Democracy in America: An Enduring Masterwork on American Life, Politics, and Morals (Harper Perennial Modern Classics)

Outstanding! Even though a bit of a dull beginning, in the end, this book is worthwhile reading by every student and citizen of our country, as it gives a view of America after 50 years since its Constitution was undertaken and gives us cultural traits that still resonate today. He would be pleased to know that we lasted this long, frankly, as he gave dire predictions of how most democracies crater to despots. He clearly shows that although people claim individuality in our country, through our universal voting of representatives, we are ruled by society, and the central (federal) government will increase no matter what, to meet the needs of the socially unequal - since our goal in democracies is total equality. There is a surprise at the end, too, where he gives his personal views. Reading up on what happened in France after he finished these two volumes is pretty sad. Must have made him really disheartened in the last decade of his life Thankfully, he did not live long enough to see America's Civil War begin, although he predicted that the slavery issue probably would result in a rebellion.

This review is about the Lawrence/Mayer version published by HarperCollins. I can't recommend this edition of Democracy in America for a few reasons. For starters there are hardly any footnotes from the editor or translator. (Most of the footnotes are from Tocqueville himself.) Despite all the raving from reviewers about how much "easier" this translation is to read, some explanatory footnotes would have really helped a lot for context and background.Also, the text is slightly too small and there are a handful of annoying little misprints here and there. (Both of these issues seem to be fairly typical of books published by HarperCollins, or so I've noticed.) Probably the most glaring error is how the back cover describes the book as having been originally published in the "mid-eighteenth century," when of course it was actually published in the mid-nineteenth century!There are several other translations available and I would probably choose one of those instead. The Mansfield version is allegedly more politically "conservative" and more difficult to read, but I've compared some passages and I honestly don't see much difference. I think people are just making a false assumption based on the fact that Mansfield happens to be a conservative himself. Regardless, I originally purchased the Lawrence version because of its reputation for being easier to read, but it did not live up to its reputation. Tocqueville wrote almost 200 years ago in French, so the language is always going to be a little challenging for a modern American reader. I read at a pace of a few chapters per day over the course of the past few months; due to the nature of the language, reading it all at once seems like a herculean feat to me.Since the Lawrence/Mayer version is the only version I've read cover-to-cover, I can't make a definitive comparison. But if I had to make a recommendation, I would probably suggest the Schleifer translation published by Liberty Fund, which is known for producing works with copious footnotes. (Liberty Fund's products also happen to be beautifully bound and printed on durable paper; I own several of their other books.)In any case, if you're buying this book because it was assigned by a professor, then it is what it is, you're just going to have to get the version that's was assigned to you. But if you want to read this book to educate yourself for purely personal reasons, then I think there are better options than the HarperCollins/Lawrence/Mayer version to choose from.Finally, I've noticed that Democracy in America often appears on lists of books that libertarians should read, or libertarian-themed literature. (It can be found on book lists compiled by the Adam Smith Institute, Students for Liberty, and the Foundation for Economic Education, among others.) But I'm not sure I would call this a pro-liberty book, per se. Tocqueville is clearly skeptical of democracy (which all libertarians should be as well), and so I wonder if this would lead the reader to endorse or prefer other forms of government instead. But libertarians should be skeptical of ALL forms of government, not just democracy. In any case, Tocqueville correctly links the spirit of democracy to the misguided drive for societal equality, which is valuable for libertarians to grapple with. And he also has good things to say about freedom of association, the constitutional protection of liberties, and America's separation of powers. Still, ultimately, I would recommend reading Tocqueville as a general classic of political science and history in the western canon, not necessarily as an essential work of libertarian thought. Overall, I found the works of Friedman, Mises, Hayek, Bastiat, Orwell, and others to be both more readable and obviously more applicable to libertarianism than Democracy in America is.

The best translation and easier to understand is the George Lawrence from Harper Perennial.Lawrence’s translation is the most accurate, clear and most importantly honest translation to date.Every paragraph is understandable the first time you read it.The only bad thing about this book is that the font is a little bit blurry.The recent Mansfield translation has a neoconservative spin and is not that clear.The Library of America version translated by Arthur Goldhammer is understandable but sometimes it requires a second reading to have a clear idea of what is being said.The Everyman's Library version, translated by Henry Reeve, is the least clear of all. You can still understand it but the translator unnecessarily complicated the syntax making it look more sophisticated that it needs to be.The Library of America, Everyman's Library's and Mansfield versions are beautiful books with clear fonts.The Mansfield translators are well know for their conservative views, writings and teachings.George Lawrence’s is still the most accurate, clear and most importantly honest translation to date.Here are some comparisons between the Mansfiedl and Lawrence translations:Tocqueville criticizes Connecticut lawgivers for copying from the Bible to establish laws.On page 41 of the Lawrence translation it says: If an man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other God bu the Lord God, he shall be put to death.There follow ten or twelve provisions of the same sort take word for word from Deuteronomy, Exodus, or Leviticus.Mansfield translation says on page 38: If any man (after legal conviction), shall have or worship any other God but the Lord God,” they say to begin with, “ he shall be put to death”There follow ten or twelve provisions of the same nature, borrowed from the texts of Deutoronomy, Exodus, and Leviticus.Tocqueville used the French word “textuellement”.The word is even sideways to emphasize the fact the the lawgivers were copying textually, word for word the Bible to come up with their laws.By using the word “borrowed” Mansfield distorts what Tocqueville clearly wrote, that the lawgivers where copying textually from the Bible to make their laws.Borrowed is not the same as textually, word for word or copying. Borrowing means that you are going to use some ideas or words but not copy.Mansfield distorts the meaning.Was he trying to hide or dismiss Tocqueville’s criticism of lawgivers making laws by textually copying word from word from a Bible?On page 10 Lawrence correctly translates: Even more often we find kings giving the lower classes in the state a share in government in order to humble the aristocracy.Mansfield translates on page 4: Even more often one saw the kings have the lower classes of the state participate in the government in order to bring down the aristocracy.The original french says: afin d'abaisser, (with the purpose of lowering) which in this context doesn’t mean that kings wanted to bring down aristocracy. That would mean that they wanted the aristocracies destroyed, as when you say: I’m going to bring you down.Once again Lawrence correctly uses the word humble which correctly communicates that the kings wanted to diminish aristocracy’s power, not to bring them down.Was Mansfield trying to scare or warn current aristocracies by using the words bring down instead of humbling?Mansfield translation could easily be included in Tocqueville’s admonition to Reeve’s on his first translation into English on a letter he wrote from France:Your translation must maintain my attitude; this I demand not only from the translator, but from the man. It has seemed to me that in the translation of the last book you have, without wanting it, following the instinct of your opinions, very lively colored what was contrary to democracy and rather appeased what could do wrong to aristocracy.

This is a classic. A timeless classic. A prophetic classic. This was written back in the day when it took greatness to get funded , and then your expedition and research took years, and great people allowed time to write well. And the educated folks wrote to distant posterity. And time went by and blew away the chaff. This is the surviving kernel of truth and honesty before the era of political correctness. I'm done with dated writings targeting best seller status in the facebook era."Everywhere I go I'm asked if the universities stifle writers. My opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them. There's many a best seller that could have been prevented by a good teacher." -- Flannery O'Connor

10/10