OPINION:
For the past few years, this column has argued that the Civil War — had it been only or even mostly about slavery — was unnecessary, the product of incompetent leadership, especially on the Northern side.
Somehow, all the other nations in the Western Hemisphere abandoned slavery in the early and middle 19th century without resorting to bloodshed. Only the United States required a war to settle the question of slavery.
That is, of course, why most thoughtful people understand that the war between the states was really about competing visions of the power of the federal government. Robert E. Lee, the great general of the Army of Northern Virginia, noted that “the consolidation of the States into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it.”
Given our circumstances, that seems prophetic.
Lee was pointing out that many in the Confederacy were fighting for something more fundamental than the preservation of slavery; they were engaged in an effort to preserve a constrained federal government. Those on the federal side of things were — intentionally or otherwise — fighting to expand the size and authority of the central government.
Each side was convinced that their beliefs were important enough to justify killing their fellow Americans.
That seems relevant to our current moment in the commonwealth of Virginia. In an effort to confirm every suspicion that people have about them, the Democrats in the Virginia legislature passed — and the new “moderate” governor signed — an aggressive gerrymandering plan that would almost certainly result in the Democrats winning in 10 of the 11 congressional districts in the commonwealth.
At the moment, Democrats represent six congressional districts, while the Republicans represent five. That makes sense, given that the Democrats typically have a 5- or 6-percentage-point advantage in Virginia.
Essentially disenfranchising 30% or 40% of the voters was not enough for the Virginia Democrats, though. They took the extra step and redrew the districts such that the ballast of the vote in five districts would be in Fairfax or Arlington counties and another four districts would be anchored in the urban parts of Norfolk and Richmond.
In other words, it is not just a partisan gerrymander; it is a regional gerrymander. If you don’t live in Fairfax, Arlington, Richmond or Norfolk, then you are effectively robbed of your ability to participate in representative government.
Finally, and most painfully, the most destructive part of this process is that under Virginia law, the redrawing of districts has to be confirmed by a referendum of the voters. In other words, if the half of Virginia voters who do not vote for Democrats lose access to representative government, then it would not be at the hands of rabidly partisan and mostly dim-witted state legislators.
Rather, it would be at the hands of their neighbors, friends and fellow citizens who should know better. No one expects anything from elected officials, but most people believe that their neighbors — people who know them — will exercise prudential and reasonable judgment.
This is how civil wars start. If one set of citizens can and does take away the vote of their fellow citizens for any reason or for no reason, then what does the republic stand for and what does it stand upon?
• Michael McKenna is a contributing editor at The Washington Times. He lives in Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.