TO THE EDITOR:
Mr. Bartell, in Thursday’s paper, cites Abraham Lincoln’s faith in government “of the people, by the people, for the people” to claim that even unsavory policies such as banning gay marriage should be left to the electorate. Yet we should remember that Lincoln, though an avowed democrat who had faith that the people would get it right in the long run, drew hard limits to the mixture of morality and majority rule.
In the 1850s, Lincoln emphatically argued that the legality of slavery should not be left to the democratic process. The Democratic Party at the time argued that government should abdicate its moral authority and allow voters at the local level to decide on the extension of slavery. Lincoln strongly objected. He would not tolerate the growth of what he viewed as a moral evil, even if it enjoyed democratic approval. When slavery was finally abolished, it was by way of executive fiat, war, grassroots efforts by the enslaved and a constitutional amendment in which much of the southern electorate had little input.
Like Lincoln, we don’t have to renounce our faith in democratic self-governance to claim that some issues of constitutional and moral right, especially those affecting minorities, should be insulated from the ballot box.
What Lincoln teaches us is that for American democracy to truly flourish, some intolerance and discrimination cannot be tolerated, even if it receives momentary democratic sanction.
Joshua A. Lynn
Ph.D. Student
History
