It is a curious thing to write about American democracy as a Belgian. Stranger still to do so in English. My own journey with Alexis de Tocqueville began in my first year of university, as a history undergraduate. During a course in philosophy, I encountered Democracy in America for the first time. It was not assigned lightly, and I did not read it lightly either. I remember being struck—not only by its scope and clarity, but by how urgently it spoke to a world I was only beginning to understand. That formative reading stayed with me.

And yet, I often return to Alexis de Tocqueville—himself a foreigner—because he understood, perhaps better than any American of his time, the revolutionary idea that the United States was not a finished project, but a moral and political experiment unfolding in real time. His great work, Democracy in America, is not a monument. It is a mirror. And we would do well to keep looking into it.

Tocqueville’s writing has been cited by progressives and conservatives alike. He has been invoked in Senate speeches, Supreme Court opinions, and campaign ads. But like all thinkers of enduring importance, he is more often quoted than read. This article aims to do the opposite: to reengage with Tocqueville as a whole, to take seriously his method, his insights, and his blind spots—and to ask what his 19th-century observations still offer a 21st-century republic navigating division, digital disarray, and the slow erosion of civic trust.

---

I. A Young Frenchman Among the Americans

Alexis de Tocqueville arrived in the United States in 1831, ostensibly to study the prison system. What he produced instead was one of the most ambitious analyses of a modern society ever written. At just 25 years old, he traveled across a young republic whose contradictions were already vivid: vast and yet intimate, idealistic and yet brutal, egalitarian in aspiration and enslaved in practice.

The brilliance of Democracy in America lies not only in what Tocqueville saw, but in how he saw it. He understood that institutions were not just legal frameworks but moral architectures. He saw that customs, religion, and civil associations mattered more than constitutions in shaping public life. And he grasped, with astonishing foresight, that the greatest threat to democracy might not be tyranny from above, but apathy from within.

One passage reads as though written for today:

“It is in the nature of all governments to lean toward centralization; but in democratic republics, this tendency is particularly strong.”

Tocqueville saw that democracy’s strength—its responsiveness to the people—was also its vulnerability. When citizens abdicate responsibility, when they disengage, when they surrender complexity for comfort, democratic institutions atrophy. He warned of a future in which a paternalistic state might “cover society with a network of small, complicated rules” while citizens remain “quiet, provided they are allowed to amuse themselves.”

In short: he foresaw the algorithm.

II. Tocqueville’s Lessons for Today

There are at least three reasons why Tocqueville matters now more than ever.

1. The Role of Civil Society

Tocqueville famously praised Americans for their habit of forming associations—for everything from temperance to education to public safety. He saw these voluntary groups not as curiosities but as democratic muscles: ways for people to solve problems together, to practice citizenship, and to limit the reach of centralized authority.

Today, many of these intermediary institutions are in decline. Churches, unions, local clubs, and civic groups have seen membership plummet. What replaces them? Often, nothing. Or worse—online echo chambers that simulate community while reinforcing isolation.

Tocqueville would have seen this not just as a cultural shift, but as a political crisis. Democracy, he argued, is not sustained by elections alone. It is sustained by the everyday habits of cooperation. Without these, liberty becomes fragile.

2. The Tyranny of the Majority

Long before cancel culture, partisan gerrymandering, or filter bubbles, Tocqueville warned of the danger that a democratic majority might use its power to silence dissent. In America, he observed, the majority does not merely rule; it seeks to dominate the realm of opinion.

This insight remains unsettling. In a time of increasing polarization, social media pile-ons, and ideological silos, the idea of shared truth feels endangered. Tocqueville reminds us that democracy’s vitality depends not just on majority rule, but on minority rights—and on a culture that tolerates difference.

3. The Equality-Individualism Paradox

Tocqueville marveled at the American commitment to equality—but he also warned that this could lead to a corrosive individualism. When everyone is equal, no one feels bound to another. This, he feared, would lead citizens to withdraw into private life, to abandon public affairs, and to lose the capacity for collective action.

It is difficult to read this without thinking of our own age: of the gated communities and gig economies, of the decline in civic engagement, and the rise of privatized everything. Tocqueville’s genius was to see that equality and freedom do not automatically reinforce each other. They must be balanced, constantly.

III. Tocqueville’s Limits and Blind Spots

No thinker is without flaws, and Tocqueville’s were shaped by his era and class. He underestimated the depth and brutality of American slavery, treating it more as a sectional challenge than a moral catastrophe. He barely acknowledged Native American displacement and genocide. And while he admired American women for their domestic influence, he did not imagine their full political equality.

Moreover, Tocqueville’s analysis, for all its brilliance, sometimes leans toward abstraction. He was captivated by the American “spirit”—but did not always probe the material conditions that shaped it: land theft, systemic racism, capital accumulation. In this sense, he saw the surface more clearly than the roots.

Still, we should not judge him only by what he missed. We should learn from what he saw—and use our own vantage point to push the questions further.

IV. The Republic in the Mirror

What would Tocqueville see if he returned to America today?

He would be astonished by the size of the state and the scale of its surveillance. He would marvel at the reach of markets and the absence of meaningful community in many places. He would recognize, and fear, the rise of populism divorced from civic virtue. He might also see reason for hope: in the resilience of democratic protest, in new forms of civic organizing, in the stubborn plurality of American life.

Most of all, he would remind us that democracy is not self-sustaining. It requires attention, participation, and humility.

Tocqueville was not trying to flatter America. He was trying to understand it—and in doing so, he left behind a tool for Americans to better understand themselves.

For readers interested in revisiting or discovering his work, I recommend the translation by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (University of Chicago Press), as well as works by scholars such as Cheryl Welch, James T. Schleifer, and Arthur Goldhammer.

Tocqueville’s enduring value lies not in predicting the future, but in offering a grammar for thinking about democratic life. His writings invite us to ask:

• How do we preserve liberty in an age of comfort?
• What binds a people together in the absence of hierarchy?
• Can equality coexist with civic responsibility?

V. A Conversation Across Centuries

As a Belgian, I read Tocqueville with both admiration and distance. He wrote about America, but his questions are now universal. In an age where democracies are under pressure—from within and without—his call to vigilance feels newly urgent.

If Tocqueville were writing today, he would not ignore algorithms, the erosion of local news, the substitution of community with consumer identity, or the way social media disaggregates public will into a cacophony of curated noise. He would study the platforms as carefully as he once studied town halls and churches. He would ask: who moderates our instincts? Who gathers us in civic spaces not just to speak, but to listen? Who teaches us to disagree without dehumanizing?

Tocqueville remains indispensable not because he offers solutions, but because he reminds us what the stakes are when democracies forget their own structure. His vision was one of vigilance grounded in realism—hopeful, but never naïve.

To honor his legacy is not to treat Democracy in America as scripture. It is to extend its method: to observe with clarity, to criticize with care, and above all, to defend democratic life not with nostalgia, but with imagination.

The task ahead is not to quote Tocqueville, but to write the kind of society he believed citizens could build.

Welcome to the conversation.