Democracy: An American Novel

by Henry Adams

An instant bestseller when first published in 1880, Democracy is the quintessential American political novel. At its heart is Madeleine Lee, a young widow who comes to Washington, D.C., to understand the workings of power. Pursued by Silas Ratcliffe, the most influential member of the Senate, Madeleine soon sees enough of power and its corrupting influence to last her a lifetime.

Genres: Fiction, Classics, Politics, Literature, 19th Century, Historical Fiction, American

132 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1880

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.

Noted Henry Brooks Adams wrote his nine-volume History of the United States during the Administrations of Jefferson and Madison (1889-1891) and also The Education of Henry Adams , a famous autobiography, in 1918.

This oldest and most distinguished family in Boston produced John Adams and John Qunicy Adams, two American presidents, and thus gave Henry the opportunity to pursue a wide-ranging variety of intellectual interests during the course of his life. Functioning in the worlds of both practical men and affairs as a journalist and an assistant to his father, an American diplomat in Washington and London, and of ideas as a prolific writer, as the editor of the prestigious North American Review, and as a professor of medieval, European, and American history at Harvard, Adams of the few men of his era attempted to understand art, thought and culture as one complex force field of interacting energies.

He published Mont Saint Michel and Chartres , his masterwork in this dazzling effort, in 1904. Taken together with his other books, Adams in this spiritual, monumental volume attempts to bring together into a vast synthesis all of his knowledge of politics, economics, psychology, science, philosophy, art, and literature to attempt to understand the place of the individual in society. They constitute one of the greatest philosophical meditations on the human condition in all of literature.

Reviews

[Bill Kerwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A novel published anonymously by historian Henry Adams in the 1880's, this portrait of deal-making and corruption in Washington seems almost contemporary. In addition, the novel features an interesting and admirable protagonist: Mrs. Lightfoot Lee, a New York stockbroker's young widow, who wishes to learn about power, duty and service in Washington D.C.

[Kwame · Rating 4 out of 5]

For reasons that I have yet to understand, the contemporary American author cannot write a satisfactory novel about the arts of political chicane in Washington. Maybe the inhibition is instilled at birth, or during the first two years of infancy. More probably it is the result of the mass media's tireless insistence that politicians, especially presidents, must be swathed in the ornamental drapery of a late Roman emperor. Adams understood that American politicians were mortal, possibly because both his grandfather and greatgrandfather had been presidents, and he knew the difference between a private and a public voice. Of the society in the nation's capital, Adams once observed:

"What makes a long residence in Washington so bad for one's temper is the horrible display of vanity, especially among the men. If ever, once, in all these forty years that I have known statesmen, I had met one solitary individual who thought, even at intervals, of anyone or anything but himself, I would forgive him as a sad example of human eccentricity, and say no word against him."

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although this novel is set in the 1870s, it describes a Washington DC political scene that, in its broad outlines, is not much different from the current reality, at least for the cynical reader. Politics in the capital is all about power, ambition, influence, and money. Adams’s protagonist, the young, well-to-do widow Mrs. Madeleine Lee, has moved to Washington from New York in order to learn about how democracy works. She soon becomes a fixture in the upper echelon of Washington society, and her friendships with powerful and connected people enable her to get a close-up view of the inner workings of government. Her final reaction? “Democracy has shaken my nerves to pieces.” Mine too, Madeleine, mine too.

[Sheida · Rating 2 out of 5]

for democracy, rightly understood, is the government of the people, by the people, for the benefit of Senators.

I don't really have much to say here tbh, I can't say I enjoyed this book, I can't even say I'll remember it come tomorrow. I thought I would be reading some kind of gripping political drama/expose that would get me thinking but instead what I got was the story of two sisters who go to Washington and are met with many politicians who hope to marry the elder sister. It really reminded me of Jane Austen but not half as enjoyable or romantic as her books.

Overall, it's not bad, and there are certain gems and political insights scattered throughout the book (which is only 130 pages but feels like a million)- side note but I was amused that in this book published in 1880 there are characters called Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Gore - but otherwise, it's kind of an average story that failed to grip me.

[Inga Gardner · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book becuase John Dickerson of the Slate Political Gabfest recommended it as one of the best books about Washington D.C. ever written. Having read it, I think he's right. Although the book takes place in teh 1870's, much of the book feels surprisingly current. The story has absolutely no political agenda (the only political discussions are about issues that are already settled, like the Civil War), but holds a fairly dim view of Washington. This is a book that pretty much anyone who is remotely interested in politics could enjoy, regardless of whether conservative or liberal. After all, the one thing we seem to be able to agree on is that Washington is full of mentally deficient, morally bankrupt borderline personalities.

[Sher · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this short novel depicting American political life in the 19th C very much. I think this may be because I read Henry Adams's autobiography before reading _ Democracy_, and I see much of Adams's views in this novel. The heroine goes to Washington to find out about the heart of politics, and she is almost swallowed up. Adams explores the possibility of true virtue in civic life, and he suggests corruption is a consequence of political ambition. Public good and virtue are but a ruse. Great dialog, humor, tension, romance, and misunderstandings make this a delightful romp through the vagaries of political office.

[Illiterate · Rating 3 out of 5]

"In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve” (De Maistre).

[Individualfrog · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Political" people are everywhere, though doubtless a minority of mankind; and they insist that everything is political. That everyone has a moral obligation to be constantly consuming political news, to have and to speak and argue forcefully for their firmly held political beliefs, at literally all times, and that any "apolitical" act whatsoever is in fact deeply political, in fact perhaps the more forceful of political acts, functioning willfully to strengthen the status quo. We must approach every facet of our lives through the lens of politics: there is no other lens. The personal is political, the food we eat, the way we speak, the movies we watch, every movement and every moment is political. But what do they mean by "political"? How are we to come by these beliefs we must so strongly hold, and argue, and work for every moment of our waking lives? Why are we so certain, and never have any doubt whatever what is right, and how are we to know that our movements and watching and eating and especially arguing can achieve what we want, instead of achieving something else? I have almost no idea. "The left doesn't understand power," my brother often said, in his leftist jeremiad days, and I, despite so much reading on the subject, do not understand power: and the more I read, the less I understand.

Hence I felt great sympathy for Mrs. Madeleine Lightfoot Lee, widow, heroine of this book, in the first chapter.

Here, then, was the explanation of her restlessness, discontent, ambition,—call it what you will. It was the feeling of a passenger on an ocean steamer whose mind will not give him rest until he has been in the engine-room and talked with the engineer. She wanted to see with her own eyes the action of primary forces; to touch with her own hand the massive machinery of society; to measure with her own mind the capacity of the motive power. She was bent upon getting to the heart of the great American mystery of democracy and government. . . What she wished to see, she thought, was the clash of interests, the interests of forty millions of people and a whole continent, centering at Washington; guided, restrained, controlled, or unrestrained and uncontrollable, by men of ordinary mould; the tremendous forces of government, and the machinery of society, at work. What she wanted, was POWER.

I understand this impulse; I have felt it myself. I often go questing for it, with much less success than she has, despite trying to find it in much smaller scales: in the city government, or even within the places I work. I never discover anything. I never understand a single bit of who has power and how they get it and how it works once had. The closest I can come is in reading books, like this one or The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York, and perhaps in watching Survivor.

You discover this kind of ignorance as you age. The young think they know everything. In 4th Grade I could have confidently and with reasonable accuracy described the Constitution, and for an embarassingly long time afterwards thought that was sufficient to know the whole structure of the national government. It wouldn't be inaccurate to say that it's only in the past 5 years that I've begun to even have an inkling of what I don't know about how the government works, even in their official and visible form, much less the secretive depths of party etc. But what is more is that I've discovered that I do not even know how people think things ideally should work.

From Robert Moses to George Plunkitt to Huey Long to the fictional Senator Silas Ratcliffe of this book, I have gotten to know about several men who shock the consciences of men and women who believe in "good government" -- but I have no idea on what basis they are shocked. When I read about the notorious Tammany Hall, I wonder what is supposed to be bad about this? An extremely organized party -- a party that actually seems to exist and do things, unlike the Democrats and Republicans, which for my whole life have seemed like ghostly castles in the air, and seem to bear no resemblance to something like Tammany or the various parties of, like, revolutionary Russia, so that "party" seems to be a strange word to apply to both -- structured from the minutest local level of organizing blocks or even single buildings, up to the national level, which people vote for because it does concrete, measurable things for them, like the proverbial handouts of Thanksgiving turkeys...what on earth is wrong with this? A turkey is more than I've ever gotten out of the Democratic Party, which, shortly before I lost my last living adult relative and was thrown into the world, got rid of "welfare as we know it" and took special pride in shitting on black people. Huey Long's "anti-democratic populism", which seems like a contradiction in terms to me, but so incensed "good government" liberals of 1930s Louisiana that they formed paramilitary groups and stole ballot boxes to burn pro-Long votes, gave books and roads and hope to the crushingly poor people the liberals preferred to see crushed under the boots of respectable mega-corporations...why is this bad? I know what Moses did wrong, destroying neighborhoods with his highways, destroying poor black and Hispanic lives with his "slum clearance", but I know what he did right, building beautiful parks and necessary bridges, and I see how impossible it seems to be to do anything of the sort now, even the maintenance of them, despite the much vaster wealth of today; and I think his crimes had little to do with disregarding democratic norms, which didn't care much about black and brown lives in those days anywhere. If Plunkitt's cronies got rich overcharging for building a courthouse, what harm did it really do (especially in an MMT world, where the government creates money at will), and after all, at least we ended up with a courthouse. Adams in this novel never gives any answer to Ratcliffe's argument (in defense of taking a bribe), "Who is injured by a steamship company subscribing one or ten hundred thousand dollars to a campaign fund? Whose rights are affected by it? Perhaps its stock holders receive one dollar a share in dividends less than they otherwise would. If they do not complain, who else can do so?" Apparently he finds it self-evident that this is wrong. But I do not.

I find this professed cynic, like Thackeray, to be in fact an outrageous idealist. Apparently we are to imagine government officials ought to be motivated by nothing but "the public good", which apparently we are also to suppose is clear and evident. But that is of course going to be ideological too. There is no "meritocracy", there is no "technocracy", because there is no objective measure of merit or techno-fixes. It is much easier to understand Ratcliffe and Plunkitt's theory of power -- that people give to get, and (like Jim Farley did for the Roosevelt administration during the New Deal) the thing to give is jobs in government: patronage. The maligned "spoils system" of Andrew Jackson and later politicians until 20th Century reforms. I don't see why this is wrong either -- what is the point of an election if the elected person doesn't bring in their own people? To me the crazy and evil point of view is to put these niceties of form ahead of the ideology I find correct; and yet in this book Adams, despite having worked in the Lincoln administration, makes Carrington, a Confederate soldier, fighting for slavery and every kind of brutality that goes with it, a hero. Just as with the liberals making Long a villain and preferring the Standard Oil Company, I simply cannot understand it.

I could go here into the question of Maoist tankies and their contempt for these forms, which are equally alienating -- I certainly hope that "bourgeois liberal individualist rights" like freedom of speech, etc, are not a merely momentary aberration in the Immortal Science of history -- but it's 3am and I've gone very far afield from this book as it is. The fact is that I hugely enjoyed most of this book -- the types of Washington characters, the wit, the delightful dance of the various characters and their relationships, and the wonderful writing, and it was a huge relief to read after a 2019, a year made up almost entirely of mediocre reads. I can accept a lot for sentences like "the next time he suggested a horseback excursion she instantly agreed to go, although aware that she had promised a younger gentleman of the diplomatic body to be at home that same afternoon, and the good fellow swore polyglot oaths on being turned away from her door." After all, if these political people can claim that everything is political, because it seems so to them, can I not myself claim with equal justice that everything is aesthetic?

[Nicole · Rating 5 out of 5]

This novel is the "Primary Colors" of the nineteenth century; it was published anonymously in 1880 and was quite controversial because of its less-than-veiled portrayals of several contemporary politicians. Upon his death in 1918, Henry Adams's publisher announced that Adams had penned the book. It's a terrific look at the Washington political and social scene of the 1870s, and it does a great job of grappling with the relationship between women and politics. It's kind of Jane Austen meets "The West Wing."

MY NOTE: I first read this in 1996; it was the novel incoming Honors Program freshmen were supposed to read at GW. I read it once in graduate school for fun, and then I just re-read it in February 2009 because I'm using it as an extra credit assignment for my Gender & US Foreign Relations class.

[v · Rating 3 out of 5]

This slim novel was published anonymously in 1880, but it's hard to imagine who besides Henry Adams could have written it. Its tableau of Gilded Age character types demonstrates deep insider intimacy with elevated political and social circles just as does its sophisticated writing and tone.
It is the story of Madeline Lee, a wealthy New York socialite who tragically lost her husband and child; grieving and hollowed out, she tries out various projects to devote her life to, settling on a move to Washington so she can get involved in politics. Though much of the novel is an examination of the corruption, delusion, and banality of the D.C. bubble up to and including the highest office, Adams also shows us something about what motivates people to invest themselves in understanding and orbiting politics in the first place: cynically or not, it is alluring and gives one a sense of importance. Washington itself has an understated but real presence in the novel, and the scenes at Mt. Vernon and Arlington are quite effective.
Basic plot structure, witty dialogue, and character elaboration are what Adams can pull off as a novelist here; there is little dynamism and development in any sense, and Adams is hopelessly reliant on the duller trappings of Victorian fiction, rather than his own social insights, to keep it all going. It's a bit like if you combined The Bostonians with The Portrait of a Lady but took out just about all the depth.

[Dave · Rating 3 out of 5]

Henry Adams, better known as a historian, published this novel of political shenanigans anonymously in 1880, and his anonymity held until the 1910s. The writing style and references may have become a bit dated (although it is still easily read today), but the corruption and political games seem to have changed little. One aspect that intrigued me was how Adams managed to avoid getting into the details of the political issues that would have dated or turned off part of his audience. He spoke only in general terms of "reforms." It worked for me.

[Susan · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this witty, short novel from 1880, a well-to-do widow bored with New York society comes to Washington, D.C. to make politics her hobby and gets more involved than she expected. Visits to the White House, U.S. Capitol, Mount Vernon, and the Lee Mansion give the reader a glance back to a time shortly after the end of the Civil War from the perspective of high society types and politicians.

[Maximilian Nightingale · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was great! I literally started from 'A' in the library and picked up the first book by an author I had heard of. Imagine Jane Austen spending some time in D.C. and deciding to set a novel there.

[Frank Stein · Rating 5 out of 5]

The quintessential Gilded Age political novel (surpassing even "The Gilded Age" itself, by Twain), this is Henry Adams masterful take on the corrupt life of Washington. Of course this supposed devastating portrait is all done with Victorian gentility, and takes place mainly in ladies' parlor rooms, but Adams demonstrates an uncommon eye for the little corruptions and pressures that take place in the city, as well as the big ones.

In its bare outlines, this is the story of two society women's, Madeline Lee and her sister Sybil, trip from New York to Washington to discover, in the manner of those to the manner born, what made America tick. This could make the novel something of dilettante's journey, but the sisters are drawn well and rounded. In the end, Maude discovers that her beau, Senator and then Secretary of the Treasury Ratcliffe, is the corrupt pol she always suspected, and leaves disgusted with the whole town and the democratic process itself.

So, yet another Washington novel about naivete and disillusionment. What makes this stand apart is Adam's keen and obvious comprehension of his era. His historical knowledge allows all the characters to sprout with allusion and meaning: the New York Senator is Schulyer Clinton, combining the old Dutch and new political fortunes in one person, Ratcliffe as the "Prairie Giant from Peonia" is a perfect amalgam of Grant, Lincoln, and Rutherford Hayes, Hartbeest Schneidekoupon as the leisurely Philadelphia protectionist, publisher of "Protective Review," is the very image of the 19th century manufacturing lobbyist. As the last name and description indicates, though, this book sometimes tends to satire, and sometimes also to airy abstractions ("She was bent upon getting to the heart of the great American mystery of democracy and government") but overall it has many quiet revelations.

When Adams published this anonymously in 1880 there was a storm of speculation on who the figures were supposed to burlesque, and who wrote it. In the end, its surprising that anyone except Adams could be expected to have done such a work. The book shows a writer supremely confident and at ease with himself, and ill at ease in the world; his very signature.

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

Democracy by Henry Adams was published in 1880 but only attributed to him by his publisher after his death in 1918. Descended from two presidents--John Adams and John Quincy Adams--Henry Adams was deeply schooled in American political life, and that, in a sense, is what this ambivalent novel is about.

On the one hand it is a tale of the ambitious Silas Ratcliffe and his efforts to become president. He is well-decribed as a politician more interested in power than principle. On the other hand, it is a tale of Madelaine Lee, a widow, who comes to Washington fantasizing that somehow she can learn enough about America's democratic system to affect it. These two figures are unintentionally (I suspect) quite similar to Isabel Archer and Gilbert Osmond of Henry James's Portrait of a Lady. Ratcliffe wants to use Mrs. Lee, and Mrs. Lee, for a time, foolishly thinks she wants to be used.

The narrative is well-paced and conveys a gristly disdain for democracy, 19th century American style. Adams has to have had his doubts about the common man deciding the terms of his life. There's no great issue,fortunately, because that would turn it into a kind of dreary policy tract. Rather, the core of the tale is one of sentiment, moral values, and what kind of life one wants to lead.

The final exchange between Ratcliffe, who never loses a gambit, and Mrs. Lee, who finds him almost overwhelming, is a virtual business-negotiation nonetheless. The nicety of 19th century marital propositions, underpinned by not so much as a kiss or embrace, raises dark questions in the 21st century reader's mind. What on earth is it going to be like if these two people ever touch each other?

Henry Adams is most famous for his autobiography and massive history of the Jefferson administration. He also was a medievalist who taught at Harvard. He was an accomplished writer best described as a man of letters. In this case, he slips into the novel form with grace, numerous cliches, and a purpose: he loathed Washington in its grubby dealmaking and wanted his battered heroine to help the reader understand that D.C. was in his eyes a place where foul arrangements, partisanship, and power weren't worth the candle.

[clara · Rating 2 out of 5]

I DO NOT LIKE THE IMPLICATION THAT THE CONFEDERATE GETS THE GIRL. OH WE ALL HATE RATCLIFFE BECAUSE HE'S CORRUPT. BUT THE CONFEDERATE? THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH HIM!! BESIDES BUYING VOTES AND OVERTURNING ELECTIONS, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE IS A CRIME? SECESSION. SLAVERY. TREASON. CARRINGTON SHOULDN'T BE STEALING GIRLS FROM NORTHERNERS, HIS HEAD SHOULD BE FORCIBLY DIVORCED FROM THE REST OF HIM.

so anyway my professor kindly recommended me this book. he asked me, what genres do you like? and i said, magical realism and sad women. and he recommended me this?? wild. i see how this book could have been about a sad woman because sybil remarks how madeleine has never really been the same since her husband and child died, but i saw no evidence of this. it was just an aside. my professor said that madeleine isn't really sad, she's just restricted. i sort of see what he means, especially because of the part where madeleine thinks that everyone around her has been asking, are you going to marry ratcliffe? are you going to marry ratcliffe? when she doesn't even know the answer, and i see how that could be stifling. but overall she just isn't an interesting character. the beginning of the book describes her as being so smart (relative to most women :o because she knows the names of the three branches of government) but i think she's kind of dumb. she reminds me of myself when i'm in conversations that i'm vastly unqualified to be a member of. anyway, seventy-five percent of the book is not about her; it's about ratcliffe and carrington and sybil and ten million irrelevant men.

her sister sybil, on the other hand, is sort of delightful?? "i hate ruins, but i fancy you can buy delicious things in constantinople" girl i like ruins and i assume i must love whatever delicious things you can buy in istanbul. and i am always down for the plot point of girl being jealous of her sister's love interest because she's insecure and worried the sister will be taken away from her, and i'm also so down for the plot point of girl realizing she doesn't have a crush on someone, she just wants him to be her brother-in-law.

my biggest problem with democracy is that it should feel like a soap opera but it doesn't. the corruption is so vague, and there's not enough of it, and it isn't interesting. the love triangle is boring. there's so much drama just simmering under the surface of mundane socialite conversations. where is the excitement?? on a lot of levels i just couldn't get on board.

[Dimitri Mavrakis · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is about as interesting as a Victorian romantic novel set in Washington D.C. sounds... The characters are fine. The story is fine. Everything's just fine. I knew what I was signing up for.

The quote (which I am phrasing incorrectly) 'D.C. never changes other than the clothes and the names' frequently came to mind.

[Elizete Nicolini · Rating 5 out of 5]

A transformative book to readers.

[Russell Fox · Rating 5 out of 5]

[I'm going to let my old review of Democracy, from nearly three years ago, stand, even though I would disagree with much that I wrote now, having gone through the book, thoroughly, once again with a group of Honors students this past semester, this time with great rewards. I wouldn't take away any of my critical comments about the book's limitations. Rather, I would supplement them with praise for the way Adams, perhaps not entirely intentionally, depicts--through the love triangle and Machiavellian strategizing between Lee, Ratcliffe, and Carrington--the psychological costs and consequences of a clash between someone, like Adams himself, who is a product of the transformed-yet-still-hanging-onto-remants-of-the-18th-century social world of the old money East--namely, Lee--and two others: the weirdly admirable (perhaps because unrelatable?) honor of someone who fought and deservedly (yet sadly?) lost in a moral contest of enormous consequence--the former Confederate Carrington--and the supposedly (but never really depicted as entirely) despicable machinations of a politician who the master of a new political world that Adams clearly is impressed by, though he can never bring himself to fully acknowledge such--that would be Ratcliffe. Read carefully and thoughtfully, it is an enormously rewarding short novel, for all its weaknesses.)

This is the second time I've read Democracy; this time, I read it in preparation for a class discussion. It is a good, but not great; in a manner reminiscent of how Henry Adams presented himself in his autobiography/memoir, The Education of Henry Adams, he depicts his characters as constantly discovering something which, one would think, would dramatically alter their perspective or motivations, but never really do. So I can't claim that it is filled with superb characterizations; more like a bunch of political and social types which he runs through those paces which his story demands. And Adams is, unfortunately, not at all free of the sexism of the 19th century. Still, as a story of American politics--and, to use the words carefully, of the politics of American life--it's a fine tale.

Adams wrote this novel in the 1870s (it was published anonymously in 1880), and so there are several basic political realities that the reader who comes to it with minimal knowledge of American history needs to keep in mind. Among the points which stand out: the book apparently takes place in the winter of 1872-73, following the election of a new president; this is the era of Reconstruction, with the Civil War less than a decade in the past; the decades following the Civil War were the high-water mark for party power and unity in the United States, with powerful political machines capturing never-before-and-never-since-reached levels of popular support and voter turnout; and that part of the reason for this was the high levels of outright corruption in that era, when the aforementioned party machines controlled, through patronage, huge numbers of government jobs--those who called for reform of, for example, the civil service during this time were derided as idealistic dreamers, or people who did not appreciate the genius of America's systems of government, or both. Overall, the half-century following the Civil War was an immensely important and, perhaps, tragic one in American history: with the war having thrown American full-bore into the Industrial Revolution, the post-Civil War decades saw the irrevocable transformation of American from a mostly agrarian and decentralized country, still holding on to the republican ideals of a constitutional order which had become dated, into a fully urbanized and centralized country, where bureaucratic and regulatory responses to corruption were accepted as obvious necessities. This is the world in which the story of Democracy takes place, and its worth keeping in mind.

As for the story itself, it's a love triangle, a social comedy, and a portrait of how people come to appreciate or come to reject the compromises, contentions, and corruptions of political life in Washington DC. The main players are John Carrington, a former Confederate soldier and now a poor and upright Washington DC lawyer; Silas P. Ratcliffe, a determined party man and powerfully Machiavellian senator from Illinois; and Madeleine Lightfoot Lee, a wealthy widow from New York who comes to Washington DC, motivated in part by her genuine democratic and reformer instincts, and in part by a desire to understand the mystery of American democracy. There are some wonderful scenes in the book (the visit of Madeleine's sister Sybil, along with Carrington, to the future site of Arlington National Cemetery is beautiful writing), and many insightful, funny, or wise observations, but nothing about the story is truly surprising. It's a portrait of a time and place; read it with that in mind, and explore it accordingly.

[Avery Liz · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5

[RogeMaHodge · Rating 2 out of 5]

It is, overall, a story of how the ideals of democracy are often hindered by the ambitions and relations of a few. A story which has stood the test of time and has great value in that sense.

Nonetheless, I found the narrative incredibly tedious. But for my compulsion not to leave books unfinished I would not have made it halfway.

That said, the book is clearly well regarded so I assume it is merely a question of a style which does not sit comfortably with me.

[Michael Austin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Henry Adams was the original "Anonymous" political author. and Democracy remains one of the finest political novels ever written. The novel , whose authorship was not revealed until the 1920s, tells the story of Madeline Lee, a wealthy young widow who comes to Washington, D.C. a generation after the Civil War. She becomes a famous hostess, an informal power broker, and the romantic object of several powerful men, including Silas P. Ratcliff, the new Treasury Secretary and a likely contender for the presidency.
As Madeline sees how the Washington game is played, she becomes increasingly comfortable in a world of moral grey areas, but she holds to the belief that there is some core of virtue underneath the American system of government that resists the corrupting nature of politics. The central question of the novel is the question of "American Exceptionalism": is the American political system fundamentally different than other political systems? Are Americans, at some level, immune from the corruptions of power and position? "There is only one thing in life," she confides to a friend "that I must and will have before I die. I must know whether America is right or wrong."
At the time that Adams wrote Democracy, America had yet to become a military or economic superpower. It was still a young nation, still licking its wounds from a disastrous civil war. But the novel's central question could not be more important today, when "American Exceptionalism" has become a hiss and a buzzword and American power has shaped the world for more than 75 years.

[Douglas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Something of an under-the-radar classic, "Democracy" serves as the popular version of Adams' chapter on political morality in his "Education". As other reviewers have commented, many aspects of the novel have a timeless quality; it is not hard to imagine any of a number of contemporary politicians in the role of Ratcliffe. Further, it is written in such a way that one does not require any special understanding of political processes to appreciate the moral of the story. Indeed, there is enough here to scare many an honest person away from politics, and Ratcliffe's sole principle - the lack of principle - shall be ringing in my ears for a long time.

As a final aside, there is a great essay to be written on Adams' views of women in society. It was he, after all, who noted that "the study of history is useful to the historian by teaching him his ignorance of women and the mass of ignorance crushes one who is familiar enough with what are called historical sources to realize how few women have ever been known. The woman who is known only through a man is known wrong". That he would make the chief character in his novel a woman pursuing political power in 19th century Washington strikes me as highly significant, and makes "Democracy" interesting for this reason alone.

Highly recommended for any student of literature, politics, or women in society.

4/5

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Vote buying, fixed elections, graft, greed, & slanderous competition. An insightful look into individuals and government in Washington in the 1870’s. I like the way it examined it moral positions that formed this Democracy. Democracy shows that the applications used to build this great land have not changed. The will-to-power and the will-to-rule for any person corrupts no matter how lofty the person’s principles or talents might be. Great book!!!

[H.J. Swinford · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book deals with more politics than I would care to think about in my whole life. Very little happens, most of the characters are shallow, but the writing style isn't uninteresting. There is enough wit in the writing to keep a reader's interest; I only fell asleep four times while reading this book, when at first I didn't think I'd ever finish. Perhaps it would be much more greatly enjoyed by people who care anything about politics. For me, I'll stick to books where things actually happen.

[Jay French · Rating 3 out of 5]

Satire of D.C. politicians, circa 1870. Writen with Twain-like over-the-top descriptions at the beginning of the book, it gathers a plot and steam toward the ending. Roughly the story of a wealthy widow wanting to reform Washington and being tempted to join the riff-raff. Great characters and description throughout -- even a description of a ball gown was quite well done. Interesting also in that it was released anonymously. Beat my expectations.

[Christopher (Donut) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading a classic like this, one is more struck by the things that haven't changed than those that are not the same.

Senator Ratliffe is very recognizable. Not altogether villainous, but a "macher."

Mrs. Lightfoot Lee's little sister, Sybil, is absolutely charming and well-drawn.

On the whole, I think I liked it more than its reputation had led me to expect.

[Dakota · Rating 4 out of 5]

A marvelous, fascinating look at democratic tendencies. Still timely, both in politics and women.

[Rohan S · Rating 3 out of 5]

19th-century white male author writing about a female protagonist entering American politics—what could possibly go wrong?

I have mixed feelings about Henry Adams’ Democracy—one of his only two novels. It does make for a fun read—I’m entertained by its David Attenborough-esque commentary about Washington political creatures. And I mean literal creatures. Adams routinely invokes animal-related figurative language to narrate Gilded Age-era politicians—the antagonist Senator Ratcliffe is a “wol[f] in sheep’s clothing,” manipulating the President; President tries to “corral” him like livestock. Subtle, I know. Adams’ sharp and painfully literal attempt at “figurative” language makes it obvious that he was a historian, not a novelist.

I, for one, am a fan of highly entertaining Attenborough-esque narration. How adorable, the President thinking he can “corral” corruption. Later—Adams wryly notes the President’s desire to “be the Father of his country; to gain a proud immortality and a re-election.” Oh, politicians—they grow cynical so fast, don’t they?

And maybe, the Gilded Age-era United States did need a political Attenborough like Adams. Ratcliffe is a “wol[f] in sheep’s clothing” because Gilded Age politicians were, quite literally just that—representing corporate special interests. “The Bosses of the Senate” political cartoon comes to mind. Adams was an early muckraker, warning of the dangers of unbridled ambition. His blunt tone can be off-putting, but I appreciate where he’s coming from.

Yet Adams’ Democracy is fiction—not an Attenborough-esque regurgitation of reality—because it inserts a female protagonist, Madeleine Lee, into this 19th-century male-dominated American political circus. Many argue that through the character Lee, Adams challenges a patriarchal Washington, by Attenborough-ing the obvious corruption in this male-dominated government. Lee represents what’s missing in Washington: a conscience. But this interpretation doesn’t fully consider Washington’s impact on Lee herself.

Lee is caught between two male political influences—the cynical, cartoonishly evil, no-good Ratcliffe who seeks marriage with her to politically benefit from her popularity, and the stately, principled lawyer John Carrington, whose love is supposedly more genuine. With Lee gravitating toward Ratcliffe, over whom she has more power to achieve her idealist vision of a purified Washington, Adams frames her power as dependent on her relationship with the Senator. He associates female empowerment with Attenborough–narrated, survivalist politics.

As a political Attenborough, Adams frowns upon the pursuit of unbridled political ambition—but this cynicism may undermine her power. Democracy is a fun read—but not an inspiring one.

[Carolyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this book.

EVEN THOUGH. Even though . . . the writing is dense. I found myself reading things over twice and it took me twice as long to read. It's about politics. The way they talk isn't from this century. And, my book smelled. It's that old.

BUT. The last few chapters of this book -- I couldn't put it down. A political love triangle!?! Now you have my attention. With a bit of Pride and Prejudice zingers added in. Do the "ends justify the means" to read this book? Or as Mr. Silas P. Ratcliffe says, "If virtue did not answer his purpose he used vice." Ooh, I just got shivers, was that political point of this book?!?

Mrs. Madeleine Lee (aka Mrs. Lightfoot or Maude) has decided she needs a break from New York. Why not see what all this political nonsense is about. She takes her sister Miss Sybil Ross with her Madeleine's husband and infant child having died a few years previously, "after loss of husband and baby 'I am pure steel.'", and heads to Washington D.C. In a matter of weeks, Mrs. Lee's parlor becomes known as the open forum for politicians. Mrs. Lee herself attending political debates held at the Capitol.

There's a litany of politicians, that I felt compelled to write down all their names. Suffice it to say, if you thought democracy was full of "virtue," they didn't think it then either!

What I loved about this book is that it was written in 1968 by an author who remained anonymous until he died; a Mr. Henry Adams. Although a novel of fiction, the zingers he brings out against George Washington and Abraham Lincoln would make you wonder if you were really told everything in history. There have always been two sides in our country, and they continue to this day.

"Half of our wise men declare that the world is going straight to perdition; the other half that it is fast becoming perfect. Both cannot be right."

Given that this book seems to be set a few years after the Civil War, it's so interesting to hear two sides to that opinion as well!

"We were wild about disunion and talked about nothing else . . . We never thought there would be a war . . . coercion, indeed!

In 50/50 hindsight, we always seem the wiser, don't we?

But, I also promise that there is romance in this book, and there is! All this "politics" must set the stage for Madeline Lee to discover what is the "right side." Enjoy!