One of those monumental works where, even though one reads it closely for 800 pages, one finds oneself at the end having only plunged beneath the very surface of its depth. The most I can say now is this: His characterization of the American spirit is utterly uncanny, and makes one see how many of the problems with our national character today are merely the workings out of something far more ancient. He offers a doctrine of liberalism that is far more tenable than that of the social contract tradition, a liberalism that is far more in tune with the ancients and medievals, a concrete liberalism that is properly sociological (in the best sense of the term) and attuned to the manners and customs of a people, and (unsurprisingly) a liberalism far more apprehensive about its own limits than either his Lockean-Rousseauvian predecessors or his Millian-Rawlsian successors. I can't wait to re-read this one. One of the signal triumphs of observation, insight, balance, and rigor in the history of scholarly work.

When reading Tocqueville’s journalistic accounts of democracy in america you get the distinct impression, at least I did, that he hated democracy. Clearly intelligent, the account is exhaustive but at times he’s flippant boarding on sarcastic about his views of the democratic process that was going on at the time.

Some background, so Tocqueville was a french aristocrat who came to America to study the American penal system. You see, at the time, France had one top down way of administering its penal system, which was very crude and barbaric. In America different states had vastly different penal codes, some very harsh but also some that were less harsh than that of France that were toying with some basic ideas of reforming a person’s character through rehabilitation. It’s likely that Tocqueville came to do this civic act because he was afraid for his life, being an aristocrat during the revolution and from one of the most conservative families in France, the guillotine likely had his name on it.

I believe his analysis of American democracy is mostly correct. The best way to illustrate this is by example, one that might keep Americans from being so positive about their democracy. Let’s take democracy in Iran. There’s a lot of injustice that goes on, lack of representation across the board, where a board of religious leaders “vet” candidates. For most US elections, there’s really no discernible difference between that of Iran and that of the United States. In the United States capital gets to vet candidates, most of the time. Take Barack Obama, the financial sector preferred the democrat in that cycle while they preferred Bush in the cycle prior. In American democracy capital is not held in check.

Capital is a fundamental aspect of our democracy and it prevents representation of many interest groups across the board. Our society was egalitarian insofar that it allowed you to rise to a different station. You could become the new master, if you played your cards right and were lucky. Americans, even in the 1800s to today, as Tocqueville pointed out think that because they use the dutch word “boss” instead of “master” like the French used at the time that masters do not exist. This isn’t the case, capital just found a way at hiding their true intentions in America which is reflected in the evolution of our language. I don’t think I would have gotten along with Tocqueville but he did a hell of a job cataloging US democracy in this book.

Tocqueville came from a Norman family in the north of France, with an ancient lineage. I ran across a letter of his that he sent to a friend, upon returning home that did well to describe his character:

“Here I am finally at Tocqueville, in my family's old broken-down ruin. At a league's distance I can see the harbor where William set sail to conquer England. I am surrounded by Normans whose names figure among the conquerors. All that, I have to confess, tickles my heart with a prideful weakness and sometimes engenders in me a boyish enthusiasm of which I am afterwards ashamed”.

He loved aristocracy and conquest. The love for aristocracy showed through in his writing in Democracy in America. He loved the supreme court and our courts generally in America, which are our most aristocratic institution. They’re largely not beholden to the people in any way, and are allowed to act with a sort of impunity. In France that impunity of power was given to the executive where the courts were largely weak, it’s the inverse where the executive is relatively weak and the courts have more room to act horizontally.

I could go on all day but I will list a set of bulletpoints for the main points of the novel from my notes:
1) Democracy, along with capital, created a systematic way for Americans to judge ideas and each other. For example, an item like a book was only good, whether it sold well, which was not the case in France.
2) Democracy breeds envy and humiliation. In France where inequality was extreme it attracted almost no attention but in America where the playing field was more level the differences were noticed, breeding resentment. Émile Durkheim would do a much better job at observing that the suicide rates were higher in countries with greater wealth and more egalitarian societies.
3) Tyranny of the majority. Democracy breeds a tyranny of the majority that must be put in check. He saw the fact that the US president having the ability to be re-elected and the terms of congressman as a failing of US democracy.
4) Democracy encourages local initiative and spontaneous order. In France to get any small thing done you had to send up to Paris and wait two years to get anything done, but in America, people just did what they wanted at a local level. He saw it as something that would die in America as it would become more of an empire.
5) Race relations in a democracy. At one end you had the indian who won’t be ordered around, and would rather lose their life than give up their liberty. At the other end is the black slave who doesn’t even know what it would be like to be free. Both of which had lost their religions, their language and were left in a position where they could not assimilate because the white people would not accept them.
6) Democracy breeds resentment for authority and is fatally biased towards mediocrity. Americans, not wanting to upset their neighbors, saw their neighbors as potential customers and there was a very narrow window of allowable discourse.

Bullet points 2,4 and 6 are very correct, even to this day. We have changed as a society quite a bit since Tocqueville wrote about it but those three ideas are failings, in my view, that carry on to this day. Even though I probably wouldn’t have gotten along with this Norman, he did quite a good job at talking about these ideas, and I thank him for it. To give me more context for reading this book I stole some excerpts from Leo Damrosch’s book and also Steven Smith’s lectures from yale.

(Reprinted from the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography [cclapcenter.com:]. I am the original author of this essay, as well as the owner of CCLaP; it is not being reprinted here illegally.)

The CCLaP 100: In which I read for the first time a hundred so-called classics, then write reports on whether or not they deserve the label

Essay #35: Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville (1835)

The story in a nutshell:
Although these days we take it for granted, for a long time democracy had been far from proven to be a viable, stable system of government; for example, just 15 years after the US established the peaceful democracy we now know and love, France tried doing the same thing, but in their case quickly leading to disaster, chaos, massive bloodshed and an eventual military dictatorship. That's why the French government sent 25-year-old Alexis de Tocqueville to the US and Canada in 1831, to study why this had gone so right there and so wrong in their own country, and especially when it came to the establishment of a fair and efficient justice system, of which France at the time was in dire need of an overhaul. de Tocqueville's eventual two-volume report, then, was essentially the first modern, sophisticated analysis of the democratic process ever written, and as such contained plenty of conclusions that came as big surprises -- that democratic stability in the US, for example, was mostly due to the intense ideological support of the system by the very rich who stood to lose a bit under one, that the reason religion is so important in the US is precisely because it is so separated from government affairs, that the assumption of innocence in criminal trials is not just some flighty liberal experiment but the very bedrock under which nearly all other aspects of a successful democracy are supported. The books were filled with dozens of such stunners, which made a lot of Europeans experience an entire sea change in the way they thought of democracies, a big part of what eventually led such government systems to become so popular over there too.

The argument for it being a classic:
The main argument for this two-book set being a classic seems to be the huge influence it's had on society -- it was not only an instant bestseller in both France and US from nearly the moment it came out, not only legitimized the budding academic field of political science in many people's eyes for the first time, but is the basis behind many of the economic theories driving our country to this day, as well as laying the blueprint for how modern secular justice systems work. And of course, let's not forget how prescient de Tocqueville was as well; he not only predicted the rise of the US and Russia as superpowers, using the constantly infighting nations of Europe as their pawns, not only predicted the coming civil war in the US over the issue of slavery thirty years before it actually happened, but also foretold the danger of American democracy causing the devolution of all aspects of culture to their lowest common denominator, through the combination of mob mentality and a materialistic middle class.

The argument against:
The main criticism of Democracy in America seems to be that it's simply not for everyone; far from the entertaining travelogue its title and origins suggest, these volumes are essentially more like textbooks, dry and obtuse most of the time and containing dozens upon dozens of pages of minutia concerning the wonky ins-and-outs of county-seat government services, the rules and hierarchies of municipal courts, &c. I mean, this is to be expected -- this is the entire reason the French government hired de Tocqueville to visit the US in the first place -- and without a doubt is important information that still continues to influence academes who study these subjects; but don't forget that we're defining "classic" here at the CCLaP 100 in terms of whether or not everyone should one day sit down and eventually read it, not just the professionals and historians who will benefit from it the most.

My verdict:
So let me admit, like so many of the pre-Victorian titles I've been reviewing for this essay series, I had a hard time simply getting through Democracy in America; because what its critics charge is definitely true, that this is much more like a schoolbook than an entertaining general-interest title, and as such contains entire chapters sometimes that come across more like census reports than something to sit down and read for pleasure from beginning to end. While that definitely makes it a must-read for anyone planning on entering a career in politics, economics or law, it also makes it a book more to be studied than enjoyed, and it seems pretty obvious to me that the actual reading of it is something that can be skipped by most people, in favor of reading a simple analysis which explains its most important insights in truncated form. It's a pretty cut-and-dried case as far as I'm concerned, which is kind of a shame for a book that still enjoys such a good reputation even 180 years after its original publication.

Is it a classic? No

(Don't forget that the first 33 essays in the "CCLaP 100" series are now available in book form!)

I believe this to be an incredible work. There is something fascinating about impartially studying anything: be it particle physics, time series analysis, or regression analysis in statistics. Oddly enough, I find that Tocqueville has incorporated this level of scientific impartiality into his pivotal work on political science: Democracy In America.

This work spans so many details and contains such a wide array of ideas and mentalities I cannot but help think this author was fully absorbed in these thoughts for years. As I have been. Because of life (which tends to get in the way) I have been reading this book for about a year. I will say this: it certainly payed to stretch it out like that. Every day I would read a couple pages and spend some time ruminating upon it, or like good existential philosophy, see how it applied to my (and others) lives. People watching became exploring, and Tocqueville frequently combined both in his travels, by exploring the untamed woods in America at the height of colonial expansion and by watching people (including inside the woods, involving quite a scientific observation involving no observer bias, if the events have been transcribed correctly)

What we wish for in sociology and political science is, after all, a degree of impartiality that befits the natural sciences. And although he never mentions this issue himself, he is clearly taking a good approach towards it. To Tocqueville, Aristocracy and Democracy are two simple manifestations of the human spirit: present in our very souls, manifesting themselves innately through a sociological process manifest within us all. At the very end, Tocqueville humbly states these observations should be used to better the human race, and with utmost obeisance to the laws of science, simply states that although Democracy is predominantly prevailing, the people who try to re-enact Aristocracy are doing something very childish indeed.

I could draw logical parallels to Karl Marx using sole Pareto-like arguments. Suffice to say: it is better to be wise and inactive, than to be foolish and very active indeed.

In order to appreciate and to understand the uniqueness and radical nature of the American experiment in democracy and liberty - one needs a keen insight, an alternative and systematic perspective, and to live in America for some time. The aristocratic Tocqueville got all of them and even more. In the first volume, his enthusiasm for American democracy is almost limitless and his observations are extremely pertinent, fresh, and all over the place; the only objection he has against America is the “tyranny of the majority”. In the second volume, the aristocrat in him notices more and more problems with American democracy; but primarily with the tendency of equality to suppress liberty and the lack of any nobility and depth in such an equal system. He also turns more abstract and philosophic in the second volume, and some of the initial freshness is gone.
It is very interesting to notice how many of Tocqueville's predictions came to pass in America and in the rest of the world since he wrote this book. Then there are the principles of the French Revolution and Napoleonic period that he barely mentions here; however one needs to constantly keep them in mind while reading this book. It is also interesting to contrast Tocqueville with Marx in almost everything they say. As someone who immigrated as an adult from Europe to America, I find this book fascinating and extremely relevant today.

De Tocqueville pretty much sums up why I love America and our Constitution so much!

The book's basis was a nine month visit to America by De Tocqueville in 1831, ostensibly to study America's prison system. It was an interesting time to visit America, half-way between the establishment of the constitution and the Civil War. In the course of the visit he met former president John Quincy Adams, then incumbent Andrew Jackson, Senator Daniel Webster and Sam Houston among others. He traveled the length and breath of a country much smaller than what we see on the map now. Before the Mexican-American War and Western expansion and he visited both North and South: New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Nashville, Memphis, New Orleans.

The book is labelled as both American History and Political Science. De Tocqueville said the first volume was more about America, the second about democracy. The introduction by Mansfield and Winthrop, the translators and editors of the edition I read, called it both the best book on America and the best on democracy. That despite it being written by a French aristocrat--at least by birth although the introduction describes him as a democrat and liberal by conviction.

De Tocqueville says in his own introduction he did not mean to write a "panegyric" to America. He's critical, at times presciently so, of America and democracy both, and doesn't pull his punches about how slavery and racism might pull apart the country. He doesn't hesitate to call slavery "evil" and his depiction of the plight of Native Americans is both insightful and heartbreaking. Surprisingly so, not what I expected from a Westerner writing in the 19th Century. Yet despite some sharp criticisms--and it being written by an outsider, a foreigner, the book has been embraced and quoted by Americans both from the Left and Right. It's said to be commonly assigned in political science courses and I wish some excerpts had been assigned in mine, instead of the execrable People's History by Zinn. De Tocqueville in the end strikes me as much more credible, still relevant and much more thought-provoking about democracy and its faultlines--especially the "tyranny of the majority."

That's not to say this makes for easy reading. At times I considered giving up on it, slapping a two star rating as too tedious to read. Parts are a slog. I suggest anyone tackling this buy a paperback copy they don't feel hesitant to mark up and highlight and that they take it in short doses. This isn't one of those light, entertaining books. This isn't dessert or junk food. It's a meaty dish; one you chew on and parts can be hard to digest. But the man is brilliant. And it's surprising to me how 200 years later so much resonates in this book and is relevant to contemporary America and its politics. Well worth the effort to anyone interested in democracy or America.

At least the first volume is, which definitely deserves five stars for amazing. That first volume was a popular bestseller in its day, the second volume less so, and I can understand that. As De Tocqueville noted, the first book is more on America, and is grounded in a lot of telling observations. Not that it's absent in this second book, but the second volume is a lot more theoretical, and I think a lot of its points are better made in the first part. I also admit I'm not inclined to accept one of his major themes in this second volume, that religion is essential to democracy. And he seems very much off the mark in his contention that American democracy doesn't produce great literature or advances in the sciences. Admittedly, in 1835 when this second volume was published, about the only well-known American writers of fiction were James Fenimore Cooper and Washington Irving. I can't say I much agree with his criticisms of individualism either. That's not to say reading both parts wasn't worthwhile, but less essential I feel than the amazing first volume.

De Tocqueville's opus was the first sociological account of the fledgling American culture, and was aimed in part at creating a road map for a Democratic government in France. The sheer impact it has had on the way the world views American society - and how we view ourselves - makes this a must-read.

Democracy in America leaves no stone unturned. It systematically describes the governmental structure, from local to national. It weighs the effects of public education, freedom of the press, and extensive land availability on the attitudes and interactions of all levels of society. Despite being two centuries old, many of the observations hold significant relevance today.

One of the most important themes to arise from de Tocqueville's analysis is that of what came to be known as associationalism: the ability of motivated groups to self-govern and fill societal needs that were, in Europe, handled by the state. This characterization of American culture was one which he touted as being one of our strongest attributes, and essential to the balance of power between the people and their rulers.

There are, of course, biases and misperceptions in this account. Democracy in America does not pretend, however, to be the penultimate description. Rather, it's built as a template for further research - a purpose that it's served exceedingly well through its long lifetime.

Pick this one up anywhere you can.

Did I read this entire thing? No. But I suffered through enough and I can do what I want and pretend that I read it.

Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville

de Tocqueville, a young French diplomat, wrote this remarkable essay in two books based on his travels to the United States in the 1830s. He was a student of the consequences of the French revolution and had a very disdainful view of power for a diplomat — in particular the elite’s ability to eventually exploit the loopholes and take power back from the people. It quickly becomes obvious from this treatise that de Tocqueville had enormous admiration for America’s experiment in democracy and also her progress. He also points out sadly that some day the experiment would come to an end.

de Tocqueville came to the U.S. in part to better understand sociology and prison reform. His real aim and his lasting work, that congealed in his mind along the way, became America and her democratic system. In his analyses here he often uses England, France and the South American countries as points of comparison to counterbalance the U.S. study because these were the countries of importance that had constitutions or most resembled democracies that he was most familiar with.

Beyond a brief history lesson of very early America that is quite interesting, de Tocqueville dissects America’s local, state and federal levels of government and the different branches of the federal government. Many of his observations are still fresh and one even could say prescient given our political situation in the United States. Of course he came decades after Washington and Adams and Jefferson and does not spend much time discussing these key people but rather the systems of government. Here are some key takeaways.

1. de Tocqueville believed the biggest reason for the success of America’s democratic experiment fifty years into it was due to the mannerisms of Americans — not the Constitution. By mannerisms he meant not just discourse but the work habits and pragmatism. He did not hold as much faith in Constitutions as France and Mexico’s were similar to the U.S. and both governments had major issues with corruption and inefficiencies.

The manners of the Americans of the United States are, then, the real cause which renders that people the only one of the American nations that is able to support a democratic government.

2. In conjunction with the first point, he was enamored of the Puritan work ethic and disappointed in the French to the north in Canada who did very little with either the land or opportunities in his opinion. He spent a hundred pages discussing the Northeast and the Puritan influence. This was quite interesting.

I have met with men in New England who were on the point of leaving a country, where they might have remained in easy circumstances, to go to seek their fortune in the wilds. Not far from that district I found a French population in Canada, which was closely crowded on a narrow territory. Nature offers the solitudes of the New World to Europeans; but they are not always acquainted with the means of turning her gifts to account. Other peoples of America have the same physical conditions of prosperity as the Anglo-Americans, but without their laws and their manners; and these peoples are wretched. The laws and manners of the Anglo-Americans are therefore that efficient cause of their greatness which is the object of my inquiry.

3. de Tocqueville disliked the populist and current president of the time Andrew Jackson calling him a man of violent temper and mediocre talents. Hmmm that sounds familiar. His cruel policy toward Native Americans and the undue accolades pertaining to the Battle of New Orleans were other points that de Tocqueville wrote about. Nevertheless he did comment that Jackson advocated a diminished role of centralized government in most areas including the role of banks. I think if de Tocqueville had understood slavery better he might have had a more enlightened view as to why Jackson so often opposed central government policies.

Far from wishing to extend the federal power, the President belongs to the party which is desirous of limiting that power to the bare and precise letter of the Constitution, and which never puts a construction upon that act favorable to the Government of the Union; far from standing forth as the champion of centralization, General Jackson is the agent of all the jealousies of the States.

4. de Tocqueville had a few, largely unremarkable, chapters on the two other peoples living in America beyond the Europeans; African-American slaves and Native Americans. His views of Native Americans were somewhat empathetic. His views on slaves were quite racist. He simply could not understand why slaves didn’t revolt at every opportunity. This racist statement of his about the plight of slaves is actually one of the milder ones he makes.

He [the slave] quietly enjoys the privileges of his debasement. If he becomes free, independence is often felt by him to be a heavier burden than slavery

5. Switching gears. de Tocqueville talked extensively about townships and local communities and how they were the bedrock of America’s success. One of the more enlightening aspects of the book. He returns to this point often.

Town-meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they bring it within the people's reach, they teach men how to use and how to enjoy it. A nation may establish a system of free government, but without the spirit of municipal institutions it cannot have the spirit of liberty

6. de Tocqueville also points out that a geographically isolated America does not have the pressures of warring neighbors like in France. But he believes the U.S. deserves credit for maintaining peace among themselves not an easy thing to do.


The American Union has no enemies to contend with; it stands in the wilds like an island in the ocean. But the Spaniards of South America were no less isolated by nature; yet their position has not relieved them from the charge of standing armies. They make war upon each other when they have no foreign enemies to oppose; and the Anglo-American democracy is the only one to maintain peace.

7. de Tocqueville certainly had some interesting things to say about both impeachment and re-elections of presidents. He did not think a president should be eligible for re-election. Nor did he think the prosecutors in an impeachment trial should be withheld the ability to criminally prosecute the accused. Better to have a president fearful of jail — or in the case of treason the ultimate penalty. Although he did acknowledge that he doubted a real tyrant would be stopped by the threat of jail either.

By preventing political tribunals from inflicting judicial punishments the Americans seem to have eluded the worst consequences of legislative tyranny, rather than tyranny itself.

8. de Tocqueville also wrote presciently of a future Mexican-American war. It took only thirteen years for his prediction to come true. He thought nothing would slow the ambition of America’s westward expansion. How right he was.

Thus, the Spaniards and the Anglo-Americans are, properly speaking, the only two races which divide the possession of the New World. The limits of separation between them have been settled by a treaty; but although the conditions of that treaty are exceedingly favorable to the Anglo-Americans, I do not doubt that they will shortly infringe this arrangement.

9. The last takeaway is around the question of how great empires end. This is one near and dear to most of our hearts. And de Tocqueville has some important things to say here. Sadly no practical solutions. DeTocqueville could not have imagined the technological globalization we have today nor Nuclear weapons nor the Climate Crisis. So I’m not convinced that making government local will solve the big problems. But I could be wrong.

All the passions which are most fatal to republican institutions spread with an increasing territory, whilst the virtues which maintain their dignity do not augment in the same proportion. The ambition of the citizens increases with the power of the State; the strength of parties with the importance of the ends they have in view; but that devotion to the common weal which is the surest check on destructive passions is not stronger in a large than in a small republic.

4 stars. Highly readable book for being nearly two centuries old. The version I read was translated to English in the 1870’s. It is lengthy but reads quite quickly. Most every section stands on its own. I probably would have given five stars if de Tocqueville wasn’t so obtuse about slavery. Other than this blind spot his deductive reasoning is quite remarkable and pertinent to today’s political climate.

Justly a classic. I learned a great deal, including about myself.

The first half of the audiobook, I had 'forgotten' it was originally written in the 1800's. It truly felt like it was recently written. The author was thoroughly knowledgeable and predicted accurate evolution on our government, the needs and concerns of the people. The hinders and the fixes and positives. This would be another book that every voting American should read too. I would personally give the a book a 4.75. The author did an exceptional job writing about the democracy in America. Something so many snear about, but yet don't realize how much they take for granted.