Alexis de Tocqueville’s De La Démocratie en Amérique (Democracy in America) is a book that is often cited and rarely read. Moreover, I believe that the summary often provided by teachers and professors in American schools of Tocqueville’s work is grossly inaccurate and effectively useless.

To begin with, Tocqueville is not as enthusiastic about democracy as the reader might believe. He does see democracy as a state that will lead to greater happiness for a greater number of people, but he also expresses a certain level of person antipathy at times for the sort of society that democracy creates. At times it seems his book could have been written today, such as when he says that the most capable people avoid public service, leading to a situation when poorly informed and ignorant voters elected mediocrities who were scarcely able to govern. About American laws, he says, “Ses lois sont presque toujours défectueuses ou intempestives.” (Their laws are nearly always defective or inconvenient)

Additionally, Tocqueville comes to many conclusions that have shown themselves to be incorrect over time. For example, he was convinced that slavery would end, but he thought that it would end with a massive slave uprising that would require military suppression. He also saw the Federal government as weakening and was concerned that the states might break into smaller nations because he saw no will on the part of the Federal government to stop such actions. The basis for this conclusion was the failure of the Federal government to take a stronger stance when New England threatened to secede during the War of 1812 and then again in the Nullification Crisis of 1832.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in Tocqueville’s entire work, however, is his Enlightenment-era conviction that mankind was making progress. He indicated that he believed that democracy would lead to fewer wars and the diminution of large fortunes and inheritances by natural progression. He uses the word “reason” far too often for an astute observer of democracy in America, and his opinions on religion reflect an Eighteenth Century deist outlook.

At the same time, he did see in the larger role that the state played in democratic societies the threat of totalitarianism, the welfare state and the crushing weight of bureaucracy:

Que m’importe après tout, qu’il y ait une autorité toujours sur pied, qui veille à ce mes plaisirs soient tranquilles, qui vole au-devant de mes pas pour détourner tous les dangers, sans que j’aie même le besoin d’y songer; si cette autorité, en même temps qu’elle ôte ainsi les moindres épines sur mon passage, est maîtresse absolue de ma liberté et de ma vie; si elle monopolise le mouvement et l’existence à tel point qu’il faille que tout languisse autour d’elle quand elle languit, que tout dorme quand elle dort, que tout périsse si elle meurt?

What does it matter to me after all, if there is an authority always under foot, which watches to make sure my pleasures are undisturbed, which flies ahead of my path to turn aside all dangers without me having to even bother thinking about them, if this authority at the same time that it removes the smallest thorns upon my passing, is the absolute mistress of my liberty and my life, if it monopolizes my activity and existence to such a degree that all must languish about it when it languishes, that all must sleep when it sleeps, that all must perish if it dies?

Tocqueville’s negative experience with democracy is a result of the French Revolution, of which he was highly critical. His position was that providing a people unaccustomed to liberty with equality of position simply created a new sort of tyranny:

Je préviens le lecteur que je parle ici d’un gouvernement qui suit les volontés réelles du peuple, et non d’un gouvernement qui se borne seulment à commander au nom du peuple. Il n’y a rien de si irrésistible qu’un pouvoir tyrannique qui commande au nom du peuple, parce qu’étant revêtu de la puissance morale qui appartient aux volontés du plus grand nombre, il agit en même temps avec la décision, la promptitude et la ténacité qu’aurait un seul homme.

I warn the reader that I speak here about a government that follows the real wishes of the people, and not of a government that occupies itself solely with commanding in the name of the people. There is nothing as irresistible as a tyrannical power that commands in the name of the people, because being covered in the moral authority which belongs to the wishes of the largest number, it acts at the same time with the decisiveness, the promptness and the tenacity which a single person would have.

Although Tocqueville was referring to the Revolutionary government of France, his words could just as easily apply to the many failed socialist experiments of the Twentieth Century. Tocqueville did not have anything good to say about revolutions generally. He continually distinguished between the state of liberty and the upheavals that helped to bring it about, seeing that the latter brought out the worst in humanity and could easily cause a nation to slip into a form of tyranny worse than the one it was seeking to overthrow.

Tocqueville also saw the tyranny of the majority as a clear and present danger to the Republic. To counteract this danger, he saw the counter-majoritarian influence of the Supreme Court as a vital protection in American democracy. His praise of the Supreme Court was followed by a warning that has value to the modern reader:

Mais si la cour suprême venait jamais à être composée d’hommes imprudents ou corrompus, la confédération aurait à craindre l’anarchie ou la guerre civile.

But if the Supreme Court is ever composed of unwise or corrupt men, the confederation would have to fear anarchy or civil war.

His opinion of the press is less charitable. He holds it in a species of contempt, but nonetheless sees a certain necessity to it, saying, “J l’aime par la considération des maux qu’elle empêche bien plus que pour les biens qu’elle fait.” (I like it on the basis of the evils that it prevents far more than the good that it creates)

Most readers will find the first part of De La Démocratie en Amérique more interesting than the second part. The second part is far more theoretical and philosophical, and the absolute insistence that Tocqueville has of not providing any real life examples to support his sweeping statements detracts from even the most innocuous and self-evident claims that he makes.

At times, the second part does amuse, however. In particular, Tocqueville reveals his aristocratic tastes when he writes that everything in America is mediocre and commercialized, mass produced and without worth. The American is more infatuated with the appearance of worth than with any intrinsic value, and as a result everything is superficial in America, stating, “Ne pouvant plus viser au grand, on cherche l’élégant et le joli; on tend moins à la réalité qu’à l’apparence.” (No longer able to aim for the great, they seek the elegant and pretty; they are less concerned with reality than with appearances)

He also characterizes a rather plebian approach to reading, saying “Ils aiment les livres qu’on se procure sans peine, qui se lisent vite, qui n’exigent point de recherches savantes pour être compris.” (They like books that can be easily acquired, quickly read and which do not require any educated research to understand).

One of the other faults of the second part of the book is that it has far less to do with America per se and far more to do with his notion of how France should evolve by keeping in mind lessons that can be derived from the American experiment.

I certainly recommend De La Démocratie en Amérique for any civic-minded American. It is at times a bit boring, particularly when Tocqueville describes the American system of government with the assumption the reader is completely unfamiliar with it, but on balance it is an interesting read, and in many ways much different from what I expected it to be.