John._C_Calhoun's_Concurrent_Majority

Rocky Boussias Professor Alan Smith American Political Thought 4/23/10 A democratic society is an ever-changing environment. There are a number of phenomena that are unique and exclusive to this style of government, and many ways to go about observing these phenomena; an endeavor that many in our history have attempted to do. A political theorist that I favor is John C. Calhoun. His thoughts about the way that our society is engineered and the ways in which it can be successfully run are profound and have withstood the test of time. In the passages that I have read and will be analyzing, Calhoun asks questions that are of such an essential nature that they are still pertinent in today's society. It is his primary intention, I believe, to understand whether or not there are any governmental imperatives to societal success. If there are, is there any particular methods that can be employed to ensure that those imperatives are met' Lastly, he ponders the idea of majority, and attempts to ascertain that there exists a variety of majorities, as opposed to the belief that the ’Numerical Majority’ is the sole of its kind. In analyzing these questions and what remains of his thought, I hope to convey the idea that his findings on the necessity of government, the methods by which it may be successfully employed, and the existence of a ’Concurrent Majority’ are relevant and correctly conceived. Calhoun states in the fore text of these passages that there is a tendency of man to be a social being. I think that this idea is perhaps obvious, yet he is able to understand, to a further degree, why man as a social being, is now pre disposed to the need of a governmental body to regulate and control the order of that social society. This is at the very base of all of his findings, and can be used as the foundation for the formulation of government in case there is anyone who stands adversely to the idea of government, and its purpose. Later in the reading Calhoun alludes to the fact that a society without governance is one that is chaotic and dangerous, which I would tend to agree with. The idea that a government is required in order to maintain order is a actually fact in my opinion. Unless of course we are living in a utopia. If we are in agreement that the American society, although close, is not a utopia, then we can also agree that there is, as Calhoun contends, a sufficient need for governmental rule. Governmental rule itself can be a fickle business that is, by nature, repressive in a free society, or so it would seem. When we address the idea that a free people are to be ruled by the few, as Calhoun does, it is apparent that there are indeed an array of results that are born out of that rule that have a tendency to be contrary to the principles of liberty. However, be it that it is imperative to the success of society to maintain some sort of stability, a job that is inherent in government, we must sacrifice the ability to be utterly free in hopes of being actually free. Hence, freedom is not absolute. For a land without laws and rule, is, asCalhoun stated and I believe , a chaotic stage where potentially all the actors are bloodied and doomed. It is given that the establishment of government is a societal imperative. However, what is not so readily understood is the manner in which government can be successfully conceived, and who is the rightful and most qualified to manage its affairs. It is here that he introduced the ideas of suffrage, and/or voting in society. Not to say that his ideas that voting must exist were unique or inventive, however he was able to develop the common faults that are witnessed within the American system of election. Calhoun’s main point about the rights of suffrage is that there are inevitably going to be dissention among the general public on issues that affect the entirety of the nation. As I said before, this observation is obvious, and would only be untrue in a utopia, which we do not live in. The meat and potatoes of the particulars relating to voting and elections is that with the establishment of divergent viewpoints in society, there will ultimately be a struggle for power among the constituency. It follows then that there will be a formation of interest groups that will do all in their power to align in a like manner in order to effectively block the enemy (opposition groups) from successfully ascending to a power position within government. I think that this argument was unique in the sense that before Calhoun there was little or no realization that like-minded interest groups would set aside their differences in an attempt to maliciously deter the other side from attaining power. Of course it was known that interest groups existed, however I believe Calhoun was an innovator with respect to the evolution of factions and their ploy to control the majority. This very phenomenon is something that is still observed one hundred and fifty years later. It has just recently been proven, in the election of President Obama, that this school of action is still in practice. During the 2008 election, we began to see a variety of otherwise opposing factions join each other in hopes of creating a blockade for Senator John McCain and the Republican party. There were, and still are, many social conservatives in this country who were abhorrently opposed to President Obama’s financial policies, yet in light of the overall desire for a peaceful end to the War on Terror and a new diplomatic doctrine which Obama offered, these people moved to the left in order to ensure their protection from a continuation of the Bush administrations policies (which was unwanted). During the Bush presidency a similar alliance formed in the congressional elections, when the people were tired of being relatively helpless and subject to the Republican majority; constituencies who had recently been pro-Republican voted Democratically to achieve the same means as was desired in Obama’s election. So it proves that these ideas that Calhoun introduced are certainly important and definitely still relevant to today’s America. He goes on to talk about the perverted nature of elected officials, and their natural tendency to abuse their power in such a way that one party, or interest group would benefit greatly from the actions of government, while the other would be reciprocally deflated. I tend to believe that Calhoun was able to see very clearly the truth of the time that he was living in. Being a southern farm dweller, Calhoun was very affected by the actions of politicians in the North who were of a more industrious nature. He saw that the very factious nature of government was actually impeding upon his way of life and so he felt compelled to reveal the reality of the situation. When he talks about the idea that the a government that is capable of levying taxes needs the proper branches for collection and disbursement, and that there will be a struggle to control those governmental agencies in order to secure the power to decide on both accounts; I believe this is a direct depiction of the struggle between north and south. As far as I can see, when the topic of ‘_real tax-payers’ and ‘ tax consumers is brought up he is indirectly stating that the north is receiving the vast majority of tax dollars as a bounty, whereas the south acts in actuality as the lone tax-paying region, and this is burdensome. Therefore, effectually creating a contentious environment where the benefits reaped are one-sided,and the detriment equally exclusive. The best examples that I can conjure are two that we are currently experiencing, and are in my opinion as equally unjust as the incongruent misuse of tax dollars during Calhoun’s time. The examples that I am referring to are the government bail-outs, and the current social aid programs. Although, the two of these examples are lying on opposite sides of the spectrum, I believe that they are both accurate modern depictions of the problem that Calhoun was referring to in his writings, with regard to tax dollars. Firstly, the situation relating to the bailing out of corporations that were engaging in fraudulent and unregulated business is in my opinion an injustice to the lower-level working class people. These working class people, who in essence paid for the survival of these irresponsible corporations, are forced by government to use their hard earn dollars to support accompany that has never given _anything to the people, but rather use those tax dollars to give million dollar bonuses to their undeserving executives. The next and contrarily confounded issue that is relative to Calhoun’s unsatisfied disposition is the case of government assistance. In this case, Americans from all levels of income, but primarily the middle and upper classes, are again forced to pay for programs that support other Americans who are arguably unproductive within our society. Whether these programs be healthcare, housing, or otherwise, the result is the same. One half of the citizenry contributes( and is burdened), while the other benefits( and receives bounty). A final tax dollar injustice is the practice that we as a nation employ which blindly provides health services to immigrants that have no rights to the government funds of this country, and of whom most do not even contribute to our economy by paying taxes, other than sales tax. These examples are the essence of Calhoun’s argument that once elected officials of a like mind are in office, they will undoubtedly abuse their power to the benefit of one and the detriment to the other. To ensure that this is not a regular occurrence there must be a system of suffrage that allows for this phenomenon only in times where the majority is in agreement. Here is where Calhoun differentiates the two types of majorities, and does so necessarily. A key point that is discussed by Calhoun is that, the same way government is essential to society, a constitution is essential to the government. This is important because it permits a certain understanding that without a constitution, government is useless. In addition, he states that a constitution is the negative to the government’s positive( pg. 251). Understanding that a just government cannot exist without a constitution that accounts for all opinions is a intricate part of the prevailing success of that government. Here we arrive at the most important part of Calhoun’s discourse. He emphatically states that the government, which is accustomed to believing that there is only a simple ‘Numerical majority’ is disillusioned. A numerical majority represents only the enumeration of a people with the same viewpoint instead of considering the diversity of opinion that is present in the country at large. Given the environment at the time of Calhoun’s writings, it is easy to see why this system was at fault. The distribution of the population during that period was largely skewed to the north, which accounted for the imbalance of popular opinion. The fact that the majority of population in numbers was residing in the north meant that there was no way for the south to counter the political ambition of the their northerly neighbors. Instead of offering the power to those who produce the most overall votes, Calhoun offers that there should be a system by which all interests are afforded and opinion. This system is called the ‘Concurrent Majority’. In a concurrent majority, there would be an option and a place for each voice, regardless of quantity, to be heard and considered in the government. In this form of government you can be assured that each and every variety of opinion will have a place to exercise their influence and perform their duty for those who they are elected to serve. This can be seen in the difference between the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House is based on the population, whereas the Senate grants equal representation to every state. This allows for a filter which can assure that no single interest will be imposed on the entirety of the population unless there is consent by the concurrent majority. Moreover, it can be explained like this; consider for instance that New York city wanted to build a railway system that would send rail lines through major farms in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The population of the New Yorkers that are in favor of the system is twenty people, and the farmers in New Jersey are twelve, in Connecticut they are nine, and in Pennsylvania twenty two farmers are against the rail ways. In the ‘numerical majority’ system the twenty New Yorkers would win, even though forty three farmers were opposed. However, in the ‘ concurrent majority’ system, the farmers of the three separate states would accomplish their means by an aggregate vote. It is my opinion that the system which accurately represents the multitude of opinions is the best system based on the ideas of a free society. If it were to be said that one group of people that are in agreement with each other constitutes a number higher that any other number of several groups that are opposed to a certain legislation, and are still granted the right to their means, then that is contrary to a liberal and democratic society. Although the ‘Concurrent Majority’ system may not be perfect, I believe that is the system which is most prone to achieving perfection. This I believe is especially true in a land of such diverse population and moral virtue.