tions were therefore needed in the acceptedrndevices by which the majorityrnwas to be restrained.rnF’urther, Calhoun illuminated thernmoral principle behind such restrictions,rnwhich he summed up as the “concurrentrnmajority.” The “mere numerical majority”rnwas not itself an ethical or an adequatelyrndemocratic idea. What wasrnneeded was a higher consensus, a largerrnmajority reaching a decision after deliberationrnand compromise—a process thatrncould only be invoked by investing thernminority with certain institutionalizedrnpowers of self-defense. Far from being arnrejection of majority rule, the resultingrnconsensus was democratically and morallyrnpreferable to the dictate of a 51 percentrnmajority, which might itself bernmerely a temporary and expedient coalitionrnof self-seekers. Not everyone thinksrnas pooriy of Calhoun’s idea as does Mr.rnGigot. A blue-ribbon commission inrnBritain, which recently delivered thernmost cxtensi’e and hopeful report everrnmade on the problems of Northern Ireland,rnmakes Calhoun the centerpiece ofrnits proposals.rnMs. Guinier’s particular ideas and therninterests that have occasioned them mayrnbe good or bad, but there is certainlyrnnothing in the least un-American or undemocraticrnin a philosophical considerationrnof the imperfections of majorityrnrule, or of the possibility of different constitutionalrnarrangements. The only thingrnthat is really threatened by such discussionrnis the “democratic” orthodoxies ofrnthose who wish to keep all public debaternin channels approved by themselves.rnOne obvious result of this is to makernpublic discourse vapid and dishonest.rnMs. Guinier seems, in fact, to have beenrnwilling to write about real and hard issuesrnforthrightly, however provocative somernof her solutions might be. And her defendersrnare quite right that the criticsrnhave vulgarized and caricatured her seriousrnintellectual positions. The criticsrnhave blurred the valid distinction betweenrna theoretical discussion and a publicrnposition and made it impossible forrnanyone who has ever said anythingrnworthwhile, anything serious enough tornbe misunderstood by fools, to serve in office.rnBut surely honest and reasonable peoplernshould make a distinction betweenrnan intellectual position and conduct inrnpublic office. Such a distinction, for instance,rnwas very clear in the case of Jeffersonrn—for Jefferson the President andrnAmerican political leader was not thernsame man as the philosophe who speculatedrnin private letters to his friends. ThernEstablishment, of course, wants to guaranteernthat anyone who has ever held anyrnintellectual positions, has ever argued orrnspeculated in a way that they have notrnapproved, is excluded from public office.rnAll officeholders, in their ideal worid,rnwould be as brilliant as Dan Quayle or asrnprincipled as Judge Souter (and wouldrnnever include an M.E. Bradford or arnRobert Bork).rnThere is an even deeper dishonestyrnhere—because, in fact, there are extantrnat this moment in American society institutionalizedrnspecial privileges forrnblacks that violate majority rule (as wellrnas traditional principles of law), since arnclear majority, for instance, disapprovesrnof affirmative action and busing. Racenormingrnin employment, double prosecutionrnof offenses against blacks, reparationsrnrather than punishment for riots,rnand much else is already institutionalizedrnin our society. Ms. Guinier’s critics arernnot really opposed to this special privilegern(though they may worry a bit aboutrnquotas cutting into their own turf).rnWhat they are opposed to is talkingrnabout it honestly in public.rnFrom their viewpoint, they are quiternright. Confirmation hearings for Ms.rnGuinier might well have developed intornthe first honest and open public discussionrnof affirmative action in Americanrnhistory—the undoubted result of whichrnwould have been vast outrage and thernpossible unraveling of the civil rights establishment.rnOpen and honest deliberationrnamong all the relevant opinionsrnwas essential to Calhoun’s concurrentrnmajority. Real majority rule is the lastrnthing Ms. Guinier’s critics want, evenrnless than she does.rnFinally, where Ms. Guinier parts fromrnCalhoun and where she goes wrong isrnnot where she doubts majority rule asrnsufficient for the protection of a minority.rnThis is an honored American tradition.rnWhat is wrong with her position isrnthe moral stance of the parties. All Calhounrnwanted was to protect one part ofrnsociety from another part—to preventrnthe federal government from exploitingrnthe economy of the minority South forrnthe benefit of the majority North. Itrnwas merely a self-protection and an elaborationrnof the accepted concept of limitedrngovernment. But what Ms. Guinierrnposes, of course, is something quite different:rnnot a right of defense, but a permanent,rnuntouchable privilege under anrnimperial state—for a guaranteed incomernlevy on the majority. Here lies the realrnproblem and the real abandonment ofrndemocracy.rn—Clyde WilsonrnO B I T E R DICTA: The University ofrnMissouri Press has once again includedrnthe work of Chronicles contributors inrnits slate of new releases. Due out this fallrnare Samuel Francis’s Beautiful Losers:rnEssays on the Failure of American Conservatismrnand John Shelton Reed’s Surveyingrnthe South: Studies in Regional Sociology.rnIn Beautiful Losers, a collectionrnof essays, Francis explains how recent intellectual,rnpolitical, and social changes inrnthe conservative movement mark thernend of the Old Right. John SheltonrnReed is somewhat more lighthearted inrnhis collection of essays, as he examinesrnthe threads of continuity and change inrnSouthern sociology. Yet both booksrnshould, in their authors’ distinct and incisivernwriting styles, appeal to readers ofrnChronicles.rnAlso due out this fall is The MartinrnLuther King, Jr., Plagiarism Story, editedrnby Chronicles managing editor TheodorernPappas. Published by the Rockford Institute,rnthe book will cover the controversyrnin its entirety, from the suppressionrnof the story and cover-up of the evidencernto the current call from the academy tornredefine plagiarism in light of King’s pilfering.rnThe book will feature articlesrnfrom Chronicles, the Wall Street journal,rnthe New Republic, and the Sunday Telegraph.rnThose who enjoyed our June issue onrnimmigration and the environmentrn(“Bosnia, U.S.A.”) may be interested inrnattending the Carrying Capacity Network’srnfall conference, “The Ethics ofrnImmigration.” Scheduled to take placernon Friday, November 12, at the J.W.rnMarriott Century City I lotel in Los Angeles,rnthe conference will address suchrntopics as the biology and ethics of altruism,rnthe environmental and social costsrnof population growth, friction amongrnethnic and racial groups, and the populationrncarrying capacity of the UnitedrnStates. Speakers will include TristramrnEngelhardt, Peter Brimclow, Jack Miles,rnand Virginia Abernethy. For more informationrnwrite the Carrying Capacity Networkrnat 1325 C Street, NW, Suite 1003,rnWashington, D.C. 20005-3104 or phonern800-466-4866.rnSEPTEMBER 1993/7rnrnrn