If We Fail to Learn the Lessons of the Past ....

[Time for change]

We are bound to suffer the consequences.

Hitler consolidated his power in 1932 by holding a referendum in which 90% of voters voted to give him absolute dictatorial powers in Germany.

Today in our country our representatives in Congress allow the privitization of our elections and fail to take the necessary steps to make our elections transparent and accountable to the people. Unlike the Nazis, I'm sure that our Republican supporting, ex-felon, owners of our voting machines, who insist that the machines and software that count our votes are "proprietary", are interested only in overseeing fair elections :sarcasm:.

Nevertheless, whether or not you believe that George W. Bush was really elected President in 2004 (not to mention 2000), the current system of privatized elections is a recipe for fraud and dictatorship.

I have been told that making comparisons of anyone to Nazis is politically incorrect, even on the DU. But I believe that we need to clearly see the situation for what it is, and we need to be able to explain it to other people.

Here is a thread that I recently posted on GDP, in which I point out similarities and differences between the current Bush/Cheney regime and the Nazi regime of the 1930s and 40s -- starting with the way that those regimes initially came to power and consolidated it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2069007

[OnTheOtherHand]

1. Hitler's consolidation of power

took a bit longer than that -- the referendum you refer to was in August 1934, I think. That was well after all opposition parties had been dissolved.

The Nazis didn't just try for technical control of the electoral apparatus; they went for total control of political discourse. And they were handed a lot of victories. Regardless of how one feels about "Nazi analogies," we've certainly seen attempts to control political discourse, and IMHO we've seen the Republicans handed some victories.

But at this point George W. Bush is one of the most polarizing political figures in memory. Folks aren't exactly lining up to grant him unfettered power. So the "technical" stuff -- including voting machines, gerrymanders, and so forth -- may be much more important.

[Time for change]

3. I'm not quite sure if we're disagreeing about my general point

The analogy I'm trying to make simply is that:

1. Hitler was given dictatorial powers in a referendum (Yes, I know that it's more complicated than that, and there were a number of steps along the way, which is why I used the term "consolidated" to qualify my statement)

2. Our elected representatives are handing over control of the running of our elections.

My point is that there may not be a great deal of difference between the two with respect to the ultimate effect. Perhaps I didn't make that point real well here -- I may have been clearer on that point in my original thread, if you want to take a look at that.


And thanks for pointing out the incorrect date. I was reading "The Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich" last night, and I attempted to take the date from there, but I guess I got it wrong.

[OnTheOtherHand]

4. looking at the other thread, we have at least one big agreement

"Citizens must take an active part in their government in order to preserve democracy."

And I certainly agree with the other lessons you draw there, too.

It seems to me that the analogy would be more closely parallel if you emphasized the role of elected officials in handing over power to Hitler -- but that may be beside the point. The common pitfall of Nazi analogies is that they are construed as moral-metaphorical rather than analytical. When Robert Byrd talked about Hitler on the Senate floor last spring, he was attacked as if he had accused Bush of advocating religious genocide. But Byrd was offering a serious analysis of specific political tactics. And whatever else Hitler was, he was a successful politician. Bush has not been as successful so far, but he has managed to inflict staggering damage -- which was pretty much Hitler's only enduring legacy, and seems likely to be Bush's.

It sounds cute to say that politics is too important to be left to the politicians. But people suffer horribly when the lesson isn't learned.

[Bill Bored]

5. Not so sure about this OTOH:

"But at this point George W. Bush is one of the most polarizing political figures in memory. Folks aren't exactly lining up to grant him unfettered power."

Didn't both parties in congress line up to let him start any war he wanted to after 9/11? Is the War Powers Act being enforced, or does he have a blank check?

To be honest, I don't know these details, but why the hell hasn't his authority been sunsetted, revoked, or whatever after the debackle in Iraq, if not before?

Congress did line up after 9/11 and most of them are still in line. Only the progressive Democrats and Black Caucus have really tried to change this.

Fortunately we have the ex-CIA types who've had it with this regime and they know where some of the bodies are buried. But I don't see the vast majority of politicians doing a damn thing at this point.

I agree that the technical stuff is much more important because that would give the VOTERS a chance to make a change. But in 2004, this failed to materialize and if the system is rigged (and is DEFINITELY RIGGABLE!) there is no guarantee it could work in the future; there is no basis for confidence in the system at the moment.

As far as dissolving the opposition party, the Dems seem to be doing a pretty good job of that on their own!

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. actually, I think we pretty much agree

The "folks" I had in mind were ordinary people -- presumably like those who voted for that referendum.

Congress hasn't given him a blank check on every issue, by a long shot (although he has eked out some narrow victories by enforcing party discipline), but on war and "national security" it has been damn close.

If the opposition party doesn't oppose when opposition is necessary, then it doesn't matter so much what ordinary people think.

[Time for change]

7. I think that a lot of this has to do with the historical context

I believe that a big part of the reason that Hitler was able to get 90% of registered voters to confirm him as dictator was fear. By that time there were probably a lot of people who felt that their life might be in danger if they didn't vote right. This was the result of a long history of Nazi violence, which in turn was made possible by the fact that Germany at the time had not had much experience with Democracy.

By contrast, the Bush regime has a long established history of Democracy (in the U.S., since about 1776) that they are trying to overcome. That's why they need to use much less heated rhetoric than the Nazis and give the impression that they believe in democracy, while they are trying to undermine it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. whoa, this gets big

I doubt that Bush thinks of himself as trying to undermine democratic values. It's a complicated topic, because the values have changed since Revolutionary times. For instance, most Americans just take it for granted nowadays that they elect senators, and that despite some 'weird technicality' about the Electoral College, they basically elect the president. That's not how the system was set up to work. Suffrage is much wider now than it was. Free speech is valued more than it was (it's hard, although not impossible, to imagine another Sedition Act in the near future).

It could be that Bush wants to dismantle all that and more, but is too savvy to say so. I doubt it. But I'm not suggesting that we should relax and trust his good intentions. Unchecked political power is dangerous regardless of the subjective intentions of those wielding it. (And of course Bush is not the only person who matters, although he does matter. I wouldn't assume that "the Bush regime" is of one mind when it comes to democratic values or anything else.)

[Time for change]

9. I think of it as "rationalization"

You say that you doubt that Bush thinks of himself as trying to undermine democratic values.

The fact of the matter is that, at some level, NOBODY thinks of themselves as having non-virtuous traits. In that sense I'm sure that Hitler also thought of himself as a virtuous, great and noble leader.

Anyhow, I didn't say that he thinks of himself as trying to undermine democratic values. But I certainly don't give him any credit for not thinking of himself badly in that way. Because whether he thinks of himself in that way or not, I believe that if he's not trying to undermine democratic values, he's simply closing his eyes while his handlers do it.

The fact of the matter is that there are few people I have ever met or known of whom I have a lower opinion of. I believe that if he isn't evil he's about as close as you can get to it. At the very best, he is a totally irresponsible person. I think that most irresponsible people would at least have the decency to work at developing a sense of responsibility if they were thrust into a position such as he occupies.

Anyhow, please excuse my tirade. I really do hate him, and I don't hate many people at all. So it's hard for me to act totally unbiased about this sort of thing.

[zbdent]

2. We are suffering the consequences . . .

People forgot what happens when Repukes are in power for more than two years (1953-1955 - recession then, too) - 1929 is a great example of Republican abilities to govern . . .