Concurrent Majority

The United States of America has a unique political system. This country is a collection of people who believe in different ideas. The Doctrine of Concurrent Majority written by John C. Calhoun summarizes the American beliefs. It illustrates the tolerance, logicality, maturity, and fundamentals of the political system in America. John Fischer points out, in his article “Government by Concurrent Majority” , the difference between the American and European model of government. He brings out the crucial question should we adopt a European system to replace the existing way.

The United States is made up of different interest groups that are constantly at ends with each other. This country being of diverse nature, concurrent majority is a logical way of handling the people. According to Calhoun’s The Doctrine of Concurrent Majority he states that, “every vital decision in American life would have to be adopted by a concurrent majority”. What is concurrent majority? It is like a compromise that all the groups agree upon. Furthermore, Fischer explains this type of government exists at a place where no one power dominates. John Fisher categorizes concurrent majority to be, “ a role which operates unofficially and entirely outside the constitution—but it has given us a method by which all the official and constitutional organs of government can be made to work.” In American politics concurrent majority plays a major role but not much in Europe. Sometimes concurrent majority fails since sectional conflicts develop. Such events tests the U.S. Constitution like during the Civil War.

The United States grew in size and population during the first half of the 1800's. In the north, filled with natural resources and multiplying population, the industrialization began. The traditional agricultural south became King Cotton and slavery flourished. In the 1830's and 1840’s, the rise of mass politics and reform issues dominated that time. The north and the south grew apart as tensions among the regions increased. After the election of 1860, eleven southern states secede from the union since they saw their power and influence in matters diminishing, thus resulting in the Civil War which really tested if the nation and its Constitution would last through such an ordeal.

It was apparent that the biggest issue tearing apart the north and the south was slavery. Until the Civil War, the constitution had recognized this and protected slavery by the three fifths compromise, provision that congress aren’t to end importation of slaves by 1808 and also fugitive slave clause. Such compromises helped encourage the southern states to speed up and support the ratification of the constitution. The westward expansion brought back these issues since new territories wanted to become states. A series of events and compromises took place.

Northerners wanted to end slavery but slaves were crucial to the southern life. They argued that congress had power over new territories due to past compromises. The Northwest Ordinance had abolished slavery in the area north of the Ohio River and the Missouri Compromise of 1820 had banned slavery in the northern portion, 36 30' N latitude, in the Louisiana Purchase. The southerners argued the constitution protection over slavery means the congress has no power to stop the spreading of slavery in the territories. In addition, they felt the congress had a duty to uphold slavery where it already existed.

The issue of slavery was settled briefly in the new territories with the Compromise of 1850, where California entered as a free state, the Fugitive Slave Act required that escaped slaves be returned to their owners, and popular sovereignty will decide whether a territory is to be a free or slave state when entered into the union. This concept of popular sovereignty was vaguely understood which ensured future conflicts. The Kansas-Nebraska Act overturned the decision of the Missouri Compromise by allowing those two states to choose to be either a slave or free state by popular sovereignty. As the pro-slavery and anti-slavery people rushed to Kansas to vote violence erupted. Violence also took place in the congress when a southern congressman beat up an abolitionist Senator Sumner for his anti-slavery remarks.

The Election of 1860 showed the failure of concurrent majority. There was an higher voter turn out which demonstrated discontent among the public. Different groups among the people were not able to decide what to do on the issue of slavery. This resulted in a bloody war, the Civil War, to resolve the differences. Through this incident in history we can see what destruction sectional conflicts causes and how important the policy of concurrent majority really is. The contrasting views of the parties during the Civil War on the issue of slavery cause the nation to split apart but at the end unite and become stronger so this doesn’t happen again. Concurrent majority has become a leading force in American politics.

It is a wonder with so many different opinions within parties; America basically remained a two party political system throughout history for the most part. Such two party systems are rare because mostly there are multiparty systems like how it is organized in the European democracies. After the civil war the parties became distinctively Republican and Democrat. The goal of the American party is not based on issue because such things may change but to win elections by convincing large number of groups. as this is explained in Joseph Schumpeter’s book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy by saying , “ the democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of competitive struggle for the people’s vote.” In America, by winning in a political election one could gain legitimate political power. Politicians aim for that and try to keep different interests group happy. In a political campaign, the candidate establishes a platform for expressing the issues that is of interest to him. By adding on issues that concern different interests group one could gain sizable votes in blocs.

Special interest group are an integral part of our system of government. Sometimes considered like a fourth branch of government, usually focus on one single issue and affect both representatives and senators. They have been part of the American political process from the birth of this nation. Social factors such as the cleavages in society and the different regions with different traditions and cultures led to people having a variety of opinions. As early as 1787, James Madison, father of the constitution, warned us about the mischief of factions. He also stated in the Federalist Papers No. 10, “the latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man. These interest groups are an organization, affiliation or a committee that sole goal becomes to express a certain view. Special interest Groups have a common goal of persuading public policymakers to act in accordance with the group beliefs. They are formed by a common interest that unites the members together through group identification or affiliation. They try to influence elected officials with their focused views and attract quite a number of people from large sections of the United States. These groups have become important because the doctrine of concurrent majority is based on bringing these different interest groups together.

Should we drop our system of concurrent majority for a European model? The American way has many flaws but I don’t think any European way would work either. Categorizing into neat factions didn’t help the Europeans but cause class struggles like in Medieval England. World War two began because the Nazi Party believed that they were superior to any other race. Totalitarian and communists government ruled by one group of people is unacceptable to us. The European government won’t suit us. The previous European political systems of totalitarian, socialism, fascisms, and communism are to drastic for the people of America to adopt as a political system. Although these are not accepted as normal parties, they could never stand a chance in America. If such beliefs were accepted then there would have been extremists and fanatics disrupting and creating havoc in America’s unique political system. Since the American system was active for so long it seems like the only logical way. It tries to find a middle way from the extreme left or right while blending in different ideas of others. Calhoun understood this when he formulated his theory of concurrent majority. He was able to recognize through observation how different America is from the rest of the world.

The founding fathers, when creating the constitution were able to understand how diverse United States was. By observing the mistakes of the European countries, they formulated a government that is unlike the European form of government. In countries such as France, Italy, and Sweden there is a higher number of people that identify with a party compared to the United States. The American political parties are the much older than the current parties of Europe. Our constitution has produced a decentralized party system along with a decentralized governmental system which prevented parties from getting too much power. The United States parties have come about from different factors and went through many changes from time to time.

This nation began without parties but as time passed by parties rose and became powerful to becoming weak currently. The parties in America went through four stages of when political parties were created, when two party systems emerged, when it developed into a comprehensive governmental body, and when party reform began changing the party system.

The founders had a particular dislike for parties, thinking them to be like the European factions that are only concerned about self interest. The Tories and Whigs in Europe believed in a certain ideology and only supported that. The problem that those parties have caused the British monarchs has driven the colonists to stand clear of them. But party formation had become inevitable as the distinct opposing views between Jefferson and Hamilton became evident. Thus, began the first parties of Republicans that followed the Jeffersonian belief and Federalist in favor of Hamiltonian perspective.

The second political party system emerged before the Civil War, during the time of Andrew Jackson, the age of common man when mass politics risen. Voter outcome increased and politics became a national activity. Other things that came about during this time were things like the political conventions. The party system that emerged in the Jacksonian era was truly a national system with one side being pro-Jackson or Democrats and on the other side the Whigs, opponents of Jackson. Sectionalism was breaking up both parties over the issue of slavery. The parties tried avoiding the issue altogether but it wasn’t possible. The modern Republican party emerged as a third party soon making it a major party that dominated in national politics as a result of the Civil War. The Whig party faded away while the democrats grew weaker.

Soon the concept of political machines developed. A political machine is a party organization that recruits its members by providing tangible things such as money, jobs, and opportunities to get government favors. The machine became a supreme election on the value of expressions. Politicians make promises through these machines to different blocs in exchange for votes. The major role of the machine is to win elections not spreading their views. Views changes to fit the time period but candidates and their parties want to unite as many people behind them for support. The old style machine system was apparently corrupted like New York’s Tammany Hall but a new system emerged due to the failures of the old. It has become less of a machine, but a cross between a machine and an ideological party.

Occasionally, third parties or minor parties may spring up such as Bull Moose, Populist, or Socialist. These parties came about because the major parties didn’t satisfy some interest group. They play a major role in influencing the outcome of elections and the political platforms of the major parties like the Democrats and Republicans. These political parties can be described as ideological, single issue, economically motivated and personally driven. They have one thing in common which is an effort to influence the outcome and direction of an election. Eventually, the third party faded away and the major parties adopted some of the ideas supported by the third party. Third parties are more like the European Parties.

The time when third party made significant changes in politics was during the progressive era. The first party to make a huge impact was the Populist Party that supported William Jennings Bryan with his free silver movement. A number of political reforms were introduced because of them; like the policy of initiative, referendum, and recall. Theodore Roosevelt, after denied the Republican nomination, formed his own party which was the Bull Moose Party. They insisted that government take a bigger role in regulating the monopolies later resulted in antitrust legislation. Candidates like Socialists Eugene V. Debs and Robert LaFollette’s Progressive Party died out soon as their candidate lost in the national election. Third parties have not won any major positions or office but the made a policy change. Their impact on political party is a great strength for them. Concurrent majority can be seen through this. Third parties formed due to conflicts of reasons but they disappear as a major party takes up their issues, thus resulting in compromise among the different interest groups.

Concurrent majority shapes up every aspect of the American government, the way we handle our conflicts to how our government officials are chosen. The selection of candidates in America is quite different from European countries. John Q Wilson and John J. DiIulio, clearly explain this in their book American Government. They say “In the great majority of American states, the party leaders do not select people to run for office; by law those people are chosen by voters in primary elections.” Further on the explain the difference between Europe and America, saying “In Europe, by contrast, there is no such thing as a primary election – the only way to become a candidate for office is to persuade party leaders to put your name on the ballot.” This enables anyone to run for public office in America but in Europe it is limited to few numbers of people.

Some criticizes this system to be ineffective but it is very effective. The basic role of the American parties is to unite large number of people from different backgrounds and beliefs. It is not separating different ideologies in certain disciplined groups as does the European countries. This why in America parties like Communist or Fascist Party don’t last long. People in this country has learned to tolerate and accept others opinions. If we weren’t able to wars like the Civil War would have become a frequent occurrence.

Americans are able to get their government to listen to them and do things to their liking. For example, the minority party of the Senate could make a difference how laws are passed but in Europe the minority parties are ignored. In this country, concurrent majority enables everyone to participate actively in government and express their views through the many outlets in government. Concurrent majority shapes the politics of America in every way.

Return to Symaya's Homepage