In 1856 a political cartoon depicted the struggle of the Free Soilers against slavery expansion by the Democratic leaders, including President Franklin Pierce. These Democratic leaders insisted on enabling slavery in newly emerging territories like Central America, Cuba, and Kansas. Amid the chaos depicted in the cartoon, Stephen Douglas forcefully imposes slavery on the resisting Free Soiler. Such historical illustrations challenge us to recognize the recurring theme of how political center-left ideologies often contribute to the rise of extreme regimes.
Historically, this political compromise with extreme ideologies has manifested itself in various ways – with one prominent example occurring during the rise of Adolf Hitler. This incident presented itself in a dramatic fashion on March 23, 1933, within a chamber soaked in the stale aroma of cigar smoke, as Ludwig Kaas struggled with his conscience. Kaas was then serving as a Catholic priest and the head of Germany’s mainstream Center Party.
For years, the Center Party had been trying to impede Hitler’s ascent. However, in 1932, the Nazis became the majority power in parliament, making Hitler the chancellor by January 1933. Hitler’s goal to gain total power in Germany made the Center Party the only remaining hurdle in his path.
In his pursuit of absolute power, Hitler introduced the Enabling Act. Approval of this act would give him and his cabinet unrestricted control to enforce laws, thereby dismantling the fundamental principles of democracy. However, the act would have to achieve a two-thirds majority to be ratified.
The Social Democrats maintained their support for democracy despite being in minority, hence their resistance alone wasn’t strong enough to prevent the ratification. The Center Party had the crucial ability to block the act’s passage but were undecided due to their fears of defying the Nazis.
Kaas, conflicted and apprehensive, wondered about the survival of his party and democracy if they were to resist. With the growing intensity of the political environment where the stormtroopers of Hitler had already started to arrest political adversaries, Kaas decided to conform to the rising oppressive regime. He chose to cooperate and try to work within the new reality, believing he was preserving his party’s soul.
He justified to his colleagues: “Rejecting the Enabling Act will result in unpleasant consequences for our party.” Thus, the act passed with a vote of 444 to 94, making way for Hitler’s dictatorship. We can learn a valuable lesson from Weimar history – autocracy is rarely triumphant independently. Its success is often enabled by others out of fear, ambition, or underestimation of the true dangers that lie ahead.
This enabling often demands a high price from the facilitators, sacrificing their democracy and the influence they sought to protect. As we delve deeper into the archives of history, we find a parallel in the American context. A comparable narrative emerges from the last collapse of a political party in the United States, which shares significant resemblance with our current political landscape.
It is undeniable how the Democratic Party and the Whigs struggled to unite against an anti-democratic wave during the American expansion. The push for the expansion of slavery met firm resistance from the determined Whigs. From 1964, however, we see Republicans adopting Nixon’s Southern Strategy to succeed the Democrats as the proponents of slavery.
The Whigs, then a nascent party, stood strong and unique in their opposition to slavery – a matter of social and economic dilemma since the nascent stages of the Republic. Faced with the adamant support for slavery from the Democrats, the onus fell on the Whigs to deflect this wave.
In an unfortunate turn of events, the Whigs accepted the Compromise of 1850, which included the controversial Fugitive Slave Act. Despite it being deemed a compromise, it demanded people living in free states to surrender escaped slaves back to their owners.
Although California was allowed to join the union as a free state and the status of several other territories was left undecided, it was undoubtedly a trade-off of enslaved people’s rights. The act not only increased polarization but also provoked anti-slavery sentiments in the North.
The situation worsened with the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, allowing these states to resolve the slavery issue through public voting. Despite strong opposition from the Whigs, the act was passed. It birthed the Republican Party, a mix of radicals demanding abolition of slavery and those treading a more cautious path.
As resistance increased, the Whigs disintegrated, leaving room for the Republican Party to consolidate those opposing slavery. Abraham Lincoln, who represented the Republicans, adopted a balanced stance on slavery initially. However, his conviction to end slavery solidified over time. Today, it is essential to remember that the struggle to uphold democratic norms and resist destructive ideologies, as seen in these historical episodes, continue to echo in our present day, urging us to tread cautiously.
The post The Forgotten Story of how Political Compromise Empowered Extreme Regimes appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
