Yes it CAN Happen Here – The Impending Death of American Democracy

[Time for change]

Germany became a dictatorship in the early 1930s, and a few years later became perhaps the most brutal regime in world history, not because the German people were inherently evil, but because ordinary people by the millions sat passively by as their democracy was stolen from them piece by piece. The German people did not want war, and the good majority of them did not want mass murder either. But psychological denial is a ubiquitous human weakness, and as the atrocities became worse and more frequent, too many Germans simply refused to see or to admit what was happening. As Herman Goering said at the Nuremburg trials at which he was sentenced to death:

Naturally the common people don’t want war … but after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along… All you have to do is to tell them that they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger… It works the same in any country.

Sound familiar? Too many people refused to see what was happening until it was too late. And that is why it was allowed to happen. Is our country so different from Germany in the 1930s that it couldn’t happen here? Most American apparently think so. I don’t, and here are some reasons why:


We are well on our way to dictatorship and few Americans seem to notice or care

For example, consider the way that Bush handled the signing of a recent Defense Department bill that included an amendment by John McCain which prohibited torture of detainees in U.S. custody. Bush signed the bill, but included a “signing statement” which declared that he retains the right to determine when an exception needs to be made to the torture ban (Thank you to Generator for posting that analysis).

Or consider Bush’s decision to bypass the need for FISA warrants when he decides to use the NSA to spy on American citizens, as recently reported. In a nationally televised address, Bush defended his right to ignore the law in these cases in order to fulfill his obligation to protect American citizens against terrorists. Yet he has never explained why he needs to ignore the law in order to protect us against terrorists. And given the ease with which Bush has been able to obtain FISA warrants, the most plausible reason for his choosing to bypass them, as explained in this insightful analysis by understandinglife, is his desire to spy on his domestic political opponents.

What these examples have in common is that Bush has determined that he has the right to exempt himself from any law as long as he CLAIMS that he is doing it to protect American citizens during wartime. Since our current “War on Terrorism” is not likely to end any time in the foreseeable future, that means that Bush is claiming this right for an indefinite period of time. And as kliljedahl has pointed out in a recent post, if he can unilaterally take away the Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens against unreasonable search and seizure, what is to prevent him from unilaterally taking away ALL of our constitutional rights? – as long as he claims that he is doing it to protect us. And isn’t this the definition of dictatorship?

But what is even more troubling to me than Bush’s actions is the lack of reaction against them. This should be a scandal of the highest magnitude. Yet all we hear from Congress is murmurings about impeachment, our news media doesn’t appear to think that this is a major problem, and there isn’t much outrage among most of the populace either.

Where is the outrage? If Bush can get away with this, might he not eventually decide to dismiss Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation into the numerous crimes of his Administration? – for national security reasons of course. Or how about calling off the 2006 and 2008 elections because they endanger our security? What would stop him from doing that? As Senator Feingold recently said:

The President believes that he has the right to override the laws that Congress has passed. This is not how our democratic system of government works. The President does not get to pick and choose which laws he wants to follow. He is a president, not a king.

This is very similar to an earlier statement made by Al Gore on Bush’s policy of pre-emptive war, where he called it a doctrine that would replace “a world in which states consider themselves subject to law” with “the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States.” In other words, Bush’s attitudes towards domestic law and international law are pretty much identical: Laws do not apply to him.


The Bush regime has much in common with Nazi Germany of the 1930s

A few months ago I posted this comparison of the Bush regime with the Nazis of the 1930s. Differences and similarities are cited. Among the similarities are:
 Lied to their country to justify going to war
 Extra-ordinary control over the national news media
 Utter contempt for international opinion
 Ascension to and maintenance of power was illegitimate (Bush’s more so)
 Used a terrorist attack as an excuse to assume dictatorial powers
 Appealed to virulent nationalistic impulses of their people in order to maintain their power
 Policies reflect great callousness towards the well being of the most vulnerable citizens of their country


Our national news media is way too servile to the regime

Bill Moyers, in his editorial entitled “The Fight of Our Lives”, notes that the protection offered us by our First Amendment is based on the assumption of a separation of our government and a free press, which is supposed to protect us from government abuses. Moyers goes on:

What would happen, however, if the contending giants of big government and big publishing and broadcasting ever joined hands, ever saw eye to eye in putting the public's need for news second to free-market economics? That's exactly what's happening now under the ideological banner of "deregulation". Giant media conglomerates that our founders could not possibly have envisioned are finding common cause with an imperial state in a betrothal certain to produce not the sons and daughters of liberty but the very kind of bastards that issued from the old arranged marriage of church and state.

Consider the situation. Never has there been an administration so disciplined in secrecy, so precisely in lockstep in keeping information from the people at large and -- in defiance of the Constitution -- from their representatives in Congress. Never has the powerful media oligopoly ... been so unabashed in reaching like Caesar for still more wealth and power. Never have hand and glove fitted together so comfortably to manipulate free political debate, sow contempt for the idea of government itself, and trivialize the peoples' need to know.

Our election system – the basis for our democracy – is largely broken

Today we find ourselves in a situation where votes are counted by computer software that is written in secret and made inaccessible to the public, with the rationale that the machines and software that count our votes are “proprietary”. Is that situation different than giving one Party a box of paper ballots and allowing them to count them and determine the winner in private?

The corporations that make the computers and software that count our votes donate large amounts of money to the Republican Party. Some of these men are convicted felons. And nobody questions the fact that it is possible to secretly program their computers to rig an election.

Our Republican legislators fight tooth and nail to maintain the right of THEIR voting machine companies to count our votes using secret, proprietary software. Does that sound like a democracy? Yet few of our citizens are alarmed about this. What possible reason could there be for fighting for the right to count our votes with secret software other than the intention to steal elections?


Conclusions

History shows us that most civilizations eventually fail, and that republics frequently turn into dictatorships. It is doubtful that the United States is immune to this fate, and it is currently showing many signs that dictatorship may be just around the corner. It is yet possible that we may reverse course and maintain our democracy and our constitution. If so, it will take a willingness to confront the seriousness of our situation, and a lot of commitment and courage from of a lot of people.

[LeftHander]

1. recommended.....

Alito and SCOTUS rulings on Presidential Powers coming. ONce the court is stacked with conservatives Bush wins.

We lose our Democracy.


We can't say this enough.

[Peace Patriot]

16. LeftHander, I don't think a fascist Supreme Court is the end of democracy.

There are ways to get around a fascist Supreme Court IF we can restore transparent elections. For instance, the number of justices on the Supreme Court is not fixed. It can be changed. FDR tried to do just that (the rightwing press of THAT era called it "packing the Supreme Court"). He failed, but he DID have an impact on the court. One judge changed his position on a number of New Deal programs, among them Social Security, which was thus saved.

We could amend the Constitution, to shorten their terms, or make them electable. We could impeach them. We could change the causes of impeachment, and make it easier to do.

We could also accomplish many purposes by legislative means, and bring the full force of the Justice Department to bear in defending popular legislation. We could have a strategy of keeping things out of the courts--where corporations and fascists will have the advantage (once Bush is finished filling the courts with Bushite ideologues).

There are many, many things we can do to implement and protect the will of the majority--IF we can restore our right to vote, the mechanism of our sovereignty as a people. That is the key.

How do we restore our right to vote? We could do so immediately, if Russ Holt's HR 550 could be passed, given the Bushites' current, scandal-induced weakness. HR 550 would greatly help. Among other things, it bans undisclosed software. The other avenue is state/local election reform movements, which have already had some successes. The power over election systems still resides with the states, where ordinary people have more potential influence.

It is a MUST DO--election reform. Priority no. 1.

[LeftHander]

18. Very good point...

I agree....Election reform and campaign finance reform are really the driver...but if Bush is given the the precendent to dictate laws then what is stopping him form anything. He needs to be stripped of power and removed from office...

We are in a constitutional crisis right now thanks to the Neocons and Bush.

[Time for change]

60. "We are in a constitutional crisis right now"

I think that pretty much sums it up. When one person unilaterally decides that, as the most powerful person in the U.S. government (and the world), his discretion IS the law, AND nobody stops him from doing that, I don't know any better way to say it.

[thefool_wa]

27. And we can do this without the federal government

How many out there know (and I am sure there are alot, this is rhetorical) that a constitutional amendment can be adopted if it is ratified by 3/4 of the legislatures of the 'several states' without the need for a vote in congress.

Convention can be called by 2/3 of the states and ratification takes 3/4 of the states by legislature or convention (not sure of the difference, can someone help)

This means that circulating petitions for these types of issues within your own state can make a difference. These approaches to legislative change cannot be (or are harder to) quashed by the existing political parties and can truly start changing things if we can get people together to make them happen.

I am working with an independent political movement in my state with some rather progressive ideas. I hope even some of my brethren out there are doing the same.

Legislative solution is always the first answer, lets pray we don't need the 2nd.

[Time for change]

28. That sounds great - but I have a question about it

Since Bush has apparently decided that he has the unilateral right to ignore any law or the Constitution, so long as he claims that he needs to make an exemption in order to protect our country, do you think that making laws or Constitutional ammendments is going to be sufficient for restoring our democracy?

[thefool_wa]

29. Great Question

But the answer is harder to come by, or at least harder to swallow. The administration (nay the entire government) has seen fit to ignore petitions signed by HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of americans with regards to everything from income tax to the patriot act, ignoring our 1st amendment right to petition for redress of grievances.

So, as I said before, when legislative action fails and elections fail to produce the necessary change(and both already have) we are left with one solution and everyone needs to exercise it NOW while we still can.

[Time for change]

30. Yeah, I think I know what you're talking about

And I fear you might be right :scared:

But I'm not even ready to talk about that yet.

Nor would I know where to start.

I think that you would need a lot of top CIA agents to be very pissed off. And a lot of top military officials as well.

[thefool_wa]

33. It's quite simple

All you need to do to exercise the rights I am speaking of is go to your local sporting goods store and purchase a firearm. Again, it doesn't have to be a handgun, just something you are comfortable with that can be used to defend yourself when worse comes to worst. Oh, and buy a trigger lock, safety first.

[Time for change]

35. Nothing against the second ammendment but

I have serious doubts about how much that alone is going to protect us against the power of the U.S. government.

However we address this problem, it seems to me that a coordinated mass effort has a possibility of succeeding, whereas individual acts such as you are suggesting, though they may constitute a good vailiant effort, they are not apt to be highly successful in protecting ourselves.

[thefool_wa]

37. I see where you are coming from

but everyone needs to feel like they are doing their part to fight what is going on or we suffer under the complacency that, per the article you site, plagued the German people and led to Hitler's rising to power.

I post on here about the 2nd Amendment all the time, not only because I believe in its purpose, but also because it is one of the last bastions of freedom that has not been infringed upon by our existing government (and we know they have tried: Katrina and the NOLA gun roundups).

It is also a tangible right, not something idealistic or detached. And it is something that still cannot be refused. The 2nd is something all of us can go out, put our hands on, purchase, and use to demonstrate that we are a free people. That and, when the chips go down and the sh*t hits the fan, you may need it.

Don't loose hope, the balance seems to be swinging back the right way. BUT, when 2008 happens and questions arise AGAIN about the polling practices and fixed votes on either side, what choice are we going to be left with? Just sit back and hope they change their evil ways? That sounds like how Hitler got power. No thank you.

[moriverrat]

65. The 2nd

Attacks on the 2nd and more regulations/prohibitions on firearms only makes them less available to the have-nots and more valuable to the haves.

[thefool_wa]

70. All the more reason

to get one while you can.

[Martin Eden]

31. BEWARE the Constitutional Amendment

Whether or not Bush can be made to obey constitutional law is one thing, but the constitution is STILL one of the best things we have going for us. I'm very wary of changing it while so many of our citizens are misinformed by the corporate media and susceptible to the BIG LIE.

I'm concerned that any change implemented at this time is likely to do more harm than good. I suppose a lot depends on where and how the amendment originated. The constitution isn't perfect, but it remains a primary obstacle to the neofascists who have the money, the power, and the media to help them further their ends.

[Time for change]

32. Yes, you very well may be right about

And as I said above, it seems to me that ammending the constitution at this point is not the main issue -- it's the question about how to have it enforced.

[thefool_wa]

34. 2nd Amendment

They have not repealed or barred its application yet, so exercise while you still can.

In the face of the lack of enforcement by our government, the founding fathers gave us (the American people) the ability to enforce it for ourselves.

I know that the left hand side of the spectrum tends to be the gun-control side, but this is different than trying to keep handguns and automatic weapons out of the hands of criminals and children. This is protecting our rights against those who seek to dismantle the American way of life.

I'm not saying you need to use it, just that it will be nice to have when the Jack Boots arrive (and they will one day).

on edit: even if the application of the amendments doesn't happen via the methods I spoke of above, at least at the end you have hundreds, if not thousands of followers who are (hopefully) willing to stand up in the face of a governemnt that ignores their rights and their desire for change.

[moriverrat]

63. Could state referendum elections be used in this process?

Would state referendum elections be useful?

For instance, voters in a state could collect petitions, and place onto the ballot, a state law or (state)constitutional amendment, directing the legislature to petition for a convention, with the stated goals of the petitioners, which would be listed on the ballot.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Do we really know how many have protested the illegal wiretaps?

I have let my conman know what I think, as well as my Senators. I'm sure that if you took a poll here at DU, you'd find that many, if not most, folks here have done the same. But that doesn't mean that the media will report on it.

So what else should we do, besides organizing locally and writing Congress, LTTE, etc?

[babylonsister]

4. At least 160,000, per democrats.org:

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/01/delivering_the.php

[Time for change]

12. Great questions

As far as what else we should do, that's very hard for me to answer. I know more about writing than I do about organizing or political strategy.

Here's an idea that another DUer, rosebud57, had recently regarding distribution of posters:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2347722&mesg_id=2347722

And here's something I received from "ImpeachBush":

Participate in the January 6-9 Peoples Lobby for Impeachment
Send a Letter to Congress Today!

Dear Dale,

For the next four days, between January 6-9, we're launching the People's Lobby for Impeachment. Tens of thousands of people will use the ImpeachBush.org/VoteToImpeach.org web site to send an email or fax to their elected official demanding that Bush and Cheney be impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

On these days, there will be an easy-to-use email mechanism on the web site that will allow you to send an email letter to your elected official telling them to uphold the Constitution by supporting impeachment. Even if your Senators or congressional representative are unsympathetic to impeachment, let them know what you think. If you think that they are potentially sympathetic, tell them to stop waiting and act now! We owe it to ourselves and to our children.

Click here to send your letter.
https://secure2.convio.net/pepib/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr005=5czrtwdom2.app1b&cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=105

In the next few days, impeachment will be the focus of town hall meetings and rallies in communities around the country. Send us an email and tell us how the event went in your area so that we can post it on the ImpeachBush.org web site.

The January 6-9 Peoples Lobby for Impeachment will be just the first steps of the Impeachment Action Plan to force impeachment in 2006.

Shortly after the People's Lobby for Impeachment, we'll be running the NY Times and other newspaper ads, along with various radio spots. From this media work, to the printing of posters and leaflets, and the organization of demonstrations and rallies - all of this happens because of the generosity and commitment of people who believe in upholding the Constitution. If you believe Bush and his regime should be impeached, please make a much-needed donation. We can do it, but not without your help.

[ugarte]

3. Your argument is sound. The big question, as you suggest

is whether enough people care. If Bush bombed Iran and said that mid-term elections would have to be "postponed" because of immient Iranian terror reprisals, I think his poll numbers would hold steady, or even go up because of the big fear factor, which all dictators are adept at using.

Like you, I pray to God people begin to wake up.

[Time for change]

45. Well, I would certainly hope that if there is a surge of military

aggression prior to the mid-term elections that Bush's popularity would plummet to new depths. Certainly the corporate media would do everything in its power to prevent that from happening. But maybe there is a limit to what the people of this country will put up with. :eyes:

[Cleita]

5. Bravo! Recommended!

Add to the list of similarities to Germany in 1930, both Bush and Hitler gained their offices under unusual circumstances that weren't the normal way for selecting a President or Chancellor (open elections). Bush was selected by the Supreme Court and Hitler was appointed by then President Von Hindenberg.

Both then took the oath of office with little regard to what they had sworn to uphold afterwards.

[Time for change]

19. I agree absolutely

I talk about that in some detail in parts 1 and 2 of this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2069007

[Ksec]

6. Whats amazing to me is how many would let it happen willingly

The rethugs , or most of them, would happily allow bush become dictator. Just look at how theyve OKed his many crimes and his erosions of our liberties. Is there any doubt that the Reicht would accept totalitarian rule as long as they were the ruling party?

[Time for change]

42. Yet I believe that a great many Republicans are very ignorant as to what

is happening.

Republican policy not only hurts Democrats, it hurts the vast majority of Americans, of whatever party. But most Republicans are just too misinformed and unthinking to know any better.

[corkhead]

7. excellent summary

I wonder if your tome would be an effective eye-opener to send to someone I know who is disinterested in what is going on and thinks I am a ranting paranoid lunatic.

[Time for change]

20. Perhaps -- you never know

See post #s 8, 11, and 13 for more ideas on this.

There are several very good books out today that talk along these lines.

Unfortunately, there are an awful lot of people who are in denial, and the fact that our corporate media tries as hard as they can to make it appear as if everything is just fine does not help at all.

[McKenzie]

8. "What happened was the gradual habituation of the people,

little by little, to be governed by surprise, to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security ...

To live in the process is absolutely not to notice it -- please try to believe me -- unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, regretted.'
Believe me this is true. Each act, each occasion is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow.

Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven't done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we did nothing) ... You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair."

Qoute by a German professor after World War II describing the rise of Nazism

The quote is on:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/index.html

[Time for change]

21. That sounds frighteningly familiar to our current circumstances

Don't you think?

[Junkdrawer]

9. One More: When you look behind the curtain, the same families are involved

Just one or two generations later.

[yurbud]

80. CREEPY. Looking up Nazi business partner of Prescott Bush, I found...

Fritz Thyssen was pardoned by a prosecutor who himself had been working for the Nazis before the war.

It's all about business.

[Beam Me Up]

10. They have gotten away with murder for four years. What's a little trashing

of the Constitution when you can commit treason and mass murder literally in broad day light and get away with it?

Anyone who thinks these problems are going to go away with an "election"--even IF Democrats should be allowed to win--are not living in the real world.

[Time for change]

53. Why do you think that an election might not help?

If we put up some good candidates AND get control of our election system good enough so that they can't steal it, why might that not lead to big improvements?

[Beam Me Up]

69. It would "help," not denying that.

But there are underlying forces which have brought the current situation into being and they have been operating all of my lifetime and much further back than that. It isn't merely a matter of which political party holds office. I'm thinking of two specific areas--although there are more than two: First is covert--that is, secret--paramilitary operations, which includes drug running, and illegal armaments sales, as well as state sponsored and home-grown terrorism. Second is the global financial monetary system and the hegemony it supports. This latter isn't only 'banking' in the way you and I might think of it but dove-tails with the first item not only through money laundering but actual global capital investments and the way "profit" is understood. As I indicated, these are only TWO areas of concern. Others include the whole energy infrastructure and its relation to the natural environment.

What is needed is not merely a change in party but a total overhaul of the way our civilization functions and understands itself and the human enterprise on this planet. There is much more I could say but don't have time. Thanks for your curiosity! :hi:

[Time for change]

72. I agree with you that our country needs a total overhaul of the way it

does business.

But I do believe that we have a much better chance of making inroads on that if we have a Democratic President to replace the current regime, and a Democratic Congress.

I assume that you do too, but you're just less optimistic than me about our chances, whoever is elected.

[Beam Me Up]

79. Yes, a bit less optimistic, but not totally pessimistic. Despite deaths of

leaders such as the Kennedy's, King and Wellstone. Others have been marginalized or compromised in various ways short of murder. And, despite 9/11 and the lies they've told us about it and despite WMD and war and death and the threat of more to come, I am not totally pessimistic. The human heart is stronger than this corruption and evil but to be rid of it is going to take considerably more than a political realignment. You might be interested in this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x64853

[Time for change]

82. Yes, I do believe that the main point of that book is correct

I've read a few books on this subject, and the more I read the more I firmly believe at least in LIHOP, and am even leaning towards MIHOP. As a matter of fact, I'm reading three books on the subject at this time.

I agree with you that it's going to take a lot to change things around, but I do have confidence in a number of potential Dem. candidates for 2008.

Thanks for the post -- I do believe that this is a very important issue, though I haven't frequented the 9-11 forum very much. :toast:

[FSogol]

11. Go read, "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis

if you haven't already. A chillingly accurate book.

[justabob]

13. They Thought they Were Free by Mayer is worth a read too

The quote posted above in this thread is from the book.

[Time for change]

24. Thank you -- I'll put it on my list

Here are some other ones worth reading IMO

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer

Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning (a discussion of how passive acceptance of the Nazis facilitated their maintenance of power)

Explaining Hitler by Ron Rosenbaum

The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson (A scathing indictment of imperialism in the U.S. today)

Rogue Nation by Clyde Prestowitz (Another scathing indictment of the Bush Administration)

[Time for change]

14. Here are a couple of more ideas

Here's an idea that another DUer, rosebud57, had recently regarding distribution of posters:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


And here's something I received from "ImpeachBush":

Participate in the January 6-9 Peoples Lobby for Impeachment
Send a Letter to Congress Today!

Dear Dale,

For the next four days, between January 6-9, we're launching the People's Lobby for Impeachment. Tens of thousands of people will use the ImpeachBush.org/VoteToImpeach.org web site to send an email or fax to their elected official demanding that Bush and Cheney be impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

On these days, there will be an easy-to-use email mechanism on the web site that will allow you to send an email letter to your elected official telling them to uphold the Constitution by supporting impeachment. Even if your Senators or congressional representative are unsympathetic to impeachment, let them know what you think. If you think that they are potentially sympathetic, tell them to stop waiting and act now! We owe it to ourselves and to our children.

Click here to send your letter.
https://secure2.convio.net/pepib/site/Advocacy?JServSes...

In the next few days, impeachment will be the focus of town hall meetings and rallies in communities around the country. Send us an email and tell us how the event went in your area so that we can post it on the ImpeachBush.org web site.

The January 6-9 Peoples Lobby for Impeachment will be just the first steps of the Impeachment Action Plan to force impeachment in 2006.

Shortly after the People's Lobby for Impeachment, we'll be running the NY Times and other newspaper ads, along with various radio spots. From this media work, to the printing of posters and leaflets, and the organization of demonstrations and rallies - all of this happens because of the generosity and commitment of people who believe in upholding the Constitution. If you believe Bush and his regime should be impeached, please make a much-needed donation. We can do it, but not without your help.

[Peace Patriot]

15. I think the danger is real, and the parallels are truly scary. However,

I want to point out some differences that may be critical in analyzing this situation, and also suggest the one action that we could take to head it off--for which we now have a window of opportunity (for I don't know how long), and that is: election reform.

Where is the outrage?

You say that there is no outrage in Congress or in the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, and that "there isn’t much outrage among most of the populace either." ("Where is the outrage?")

But, given the near total control of the airwaves and other news venues by war profiteering corporate news monopolies, how would we know if there is any, or even a lot of, outrage among the populace? Public protests are marginalized in the "news" (and, with rigged elections, government is impervious to them anyway) so people don't attend them in great numbers (generally). There are few or no outlets for the expression of the views of most people (the internet being a rare exception). And we have no way to count the letters and phone calls of outrage to our so-called representatives in DC and in the WH. They probably just get put on spy lists.

At the same time that the war profiteering corporate news monopolies are creating an illusion of majority support for Bush--by giving a big trumpet to rightwing views, way out of proportion to their numbers--they are finding in their own polls, especially their issue polls, that support for Bush is minor (at best, about 40%) on all Bush policy, foreign and domestic, for more than two years now. The great majority of Americans oppose every major Bush policy and have for some time (way up in the 60% to 70% range). So, SOMEHOW, Americans are NOT BUYING the propaganda, are staying informed in their own ways, and are sticking to their overwhelmingly progressive views on all issues.

They barely mention these polls in news commentary and reporting. But they are there, for anyone to read. One wonders why they do them, but I guess it's for business reasons (consumer and product research--how to SELL things...ahem). And, given the Republican skew they do to all their polls, the majorities against Bush on all issues are huge (and necessarily include many Republicans).

This is a very big difference from Germany in the 1930s, when most Germans were sucked into believing Hitler's rhetoric (and didn't have the internet!).

In summary, most Americans think Bush is an asshole, and wrong on everything. They just don't know how to get rid of him and his thieving, murderous junta.

They did try, in 2004--and got Diebolded. (--with the complicity of some corrupt and collusive Democrats).

I think this is the main problem--that this great progressive American majority, which has resisted relentless fearmongering and propaganda, feels powerless and demoralized, and does not yet realize that it has been quite literally DISENFRANCHISED.

I do think that's changing. People are beginning to realize what "trade secret" software in our election system means. And the race is on, as to whether or not people can get it changed before some even worse mechanism of fascist control is implemented.

-----

The Bushites are more thieves than Nazis

As to this latter--an outright fascist takeover, via martial law (instigated by a second 9/11, or whatever they may have planned for us)--my analysis of the Bushites is that they are more thieves than Nazis. They are putting some scary precedents in place, to be sure, but I think it's for later use. I think their concern right now is how to keep their puppets and henchmen out of jail, and how to hang on to their immense horde of stolen money and resources--how to minimize exposure and investigation.

One of the conditions for Hitler's rise was Germany's abject poverty--epitomized by the stories of having to take a wheelbarrow full of German money to the bakery to buy a loaf of bread. We are not there yet. We may get there--they're working on it--but we still have a more or less functioning economy and society.

I think what they will do is put a War Democrat in office for four years. And, frankly, I think Hillary's already made her deal on this. (We will not have any say in the matter, in the end.) A War Democrat will not likely pursue any serious investigation into Bush crime (since War Democrats were complicit in much of it.) And, while a War Democrat may not use all the extra-legal powers that Bush has asserted, neither will she/he disavow them or undo them. They will remain latent.

Also, importantly, Bush cannot get a military Draft, which they badly need to continue their Mideast war plan. A War Democrat can get a Draft pushed through. They also need a way to start blaming the Democrats for Bush's financial and foreign policy disasters. (I can hear them now--six months into Hillary's reign!) (--or maybe two weeks into it!). The burden of mounting dissent and possible civil disorder will then fall on the Democrats--with a Dem regime having to put down the protests. And the center/left may then part company--a fractured, splintered majority, with everybody at each other's throats. This is exactly what happened in Germany--the fractious center/left was unable to govern. I think that it is at that point that we may see a real Hitler come to power.

-----

The problems of controlling the U.S. under military dictatorship

Another huge difference between Germany then and the U.S. now is the great cultural diversity in the U.S.--and the size of the U.S., not an easy country to manage under dictatorship. Huge, porous borders, for one thing--with bordering countries that do not tend toward fascism, and are not very friendly to Bush. And we also have a situation in South America of SIX countries--virtually the entire map of the subcontinent--sweeping leftist governments into power, over the last several years--Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela and now Bolivia. An outright military dictatorship in the U.S. would likely trigger all sorts of hidden or potential alliances, within our population, and between us and other peoples. Could a U.S. military, which has not had success with the Iraq insurgency, handle all the problems they would have HERE, if the Bushites declared martial law?

And there is also the question of our military's state of mind. I'm not talking about the contractors, but the U.S. military itself, which is right now full of civilians or semi-civilians, and has/had top commanders who were not happy about Bush's war. Notice how they had to use private contractors for some of their dirtier deeds in Iraq. Many in the military were not happy with torture, with violations of the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions (military lawyers strenuously objected), and with the promotion of yes-men and toadies. This is not to say that the military cannot be Nazified, but I don't think it's there yet, nor will it be in the foreseeable future. And I think if an outright coup were tried right now, there could well be a revolt against it within the military itself.

All in all, I think the problems of martial law, and outright dictatorship, in this country would be immense. That is WHY they have taken us by sneaky means--by rigged elections, and news monopoly illusions. I think conditions would have to get significantly worse for an outright military dictatorship to be possible. And they have accomplished so much, by way of thievery and murder, without one, why would they do it?

-----

The Bushites show no signs of Nazi efficiency, planning and foresight

There is also another big difference between the Bushites and the Nazis. Hitler and the Nazis took a broken country, and built it up into a mighty military/industrial machine, with extremely efficient management, mobilization of all sectors of society, and heavy regulation of business. It was for evil purposes, but it was nevertheless massively effective, in an ugly and diabolical way.

I see no such efficiency or competence at BUILDING anything, in the Bushites. I don't think they are even sincere in their efforts at social transformation. I think it's all opportunistic (their alliance with rightwing "Christians"). They've looted us blind. They've done everything they can to DESTROY our manufacturing capability and our work force--and our government. I see no sign of "Nazi youth groups" marching around "for the Fatherland"--just your normal 4th of July parades, and flagwavers, and so on. I see quite minimal efforts at "national security"--the whole thing is a stupid joke, really--another looting opportunity. But, more than that, where is the improved infrastructure--the factories making bullets and tanks, the building of roads and hospitals and barracks, the full employment, the control of the business sector, and the sense of common purpose--that we saw in Germany in the mid-1930s? It is non-existent. How can you take over a big country like this, and mesmerize its population into militarism, by wrecking everything, impoverishing people, and selling the enormous national debt you've accumulated to China?

It doesn't make sense. And I think the answer is that the Bushites are mere thieves (or mainly so). They are NOT creating anything. They have NOT convinced anybody of anything. They are parasites--riding along on the great creativity, and hard work, and community and national loyalty of a people (us!) who HAVE created something--a prosperous democracy built on the magnificent diversity and talents of multiple cultures--and they are just looting it and trashing it. They have no understanding of the American people whatsoever--except for the fact that we are a "slow burn." We are not easily aroused to revolt--BECAUSE we have created a fairly decent society which most of us want to CONTINUE.

So, we shall see what happens. If we can successfully restore transparent elections, and our right to vote--the mechanism of our sovereignty which they have stolen by stealth--we may be amazed at what we can do.

[Time for change]

17. Very interesting ideas - I agree with much of what you say

But I do believe that an adequate amount of outrage is severly lacking in this country. Sure, there are lots of people who are plenty outraged, including the good majority of DUers -- but that is far from enough people. You have a good point about the fact that the administration in conjunction with the media prevents us from seeing a lot of the outrage. However, I talk to a lot of people at work, for example. Virtually all my friends at work voted for Kerry. And they have contempt for Bush. And yet I don't see much outrage or fear over what is going on now.

As you know, I agree with you that one big reason that Bush is still in office now is that he stole the 2004 election. But that is not the only explanation. If there was enough outrage over the theft of the 2004 election (and 2000 election) the populace would be putting so much pressure on Congress that we would be seeing vast improvements in our election system. But we're not seeing that because too many people are ignorant about how bad our election system is. That is largely because of the news media, but also becuase most people aren't paying close enough attention or they are in denial.

As far as the distinction between theives and Nazis, I'm not sure how big that distinction is. The Nazis were theives. Think about how this nation originally gained control of the land area of the current United States. Their primary goal was to steal the land from the natives. They would probably rather that they didn't have to go to war and kill Indians to do that, but they weren't going to let that barrier stop them. Same thing with today's Bushites. Yes, they are primarily theives. But they don't care how many people have to die, or how many countries they have to ruin to make their theiving successful.

And yes, we are in much better economic shape than Germany was in the 1930s. But how much longer do you expect that to continue, the way that BushCo is driving this country into the ground. We can't continue to pile up national debt at this rate and not pay a huge price. In any event, the major killing in Nazi Germany and the rest of Europe didn't start until WW II got under way.

And as far as a comparison of efficiency is concerned, I think that BushCo has been very efficient thus far at piling up riches for their friends, at the expense of the American people. When will it end? I don't know. The Nazis too were very efficient to begin with, and they built up a great military machine. But they also committed fatal errors, and the price they paid was losing the war. This country will also pay a great price. But I'm afraid of what the cost will be by the time we get rid of these people. And I'm also afraid that the cost will be paid mostly by regular citizens, rather than the people who deserve to pay the price.

[Nothing Without Hope]

22. Superb compilation. Even your username fits. K & R with thanks.

BTW, the NSA spying and the building of Gitmo holding pens begain BEFORE 9/11.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x62515
thread title (1/5/06 GD): The government spying started BEFORE 9/11!!! (article in Slate)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2353155
thread title (1/6/06 GD-P): Gitmo Jails built pre 9-11-01 hmmm, Is this a 'Smoking Gun' ?

The 500 page Patriot Act surely must have been written before 9/11 too, as were so many other immediate "responses" to the event by the ruling cabal. 9/11 was a terrorist attack to be sure - but just WHO were the terrorists? There's no doubt at all in my mind.

[Time for change]

41. Very interesting information -- Thank you

It seems to me that perhaps even more scandalous than this is the fact that there was lots of talk in the Administration about a war in Iraq from the first days of the Bush presidency (I first learned of this from Paul O'Neil's book). I was terribly disappointed that more media coverage wasn't given to this fact. But now I realize that with today's CM that shouldn't have been surprising.

[Nothing Without Hope]

23. An important caution to us all: HITLER never got over about 1/3 of votes

In fact, his "approval ratings" were about as dismal as Bush's:

http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckman08252005.html
Hitler, despite huge expenditures and desperately hard campaigns, never received more than just over a third of votes. He was appointed Chancellor, after a long series of backroom manipulations, by the Republic's ancient and exhausted President von Hindenburg.

Guess they didn't have crooked voting machines and secret voter registration purges to rely on back then.

[Time for change]

52. No electronic voting machines in the 1930s

Hitler had other ways of maintaining power.

You bring up a very important point. Bush has relied on election fraud to maintain his power. And so will his successor (Jeb?) if we don't fix our election system and prevent them from doing it a third straight time.

[Nothing Without Hope]

64. I grew up believing that Hitler had been a popular choice in Germany

Actually, his "approval ratings" were about the same as Bush's have been for some time, yet he seized power and kept it for some years. You can bet that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal isn't just relying on crooked elections to hold onto power, either. They have no intention of giving it up, one way or another. Indeed, I believe that this is the main, hidden purpose of the militarization of the US and the Patriot Acts. This was the main point of an excellent and important essay, "A Splash of Cold Water," that found on DU's home page some weeks ago. I'll post an excerpt at the end of this thread now, and I urge everyone to read the entire thing. Even we at DU, who have some inkling of what the ruling cabal will do to grab and hold power, are far too complacent about their letting go of it.

[Time for change]

73. I fear that you are right -- It's very hard to visualize this regime

letting go of power peacefully at any time in the future.

But I pray that you are wrong about that.

[Nothing Without Hope]

75. My view is that if we allow them to continue building their structure

to grab power, they will do it. It's up to us to prevent them from getting that far. I don't think I'm wrong about this being their goal, but I believe there is still a very little time in which we can still avert it. I would probably despair if not for the increasing signs that the American public is finally, finally beginning to wake up and that there are some elements in the press which is - at least partly because of pressure from internet bloggers - which are telling the truth.

Bush is a Hitler wannabe. it's up to us to see that his dictatorial ambitions - and those of the cabal of which he is the nominal head - are disappointed. I do believe there is still time, but no time to waste.

[Time for change]

77. I agree

Didn't Bush say "This would be a lot easier if it was a dictatorship -- as long as I was the dictator"? Most people thought that he was just joking around.

[thefool_wa]

25. Get ready for some outrage

<snip>
Where is the outrage? If Bush can get away with this, might he not eventually decide to dismiss Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation into the numerous crimes of his Administration? – for national security reasons of course. Or how about calling off the 2006 and 2008 elections because they endanger our security? What would stop him from doing that? As Senator Feingold recently said
<snip>

I suggest that everyone live up to the new years resolution I made my self and exercise your second amendment right while you still can. The right to bear arms is the only thing that gives us the ability to thwart that which the OP is discussing here.

You don't need a handgun or a semi-auto, or even an assault rifle. Just something you are comfortable with to defend your home and family from these bastards when their jack-booted gestapo flood our streets. And in some areas they already have.

I've said this before: the 2nd Amendment is not there so we can hunt duck and shoot skeet. They know that and so should you.

on edit: wierd spelling error

[Marleyb]

26. Stand Together and Stop the Madness!

http://benfrank.net/blog/f/sotu-mlk.pdf

[Ksec]

36. It aint happenin' unless we get a branch of gov

You know the rethugs would never think of impeaching the smirk as long as they own all of government. The Dems are toothless to get anything started. Which really sucks and Im sure thats gonna change come 2006 mid term elections. (I hope)

[Time for change]

47. I think that in a fair election we would win big in 06

But we'd better get some meaningful election reform by then.

[yorkiemommie1]

38. History Channel showing rise of Hitler now

too bad bushbots will not see similarities

[Time for change]

50. Maybe if enough people keep pointing out the similarities to them

they will see it.

Most of them are simply ignorant IMO.

[carolinalady]

39. Most excellent commentary-needs to be spoken on the

Senate floor.

[Time for change]

54. I agree, this impeachment thing needs to get moving

Barbara Boxer is checking with constitutional experts about it, Feingold is being vocal about it. Hopefully it will happen soon.

[lonestarnot]

40. This is not happening as I am not going to let it.

[Nothing Without Hope]

43. Another key facet of developments, too rarely considered: the MILITARY

Coups don't succeed unless the stronger part of the military supports the power change. I have been watching with great and growing concern the various steps taken or revealed in which the ruling cabal has over the past years progressively worked toward subverting/purging the US military leadership and undermining the readiness of the loyal rank and file. I have a number of links related to this but I am just too damn tired right now to dig them out and arrange them here to try to show what I mean right now. Maybe we can discuss this in another thread if others agree with me about its importance in the subject and its need to be considered.

It's not just the stolen elections and the wrongful wars and the fearmongering - the US government won't REALLY turn into a reprise of Hitler's Germany unless the US military allows it to, follows those orders from the cabal instead of defending the Constitution as is their oath. I do believe that for years the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal has been taking clear steps toward trying to arrange this. Have you been following this too? Maybe we can have another thread to discuss it?

[Time for change]

44. This is true -- the military could be very important here

In Nazi Germany the military was Hitler's biggest potential obstacle -- and he worked very hard to purge it of elements that he though pose the greatest risk to him.

Even so, they attempted two coups, and one of them came very close to succeeding.

I don't think that things have gotten bad enough here -- yet -- that the military would do that. But if they get much worse I would think that they would start thinking about it.

Anyhow, I'd be very interested to see what information you have on this. And yes, I do think that this is very important. So get to bed now, and you can deal with it in the morning.

[Mme. Defarge]

88. Yes,

The question on my mind is whether or not the U.S. military would actually fire on U.S. citizens.

Call me a cockeyed optimist, but somehow I just can't imagine this.

[Nothing Without Hope]

91. They might not have to fire - they could just use the Patriot act

and the infinite Presidential powers to intimidate and harrass and punish people for dissenting. They could be put on no-fly lists, as has already been done to the author of "Bush's Brain":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x57078

Or they could use the IRS to torment dissentors. It's already been disclosed that the IRS was tracking political affiliation:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x66053

Just imagine all the damage they could do even without shooting or kidnapping someone. And all for "national security." But yes, I do believe some would shoot at US citizens. They would be sent far away from their own home regions where local people were strangers, and they would be told that it was for the good of the country, that these were traitors and terrorist helpers. That's what happened in China. During the student uprisings some years back, the Chinese government tried to have the local battalions of the army put down the protests violently. They balked, because they saw the students and other citizens as neighbors. So the government brought in troops from a far away province, and that worked just fine. They weren't so inhibited about following the government's brutal orders.

I imagine something similar happened in Hitler's Germany.

Conplacency is very, very dangerous.

[Nothing Without Hope]

46. ***WHAT SIBEL EDMONDS IS SAYING relevant to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2353538
thread title (1-6-06 GD-P): Sibel Edmonds: Blogger on the right track!
Partial excerpt from post:
"So what then is the "right track"? Evidently the American Turkish Council, AIPAC, the Usual Neocon Suspects (Feith/Perle/Wolfowitz/Libby) and specific high-ranking individuals including former Turkish ambassadors Eric Edelman and Marc Grossman are deeply involved in global arms smuggling, drug-dealing, money-laundering and black market nuclear sales to terrorists. Individuals involved in this crime nexus were instrumental in the outing of Valerie Plame in an effort to sabotage the work of CIA front Brewster Jennings - which was seen as increasingly threatening to them."

So it may be more than just planted WMDs that the Plame/Brewster-Jennings outing was supposed to prevent.

[Time for change]

59. It seems like more dirt comes out on these weasels every day

Here is another recent one from H2O Man, that looks like it contains a lot of interesting leads:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x74073

[Ouabache]

48. very well written TFC, I am using it to reply all on rightwing emails

let them read the truth...

I am glad to see this will make Greatest page too.

I have created a TINY URL (see below) for the Elections Reform forum here at DU.
I am going to append it to a lot of my emails within this following paragraph.

=============

We must have fair elections in our country. Without that we are not likely to reach any of our other goals. Please take a look at this 2004 Election Results and Discussion Forum:

http://tinyurl.com/62obf

This link will take you to a very good discussion forum on the 2004 election and all the issues surrounding continued use of a ‘proprietary’ voting system. Voting systems that cannot be examined by local election officials, but which show evidence of being able to be hacked, overridden, and corrupted by the owners of the proprietary rights.

[Time for change]

57. Great -- I sincerely hope that this (or any argument for that matter)

has some effect on the right wingers whom you mail it to.

Let us know -- that would be worth another post in itself if it was shown to have a good effect.

[understandinglife]

49. Superb. K&R&B.

Peace.

[LeahD]

51. I come to DU for valuable threads such as this.

Thank you.

Kicked and nominated.

[im10ashus]

55. This is an amazing look at our current situation.

Kicked and Nominated!

:kick:

[Wordie]

56. An excellent, thought-provoking post. Thank you. Could I ask

that you also take a look at something I posted in the "Frame the Debate" DU group, entitled "Fascist? ...or Falangist?" which discusses the issue from a slightly different perspective. The post was based on some postings of James MacLean, who has some interesting things to say about whether the US is truely heading for "fascism" (as comparisons with the Nazis imply), or instead is heading toward what is more accurately called falangism. He points out that there are ways in which the the trends within the US differ significantly from the conditions found in regimes heading toward fascism, and further that comparisons with the Nazis often defeat the point that is trying to be made, just because the Nazis were so extreme, that many of those who need convincing of a impending threat cannot at all see a similarity. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Here is part of what I wrote:
I have noticed that one of the problems that DUers sometimes have in communicating to others about the threats from RWers, seems to originate in the limitations of the language we have with which to discuss them. I think that descriptions of the Bush administration as "fascist," for instance, are bound to fall on deaf ears, because they seem so over-the-top. When the term "fascist" is used, the first group that comes to mind for the average American is the Nazis of Germany. A quick mental comparison of the current administration's policies with those of the Nazis leaves the administration looking lily white, so the term "fascist" is quickly dismissed, as being too extreme to apply to them. No communication there...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=252&topic_id=1529&mesg_id=1529

The point of this post is not to criticize yours - so much of what you identify as problems are undeniably true - but to open up new areas of discussion.

[Time for change]

58. Thank you for those ideas - a lot to think about

It seems to me that you -- and mary and James McClean are making two separate points. One is that there is a real difference between this administration (which you and them are characterizing as falangism) and fascism. And the other is that, even if this administrations IS fascist, using that term with moderates or right wingers serves to cut off conversation on the topic because it makes us seem so extreme.

With regard to the first issue -- I am having a very hard time discerning a meaningful difference between fascism and falangism, and I wonder whether the differences cited here are much more superficial than significant.

To take a step back for a minute, I recently read a book entitled "Fascists" by Michael Mann, in the hope that it would help me to better understand what is happening to our country. I'm not sure that it helped me much. The book was very scholarly, but I found it overly technical, with a very narrow definition of fascism, and very dry reading, and very difficult for me to understand. He goes to great lengths to define fascism, and it is obvious from reading the discussions on the definition fascism that there is much controversy in the world as to what exactly defines fascism (though Mann certainly had definitive ideas on the subject). Anyhow, my OP is not about fascism per se, but about dictatorship, and I use an example of Nazi Germany largely because that is probably the best known example, and also because I have done much more reading about that fasicst government than about any other, so I know a lot more about it than I do other fascist regimes.

Now, in the last paragraph of McClean's article that you quote, he mentions four things that he says differentiates fascist from falangist regimes -- and it seems that he is implying that this makes them more benign. With regard to the tax cuts and the de-regulation that he notes, I don't see anything benign about those things at all. Both of those actions have been done for the sole purpose of putting more money in the pockets of the powerful and wealthy friends of the Bush regime, with no advantage whatsoever to the average American citizen. The tax cuts, for which almost all of the benefit goes to corporations and wealthy individuals, are bankrupting the country and causing the cutting of social services that are badly needed by the most vulnerable of our population. The purpose of de-regulation is very similar. The idea of regulating powerful corporations started with Teddy Roosevelt and provided myriad safeguards to our citizens against the abuses of those coporations. What right do corporations have to pollute our land, water, and air? What right to they have to provide voting machines that use secret software to count our votes? What right to they have to muscle out competition so that we are left at their mercy for whatever they want to do. And they are doing this largely by buying out currupt politicians, especially the Bush regime itself.

With regard to devolution of power to the states, that's not even real -- it's just rhetoric, when in fact the administration is doing just the opposite. For example, they don't like the idea that some states have legalized medical marijuana, so they are doing everything they can to nullify those laws. And with regard to the 2nd ammendment (which appears to be the only part of Our Bill of Rights that the administration favors), it seems to me that the administration's support of that ammendment is purely opportunistic, to obtain the support of the powerful gun lobby. I don't doubt for a minute that if the administration felt that the 2nd ammendment stood in the way of their obtaining more power, they would scuttle it in a minute.

So, in summary, in McClean's description I see no meaningful distinction. Or rather, there may be significant disctinctions of some sort, but I don't see how those distinctions make "falangism" any more benign than "fascism". Of course, I am by no means an expert on this particular subject, so I may be missing the importance of the distinctions that are made here. Maybe you could explain to me how the distinctions listed by McClean make falangism more benign than fascism?

The other issue is whether or not the use of the word "fascism" cuts off a basis for debate about the situation. My son EOTE (who has been a DU member for much longer than me) brought up that problem to me before I posted this, explaining to me that, though he isn't sure he agrees, there are many DUers who feel that the term "fascism", and particularly "Nazism", should not be used, for some of the reasons that you note.

However, as I said earlier, I am not talking specifically about fascism (which I find very difficult to define), but rather the dictatorship and the loss of democracy. I did make a number of comparisons with Hitler's Nazis, but if you read the article that I linked to in my OP you will see that I talk about both differences and similarities of the Bush regime and the Nazis. I think that I was fair in this comparison, though I'd appreciate your opinion on this if you think that I wasn't. In any event, it is most certainly true that this country has not by any means yet reached the level of evil that the Nazis attained in their later years. But remember, the Nazis were much more benign in the beginning than by the 1940s. They started off slowly, seeing what they could get away with, and when they found that they could get away with one thing, they escalated. By the time that the Army rebelled it was too late because Hitler had too much power.

So, I see important parallels. And whereas it is important to be fair when one makes these comparisons, I feel that it is also important to be blunt about it, so that people will realize the seriousness of our situation. I honestly do feel that we are now walking down the path of Nazi Germany, and that if it isn't stopped before too long it may be too late.

[Wordie]

67. Yes, you're quite right: two different points for two different audiences.

It seems to me that you -- and mary and James McClean are making two separate points. One is that there is a real difference between this administration (which you and them are characterizing as falangism) and fascism. And the other is that, even if this administrations IS fascist, using that term with moderates or right wingers serves to cut off conversation on the topic because it makes us seem so extreme.

There are two points being made. The first is a technical definition point, which might appeal to more intelligent and/or highly educated RWers. On this point I feel somewhat at a disadvantage, as my own thoughts are somewhat not-quite-ready-for-prime-time, and I don't really want to do an injustice to the ideas of MacLean and mary. I'm nowhere near as well-read on the topic as you are. But I too have noticed different definitions of fascism, and ways that the Bush administration is different. I'll give this part a stab, but hope that other readers will go to the MacLean/mary source for answers, rather than relying on me.

First, I don't think that MacLean's point is to at all claim that falangism is more benign than fascism. What he is saying, I think, is that there are genuine differences between the two "isms" and that by using the wrong "ism" to make our point, we may be doing more to increase the likelihood that, as you say quite accurately, "... few Americans seem to notice or care." He says it better than I:
Now, there's a reason I'm explaining this: it's a distinction which I think is really worth noting. On the one hand, the current administration is horrible; but it's horrible in a way which is very different from the horrible-ness of the European fascist regimes. And it will be noted that sometimes people who accuse the administration of being fascist are tripped up by this distinction, because in many respects a society degenerating towards falangism does the opposite things from one plunging into the hell of fascism. Both are horrid, but apologists for American rightists--or ordinary skeptics--can point to the fact that the GOP's supporters defend the 2nd amendment , tax cuts, deregulation, devolution of power to the states and so forth. And they haven't quite "militarized the state," either.

In other words, I don't think MacLean is saying that because "the GOP's supporters defend the 2nd amendment , tax cuts, deregulation, devolution of power to the states and so forth," that the support of those things means falangism is more benign. Instead, I think he is saying that support of those things runs contrary to the usual definition of fascism, and hence, when a definition of fascism is applied, it will be found inaccurate. thus obscuring the very real threat. He is saying that it is falangism that can explain those differences. Again, my knowledge here is not as extensive as yours, but for instance, I do know that fascism tended to impose a great deal of regulation upon industry. Our own administration takes the opposite tack, and is extremely laissez faire. Thus, a difference between a classical definition of fascism and the facts of the Bush administration's approach could lead some to dismiss any impending threat to our democracy.

And here's another way in which the Bush administration more closely resembles a falangist enterprise, than a fascist one:
Another distinction: under a fascist state, laws simply are in abeyance... Nazi Germany was a society where laws, in a sense, were meaningless: the state excluded any theoretical bounds on its own power.

...Falangism, in essence, is class warfare by a state which is assuredly devoted to a particular elite and which remains subordinated to that elite.

In so many ways, Time for Change, we are saying the same things really. It seems to me that most of those things that you identify as common to our situation now under the Bush administration and the Nazis are entirely valid, and indeed they are common to both the Bush administration and fascism. I'm only pointing out that in the ways that they are different (many of which you also insightfully point out), a definition of "falangism," may be the very thing that helps explain those differences.

The second point has to do with the the use of the term "fascist" itself and I'm on easier ground here. It seems to me that however many valid parallels one can draw between the current administration and facism and/or Nazism, there is a significant danger in making that case. Here's how the average American (the second audience I referred to) is likely to mentally process such claims, imho (you have to imagine the thought bubbles): "Fascism?" (or, because it was more the point you were making, "Nazism?") >>>"Germany?" >>> "Hitler!" >>> "ovens!!" >>> "Holocaust!!!." When the thought process reaches that last point, there will be this comparison: "Does GWB=Holocaust?" (or it could occur further back: "Does GWB=Hitler?"), and that comparison will be found to be so wanting (however bad GWB is, he does not approach Hitler), that the entire package of ideas that you are trying to present will be tossed right out the window with it.

None of this is to say that the ideas don't have a lot of merit, merely that there is a brick wall immediately erected between you and your desired audience when you make them. So that's why I (and MacLean) think there are problems with "Nazi" and "fascist."

As I said before, better to get it straight from MacLean himself, than me. Here are the relevant links:
http://mars-or-bust.blogspot.com/2003_04_13_mars-or-bust_archive.html#92702209

On the same site, MacLean goes on to refine his thoughts somewhat, coining the term "techno-falangism." You can find those comments here: http://mars-or-bust.blogspot.com/2003_04_13_mars-or-bust_archive.html#92866966

Finally, although the above referenced site appears to be no longer operating, MacLean himself has a website (I'm not yet certain how up-to-date it is) which also has some interesting reading, here: http://www.jamesrmaclean.com/archives/archive_postwar_i...

Perhaps we can discuss this further at a later date. I feel I need to do more reading and investigating before I say much more. I want to thank you again for such a thought-provoking and well-written post. I've recommended it.

[Time for change]

84. I appreciate your work on this

But I am quite confused by MacLean's article

That could be for any number of reasons -- He may not have explained himself well, I may not have the background to understand him well, or it may simply be that I am not the right audience for him. Anyhow, I will list my areas of confusion, because I think that this is a very important issue, and possibly someone may be able to set me straight on this.

I'll start what appears to be James' main distinction between a fascist and a falangist state, given that it is the first distinction that he mentions:

"The falangist state is in many respects very different from a fascist state, because the elites in a falangist state are much more self-confident and are prepared to administer repression directly. Society is not militarized under a falangist state because the elites simply hire recruits from an underclass."

To me, those two sentences seem to contradict each other. The elites in a falangist state are much more self-confident and are prepared to administer repression directly -- yet they hire recruits from an underclass to do it. Sounds like a contradiction to me. And even if it's not a contradiction I don't understand the significance of that description.

Secondly, in what way is the U.S. then a falangist state, as opposed to a fascist state? I don't see where our administration is hiring an "underclass" to administer repression. Is NSA considered an "underclass"? Are the civilian contractors who are largely responsible for the torture of our prisoners an "underclass"?

Thirdly, I don't see why the distinction is important anyhow. If a regime chooses to repress its people, regardless of the precise mechanism that they use to do it, it seems to me that they still have a lot in common with other regimes that use different methods to repress their people. So why not talk about parallels between them?

Another distinction that is made is that in a fascist state laws are simply in abeyance, whereas in a falangist state, the state is practicing "class warfare" against the populace. Again, I don't see the significance of that distinction.

You note above that fascism is characterized by the state imposing a great deal of regulation on corporations. I'm not at all sure that that is true. Here is how Michael Mann defines fascism: "the pursuit of a transcendent and cleansing nation-statism through paramilitarism". He then goes on to define the terms used in that definition in great detail. He characterizes "statism" as "an authoritarian corporate state". Well, it seems to me that that is what we are getting more and more of these days. For example, check out Bill Moyers' quote from one of the links I provide in my OP:

What would happen, however, if the contending giants of big government and big publishing and broadcasting ever joined hands, ever saw eye to eye in putting the public's need for news second to free-market economics? That's exactly what's happening now under the ideological banner of "deregulation". Giant media conglomerates that our founders could not possibly have envisioned are finding common cause with an imperial state in a betrothal certain to produce not the sons and daughters of liberty but the very kind of bastards that issued from the old arranged marriage of church and state.

Consider the situation. Never has there been an administration so disciplined in secrecy, so precisely in lockstep in keeping information from the people at large and -- in defiance of the Constitution -- from their representatives in Congress. Never has the powerful media oligopoly ... been so unabashed in reaching like Caesar for still more wealth and power. Never have hand and glove fitted together so comfortably to manipulate free political debate, sow contempt for the idea of government itself, and trivialize the peoples' need to know.

What he is talking about there is not simply laize faire, as I believe you put it, but a state joined at the hip with the corporate elite. I think that that is what we have here.

Now, with regard to the issue of turning people off by bringing up comparisons with Hitler, I see your point, and I recognize that you MAY be right about that. But when I make those comparisons I don't mean to imply, and I try to make this clear, that we are anywhere near as bad off as was those people who were under Nazi rule in the 1940s. But the important thing to remember is that they didn't start out like that. They did it little by little, until they realized that they could get away with just about anything.

You said that, as bad as Bush is, he's no Hitler. I am not at all sure of that. His actions aren't anywhere near as bad as Hitler's actions were in the 1940s, or late 1930s, but that may very well be simply because he doesn't believe at this time that he can get away with such actions. But some estimate that over 100,000 innocent Iraqis have died as a result of our invasion of their country. This war was justified on a lie, Bush knew it was a lie, and I believe that it was done for no other reason than the enrichment of his cronies and the expansion of the administration's power. Ok, it was only 100,000 dead so far, not 15 million. But if he had to kill 15 million to get what he and his cronies wanted, would that have stopped him? I doubt it. And I also believe that his administration planned the 9-11 attacks. I've read several books on the subject, and I know that many DUers, perhaps most of them, also believe that. And between us we could write a book on why we believe all these things, but I'm not going to attempt that at this time (though I'd love to if I had the time).

So yes, I do not necessarily believe that Bush is any better than Hitler, and I feel that there is a lot of evidence to support that view. The main difference is one of opportunity IMO. If Bush had to do the things that Hitler did in order to get what he and his cronies want, I believe that he would do it. And therefore, I think that we need to hold that possibility in mind as we (i.e., our country) decide how to handle this thing. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it isn't coming, and that we don't need to be vigilent about preventing it. As a matter of fact, this is precisely what our founding fathers warned us against.

Anyhow, now that I'm done ranting, I have to say that I really do appreciate your bringing this up, because it is a very important issue to discuss. :toast:

MacLean may have some very important points, and if he does then this is very much worth discussing. But I just can't see what they are.

[area51]

61. It can happen here,

and is happening here.

[Uncle Joe]

62. Hear Hear! most excellent analysis!

It is only human to think it is always going to happen to the other guy or nation until it happens to you.

[Nothing Without Hope]

66. There is dangerous complacency about the ruling cabal surrendering power

Even we at DU, who have some idea of the murderous lengths to which the ruling cabal will go to grab and hold power, are far too complacent about their letting go of it. Why do you think they are setting up martial law and insisting on the ability to kidnap, hold and torture even US citizens indefinitely? It's well known that evidence given via torture is not reliable, so why are they so keen to have it? I believe it's the fear/intimidation factor they are after. Why have they been assembling the machinery of martial law if they don't want to suspend the constitution? Indeed, they have already tried.

Our fight isn't just against a political party. It's much more serious than that. They have been working to set up a structure that will allow them to set aside the electoral system entirely, and they are close to being able to get away with it. How many more years would it take? Not too damn many, I'm thinking. We must have the outrage to get them out of power before they finish their preparations to seize it despite the constitution.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/12/03_splash.html

A Splash of Cold Water

December 3, 2005
By Pamela Troy

(snip)

An argument often offered by moderates when they object to using the term "gulag" to describe our treatment of detainees, is that the overseas prisons where detainees are held simply don't compare in sheer scale to the Soviet system. But factor in our approach to incarceration as a nation, that is, our own truly massive domestic prison system, the staggering number of inmates (most of whom are incarcerated for nonviolent offenses) along with the public's dismissive attitude when those inmates are mistreated, and that assertion loses a good bit of its force.

It will take no drastic alteration in the American psyche to accept the imprisonment and mistreatment of other Americans by our government. We already accept it, and if the legal net gets broadened a bit to include not just drug users, but activists and other dissidents, the chances are we'll adjust our attitudes accordingly, and react precisely as we do when we hear about some gross act of institutional abuse against a petty thief or drug offender. That is, many of us will puff out our chests slightly, narrow our eyes like we've seen Clint Eastwood do, and intone, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." "They shouldn't have blocked traffic with that demonstration. That was just stupid.," "We're at war! If they're too dumb to understand that, that's just too bad."

Nor will it take any drastic alteration for Americans to accept the notion that American citizens can be incarcerated indefinitely, in secret and without trial. Has everyone taken to the streets in the wake of the Bush administration's treatment of Jose Padilla? Of course not! There have been a few angry voices raised, but no mass revulsion, and if the Supreme Court were to hand down a decision which confirmed Bush's contention that his administration should have the power to label any American citizen an enemy combatant and have him or her "disappeared," the American people aren't going to drop what their doing and build barricades. They'll hear about it on the news, carefully couched in legal phraseology that masks its sheer nastiness, say, "that sounds right," or "well, really, that doesn't seem fair," and change the channel to a sitcom.

This is not because Americans are unusually stupid or brutal or complacent. It's because we're like everyone else, and like everyone else we are preoccupied with getting by. We have children to raise, jobs to hold on to, mortgages to pay off. If the ante for voicing disagreement is upped too high, a great many of us will just not voice that disagreement. We'll tell ourselves it's wiser to be quiet, that it's all politics and nothing to do with us. Tyrants have almost always found it a safe bet to count on that reaction.

(snip)

It's all too true. I wish everyone would read this entire essay, for the dangerous complacency - in spite of everything! - is still keeping us from seeing the real dangers.

[Time for change]

87. I agree with that to a large extent

But still I am hopeful that if Americans can somehow be made to see what may be coming, that they will NOT stand for it. How we will prevent it I cannot say. But I sure as hell hope we find a way.

Thank you for posting that very important article.

[The Stranger]

68. This is a little late to the show.

But thanks nevertheless.

Now what?

[Time for change]

86. Ummmm

That's a very good question, but I'll have to do a great deal of thinking on that. :think:

[Nothing Without Hope]

90. The ignorance and complacency of the American public MUST be

replaced with awareness and opposition to the fascist, imperialist schemes of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal. Education, media-blasting, and everything we can do to increase awareness of both the truth and the lies.

There wasn't an internet in Hitler's time, no way for the opposition to exchange information and organize opposition effectively. That's a huge difference, and so far it's been the driving force behind the bits of truth that have been seeping out into the public consciousness. That must continue and expand.

And don't let them make McCain or Hillary Clniton the next POTUS. Neither is forward looking, both are ambitious pols above all, calcuating their statements and actions for their own purposes. We need vision and integrity now, not yet more back-room politics and platitudes.

[mod mom]

71. Excellent job TFC!

:applause:

[yurbud]

74. Complacency is biggest ally of Bush--read first 26 pages of NIGHT by Elie

Weisel.

The Jews freaked out for a day or two when the Germans first came to town, then they got used to it. The nazis slowly ratcheted up the oppression, and each time the people were briefly flustered, then when back about their business. Toward the end of the chapter, Weisel's father is sewing the star on his jacket and responds to Elie's protests by saying, "What's the big deal? It's not like wearing it is going to kill me."

[Time for change]

76. Yes, I believe that is exactly right

Very useful story. This is very similar to the quote in post # 8, above.

We have some very important lessons that we should have learned from the Holocost. I just hope that we learn them well before we have another one.

[K-W]

78. American democracy was stillborn.

At the beginning it was a government for white land owners by white landowners and as soon as other people began gaining control over government and exercising the democracy promised them, the land owners and industrialists just formed new organizations to exercise thier power, organizations that quickly began to coopt government power until they monopolized the country.

Facism isnt the end of democracy, it is the end of the pretense of democracy, it is the formalization of what was previously an informal domination of society by the few.

It is the end of the republic essentially.

[Time for change]

81. You have a good point there

But nevertheless, a great deal of progress had been made over the decades, with the eradication of slavery, the ammendments to the constitution expanding the right to vote and expanding civil rights, the reigning in of corporations during Teddy Roosevelt's administration, the New Deal, and the civil rights and voting rights acts of the early 1960s, among other things. And now, with the Bush administration, we are suddenly going backwards by leaps and bounds.

[Mme. Defarge]

83. Thank You!

So, here I am -- a "boomer" -- and our republic could be lost on my watch! I am the daughter of a man who was a member of "the greatest generation", a poor Kansas farmer who grew up in The Great Depression and lived through the Battle of the Bulge. Therefore, I am. My mother was Betty "the riveter."

How can this be happening? Last night, after a couple of glasses of wine, I bared my soul to my husband of 35 years. We are 15 months away from retirement and are both just trying to cope with the day-to-day confusion/hysteria that dominates American workplaces, until the day of our liberation as wage slaves.

I confessed to him that although I go to work every day and do the best that I can in an environment that is becoming increasingly more irrational and chaotic, it's sometimes hard to focus when I think about what is really happening in/to my own country. How can you possibly take seriously any sort of mundane commercial activity, not to mention all of the petty political jockeying and "street-fighting" that goes on in the workplace, WHEN YOUR OWN COUNTRY -- WHICH HAS BEEN A BEACON OF LIBERTY TO THE WORLD SINCE THE LATE 18TH CENTURY -- IS BECOMING A FASCIST DICTATORSHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, my husband of 35 years went into a total melt-down. He just couldn't handle it. Although he acknowledged that Bush was another Hitler, he pointed out that we could still change things by voting. I simply didn't have the heart to burst his bubble.

[Time for change]

85. Well, I like to think that at least we have the potential to change things

Hell, it would be terribly depressing if we just gave up hope.

But it is going to take a lot of hard work and committment on the part of our country. And the first step IMO is to recognize what we're faced with.

And I certainly can sympathize with what you say about your relation to your work environment. I work for the FDA, and I see an awful lot of corporatism in my work environment. It certainly does hurt my spirit substantially and cause me to be quite bored with the work that I do, which otherwise could be quite interesting and fulfilling.

[Nothing Without Hope]

92. I DO believe we h ave the potential to change things, and I believe some

steps have been taken. Many more are needed and the danger is very great, but there is hope and work to do. There MUST be hope, or we lose everything, including ourselves. It's why I chose my username. Despair and wailing "we can't do anything, they're too strong, it's the end" is the cop-out path.

Of course I don't mean to imply that posters in this thread are despairing cop-outs, far from it - we are the ones that are continuing to fight back. But it's important to remember that the meme that it's too late, that the neocons are too strong to oppose is A NEOCON LIE. If we are tricked into believing they are invincible, they will be. Not because of their power but because we would surrender our own.

[Time for change]

93. Yes, there is always hope

Even with the ultimate power, coups were attempted against Hitler, and he was eventually brought down -- but not before a tremendous cost had been paid.

Therefore, the sooner the better.

[Bill Bored]

89. kick nt

[Independent_Liberal]

94. Right! Wake up DUers!

Complacency is what we must fight. It CAN happen here. You've got to act now or suffer the consequences. We CANNOT wait until the next election. There might not be any elections in 2008. If we say, "There's nothing we can do, we have to wait" we feed the enemy and become accomplices in the atrocities. We must act now, because the future of mankind could depend on it.