Has Trump Awakened the Concurrent Majority?
Ilana Mercer puts the Presidential contender in historical context
In his August 20 rally in Fredericksburg, Va., Donald Trump continued to say things surprisingly basic. Or, “insubstantial,” if you believe the presstitutes (with apologies to prostitutes, who do an honest day’s work and whom I respect). I paraphrase:
We are going to take our country back.
It is going to be a new day in America. It is going to be a great day in America.
Government will listen to the people again. The voters, not the special interests, will be in charge. Ours will be a government of, by, and for the people.
Our economy will grow. Jobs will come back. New factories will stretch all across the nation.
Families will be safe and secure. Crime will go down. Law and order will be restored to these United States of America.
In Charlotte, NC, on August 18, Trump spoke of embracing weeping parents whose kids were killed by illegal immigrants. Immigration laws will be enforced, he promised. Make every city a Sanctuary City for Americans, not for their killers (OK, the last line is mine).
We’re going to reject globalism and put America first. The neo-Conservative era of nation building is over.
And again: it’s going to be America first from now on.
It’s hard to keep up with the impassioned addresses that the high-energy Mr. Trump has given in the last week. However, his law-and-order speech in Charlotte was especially striking: one thing I’ll promise you, I will always tell you the truth. I will speak on behalf of the voiceless, return the government to the people; give the people their voice back. I will never let you down.
Let our kids be Dreamers too, suggested Trump. Was he was alluding to the affectionate legislation and terminology developed by the New York-Washington axis of power for its young, illegal-alien protégés?
In Trump you have a political outsider, despised by the media-congressional-donor complex, talking to the multitudes living in Rome’s provinces and groaning under the burden of its policies. To this voiceless Common America, Trump is giving a voice.
Also in Charlotte, Trump said he’d never put special interests before American interests, pointing out that none controlled him. “My only interest is the American people.”
And from West Bend, Wisconsin, on August 16, he declared: “I’m with you, the American People. We’ll once again be a country of law-and-order and unparalleled successes. I’m with you; I’ll fight for you; I’ll win for you.”
The American scheme of government was meant to be pretty basic—more about what government was to refrain from doing to its people than what it was to do to and for them. America’s Silent Majority is hankering for pitifully fundamental things from a government that has forgotten this.
As I argue in “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Reconstructed,” Trump is no “visionary vis-à-vis government.” If anything, “he is practical and pragmatic. He wants a fix for Americans, not a fantasy. I also attempted to place this hankering for things simple and universal within a uniquely American framework. This led me to posit a thesis developed by one of America’s greatest political thinkers, in the estimation of historian Clyde N. Wilson, John C. Calhoun.
In A Disquisition on Government, published in 1851, Calhoun developed the idea of “two different modes in which the sense of the community may be taken.” The one “regards numbers only.” The other invokes an entirely different quality or dimension, over and above the “numbers.”
“The former of these,” Calhoun termed “the numerical or absolute majority”; the latter “the concurrent or constitutional majority.” [EDITORIAL NOTE : there is a striking similarity between Calhoun’s concept of the concurrent majority and Rousseau’s concept of the general will.] The numerical majority “regards numbers only, and considers the whole community as a unit, having but one common interest throughout.” Conversely, the constitutional majority considers “the community as made up of different and conflicting interests, as far as the action of the government is concerned.”
“So great is the difference, politically speaking, between the two majorities,” cautioned Calhoun, “that they cannot be confounded, without leading to great and fatal errors.”
The numerical majority Calhoun associated with the “tendency to oppression and abuse of power.” He recommended that “the numerical majority … be [but] one of the elements of a constitutional democracy,” but advised that “to make it the sole element, in order to perfect the constitution and make the government more popular, is one of the greatest and most fatal of political errors.”
As early as 1851, the prescient Calhoun was able to categorically state: “[T]he numerical majority will divide the community … into two great parties, which will be engaged in perpetual struggles to obtain the control of the government.” It was to the concurrent majority that Calhoun looked for unity and transcendence:
The concurrent majority, on the other hand, tends to unite the most opposite and conflicting interests, and to blend the whole in one common attachment to the country. … Each sees and feels that it can best promote its own prosperity by conciliating the goodwill, and promoting the prosperity of the others. And hence, there will be diffused throughout the whole community kind feelings between its different portions … instead of antipathy, a rivalry amongst them … Under the combined influence of these causes, the interests of each would be merged in the common interests of the whole; and thus, the community would become a unit, by becoming the common center of attachment of all its parts. And hence, instead of faction, strife, and struggle for party ascendency, there would be patriotism, nationality, harmony, and a struggle only for supremacy in promoting the common good of the whole.
Could Donald J. Trump be tapping into our country’s still-extant concurrent majority?
Could he be uniting the American Tower of Babble behind things true and shared? These are: economic prosperity, national pride and unity, the pursuit of comity and fair commerce with the nations of the world, without compulsion to control them or save them from themselves, and a yen for recognizable neighborhoods. The last demands less Islam and immigration, and an end to the transformation of communities through centrally planned, mass immigration.
Given the disparate groups rooting for Donald Trump’s candidacy, it would certainly appear that he has awakened what Calhoun called the concurrent majority.
ILANA Mercer is the author of “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (June, 2016), and “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa” (2011). She has been writing a popular, weekly, paleolibertarian column—begun in Canada—since 1999. Ilana’s online homes are www.IlanaMercer.com & www.BarelyABlog.com. Follow her on https://twitter.com/IlanaMercer
I wish we could achieve some sort of national synthesis here in Great Britain – where instead of (for example) the losing side in the referendum continuing to fight over the rights and wrongs (the wrongs, as they still see it) of Brexit, we could simply get on with building our country and engaging in constructive actions for its future. The trouble is, that the people of today (as a result of extreme liberalism and the cult of the self – encouraged by our culture of materialism) are atomised, and factional, and petulant and irritable: there is little to bind them together in a common understanding or purpose. I have read one or two encouraging letters from sensible people in the Remain camp, who say that – quite rightly – that they accept the democratic result and will get on with making things work. This is the right and rational approach. One day, after the dictatorial EU has melted away, people – across Europe and the whole world – will wonder what all the fuss was about. Why were people so seduced by that blue flag and its yellow stars – and all the dull, grey Eurocrats telling us how to live our lives?
My concern, Stuart: Out of the Brussels frying-pan, but into the Beijing fire.
I don’t mind Dutchmen running the excellent Abellio train-service, though the foreign ownership of so much of our “economy” is disturbing, but I don’t want Britain open to so-called “free trade” with Afro-Asia in goods or labor. Look at the latest HMG kowtow to China.
There is talk everywhere now of more future post-Brexit immigration from outside Europe. Yes, we have trouble with some Poles, but nothing compared to the Islamic settlements in our major cities. We must respect our Celtic, Saxon, Viking, Norman and Roman past, but also secure a “European” future for the “Euro-American” world.
“These things shall be: a loftier race than e’re the world hath known shall rise, with flame of freedom in their hearts and light of science in their eyes.”
Quite agree, David – I certainly worry about overseas control of major infrastructure and assets; and the erosion of our character in a blizzard of globalisation, chewing-gum culture and “every nation but our own” (so-called) diversity. If only Europe could be a strong community of nations (reflecting a shared heritage) rather than the politically-correct superstate it has become.
The second-to-last paragraph has proven true: It has proved to be Trump’s plan in a nutshell.
And, IT’S WORKING!
Stuart, have a look at Markus Willinger’s “A Europe of Nations”. Of course, Hope not Hate are already on the tail of the English “branch” of Generation Identity.