|
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. 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. Some of them, like "The Education of Henry Adams," simply lack the substantive content that would justify their reputations as classics. Regardless of who gets the credit, there is no reason for any ordinary reader to be intimidated by this book. 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. But those men were political theorists rather than observers on the ground, so to speak. 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. One striking example is the deluded propensity of Americans to proclaim themselves as individualists.
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. I've tackled - or tried to tackle - my share of the great classics. Today, even the most despotic governments claim to be democracies. 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. 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. 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. 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. I've been disappointed as often as I've been impressed.
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. 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. 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. (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. 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.
I admit to not having yet read Mill, Montesqieu, or Locke. He is justifiably pessimistic about both problems. 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. (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). Others, like most of Aristotle's stuff, require more effort to read than a lot of people might be willing to put forth.
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. 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. He hoped to examine and evaluate American democracy so that the French could learn lessons from America's successes and failures. He found as much to criticize as he did to praise.
This abridged version is a quick and fascinating read. He praised the great variety of the sources of information and opinion in our young nation. He would be shocked to see what it has become today. Note: I have the abridged version by Heffner.De Tocqueville toured the United States for 9 months (1831-1832) to make observations on the nation and the rise of equalitarianism. Highly recommended. From religion government to religion and the role of the media, De Tocqueville's observations are better than most of the political spin masquerading as modern political science. His observations are presented in two parts: a structural description of the nation and the more voluminous descriptions of the influences of democracy on society.De Tocqueville's observations range from wildly inaccurate to spot on - but it is the volume of perceptive observations that make this worth reading and quoting. One subject that De Tocqueville did not see coming was in the complete narrowing and lock-step politicization of the media.
The book is from the perspective of a Frenchman during the formation of our country, and also let europeans know of his thoughts. 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.
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. Alexis De Tocueville wrote an excellent book surveying the individual and society. 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. For a book written 150 years ago, it is very accurate and does well pointing out America's future challenges and prospects. 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.
Indeed, this book is uniquely resistant to Cliff's Notes types of discussions. Maybe even all governments, however started, are ultimately destined to oligarchy, a status that will change only when enough of the right excluded demand a change and in so doing start the process all over again.However, the observations listed here in no way exhaust this book's insight. For this reason, there can be no substitute to actually reading it and seeing for yourself just how prescient and amazing de Tocqueville actually was. This is a truly amazing book.As noted above, de Tocqueville predicted both American and Russian ascendency over one hundred years before they actually occured.However, beyond that, de Tocqueville applied a keen and discerning to then emergent trends in the United States and where they would lead. For example:--On Slavery.de Tocqueville noted the inherent problems with extracting work from people who themselves were not compensated for doing the work;--On North/South relations.de Tocqueville recognized that its reliance on slave labor put the South at a competitive advantage relative to the North in terms of developing a strong economic infrastructure;--On the fate of African Americans.de Tocqueville recognized that if revolution was to occur in the United States, the fate of African Americans would play critically in it because once the process of giving people an equal stake in society was started it would have a self propogating effect;--On the status of women.de Tocqueville though he was more careful here to hedge his bets allowed for the idea that the power of equality would eventually include American women as well;--On the future.de Tocqueville perhaps at his most prescient recognized that equality could be a recipe for government either of the people or alternatively a dictatorship imposed on those same people.This last observation is perhaps still most salient for our times as we come to see that even an oligarchy can be a dictatorship.
|
