Most criticism of democracy starts with a basic assumption regarding human nature: namely, that man always pursues his own interest. Thus, in order to rise above this primal instinct, man must be educated to embrace a higher moral principle which is not part of his original nature. The Hobbesian view, that we band together like a tribe of criminals drawn by a state of mutual fear and loathing, is one that Tocqueville and other aristocrats always associate with the state of democracy, which parallels the Christian view of the fallen state of man. Tocqueville assumes that man, being a flawed creature of nature, is incapable of ruling his baser instincts, unless compelled to do so. Yet his faith in aristocracy is a rejection of his original premise-- that man is a weak creature in need of authority to control his primal urges.
Aristocracy, as Aristotle believed, is based on the idea that some men are superior to others, and that the superior man should rule over the inferior. In theory, this might be a reasonable proposition, but history shows that aristocrats often exhibit the same moral failures as the lower classes. Having membership in the nobility simply because of an inherited family name does not, by itself, ensure you possess any talent for governing, or that you can inspire people to live better lives. In short, aristocracy has no monopoly of virtue. Moral instruction is required by everyone, rich and poor alike. Otherwise, the Hobbesian view of immoral man will continue to prevail.
Democracy, on the other hand, is founded on the idea that power should rest with the majority. There is no assumption that everyone is biologically equal, but only that everyone is equal "under the law." Government is empowered to protect the rights of everyone, not just the wealthy. To the aristocrat, equality subverts nature. Only the best and brightest should govern. But intelligence alone is no guard against corruption. What happens when the brightest join forces with the demonic (as happened when Martin Heidegger, perhaps the most intelligent philosopher in the 20th century, enrolled himself in the Nazi party)? Plato's Republic shows what will occur when authority is left to the "aristoi."
Another criticism of democracy is that it is a less stable form of government than aristocracy. Tocqueville feels that Americans are obsessed with politics, and that our constitution allows for too much legislation and not enough contemplation. Though, it is true that democracies often appear chaotic, with too much emphasis on elections and new members of Congress arriving even as old ones depart, the mistakes of one administration are readily correctable by another. What democracies lose in stability, they gain from a renewed energy and boldness of vision that older, more stable (conservative) regimes usually lack. Democracy by its nature is inherently progressive. It expands its reach as the economy and population grow, and it displays a capacity for innovation and self-improvement that is not found in aristocratic regimes.
Although the genius of democracy is not always expressed in great artistic achievement, the test of whether a democracy works cannot be determined by how much wealth it generates, but in how many applications for visas and requests for naturalization papers are processed each year. If it is true that people follow their own interest, then it is equally true that all people seek happiness. And more than any other country on earth, people desire to come to America and experience the quality of life which democracy has made possible. Tocqueville's aristocracy is a model of government based on an unchanging view of the world, a residue of the feudalistic manor from the middle ages. Democracy rests on a dynamic view of the world, going all the way back to Heraclitus, who proposed that everything changes, both in man and nature. The challenge for all Americans (both democrats and republicans) is to discover what things in our society are worth preserving, even as we adapt to a world of constant upheaval.