Last week's events in Wisconsin reveal that the Walker Republicans are thinking about American democracy quite differently than most of us who are observing the state's struggles. Compelling poll numbers showed that Wisconsin voters did not want to strip state unions of their right to bargain collectively. Those watching the enormous opposition to the collective bargaining prohibition assumed that, in the face of such popular anger, the Republicans would cobble together a face-saving compromise. And yet, in a flurry of procedural moves, they rammed through a measure the majority of voters opposed.
How can lawmakers who claim to be enacting the will of the people justify passing a law that a strong majority opposes? It seems a pretty obvious contradiction.
Actually, though, Wisconsin Republicans are not the first to embrace this contradiction. Historically, party leaders who believe they have irretrievably lost the majority argue that their policies enact the true will of the people ... even if the people have taken the opposite position. In a twist of logic, they argue that the minority truly represents the country.
Proponents articulated this political philosophy first in 1858, over the question of slavery. Before the Civil War, the sparsely settled South maintained power in the government only by insisting that free states and slave states come into the Union together. So in 1854, when Nebraska Territory was organized without slavery, Southern Senators insisted that neighboring Kansas Territory become a slave state. Unfortunately, Kansas was on land that had been set aside for freedom. A Democratic Congress decided to try to open the region to slavery by letting Kansas settlers themselves decide what the status of the institution would be in their new state.
Violence simmered and flared for years as partisans on both sides of the slavery question maneuvered to control Kansas. Then, in 1857, a Democratic Kansas legislature applied for admission to the Union as a slave state. A strong majority of Kansans opposed slavery, but the Democrats had used a series of extraordinary procedural tricks first to control the legislature, and then to ram through a pro-slavery constitution. Despite clear proof that most Kansas settlers hated the proposed state constitution, Democratic President James Buchanan pressured Congress to admit Kansas to the Union with slavery.
The machinations of pro-slavery politicians over Kansas made Northerners of all political persuasions worry that the pro-slavery interests were perverting American democracy. The whole point of democracy, they insisted, was that a majority should decide the conditions under which they would live.
Their opposition prompted wealthy Democratic South Carolina planter, Senator James Henry Hammond, to deliver the famous "Cotton is King" speech in March 1858. But Hammond's famous speech was not primarily about cotton; it was about politics. Hammond insisted that, although Southern pro-slavery Democrats were indeed a minority, they--not their opponents--were the true representatives of the majority.
Hammond negotiated this contradiction by claiming that, under the American system, voters were not supposed to get involved in the details of government. Their role was solely to choose a ruling party, and then let its leaders govern as they saw fit.
Under this doctrine, Hammond didn't worry about the fact that Kansas settlers staunchly opposed slavery. Voters had elected a Democratic government; the Democratic Party supported the pro-slavery Kansas constitution; Kansas should be a slave state. Hammond told his listeners that he had no idea what was actually happening in Kansas. The history of the region was "disgusting," he said, and he had avoided learning about it. He would simply vote with his party.
Although Democrats had won the last election, Southern Democrats were already a minority and might be defeated in the future. This would turn Hammond's pro-slavery argument on its head. But he had this problem covered. It didn't particularly matter what most voters wanted anyway, he said. Even if a vast majority of voters called for something, the government could do only what was specifically outlined in the Constitution. And what was in that Constitution was the protection, now and for all time, of slavery.
According to Hammond, the pro-slavery minority embraced true American principles of party government and Constitutionalism and thus represented the majority of Americans. Their opponents, whatever their number, embraced un-American principles, and thus had no standing. The minority, by definition, was the majority.
In view of what has happened in Wisconsin, it is worth noting that Hammond's view of popular government outraged a young, rising politician. He developed his own theory of American government, insisting that the will of the majority was paramount, and that the government's job was to do what the people wanted. That young politician was Abraham Lincoln, of course, and he founded the Republican Party.