Reviews
Democracy in America Volume 1 by Daniel J. Boorstin, Alexis de Tocqueville, Phillips Bradley
xerxes314's review
3.0
de Tocqueville definitely has a lot of insightful things to say about America and democracy, but it's hard to see where his biases end and the facts begin. He has a very odd (to a modern reader) pro-aristocracy pro-religion France-slanted point of view. This means that much of the time, he tries to cherry-pick examples from America to make points relevant to his domestic politics. If you've read his other works, you know he's an ardent monarchist, and this often colors his perception of the presidency. It can be hard to tell whether the portrait he paints is accurate or just what he wants to see.
Consider this quote (pulled from another review): "Providence has given to every human being the degree of reason necessary to direct himself in the affairs that interest him exclusively... The father of a family applies it to his children, the master to his servants" That reviewer seems to think this says something about individual liberty, but it really just describes localized tyranny! The mothers and the servants are denied agency, and de Tocqueville focuses so entirely on the masters of America that he does not see this. He often repeats that America has "universal" suffrage; universal except for women, slaves, natives and the poor.
And although he does have a funny anecdote about confronting a Northerner about why free blacks are prevented from voting, he later concludes that the reason democracy works in America is due to (a little) our good Constitutional framework, (a little) our favorable location away from hostile European monarchies, and (mostly) because white English people are intrinsically awesome.
So one major problem with the book is that it has a fair amount of 19th Century racism and sexism in it. My version of the translation had "translator notes" from some pretty vile US Southerners that exacerbated that problem. I wonder if some of the worst stuff originates with that translation rather than de Tocqeville's original. However, substantial space is given to the argument that a race war in the South is inevitable and will result in the genocide of blacks in America. Ultimately, these problems made me wonder whether there are really any greater lessons that can be gleaned from the work or if it must be regarded as just the opinions of a particular person at a particular place and time.
Consider this quote (pulled from another review): "Providence has given to every human being the degree of reason necessary to direct himself in the affairs that interest him exclusively... The father of a family applies it to his children, the master to his servants" That reviewer seems to think this says something about individual liberty, but it really just describes localized tyranny! The mothers and the servants are denied agency, and de Tocqueville focuses so entirely on the masters of America that he does not see this. He often repeats that America has "universal" suffrage; universal except for women, slaves, natives and the poor.
And although he does have a funny anecdote about confronting a Northerner about why free blacks are prevented from voting, he later concludes that the reason democracy works in America is due to (a little) our good Constitutional framework, (a little) our favorable location away from hostile European monarchies, and (mostly) because white English people are intrinsically awesome.
So one major problem with the book is that it has a fair amount of 19th Century racism and sexism in it. My version of the translation had "translator notes" from some pretty vile US Southerners that exacerbated that problem. I wonder if some of the worst stuff originates with that translation rather than de Tocqeville's original. However, substantial space is given to the argument that a race war in the South is inevitable and will result in the genocide of blacks in America. Ultimately, these problems made me wonder whether there are really any greater lessons that can be gleaned from the work or if it must be regarded as just the opinions of a particular person at a particular place and time.
johnaggreyodera's review
2.0
One of those "classics" I read and thought, "why does anyone think this is good?" Sometimes Tocqueville's observations, like when he reflects on the individualist culture of America, are interesting, but they seem to be stumbled upon tidbits, and I don't know if he himself thinks these parts are interesting. The rest of the book is hogwash
More...