Can you be a proud, card-carrying observer of American society without first having read Democracy in America? Given this is my second time through de Tocqueville's work, do you think I can get my card laminated?

I bored with this read. De Tocqueville makes some interesting observations about life in early 19th century America. He drones on and on, later in this work, with comparisons between the democracy he has observed in America and with the aristocracies of Europe. I'm glad I won't be tested on reading comprehension because it's tough to retain much when I'm asleep.

There are kernels of interest in this lengthy volume, to be sure. In his short piece, A Fortnight in the Wilderness, included as an appendix, de Tocqueville writes,

The only sentiments that you feel while traveling through these flowered wilderness areas where, as in Milton’s Paradise, everything is prepared to receive man, are a tranquil admiration, a mild melancholy, a vague disgust with civilized life; a sort of wild instinct that makes you think with pain that soon this delicious solitude will have changed face.

Those words were written in August, 1831.

Great book if you like political history or just want to have some better knowledge about Democracy in America. This book is full of amazing and wonderful quotes to use in life.

I studied this book in high school, like for maybe two lectures in American History. I was very interested and had good intentions to read it – and finally, more than fifty years later, I did. It comes in two parts. The first looks at the ideas of democracy and liberty. Tocqueville examines how the history of colonists led to the ideas of liberty and to a government by the people. He looks at the three branches of American Constitutional government and how they work. He provides a good analysis of how local government provides people in a democracy the opportunity to be deeply involved in government. He sees a serious disharmony between a democracy and liberty. He feels the American culture and the Constitution have provided an ingenious method of building a strong mutually beneficial cooperation between democracy and liberty; something he doesn’t believe would work in Europe. Some predictions he made were spot on while others were dismally inaccurate.

The second part concentrates on the workings of an aristocracy (European style government) and democracy (as practiced in the US). Tocqueville was born and raised in an aristocratic family in France. Though he certainly points out faults in aristocratic culture he argues that aristocrats (people born to riches that go back generations who have not worked to live and never expect to) have a very high level of cultural interest and achievement. Basically, without a functioning aristocracy, art, music, literature, manners, intellectual achievement, higher levels of science, etc. all suffer. In a democracy, every man is concerned primarily with himself and gaining more wealth. While it may spawn great scientists, they will be only interested in practical science that will improve production. There may be good artists, but they will be only interested in increased quantity of pretty stuff that will sell to the masses rather than quality that will inspire. He believed it was inevitable that democracy would spread through Europe. In viewing that world, Tocqueville saw it heading toward mediocrity; an abundance of middle ground products with nothing great. A world of uniformity, an abundance of little things but lacking great things; nothing rising, nothing falling.

He bases his analysis upon his perfect knowledge of exactly how men always react to the way governments interface with people. I wasn’t much impressed by the second part. I give the first part 4 stars and the second ½ star. For my review, I am ignoring the pompous second part and giving 4 stars. Started Feb 16, 2018 - Finished Mar 6, 2018

Five reasons you really might want to consider reading Democracy in America:

1. You were assigned it for a political theory class. Yes, in this circumstance, I would definitely recommend reading it. This should not need elaboration.

2. You just love beautiful writing. Congratulations. The introduction alone will be a literary feast worth the price of the book. (Note that this might vary by translation; mine is the Mansfield and Winthrop translation.)

3. You feel unlearned, inferior, left out, and Left Behind because everybody talks about what an amazing book it is, and you've never read it. Well, you haven't exactly missed the Apocalypse, but you're definitely missing something. Not the most noble reason in the world, but read it.

4. You want to understand the roots of American culture/society/institutions a bit better than you currently do, and you want to see their significance in a broader context. Perhaps you want to think a little outside the box of modern American politics. You'll be getting more than you bargain for, but go ahead and read it.

5. You want to have your thoughts turned in directions you never imagined, you want to reexamine things you thought plain, you want to have something very deep inside of you stirred and torn in different directions, and you want to be terrified by freedom and love it more than you ever did before. In fact, you want to look on things very near the center of human existence, and find in the words of Rainer Maria Rilke: "You must change your life."

If you are open to it, all of that might happen to you, but somewhere along the way, it will cease to be about "you." It's just that kind of book.

probably the most difficult thing I've ever read. incredibly intelligent and full of important insights to politics in America Vs politics in the UK. I still think Mr Frenchie could have used easier language and that he had no business writing about America but whatevs.

I took a college course back in the day on ADT in which we read about half of Democracy in America. But it comes up so much I decided that I should finish/re-read the whole thing. It is very good but requires patience. I'll admit that at times it's pretty darn repetitive, and it has its dry spells, but overall it deserves its place as a classic reflection on democracy both as a culture and a political system.

I think it's important to cast ADT's analysis of the US in proper perspective: he's interested in the US mainly as the harbinger of the democratic world, which in the mid-19th century was starting to oust and overwhelm the aristocratic world of which he belonged. He's an outsider looking in not just at America but an entirely new age of world history, and he sees both the risks and the benefits/potential of this new age. At the same time, he believes that much will be lost in the shift to a democratic world and the death of aristocracy: society is being flattened, people have less grandiose ambitions, art will become more pedestrian and commercial, people will become more atomized and focused on pleasure in life, and there are risks of an even greater version of tyranny stemming from the excesses of democracy. But ADT also sees an exploding, burgeoning democratic culture in the United States. He sees a people constantly on the move, looking for commercial opportunity, innovating, organizing, and planning. It's a dynamic capitalist society that has no tolerance for aristocratic privilege, government restrictions, or general slowness. He sees it as an inevitable wave that will rapidly conquer the continent of North American and become a world superpower.

(Essential equality) ADT is a pioneer of the idea of a political culture, which is a set of norms, habits, and values associated with a certain type of government or national politics. He is also a bit of an American exceptionalist. America has a deeply and uniquely democratic political culture that stems from the idea that it was largely autonomous and self-governing from the beginning. Aristocracy or monarchy didn't have a chance to grow in the open spaces of early America, which created self-governing colonies and townships that naturally resented outside attempts at oversight. He particularly idealizes the New England township as the essential unit of a democratic society. For ADT, this idea of equality from the get-go is the fundamental fact of American democracy that shapes all aspects of its culture.

But he is also a bit hesitant and fearful of certain aspects of democracy. He's anxious about the tyranny of the majority, or the tendency of democracy to devolve into mob rule that crushes minority rights. He is pretty honest about the brutal underbelly of American society in slavery, although his views on slaves reflect the racist assumptions of that time period. He also sees democracy not just as leveling but atomizing, creating isolation in individuals that can become dangerous. He fears that a democratic people who see the government as the expression of their will might be willing to give them too much power. He supports a number of remedies to these problems, including separation of powers, federalism, etc. But his most interesting remedy is the idea of civil society groups, which he calls "associations." These independent, citizen-organized and run entities (churches, unions, improvement societies, activist groups, neighborhood associations, guilds, etc) both compel citizens to look up from their personal concerns to the broader issues of society and provide intermediary institutions between them and the government. This encourages wide political engagement and centers of power in society that make a democratic tyranny harder to impose. Admirers of ADT today lament that these groups have become hollowed out in the last half-century of American life (see Putnam's Bowling Alone).

There are dozens of themes you could explore in this massive work, but one last concept I found interesting was ADT's idea of American as liberal, egalitarian, and yet anti-revolutionary people. ADT himself came from an aristocratic French family that had some members executed or jailed during the Revolution. He sees Americans as innovative economically but cautious politically. They have their hard-earned chunk of wealth or property, and they don't want the kind of political upheaval that might prompt the loss of their slice. They see an open economic field and they get to participate politically at multiple levels, so for most of them revolution seems like an unnecessary risk. I think that's a really interesting assessment of the American middle class that has held up nicely since it was written 200 years ago.

I read this book more as theory than history. Obviously ADT's views are selective, and they reflect many of the biases and blind spots of his time. But he was also keyed into the radical newness of American society at that time, in contrast to many contemporary historians' inflexible opposition to any kind of American exceptionalism (except the most negative possible interpretations). He dealt with this rise with a mix of admiration and skepticism, making his work one of the most profound outsider's meditations on American life ever written. I would say if you are into some of the themes above and have the time to tackle a work like this, it is worthwhile.

This is a great book about America that only a foreigner could write. At times he heaps praises upon the Americans that must surely make them blush. On other occasions he voices criticisms that must have surprised them; above all his thesis that democracy led to a levelling of ideas and conformism must have seemed odd in Ante-Bellum America.

The tyranny of Democracy as describe by de Tocqueville is not the tyranny of the majority. It is the tyranny of system which rallies dissenters to the to consensus opinion. De Tocqueville's first point is that in a true democracy where elections are free, discussion is open and governments change at the will of the electorate, everyone has a share in the principle of majority rule. You lose today when the referendum decides not to build the football stadium you want but next year you win when the majority votes yes to a new airport that you desire. De Tocqueville's second point is that the democratic process combined with man's inherent reasonableness leads to general acceptance of bad leaders and bad ideas that triumph at the polls. A person whose ideas or candidate has lost at the polls will rally to the winning candidate or idea because the decision has been made after open discussion and decided upon democratically. In other words, because the process was democratic the confidence that the losers have in their original positions are undermined. If an informed majority has decided differently, than the citizen of a democratic country will conclude that his or her position had not been the right one.

However, de Tocqueville remains highly optimistic about the future. Because democracy promotes virtue in its citizens, they vote responsibly. They may occasionally err but in the long time they will sustain good government that will rule adequately if not brilliantly. As Lincoln observed you can not fool all of the people all of the time. In other words, democracy is a self-correcting form of government.

This book covers a great deal of territory. All Americans should read it. Everyone deserves to be flattered once in a while.

wait till this guy finds out about combination kfc - taco bell, bro has no clue how much better america gets

In the pursuit of understanding, Tocqueville embarks upon an expedition into the America, a land brimming with democracy's promise and perils. Tocqueville begins by expounding the duty of statesmen, urging them to enlighten the youthful democracy. He laments that French Revolution, it failed to usher in the necessary transformations in laws, ideas, habits, and manners. Consequently, Europe finds itself possessed by democracy's spirit but stripped of the counterbalances that might temper its vices and emancipate its virtues. It is this very reason that compelled Tocqueville to turn his gaze towards America, seeking lessons that his own compatriots might learn from her example. Tocqueville discerns the harmony between religion and liberty, two pillars that have intermingled in remarkable harmony. Religion, content in its domain, recognizes civil liberty as a fertile ground where human potential can flourish. Secure in its self-sufficiency, religion finds strength in the hearts of men, not in external forces. Liberty, in turn,understands that religion safeguards morals, and morals, in turn, safeguard the laws, even acting as a sentinel over its own existence. Tocqueville, with his incisive vision, warns of the potential downfall that democracies might face, their demise may come from within, birthed by the oppression of minorities that may be driven to arms. The anarchy that ensues is but a consequence of despotism, a tragic failure to protect society from the tyranny of its rulers or the injustice inflicted upon one segment by another. Thus, justice becomes the ultimate destination towards which all government must strive, to shield society from afflictions. Tocqueville paints a portrait of America, a nation in constant flux, some shifts may prove unfavorable, yet the majority tilt towards progress, propelling the democrat to believe in the inherent capacity of mankind for perfection. In a relentless pursuit, guided by hope and resilience, man stumbles, rises, and perseveres, deceived but never disheartened, propelled towards an elusive greatness that he can only dimly fathom.

How does one review a 900+ page work (4 vols) that combines observations, history & essays published between 1835 and 1838. He spent nine months in the U.S in 1831 & 1832. He wrote in paradoxes, had some incredible insights and some out and out misses about Americans, American life and what the future holds. I had to keep reminding myself of the time period, and the incredibly small slice of life he was observing in his travels, along with his own background and experience in Europe, specifically France. He was quite prescient about the only thing that would precipitate another large revolution for the U.S. would be the institution of slavery.

This was a group read, and one of the members highlighted a point that is still so relevant today. He stated that Tocqueville asserts that to preserve liberty in a democracy, 3 things were necessary:
1) Freedom of the press, 2) an electorate that does the work to stay informed, and 3) an electorate that resists apathy, and votes.

You know what's not cool? Buying a 320 page book and finding out that you have the wrong copy, which means that you only have a week to find the right copy and finish reading it, and you buy the right copy, which turns out to be 720 pages. That is not cool. That is the definition of un-coolness. Especially when you end up reading 100 pages in one night...

HOWEVER, you know what is cool? Tocqueville's writing style! (Yes, he's French...he writes like Montesquieu...) Check out this chapter title:

How the example of the Americans does not prove that Democratic People can have no aptitude and taste for the sciences, literature, and the arts

That is utterly hilarious.

Tocqueville seems to think throughout his book that Americans are really, really weird...

I think every country should take a cue from this (like, can we send an American over to critique France?). Peer Editing for Countries!

The end of the book was really great. It talked about how democracy makes people want equality, and when people want equality, it can lead to a desire for uniformity...and what can give uniformity better than a central government!

"[The Sovereign:] does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd."

...counting bodies like sheep... ;P

It reminded me of A Wrinkle in Time and The Giver and 1984. Aaaaaaaand I'm a sucker for dystopian references...

To Whomever This May Concern: My next assigned reading is Exodus, Amos, and Romans FOR MY GOVERNMENT CLASS!!! How cool is that??!!! Reading Exodus for government is a genius idea...

The best book ever written on democracy. Take that, political scientists!