In 1856, a poignant political cartoon depicted the struggle of Free Soil advocates against Democratic leaders, including President Franklin Pierce, opposing slavery’s expansion into new territories. One particular panel shows Stephen Douglas metaphorically forcing a slave down the throat of the Free Soiler, surrogate for the Democrats’ desire to extend servitude into Central America, Cuba, and Kansas. The background captures an atmosphere of bedlam and carnage, illustrative of the contentious battles of the era.
History has time and again recorded the ignominious role center-left factions have played in facilitating the rise of autocrats like Hitler. What harm could he cause? Give him some power, and perhaps he will quieten down. Such logic was used to fend off threats from socialism and communism, too. In the following paragraphs, we will recount one such pivotal moment detailed by a prominent democracy scholar.
History took a decisive turn on March 23, 1933, in a chamber steeped in the smoky residue of past political battles. Ludwig Kaas, a Catholic priest and leader of Germany’s establishment Center Party, was grappling with a dilemma. For years, his party had valiantly sought to stall Hitler’s ascendancy. However, in 1932 Hitler’s National Socialists (Nazis) became the parliamentary majority, and just a month into 1933, Hitler assumed the chancellorship.
As Hitler began to solidify his control, the Center Party emerged as the last significant hurdle to his quest for dictatorial rule over Germany. He proposed the Enabling Act, poised to grant sweeping powers to his cabinet and erode the democratic fabric. To pass, the Act required a two-thirds majority. The other remaining democratic faction, the Social Democrats, lacked numbers to prevent its passage alone. The Center Party’s opposition could have, however, tilted the scales.
Registration Kaas found himself at an agonizing crossroads. Would his party survive if it resisted the Nazis? Was it possible for democracy to withstand the Center Party’s rebellion? The vicious nature of Nazi’s storm troopers arresting political disputants sent a chilling message. With survival at stake, Kaas found it most pragmatic to accept the new order rather than be demolished by it.
Bearing the future of his party in mind, Kaas convinced his colleagues that preserving their essence was paramount, even if it meant bearing unpleasant consequences that rejection of the Enabling Act would bring. His foresight or lack thereof led to a resounding victory for Hitler’s dictatorship as the Enabling Act was enacted, passing with 444 votes against 94.
Weimar’s legacy is that extremism never gains ascendancy on its own. Instead, it thrives thanks to those who, out of ambition or fear, underestimate the risks of minor appeasements. In turn, those who empower a despot often sacrifice not only their democracy but also the influence they initially sought to safeguard.
Shifting focus to American history unveils a potentially analogous tale. The last time we saw a political party crumble – the Whigs – seems to bear an uncanny resemblance to the present state of affairs. Like present-day Democrats, the Whigs failed to consolidate a united front against an anti-democratic uprising. The southern states, represented by the Democratic Party, depended on slavery for their economies and were determined to extend it into new territories and states.
Post-1964, the Republicans adopted the Southern Strategy. The Whig Party, although a recent addition to the political landscape – unlike today’s Democrats, became the default opposition. Slavery had been an entrenched issue since the Republic’s inception and had become even more divisive. The southern states’ economy relied on it, and it was etched deep into cultural fissures. The Democrats were staunch supporters, leaving the Whigs to offer resistance.
The Whigs eventually succumbed to the gotiations and agreed to the Compromise of 1850, which stipulated people in free states to return runaway slaves to their masters. Despite being inherently unjust, this agreement did permit California to join the Union as a free state and allowed pending decisions on the status of multiple other territories. The compromise represented a bargain, trading the enslaved peoples’ rights for California’s freedom and deferring resolution of the contentious issue.
The Fugitive Slave Act as part of the Compromise increased polarization and opposition to slavery in the North. The political landscape transformed further with the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 which granted new states the power to decide on their slavery status, a decision that led to the formation of a new political force – the Republicans.
The newly formed Republicans comprised radicals committed to abolishing slavery alongside more reserved elements, creating an internal dynamic of tensions. However, the Democrats’ extremist positions drew the party towards the abolitionist side, creating a rift within the ‘moderate center.’ Amidst rising polarization, the Whigs’ compromised position suffered a hit, resulting in anti-slavery advocates joining the Republicans in the North or smaller parties in the South.
Perched on this sharp divide, Abraham Lincoln ran for President as a Republican, initially maintaining a balanced stance on slavery before finally deciding to abolish it. As we stand at a juncture as volatile as the 1850s, the political landscape today mirrors that of the past. A comparison of the leadership of the Democratic Party with that of the Whigs brings to light their shared insistence on finding compromises, even as their base demands stern opposition. While there is no party today that mirrors the rigorous opposition of the 1850 Republicans, a shift to radicalism is evident amongst a section of the Democratic Party leadership. We see that Hitler emerged triumphant, but so did the Radical Republicans. The choice ultimately is ours to make.
The post Decisions That Shaped Democracy: Historical Insights appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
