During my readings of Voices of Freedom, I came across this notion of a concurrent majority as proposed by John C. Calhoun. In his "Disquisition on Government" following the actions of the nullification crisis, Calhoun explored the differences between a "numerical" and "concurrent" majority and their respective effectiveness in determining the final decisions of Congress. After reading about this theory in a brief excerpt, I decided to look further into his proposal and supporting arguments.
Calhoun's motivation, aligning with the ideas of by the Founding Fathers, was a fear of the "tyranny of the majority." Calhoun's writing brought attention upon the way in which a government could be implemented without allowing for an "abuse of power" by the majority of the people. His proposed idea of a concurrent majority takes into greater consideration all the interests of society rather than the sheer numbers by which a vote is passed. He argued that the current numerical majority is too eliminating in its results and is more representative of an "absolute government" than the desired democracy. He reasoned that the final decision that is voted on is too extreme, working as a solution that only satisfies a portion of the entire population. Instead, the voices of all the voters should be considered in any referendum and included in some way in the final decision. Calhoun described that in order to develop the purest "right of suffrage," a final decision should only be made when there is unanimous consent in all portions of the population and community regarding the issue.
Calhoun's reasoning behind the effectiveness of his theory carries some resemblance to James Madison's writing in The Federalist Papers. A shared idea in both Article 10 and Article 51 of these papers is that a large and expansive nation housing a wide variety of ambitions from all sectors of the economy will ultimately counteract each other. Similarly, Calhoun proposes that the concurrent majority will prevent the majority side from dominating all other ideas, as the conflicting interests will result in compromises to be taken until all people are satisfied with the measure. He furthers this argument of a "negative power" to "check" the dominance of the majority by stating that without it, there will be no protection on the "rights and safety" of every citizen in the nation.
Sources: http://theprincetontory.com/john-c-calhouns-concurrent-majority/
https://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/16980-the-tyranny-of-the-concurrent-majority
I was also very interested in this idea of a "concurrent" majority rather than a "numerical" one. I think that John C. Calhoun's idea was something that united people, furthering their feelings of liberty and freedom. Through this new majority idea, as you described, the people's ideals would be taken into consideration for the majority rather than purely a numerical one which, as Calhoun feared, could lead to a tyranny like the one they just escaped from and fought to leave.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting how you dove deep into Calhoun's motivations and reasoning behind supporting a concurrent majority. I feel that Calhoun's philosophy also relates somewhat to the electoral college, which is supposed to represent the people. However, although the people have a say, there have still been cases of corruption. For example, Andrew Jackson, the most popular candidate in 1824, had a seemingly easy victory by sheer numerical and popular vote, but still lost because Henry Clay threw his support behind John Quincy Adams. Calhoun, who himself was involved in this election, may have been influenced by it in his ideals.
ReplyDeleteI really liked how you incorporated your own view into the blog by highlighting the similarities between Calhoun's idea of "concurrent" majority and Madison's doctrines in the Federalist Papers. I think that it is important to note, however, that Calhoun actually challenged No. 10’s compound republic theory and No. 51’s separation of powers theory in his book A Disquisition on Government. Additionally, No. 22 in the Federalist Papers included the idea of “numerical” majority, which was a concept Calhoun opposed. Still, even though Calhoun may have not been completely opposed to Madison’s idea that a large republic with many different factions and interests can be used to prevent the dangers of a majority oppressing a minority, he believed that Madison’s proposal did not consider that national political parties would form and exist in full force. Calhoun believed that humans were inherently selfish, and that the political parties were the exact representations of the “national unjust majority” Madision believed were unlikely to form. Additionally, the series of events during Calhoun’s office including the nullification crisis helped him to justify his belief that Madison’s proposed solution was ineffective, as these coalitions were selfish and close-minded and would inevitably pass a bad policy or harm the minorities and their interests. Now I leave the question: Do you agree with Calhoun’s argument that a large national political faction will inevitably degenerate into corruption and tyranny, or do you think otherwise based on today’s world?
ReplyDeleteSources:
https://www.constitution.org/jcc/intro_jr.htm
https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1011&context=headwaters