Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:01:42.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

John C. Calhoun, Lani Guinier, and Minority Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

John L. Safford*
Affiliation:
University of South Carolina at Sumter

Extract

Early in the first year of his presidency, Bill Clinton floated the name of Lani Guinier to be the Justice Department's chief civil-rights lawyer. Although Guinier never made it to Senate confirmation hearings, she was well qualified by education and professional training. Moreover, as a black Jewish female, it was evident to her that majoritarian democracy is often less than fair—and she was forthright about wishing to correct it by democratic means.

Ironically, the minority veto, one of the alleged means by which Guinier wished to assure fairness, harkened back to the process of government advocated by John C. Calhoun (1782–1850). For Calhoun, constitutionalism or limited government was justified by epistemological nominalism, and was ensured by the concurrent majority and nullification.

Like that of Aristotle, James Madison, and Karl Marx, Calhoun's political philosophy was based on class analysis. Indeed, the historian of American thought, Richard Hofstadter, subtitled a chapter on Calhoun, “The Marx of the Master Class.” As Hofstadter explains, in Calhoun,

… there is discernible a rough parallel to several ideas that were later elaborated and refined by Marx: the idea of pervasive exploitation and class struggle in history; a labor theory of value and of a surplus appropriated by the capitalists; the concentration of capital under capitalistic production; the fall of working-class conditions to the level of subsistence; the growing revolt of the laboring class against the capitalists; the prediction of social revolution.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1.

The author acknowledges the helpful suggestions made by Vukan Kuic and Philip Costopoulos.

References

Calhoun, John C. [1853] 1953. A Disquisition on Government; and Selections from the Discourse, ed. Post, C. G.. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Calhoun, John C. 1978. The Papers of John C. Calhoun Vol. 11. ed. Wilson, Clyde N.. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Etzioni, Amitai. 1992. “On the Place of Virtues in a Pluralistic Democracy.” The American Behavioral Scientist 35:530–40.10.1177/000276429203500410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, Alexander,Madison, James, and Jay, John. 1961. The Federalist Papers. New York: The New American Library.10.4159/harvard.9780674332133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, Richard. [1948] 1964. The American Political Tradition: And the Men Who Made It. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Kuic, Vukan. 1983. “John C. Calhoun's Theory of the ‘Concurrent Majority’.” American Bar Association Journal 69: 482–86.Google Scholar
Lerner, Ralph. 1963. “Calhoun's New Science of Politics.” American Political Science Review 57:918–32.10.2307/1952609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russakoff, Dale. “Lani Guinier, In Person.” The Washington Post Weekly Edition, 2026 December, 1993.Google Scholar