Calhoun’s Doctrine of the Concurrent Majority

Calhoun's doctrine of the concurrent majority

by Juan Giroon Joya.

In the absence of effective checks on government power,

all governments tend towards tyranny.

This explains why John C. Calhoun

defended the constitutional principle

of limited government, emphasizing the importance

of restraining the power of the majority.

Calhoun argued that the aim of a constitution

is not merely to confer power, but also to restrain it.

Hence, a constitution that fails to limit the power

of the majority has failed in its essential purpose.

As Professor Clyde Wilson puts it,

Calhoun defined the constitution as a compact

by which society limits and restrains those

who are entrusted with government.

It is not an open-ended charter of their powers.

When a government is unrestrained,

there is no constitution by whatever name called.

In this context, the defense of minority

interests serves as an important restraint

on majority power.

Calhoun's doctrine of the concurrent majority

describes a situation where the majority

of a political minority, a sectional majority,

defends its own interests and situations

where there is a conflict between sectional interests

and the policy preferences of the majority.

The concurrent majority thereby acts as a restraint

on the exercise of government power.

As Calhoun explains in his 1845

disquisition on government,

the concurrent majority operates as a form of negative power.

It is this negative power, the power of preventing

or arresting the action of the government,

be it called by what term it may,

veto, interposition, nullification, check,

or balance of power, which in fact forms the constitution.

They are all but different names for the negative power.

In all its forms and under all its names,

it results from the concurrent majority.

Without this, there can be no negative

and without a negative, no constitution.

Gordon Post, in his introduction to Calhoun's disquisition,

describes the doctrine of the concurrent majority

as a balance of majority and minority interests.

This emphasis on minority interests

reflects the importance of individual liberty.

Unrestrained enforcement of the majority view

without regard to the importance of individual liberty

would risk ushering in a tyranny of the majority.

Post explains that Calhoun thought in terms of the individual

and not in terms of mass man.

He thought in terms of man as he is,

not as he ought to be,

or as Calhoun would have liked him to be.

He thought in terms of principle

and not in terms of expediency.

Calhoun saw the principle at stake

as how best to safeguard the interests

and way of life of a minority

against the will of democratic majorities.

His reasoning was that the ability of each section

to protect its own interests would serve as a check

on the ability of the majority to be tyrannical and oppressive

and would thereby enlarge and secure the bounds of liberty.

Post explains that this protection of minority interests

is an important part of Calhoun's legacy.

The great significance of Calhoun's major works

is that they comprise a memorial and guide

to the age-old problem of minorities.

The framers of the Constitution of the United States

were fully aware that a government supported

by democratic majorities could be as tyrannous

and as arbitrary as any absolute monarch or dictator.

The enduring influence of this idea

is reflected in a 1952 time article cited by Post,

titled Democrats, The Negative Power,

which argues that what it calls Calhounism,

the defense of sectional interests,

is not an antagonistic attempt to promote sectional interests

to the detriment of the common good,

but rather a method of working towards political compromise.

Political pressure to achieve a compromise

serves as a restraint on majority power.

When the majority,

compelled to take into account the concerns of the minority,

lacks free reign to do whatever it pleases.

Such attempts to balance majority and minority interests

are, of course, politically controversial.

A powerful sectional lobby may sometimes be seen

by the majority as a threat to the national interest

if it is perceived as a mischievous attempt

to obstruct and subvert majority decision making.

A good example of this is seen in the debate surrounding

the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom,

which was won by a narrow margin

with the country split along regional lines.

As the post-Brexit debate show,

although the majority voted to leave the European Union,

a determined and persistent minority

soon launched a campaign against the outcome.

Such minority campaigns,

especially if they are well-funded, well-organized,

and prepared to pay any price to achieve their goals,

may powerfully influence the legal and political order

despite lacking majority support.

In the Brexit example,

those who lost the vote,

popularly derided as remoners,

were accused by those who voted to leave

of attempting to reverse the outcome of the referendum

in all but name,

which would defeat the point of having held

the referendum in the first place.

In the Labour plot to reverse Brexit,

the Telegraph recently reported that

a group of vocal remainers

with Alistair Campbell, a key member,

are urging Keir Starmer to rejoin the customs union

or the EU itself.

A cabal of what used to be termed remoners

is trying to convince Sir Keir Starmer

that he should commit to re-entering the EU customs union.

Some even think a second referendum on EU membership

would be a good idea.

Others in number 10 are appalled at the suggestion,

arguing that it would alienate working-class leave voters

and drive them into the hands of reform UK.

The serious political implications

of such minority campaigns are obvious

and post also highlights some historical examples

where the veto power of a minority

was perceived as a bid to derail the wishes of the majority.

It is therefore important to emphasize

that Calhoun's doctrine of the concurrent majority

is not merely about acquiring a disruptive veto power

or fomenting revolt, but on the contrary,

seeks to encourage social cooperation

and political compromise.

Compromise, not disunion, was his goal.

It is sometimes forgotten that his message

in defending the sectional interests of the South

was not to argue against the union,

but on the contrary, to warn against the growing hostility

of the New England states that, if unchecked,

risked precipitating the breakup of the union,

his warning turned out to be prophetic.

When Jefferson Davis defended the Confederate cause

over two decades later,

he too explained that their cause was not that of the South only,

but the cause of constitutional government.

As Calhoun explained in his disquisition,

the balance of majority and minority interests

aims to enhance, rather than undermine, unity.

By giving to each interest or portion,

the power of self-protection,

all strife and struggle between them for ascendancy

is prevented, and thereby,

not only every feeling calculated

to weaken the attachment to the whole is suppressed,

but the individual and social feelings

are made to unite in one common devotion to the country.

This should not be taken to mean

that sectional interests are not important

in their own right.

Post argues that Calhoun led a group of men

representative of a conscious and defensive minority

who sensed danger to the South

in the constantly increasing population,

the increasing financial, industrial,

and political power of the North.

They believed that the interests of the South

could be defended by putting pressure on the majority

to seek compromise and restore harmony between North and South.

At the same time,

it must be remembered that,

as a statesman and philosopher,

Calhoun's aim in defending minority interests

was not only the practical imperative

of defending the immediate sectional interests of the South,

displaying his personal talent

for what the time article describes as

the American genius for practical politics,

but also reflected his principled commitment

to safeguarding the liberty on which the union was founded.

To prevent government from passing beyond its proper limits

and to restrict it to its primary end,

the protection of the community,

the doctrine of limited government

is essential in achieving that goal.

The constitutional doctrine of the concurrent majority

retains its enduring political value

and represents an important aspect of Calhoun's legacy,

which is often forgotten in contemporary political discourse.

For more content like this visit,

mises.org.