jeffersonian stance. With Bevan's translation, the book is readable. Throughout DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA Tocqueville suggests that productivity cannot occur while a man remains idle, and that action must take place in some form or another - the rule of law or through communication. No doubt, this annotates Jeffersonian politics and ideology. However, the basic premise throughout the book concentrates on the difference between Democracy and Aristocracy and their relationships to the social classes of each respective ideology, and how each accomplished and achieved effectiveness. Tocqueville looked toward America as a model to post-revolutionary France (back cover of the Penguin edition), and one may say that this was an exchange of politics and ideas that the United States had done a century before; this was a shared entity.

DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA should be required reading. However, with its large volume, two volumes, small increments should be divided into separate reading sessions in order to understand the gist of Tocqueville's purpose of critiquing America's political system. The most exemplary aspect of the book is how Tocqueville speaks rhetorically in a no nonsense way as well as its timelessness, which will further entice readers to read on. As an added treat, the appendices and the two most important essays of the book pertaining to Tocqueville's encounters with the Iroquois and Chippeway Indians should not be overlooked.

As a brilliant French aristocrat whose family and friends suffered during the violent leveling of the French Revolution and as a loyal French citizen whose nation is still recovering from the Revolution and its mad spawn the Napoleonic Wars, Alexis de Tocqueville must be naturally suspicious about American democracy. In his masterpiece "Democracy in America," de Tocqueville ostensibly praises American democracy while dissecting the dangerous qualities of equality.

De Tocqueville makes pains to explain the uniqueness of America so as to avoid nations from blindly copying the American experiment, which he knows would be both dangerous and impossible. America is protected by two oceans, and needs not tax or conscript its citizens. It has boundless wealth and infinite land, and so immigrants can succeed and the poor enrich themselves simply by moving West. Puritanism endows the people with discipline and self-control, and in de Tocqueville's analysis religion is especially necessary in a democracy because as people become freer politically and economically they need to be further restrained socially and morally. But what truly makes the American experiment work is that abstract amorphous variable called "customs," which de Tocqueville formulates as the habits of book instruction and practical learning combined with deep love of religion and liberty.

Even if these special ingredients for the success of American democracy could be replicated de Tocqueville would strongly advise against it because he sees these ingredients as creating dangerous tendencies and habits in America that is restrained by well-respected but ultimately weak institutions. In the book's most powerful section "The Unlimited Power of the Majority," de Tocqueville discusses his most famous phrase "the tyranny of the majority," which means that in America "the body is left free, and the soul is enslaved." Whereas De Tocqueville can be slippery and subtle, contradictory and complex elsewhere here he is at his most clear and direct: "I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America." Equality translates into the tyranny of the majority which translates into the despotism of public opinion. Indeed, throughout the text, de Tocqueville finds more similarities than differences between despotism and democracy.

The ultimate difference between despotism and democracy is that in the former people know they are enslaved and in the latter people willingly become enslaved. The people's pettiness and provincialism, ignorance and complacence makes in de Tocqueville's eyes the American experiment unstable. In believing that they are the power the people invest too much power to the magistrates, who may decide to subvert democratic institutions (consider the maneuvers of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to extend presidential prerogatives).

For de Tocqueville American democracy is not even desirable. Let's read the book's thesis paragraph:

"Do you wish to give a certain elevation to the human mind and teach it to regard the things of this world with generous feelings, to inspire men with a scorn of mere temporal advantages, to form and nourish strong convictions and keep alive the spirit of honorable devotedness? Is it your object to refine the habits, embellish the manners, and cultivate the arts, to promote the love of poetry, beauty, and glory? Would you constitute a people fitted to act powerfully upon all nations, and prepared for those high enterprises which, whatever be their results, will leave a name forever famous in history? If you believe such to be the principal object of society, avoid the government of the democracy, for it would not lead you with certainty to the goal."

And he continues:

"But if you hold it expedient to divert the moral and intellectual activity of man to the production of comfort and the promotion of general well-being; if a clear understanding be more profitable to man than genius; if your object is not to stimulate the virtues of heroism, but the habits of peace; if you had rather witness the vices than crimes, and are content to meet with fewer noble deeds, provided offenses be diminished in the same proportion; if, instead of living in the midst of a brilliant society, you are contented t o have prosperity around you; if, in short, you are of the opinion that the principal object of a government is not to confer the greatest possible power and glory upon the body of the nation, but to ensure the greatest enjoyment and to avoid the most misery to each of the individuals who compose it."

De Tocqueville may have written his words in French but he knew that his words would undoubtedly and faithfully be translated into English, and he must make sure to not offend his American readers while informing his French readers of the dangers of American democracy. Americans may find this passage unobjectionable and quite flattering, but here the brilliant French aristocrat is asking his fellow French aristocrats: Does France want to be a land of competent and manufactured mediocrity like America?

In his heart De Tocqueville believes that the aristocracy is the only force that can promote democracy in France. The aristocracy is the buffer between the tyrant and the tyranny of the majority, between the need to dominate and the instinct to level; it is the force that ennobles and lifts the nation. Indeed, de Tocqueville has nothing but respect and praise for the Federalists and nothing but scorn and contempt for Andrew Jackson. (De Tocqueville mentions as an aside how Americans passionately supported the French Revolution, and how George Washington sacrificed his stature in order to prevent America from going war against England in support of the French Revolution - a typical de Tocqueville hyperbole which must have had a profound impact on his French aristocratic readers.)

Like Edmund Burke, de Tocqueville believes that the French Revolution had permanently and irrevocably destroyed the ancien regime, and with it any love and respect, in fact any ties, between the king and the people. The despot was now free to become totally evil, and the people were now free to become totally banal. If de Tocqueville had witnessed the horrors of the twentieth century he would have instantly commented that fascism and Communism were two twins borne out of the mother that is the French Revolution. If he were living today he would be horrified at the global banality created by the dominance of the American idea.

But de Tocqueville would not be surprised. He did not predict the American civil war (which he could have if he had spent some more time in the South, and saw how the economies of the North and South were radically diverging from each other) and he did not predict the American empire (he thought Americans petty and provincial, and would not bother to venture beyond their shores except for commerce) but he saw the intimate relationship between American democracy (the absolute demand for equality), manufacturing (the practical conformity), and the market (the love of profit and commerce), and how these three forces had stunted the growth of philosophy, literature, and thought in America.

Americans can never hope to understand "Democracy in America" because it is too close to the truth about them. The tragedy is that nowadays French aristocrats even can't understand "Democracy in America" because we have all, in one way or another, become American.

Alexis De Tocueville wrote an excellent book surveying the individual and society. Man must always take heed to what is good for society, at the same time searching for truth within; this is where a democracy serves best. Democracy in America shows how careful of a balance it takes to keep equality and a civil society. Tocueville takes many different looks at what makes The United States of America so unique, from its early history to its growing diversity of religion and culture. For a book written 150 years ago, it is very accurate and does well pointing out America's future challenges and prospects. I recommend this book for anyone wanting to learn more about Americas history and what its influences were to becoming one of the freest society in the world.

A wonderful study that reminds us of what America was meant to be while entertaining us with insightful, balanced, often prophetic, and provocative observations of our shortcomings. It is a record that reminds us of our better angels and calls us back to the high ideals that made America great. A reminder of a simpler but nobler time like a time-traveller's log of America's seedling ideals of a democratic-republic. Mr. de Tocqueville will help you regain your inner American and restore your faith in what America can be when she is cognizant of her founding principles.

Illuminating because you see clearly that DeTocqueville was MAINLY a kiss ass to the power elite. But, he did have a fine intellect. Please to read for those who enjoy the highest and best writing quality in English, from a Frenchman, from several hundred years ago. Ahead of his time though surely edited a bit.

This translation of Democracy in America is the one to buy. As you would expect from a Penguin edition, the typeface is clear and the paper is of good quality. The book as an object is a pleasure to hold and inviting to read.
But the real joy of this edition is that it is the only one to contain the two short essays that are tucked away at the back. It is worth beginning the book with these essays. They work in their own right but they also serve well as an introduction to the America of De Tocqueville.
'Excursion to Lake Oneida',the second essay, is a beautiful vignette of that time and that place; a rare gem that deserves to be read more widely.
If you intend to read De Tocqueville, read this translation. It is lucid, informative, entertaining and hugely readable. I thoroughly enjoyed travelling through America with De Tocqueville, and I will carry the story of the 'Excursion to Lake Oneida' with me for along time.

Did you have to read this book for Political Science 101? I did, and I still have my copy of it. In this election year, it would be worth taking a look at this book again. It seems to me that, particularly in the past eight years, we have strayed off the path of the ideals that this book represents. Anyone interested in democracy, equality, and the role of the military in government should own a copy of this book. Make sure it is the unabridged one.

This is a classic book. One that belongs on the bookshelf of any person with a serious interest in civil society and politics in America. This book comes in the familiar classic Penguin style binding which means it's an affordable but solid paperback which will still be in one piece even after years of thumbing your way through it (and I think I'm somehow addicted/comforted by the smell of their pages).

But the one unforgivable defect of this 900+ page edition is that it contains no index!! de Tockville wrote lots of chapters with descriptive titles, so you can kind of find your way around, but still it substantially diminishes the usefulness of the text.

My rating is for history buffs and history majors. For others, I would give it three starts.

Alex gives you a lot of perpective and appreciation for this country and its origins. The book is from the perspective of a Frenchman during the formation of our country, and also let europeans know of his thoughts.

I pick up this book just in accident. I would like to gain some knowledge in the democracy here and fortunately I get the right book.

The book in detail explains what was the social situation before America was built. From different aspects, the author told and justified "how and why" on the political/law/administration systems in America.

The author's comments on the regional democracy (in locality) is very true.

A deep study of American political system, pointing the flaws and dangers of democracy.
It made me wonder whether Alexis de Tocqueville got in a time machine in 1830 USA, came to 2012 and went back and wrote the book !

This book by the preeminent historian and sociologists of his time, is a very good description of capitalism working in America during the time when it was in full swing when we were closest to actual laissez faire capitalism the mid 1800s.

When I ordered Democracy In America, I thought I was getting a full translation of the French classic. However, this edition is abridged. There seemed to be no indication of this in the information offered on the website. It should be noted that this edition is abridged.

Like many other college-educated Americans I have often seen or heard comments about De Tocqueville's famous book, but it was not until recently that I began reading it in the original. I was shocked and chilled. [to be continued]

935 page book with no index.

Come on, you don't need one.
You can remember that part about the aristocracy of the law...
was just about here...
Or was it here...
Don't worry, I've got it...
Just a sec...

In America? In 1831? Which part of America EXACTLY did this man visit? Which "Americans" did he talk to? Did he talk to blacks? Did he talk to sharecroppers? Did he talk to the industrial fodder that were dying in the factories of the north?

I never understood why this book was so impressive except that it helped to perpetuate the myths of the building of America.