I don’t mind admitting that Alexis de Toqueville’s n  Democracy in American is quite possible the most demanding piece of exposition I’ve read since Hegel’s n  Phenomenology of Mind.n I suspect it’s one of those books — analogous, if you will, to Cervantes’ Don Quixote, Melville’s Moby Dick, Proust’s n  In Search of Lost Timen or Musil’s n  Man Without Qualitiesn — that avid readers want to have read, but never have.

I finally did.

If you can find the time (and the quiet) to read fifty pages of this book a day, you can accomplish it in under three weeks. If you can devote yourself to more than fifty pages a day — and have the concentration necessary to make sense of what you’re reading — you’re a better (wo)man than I am.

I couldn’t. In spite of my best efforts and virtually ideal conditions (most often in some secluded spot in the Brooklyn Botanic Garden), I found myself having to read many sentences two and three times over.

n  Democracy in American is no doubt more worthy of a dissertation than of a review. And I suspect that thousands of dissertations have been written on this oeuvre. The book is dense — with a capital “D” — and any sort of commentary on it could rival exegesis of the Torah.

Dense it is. But also prescient — with a capital “P.” If you can’t find the time or the circumstances to devote yourself to a reading of the entire work, read just Chapter 10 of Part II, Volume One (“Some Considerations Concerning the Present State and Probable Future of the Three Races that Inhabit the Territory of the United States”). And keep in mind that Volume One was published in 1835; the “Trail of Tears” (the expulsion of the Cherokee Nation from Georgia to a circumscribed territory in Oklahoma) happened only three years later; and the Civil War was still relatively far off!

But what of de Tocqueville’s observation at the conclusion of Volume One concerning Americans and Russians — ions before the start of the Cold War? Allow me to quote at length from pp. 475-476, as I don’t want to shortchange the man:


"There are today two great peoples on earth, who, though they started from different points, seem to be advancing toward the same goal: the Russians and the Anglo-Americans.

Both grew in obscurity, and while humanity’s gaze was focused elsewhere, they abruptly vaulted to the first rank among nations: the world learned almost simultaneously of their birth and of their grandeur.

All other peoples seem close to achieving the limits traced for them by nature and henceforth need only to preserve what they already have; but these two are still growing. All the others have stopped, or move forward only with the greatest of effort. Only these two march with an easy and rapid stride down a road whose end no eye can yet perceive.

The American does battle with the obstacles that nature has placed before him; the Russian grapples with men. One combats wilderness and barbarity; the other, civilization with all its arms. The American makes his conquests with the farmer’s ploughshare, the Russian with the soldier’s sword.

To achieve his goal, the American relies on personal interest and allows individuals to exercise their strength and reason without guidance.

The Russian in a sense concentrates all of society in the power of one man.

The American’s principal means of action is liberty; the Russian’s, servitude.

Their points of departure are different, their ways diverse. Yet each seems called by a secret design of Providence some day to sway the destinies of half the globe."


Just as prescient are de Tocqueville’s observations in Volume Two, Part II, Chapter 20 (pp. 649 – 652 in the Arthur Goldhammer/Literary Classics of the United States, © 2004 edition I’ve just read). In these four pages (titled “How Industry Could Give Rise to an Aristocracy”), de Tocqueville not only foresees the dangers of the industrial process known as “Taylorism” introduced decades later by the Ford Motor Company, but also adumbrates the condition of alienation between worker and owner/manager, haves and have-nots, into which we in the U. S. are now inexorably slipping. (Should you have any interest in understanding more about this latter development, I would respectfully refer you to Naomi Klein’s book, The Shock Doctrine, which I reviewed here at Goodreads at the end of last month.)

And what of this concluding observation 150 years before the deluge of widgets and gadgets in which most of the current generation of digital addicts would appear to be drowning? “Habitual inattention must be regarded as the greatest defect of the democratic mind (last sentence on p. 718).” There are no doubt other good reasons for the seemingly constant state of distraction of so many young minds — and de Tocqueville carefully lays out his argument in the pages leading up to his conclusion. And yet, one has to wonder whether the “democratic mind” as it has come to be in these United States and elsewhere in the Western World at the beginning of the twenty-first century was the incubator or the egg in our so-called “high-tech (r)evolution.”

Please allow me to return to p. 198 to conclude with one last citation, even if I could go on and on with others worth their aphoristic weight in gold. “Time no more stops for nations than it does for individuals. Both advance daily toward a future of which they know nothing.”

“…(A) future of which they know nothing.” Scary stuff — but worthwhile (to say the least!) reading.

RRB
6/14/13
Brooklyn, NY

The greatest book ever written on America, and it doesn’t mention the Constitution once. Tocqueville knew that America was a particular place made up of a particular people and so its brand of democracy is different from any other country in the world. He wasn’t 100% right in his predictions, but it is staggering how well he understood American democracy to be able to predict what he did. What would America look like today if more Americans had taken his warnings and possible solutions to heart?

Alexis de Tocqueville captures the spirit of American democracy back when he wrote his classic in 1835. But what of the spirit of democracy in current day America where every citizen has the God given right to be a spectator or participate in exciting entertainment? The following fiction by author Lawrence Millman hits the bull's-eye.

THE ORIGIN OF DEMOCRACY
A few years ago the Murmansk Opera came to town. And my friend Clint decided to take his wife Erma to a production of The Legend of the Invisible City of Kitezh and the Maiden Fevronia at the local grange. Now Clint had never been near an opera before. Closet he had come was the tri-annual demolition derby sponsored by the Loyal Order of moose. So you can imagine his confusion when, by the middle of the second act, not a single junker had gone to meet its Maker. He had hoped at least to see a skirmish of Ladas and Moskvitches, with perhaps something from the Eastern Block, like a Skoda, thrown in. "When they gonna bring on the cars? he asked Erma. Sh-h-h, said the man sitting behind him. Nor did any cars show up the the end of the third act. Clint felt cheated. "If the next act don't have a bang-up," he said, "I'm gettin' our money back. Sh-h-h, hissed the man behind him. At which point Clint turned around: "It's a goddamn free country. I got every right to speak my mind. It's guaranteed by the, um, constipation." "Constitution," whispered Erma. "Like I said," Clint said. And when the next act brought only an apotheosis or two, he stormed out of the grange. Minutes later he reappeared driving his Dodge-Studebacker pickup mix. He drove it right onto the stage, sideswiping a baritone and dispersing the Chorus of the Russian People. "Ain't no Communist gonna destroy the sacred privilege of a car." Clint said. The audience gave him a standing ovation. And soon a whole armada of Fords, Chevys, Dodge Darts, and Buicks was crowding onto the stage, honking and cruising and bashing each other. The man who'd been sitting behind Clint kept yelling, "Quiet! Quiet! I want to hear the opera." But it was too late. The majority ruled.



*The Origin of Democracy by Lawrence Millman appeared in Unscheduled Departures - The Asylum Anthology of Short Fiction edited by Greg Boyd

Volume I Volume II is written five years later
A thorough explanation of America's geography from Atlantic to Pacific, an explanation of the type of people who started a new government after winning their independence from a Monarchy, failing first with its initial Confederacy, and the thoughtful remedy applied in writing the US Constitution with its Bill of Rights and Separation of Powers between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, the author compares the United States with other countries and their societies. Where others failed, America succeeded in blossoming due to the type of people isolated from most of the old world by the great oceans.

Update: My brother just told me that Kurt Vonnegut says that anyone who hasn't read Democracy in America is a wimp. So I guess that makes me almost not a wimp. Well!

Post from a few weeks ago: I've been wanting to read de Toqueville's, Democracy in America for some time, and I've finally bit the bullet. The translation is beautifully done. De Toqueville's sentiments are eloquent and thought provoking. Wonderful.

How's that for summer reading! Part of me wishes we still talked like pilgrims.

Daca sari peste Introducere ai senzatia ca te afli foarte aproape de zilele noastre.
Apoi, de curiozitate, te intorci la primele pagini si afli ca studiul acesta insumand aproape 900 de pagini a luat nastere intre anii 1835 si 1840.
Adica pe vremea cand noi traiam in doua principate total separate, iar cel de al treilea nu ne aparea nici macar in vis.
Avem aici o lucrare despre libertate, egalitate, fraternitate, asa cum au fost ele intelese de o natie tanara care vietuia la acel moment in doar 24 de state.
Citind si intelegand ajungi la concluzia naturala ca libertatea si democratia tin mai mult de genetica decat de istorie.

No getting away from the fact that this is a loooong book and it's always a challenge when you are reading a book in translation. Tocqueville is a Frenchman who toured America in the 1820s-30s and then wrote the book about the United States for his audience in France. His observations are relevant both in an outsiders view on the constitutional government and as compared to the aristocratic governments of Europe. More importantly are Tocqueville's observations on the American character itself--the sentiments, morals, and mind of the people populating the wide open spaces in the New World.

Tocqueville helped explain America to Europeans...and to Americans themselves.

My husband and I have listened to the audio version of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America for the past few months. We have paused many times to discuss interesting passages and have thoroughly enjoyed this courteous visitor’s (de Tocqueville was French) perspective on the early years of our nation. The first Volume was written in 1835 and the second in 1840.

To fully appreciate this monumental socio-economic classic of colonial and antebellum political life, one would need to devote many hours of intensive scholarship. We choose not to allocate that much of our lives right now to this fine tour de force; as such we pressed on over many topics where we could have lingered. Often we saw—or heard—the prophet in the author’s voice, especially his predictions concerning the impending national calamity over slavery. Other times, we chuckled over his descriptions of various perceptions and misconceptions, especially in any area pertaining to royalty and aristocracy. As these are two systems, we as Americans claim to abhor, we believe we’ve ‘abolished’ these through our democracy. Officially and technically we have. What most fail to see is how we have inadvertently created pseudo-systems operating along the same lines and by the same rules, merely called by other names. Of course there is dating and irrelevancy threaded in among his other brilliant observations, but all things considered, I was amazed by how much has stood the test of time.

For all that I would have liked to have delved into Democracy more, I’m still exceedingly glad to have at least made its acquaintance. If you only have a limited amount of time or this isn’t your usual reading fare, I highly recommend the Blackstone Audiobooks production with the memorable and unmistakable voice of the British Frederick Davidson rendering a French author’s vision of democracy in 19th century America.

Have all centuries, then, resembled ours? Has man as in our day, always had before his eyes a world where nothing is linked, where virtue is without genius and genius without honor; where love of order is confused with a taste for tyrants and the holy cult of freedom with contempt for laws; where conscience casts only a dubious light on human actions; where nothing seems any longer to be forbidden or permitted, or honest or shameful, or true or false? pg. 12, Introduction.

Tocqueville’s an interesting lens through which we can observe America’s fledgling democracy in the early 1800s. A son of aristocratic parents, born several months after Napoleon’s coronation, he spent his childhood in imperial France and the constitutional monarchy of the Bourbon Restoration. About a year after the July 1830 Revolution, he traveled to the United States to record his observations in what would eventually become Democracy in America. A “liberal aristocrat,” he saw the value in democratic principles yet he maintained restraint. All government can adopt oppressive methods. For Tocqueville, “the kind of oppression with democratic principles are threatened will resemble nothing that has preceded it in our world…” Pg. 662. It lends itself to a prosaic oppression. A government which willingly works for the happiness of its people through its laws, and willingly endured, in the quest for equality.

Thus, after taking each individual by turns in its powerful hands and kneading him as it likes, the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it 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. Pg. 663.

Though democracy is no panacea for humanity, Tocqueville liberal tendencies lean in favor of it over the crumbling aristocratic European empires. America’s unique revolution in a new land, unburdened by a long history of competing powerful families and geographical vulnerabilities, is as close to a pure revolution the world could know. However, Tocqueville has no problem recognizing that even such a “pure” revolution as the American Revolution is blemished by a despicable slave-trade, massacre of indigenous peoples, and excessive religious zeal.

A mixture of political analysis and a travelogue, Tocqueville distinguishes the different Americas he sees. The differences between North and South, rich and poor, white, African-American and Native American. But mostly, he focuses on the aspects of governance he observes and the citizens' reaction to it. From town hall meetings to federal power. And Tocqueville succinctly presents his views when he states:

What I most reproach in democratic government, as it has been organized in the United States, is not, as many people in Europe claim, its weakness, but on the contrary, its irresistible force. And what is most repugnant to me in America is not the extreme freedom that reigns there, it is the lack of a guarantee against tyranny. Pg. 241.

I suppose the American experiment has yet to reveal whether Tocqueville was correct.

this is a great book for people who like biiiiiig books about social philosophy/ history/ politics.

i loved the main theme of how America is a balance between equality and liberty

4.5/5

it was really long and big words made it hard to read lol
but that was expected bc it was written by a guy from france during the beginning of the development of America soooo

Besides being very readable and engaging, in spite of its length, this book (half published in 1835 and half published in 1840) is fascinating to read for any modern American. I confess: the only reason I read it was because Kurt Vonnegut said in an essay that he didn't hold much with anybody who hadn't read this. It's as interesting for the things it got wrong as it got right. Wrong: My favorite is the statement that private enterprise has no effect on political office because it gains nothing by it. Wow, oh wow, did this prove incorrect! Right: Nearly 3 decades before the conclusion of the Civil War, he surveys the system of slavery and says that its end was inevitable, but that it would likely require large scale violence to do so. He also says that freeing slaves would only begin a long battle for civil rights. Nailed it.

This book does such a great job in painting an objective look at American society in the 1830's, when America was young, as to its benefits and shortcomings. I love his look on art. At the time every author (and I'll add every composer) was from a European heritage and were basically imitators of that style. He said that until American artists began to look at their surroundings and shun former convention, they would not be distinguished, that the artist who succeeds will shock more than please. How appropriate that one year before part 2 was published was when Edgar Allan Poe first published his earliest masterpiece with The Fall of the House of Usher. All of his other memorable works were published in the 1840's. The 1840's saw the career of Nathaniel Hawthorne and he became the first widely acclaimed American novelist in 1850. As far as composers, as a musician I can attest that the ones who were audacious like Louis Gottschalk were far fewer than your Edward MacDowells, who were wed to European tradition. It wasn't until the early 20th century that composers like Ives, Joplin, Gershwin, Copland, and Ellington forged a truly unique American sound in both classical and jazz styles.

Alexis de Tocqueville also surveys the importance of religion in American life. My second favorite wrong observation: It is impossible to offend anyone religiously in America because everyone is a practicing Christian (even the ones who don't believe). But then again, he makes a point of how this made things easier, even if not fair. Then again, he nails the summaries of Native Americans and how unfairly they've been treated.

I'm not quite willing to call this amazing among my personal lists, but it is highly recommended.

There's a reason they had you read this in HS.

There's also a reason they didn't have you read ALL of it in HS. de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" sometimes feels so *obvious* in its commentary about America during the era after the founding and the Virginia Dynasty/Era of Good Feelings and the rise of Jacksonian populism that the reader almost gets the sense of "well, duh" After all, we hold these truths to be self evident...

Yet that's kind of the whole point, isn't it? At the time, the character of American republican democracy was distinctly unique from that of European aristocracy or monarchy and ADT does a masterful job of walking through everything from the unique nature of town councils to the diverse nature of manufacturing, to the influence of the Puritan work-ethic on the American culture throughout the young country to show how attempts at democracy elsewhere would consistently fail yet in America things just kind of...worked.

That's not to say ADT isn't critical of what he sees -- there's a rapid and transitory nature of American social/cultural/and political life that rubs him the wrong way, and ADT also saw risk in how the slavery question would be resolved or whether the rise of a uniquely American aristocracy (lawyers come in for a beating or two here) might threaten things, but overall ADT is cautiously optimistic about the American experiment.

The second volume of Democracy in America is less observational and more proscriptive whereby ADT attempts to define the "new political science" that the American democracy represents and attempts to advise the reader (in a benign Machiavellian "here's what you should do") sense. It's more of an esoteric work on political philosophy than a "boots on the ground" observational analysis. In this regard, the second volume is far drier and less interesting.

All told, there's a reason that Democracy in America is such a classic notwithstanding all the tiresome presentist views of the irredeemable nature of our Constitutional system.