The deadlock of politics and resulting confusions in the recent America have been caused by the fact that the institutions and practices of American “electoral democracy” have not worked well--institutions include the division of power, federalism, two-party system and the party presidential nomination by primary elections, and practices mean the weak party discipline in Congress and policy making by compromise.In the social and economic changes since the 1960s, women and minorities won big voices, and the Federal Supreme Court rulings gave them the legal foundation for demanding the federal government to correct discriminations. In response to these changes, political parties democratized their presidential candidate nomination procedures. Mass media polarized public opinion, and the SNS deepened political polarization. Reducing differences in value among generations over time, and a realignment of political parties may alleviate these polarization situations

The aim of this research is to reconsider in the historical context of the globalization of new capitalism Tocqueville's contribution and relevance to the political theory of the 20th century, in particular that of liberal democracy. The globalization of the economy has brought about new kind of poverty and disparity all over the world and the hegemony of the American empire has raised skepticism about American democracy. On the other hand, political democratization is inevitably going on in many non-Western countries. Against this changing background of the contemporary world, Tocqueville's theory of democracy requires new reading and has in fact been reinterpreted in various ways. In the process of this two year research, the following three points have been identified as remarkable in this new approach to Tocqueville's political theory.(1) The end of the Cold War and the collapse of Soviet regime did make clear the victory of liberal democracy over socialism but the subsequent globalization of the economy under the hegemony of the United States has not prevailed the American model of democracy in the world, rather provoking resistance to it everywhere. Recent noteworthy phenomena in America, the growing political influence of religious fundamentalism, the increase of economic inequality and disparity, the poverty of social capital, and the decline of public spirit require the reconsideration of Tocqueville's view of America.(2) Tocqueville's warning against the danger of military-bureaucratic despotism in post-Napoleonic France, which he declares has nothing to do with America at his time, is highly suggestive for thinking about the military-industrial complex of the United States today.(3) The Tocquevillian analysis of the historical process of the modernization and democratization of Japan would be useful for considering the task of democratization in non-Western countries in the contemporary worl

The aim of this research is to Compare in the light of Tocqueville's political theory two types of modern democracy, the French and the American, and to examine m the historical development of the two Countries the various aspects of the opposition and interaction of the two models. The following issues are particularly addressed : the French view of America since Tocqueville and the rise of anti-Americanism in the 20^<th> Century, the French reaction to American liberalism, the historical transformation of the United States in the 20^<th> Century as a result of its becoming a global power, and Tocqueville moments in contemporary political discourses in both countries.Principal discoveries and findings acquired through the two years research are :(1)In spite of the long history of Franco-American friendship since the tame of the American Revolution, the American commitment to Europe and the rise of the United States as a global power caused in the 20^<th> century a negative reaction of the French people and the Cold War in particular nurtured the anti-Americanism of intellectuals.(2)Tocqueville's theory of democracy invites various new readings in terms of this great transformation of the world. In the United States, the increasing political influence of religious groups, growing economic inequality, the decrease of "social capital", the decline of public sphere, and other recent tendencies of American society forced public philosophers and social scientists to reconsider Tocqueville's description of America and his theory of democracy.(3)In France, Tocqueville's severe critique of French political culture has, for the first time since his death, been taken seriously and attracted a big audience. It is an aspect of French reception of Anglo-Saxon liberalism. However, Tocqueville is also used by many people as a reference for criticizing America.(4)In contemporary political philosophy, there is a difference between the American use of Tocqueville and the French reading of his text In the United States, Tocqueville is mainly referred to in the republican or the oommunitarian context, while, in France, he is allotted an important role in the liberal revision of French republicanism.(5)Some of Tocqueville's warnings about the dangerous tendencies of 19^<th> century French democracy seem to be more relevant in the present world to the United States than to France

　本研究は2018年度に科研費を申請する「アメリカの外交政策とシンクタンク」の研究計画を見直すことを目的とし、本格的研究のための調査と情報収集を行った。第１回研究会（９月）では、吉野孝がシンクタンクに関する最近の文献調査の結果を報告し、和田修一（平成国際大学教授）がワシントンDCのシンクタンク（CRF、カーネギー平和財団、ウィルソン・センター）でのインタビュー調査に基づき、シンクタンクのイデオロギー化がかなり限定的であることを報告した。また、渡辺将人（北海道大学教授）は、３月初旬にワシントンDCでインタビュー調査を行い、2016年の大統領選挙後のシンクタンクの活動を調査した。

本研究は、2017年度に科研費を申請する「アメリカの外交政策とシンクタンク」の研究計画を見直すことを目的とし、合わせて本格的研究のための面接調査と情報収集を行った。第１回研究会（８月）では、吉野孝と前嶋和弘（上智大学総合グローバル学部教授）が「アメリカの政策形成過程が選挙に勝利することに収斂していく『政策キャンペーン』化しつつあり、その中心的アクターとなっているのがイデオロギー型のシンクタンクである」という新しい仮説を提示し、研究計画の詳細を協議した。第２回研究会（11月）では、和田修一（平成国際大学法学部教授）が８月～９月に行ったワシントンDCの主要シンクタンクの活動に関する面接調査の概要を報告した。第３回研究会（３月）では、佐藤真千子（静岡県立大学国際関係学部講師）が、2017年１月に行った調査[2016年の大統領選挙における超党派シンクタンクの活動と役割]の概要を報告した。

本研究は、2016年度に科研費を申請する「アメリカの外交政策とシンクタンク」の基礎研究を行うことを目的とし、以下の活動を行った。第１回研究会（2015年５月）では、前嶋和弘氏（上智大学教授）が報告を行い、「メディア監視団体」の新しい活動を説明した。第２回研究会（同年10月）では、シーラ・Ａ・スミス氏（米国外交問題評議会シニアフェロー）が報告を行い、アメリカにおけるシンクタンクの歴史と活動、資金構造、個人の活動動機などを分析した。第３回研究会（2016年２月）では、鈴木崇弘氏（城西国際大学大学院客員教授）が報告を行い、日本でシンクタンクの設立が難しい理由を分析した。さらに、本課題の研究協力者である渡辺将人（北海道大学教授）が、2016年３月７日～12日にかけてアメリカで政党役員やシンクタンクの役職者、活動家、議員ら17名とインタビューを行い、選挙運動におけるシンクタンクの活動と役割を調査した。