Democracy Swallows Poison.

Jim Crow laws once flourished in the South. Their purpose was to suppress political power among African-Americans by keeping them from voting. A consensus exists that Jim Crow laws were evil; but that belief is not universal.

But even people who would not return to Jim Crow tolerate Jim Crow under a new guise.

1. Solving a problem that doesn’t exist.

Voter fraud isn’t a significant problem in America. People just don’t impersonate others to cast votes. Among modern democracies, American voters are apathetic; but the idea is advanced that the opposite is true – that far from being a low-interest democracy, we’re teeming with people energized to cheat at the ballot box. The fact is, with near-universal suffrage among adults, incentives to impersonate other voters really don’t exist.

But states dominated by Republicans tend to pass voter-ID laws. Since voter fraud is not a problem, there is only one reason for these laws. That is to suppress voting by Democratic-leaning constituencies – minorities and young adults and poor people, who are less likely to have a government-issued ID.

2. A subtle form of Jim Crow.

If it’s illegitimate to keep someone from voting because their skin is dark, it's illigitimate to create an unnecessary hurdle to voting to exclude dark-skinned people.

If it’s illegitimate to keep someone from voting because they’re poor, it's illigitimate to create an unnecessary hurdle to voting to exclude poor people.

If it’s illegitimate to keep someone from voting because they’re young adults, it's illigitimate to create an unnecessary hurdle to voting to exclude young adults.

3. The passivity of the courts.

In times past, a southern state passed a law that African-Americans had to wear bright clothing after dark. The given reason for this law was that drivers couldn’t see dark-skinned persons at night, so they had to wear bright colors for safety. The Courts saw through this paper-thin pretext and struck down this racist law.

So far, voter ID laws have survived constitutional challenges. I don’t know why.

4. De-valuing the golden rule.

But I know that there is a trend. That trend is toward the death of decency and the death of democracy.

It is indecent and un-democratic to exclude people from the democratic process because you want to hoard power among people like yourself. Certainly, it defies the golden rule. But the golden rule is in eclipse. In fact, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul recently was booed at a Republican presidential debate for invoking the golden rule in foreign policy.

The golden rule is a bedrock Judeo-Christian value, and its eclipse is a knell not only for the death of decency, it’s a knell for the death of true Christianity.

6. Sliding along a continuum.

There’s a continuum between survival of the fittest, that is, social Darwinism, and Christianity, love your neighbor as yourself. Naziism was a high water mark of social Darwinism. The early church described in the book of Acts might have been a high water mark of Christianity.

I’m not comparing America to Nazi Germany. But Nazi Germany is an end point for the death of decency and the exaltation of power. We are not Nazi Germany, but I mention Nazi Germany because, unless it changes its course, a nation ends up in the direction in which it is heading.

We still have vigorous democratic institutions. But it’s humbling to think that Hitler rose to power in a democracy. So did Hugo Chavez. Then Hugo Chavez (from the left) exerted power to undermine the possibility that a strong challenger could arise to unseat him. He did so by undermining any economic independence of any person or group in Valenzuela apart from the government. Governor Walker in Wisconsin follows the Chavez playbook (from the right) by virtually outlawing government-employee unions in that state. I’m not saying that Walker is Chavez; he’s Chavez-light.

Voter-ID laws are a Chavez-like exploitation of power to cement power, to make the Republican Party less vulnerable to democratic processes.

7. Naming a trend.

We need to name this trend in America truthfully. We need to call it anti-democratic, un-Christian, and indecent. If America chooses that path, it does what it has the right to do. But if we name what we do, at least we choose that path with our eyes open. A direction that is as grave as that might be chosen, but it should be chosen, if at all, deliberately. God forbid that we blunder our way away from democracy, decency, and self-determination.

I would prefer this: Democratic or Republican, we must be firm. We must say that politics must never be used to disenfranchise voters. Winning by excluding swaths of voters – making the franchise itself subject to "just politics" – is a bad direction for America.