Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

the return of sanity...

Quote:

Seven in Ten Americans Favor Congressional Candidates Who Will Pursue a Major Change in Foreign Policy
U.S. Public Wants Less Emphasis on Military Force, More on Working Through U.N.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/262.php?nid=&id=&pnt=262&lb=hmpg1

0 Replies

walter wrote :
The Nazis came to power by democratic elections and not by terroristic acts, though.

yes , the nazis "came to power" through democratic elections ... but once in power , they pretty soon eliminated all opposition .
(i'm not sure if one can say that the nazis stayed in power through terror acts , but certainly citizens who disagreed with the course of action taken after the election , were intimidated . certainly some were terrorized by being arrested , thrown into jail and sent to 're-education camps' and some were killed by various means .)
hbg

0 Replies

Yes, hamburger, but the idea forwarded was that the Nazis usurped power using terrorist methods. Now, I'm not a historian and not old enough to have lived through that period, but I'd say that the rise to power of the Nazis is rather an example of the contrary.

When Hitler and followers tried to seize power by violent means in 1923, that ended rather quickly and with Hitler being imprisoned.

I wouldn't argue the fact that the Nazis stayed in power using what amounts to terrorism, but the rise to power in '33 cannot be attributed to that.

Just my humble opinion, of course.

0 Replies

old europe :
yes , i certainly agree with you .
looking at the 1933 election results , it is quite clear that the nazis received enough votes to be able to step into the position of governing party .
i also recall my father telling me that many of his friends and co-workers had voted for hitler because of the promises of work for everyone and eliminating political strife and corruption !
the promise of better times ahead always seems to carry the day .
not many voters ask how it is to be achieved .
i seem to recall reading somewhere that nazi strategists had figured out some years earlier - in the late 1920's - that the way to power was through the ballot box .
enough germans were ready to throw their lot in with them - not realizing would would happen later !

btw there are two books by the british writer "philip gibbs" that i have found quite valuable in gaining a better understanding of what went on in germany and europe in the early 1930's .
the first one is called :
"European journey; by Philip Gibbs; being the narrative of a journey in France, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Germany, and the Saar, in the spring and summer of 1934. With an authentic record of the ideas, hopes, and fears moving in the minds of common folk and expressed in wayside conversations"
(our library has it stored in the basement , but they were quite happy to bring it up for me)
the second one is :
"england speaks : being talks with road sweeepers , barbers , statesmen ,
lords and ladies , beggars ... and all manner of folk of humble and exalted rank" ,
i was fortunate to pick it up for 25 cents some years ago and i still refer to it .
these books are what i would call 'immediate' history books . gibbs wrote the books in 1933 and 1935 , immediately after his return from europe (book 1) and after his travels through great britain(book2) .
the books give quite a vivid picture of what all kinds of people were doing and thinking at that time.
i guess he was a sort of 'bob woodward' of his time .
hbg

...WIKIPEDIA - PHILIP GIBBS...

0 Replies

Again I don't claim that Hitler took Germany via terrorism, but I do think he used terrorism on his rise to power just the same and without it most likely would not have succeeded.

From Joachim C Fest's The Face of the Third Reich (emphasis mine though all is interesting):

"It only required the combination of this blind dynamism with a purposeful revolutionary will to make this group all but irresistible. The SA was this combination. It arose on the one hand because a 'pure driving force' wandering aimlessly in political space needed aims and tasks, and on the other because Hitler's plans for gaining power were, after vague beginnings, acquiring a sharper outline. Like a magnet drawing iron filings, to use one of his favourite metaphors, Hitler attracted these men who had been irrevocably thrown off course early in life. He was one of them himself, and he fitted their extremism, their moral brutalization, into his tactical system for the conquest of power. It was not only because there were natural points of contact here, not only because he found in these people a human type perfectly prepared to serve his purposes, that he directed his propaganda so expressly towards the militant groups. The truth was rather that he quickly saw the propaganda advantages to be gained from intimidating his opponents by the parade of uniformed groups ready and willing to use violence, and here more than anywhere else he showed his psychological astuteness. Contrary to civilized expectations, he put his trust in the propaganda value of terror, the attraction of terror spread by the most brutal methods. 'Brutality is respected he once stated enunciating this principle. 'The people need wholesome fear. They want to fear something. They want someone to frighten them and make them shudderingly submissive. Haven't you seen everywhere that after the beerhall battles those who have been beaten are the first to join the party as new members? Why babble about brutality and get indignant about tortures? The masses want them. They need something that will give them a thrill of horror.'(2) The SA's mobilization of the coarse instincts released by the war, intensified by the introduction of unequivocally criminal elements, of thugs and riffraff, was not an inevitable aspect of a revolutionary outbreak, nor, as was at times stated in an unmistakable attempt at excuse, was it made necessary by the organization of similar militant formations by political opponents; it was planned psychological exploitation. With growing tactical assurance Hitler ever more carefully appreciated the advantages of strong-arm bands over rhetorical and liturgical propaganda as a means of winning recruits; he expressly advocated combining 'activist brutality' or 'brutal power with brilliant planning'.(3)

In spite of the difficulty of distinguishing the meaning and function of the SA within the movement as a whole, we may now see the true task of the Brown Shirt detachments, in contrast to that of the Political Organization, to have lain in emphasizing the belligerent element in the setting up of an all-embracing system of coercion. The rise of the NSDAP and its conquest of power show the combination demanded by Hitler, although theory was continually complicated by practical difficulties because there were two distinct, though curiously interwoven, power groups with competing demands both struggling for independence. In general, however, the system proved practicable and successful so long as there was a firm goal and an accepted authority at the top, to whose tactical moves both blocs unprotestingly adapted themselves. But once power had been achieved the ambitions of the SA for independence previously smouldering more or less underground, strove for open expression. Hitler solved the structural problem of the 'double party' with bloodshed.(4) On 30th June 1934 and the following two days he arranged the liquidation of his old follower and friend Ernst Rohm. . . . "

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

....
i also recall my father telling me that many of his friends and co-workers had voted for hitler because of the promises of work for everyone and eliminating political strife and corruption !
.....

Where've I heard those very same promises just recently???

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Again I don't claim that Hitler took Germany via terrorism, but I do think he used terrorism on his rise to power just the same and without it most likely would not have succeeded.

That's speculation. And it doesn't do justice to the situation after WWI and during the Weimar Republic .... and to that specific time in general.

When looking at a certain time in a specific country, we really can't just take our actual definitions, way of life, personal experiences etc and compare those to that.

When you several German regions - rural, urban - in several German states - city states, catholic dominated, evangelical dominated, in various parts - you'll don't get one singel view but various different.
(In some places, for locals it was a Sunday event looking at the 'battles' between Communists/Social Democrats and the Right. )

The 'fear' only came later, when the Nazis were ruling all and everwhere and had built up their system completely.

Fest gives a more ... well, conservative as he was, a more slightly benevolent view of that time.
But I've never noticed that he claims anything like the position you sustain here.

0 Replies

A very rare, and very, very wonderful piece on Garry Trudeau...

Quote:

"When I talk to wounded veterans, I usually don't ask them what they think the mission was. I don't presume, because their lives are wrenching enough without the suggestion that their sacrifices may have been without meaning. Moreover, if that is so, it will become apparent to them soon enough . . . The young men and women who we've repeatedly put in harm's way are paying the price for this misbegotten mission, and as long as it continues, I, like so many of our countrymen, must walk this strange line between hating the war but honoring the warrior. I don't know how long we can keep it up. . ."

He finishes to a standing ovation...

As the plane begins its descent to LaGuardia, Trudeau remembers something interesting, something from his teens, when he had a summer job working at Time magazine.

"As I was walking out the building one day on my lunch break, two-thirds of a block away this spectacularly beautiful young woman in a very short miniskirt was walking toward me . . ."

Not sure where this is going, but I'm taking notes as fast as I can.

"She was in her early twenties. I was 16 and looked all of 12. You could feel it in the air, her coming at you. Her presence was destabilizing the street for a one-block radius. Guys were gawking, cars were slowing. This woman was a menace. She was walking in a confident way, with a swing to her hips. I was geeky and shy, too shy to make eye contact. I wouldn't even have known what to DO with eye contact. My discomfort must have been obvious because, as she passes me, she leans over, her breath is warm, and she softly . . . growls in my ear."

Wow.

"I thought to myself: I've just been handed the most extraordinary gift. She showed such wisdom, with such a generous use of power. She just changed the life of a young boy. I thought , Anything is possible."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102000446.html

0 Replies

I just saw a CNN story about domestic terrorism in America. Among other people, they interviewed Richard Posner, a prominent Republican and a federal appeals court judge for the 7th circuit. Several Republicans in this thread admire Posner, as do I. So let's roll the tape and hear what he has to say.

Posner's credentials as a Republican are unquestioned. But when it comes to domestic terrorism, it turns out he isn't a Bush supporter at all. On the contrary, he is highly critical of the administration. Having looked at American anti-terrorist cases since 9/11, he contends that the government is probably accusing the wrong people of terrorism. "Five years after 9/11, we don't actually know what the scope of the terrorist danger to the United States is. Within the United States, we don't actually know whether there are terrorist cells, terrorist supporters, whether there is some terrorist infrastructure waiting for a signal from [inaudible]", says Posner.

Posner continues: "The hopeful interpretation of the FBI's failure to have come up with really dramatic prosecutions of obvious terrorists is that there aren't any, which would be great. But the other alternative is is that because they're focusing on who they can catch, they're missing out on the most dangerous people." The FBI's tactics are flawed, Posner concludes: "You're getting the small fry, or I don't know, the people who are not very good at concealing what they're doing [...] They are not necessarily the very dangerous people. But they're the easier people to catch".

CNN makes the clip hard to link to. But if you go to www.cnn.com/video and click on any of the videos under the heading "politics", a window will pop up playing the film on the left, displaying an Explorer-like playlist on the right, and featuring a "search video" text field on the top right. Pick from the playlist the clips titled "domestic terrorism" and "domestic terrorism going unpunished." from the playlist. If you don't find it there, enter it into the search window. That should get you to the video.

0 Replies

Quote:

Democrats Suffer Bouts of Optimism, Prozac Sales Plunge
by Scott Ott

0 Replies

At least for myself, gridlock is the objective.

0 Replies

For me too. I've always thought that we wanting small government implicitly means wanting a government that can't accomplish much.

0 Replies

Yeah, what Dys and FreeDuck said.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

For me too. I've always thought that we wanting small government implicitly means wanting a government that can't accomplish much.

But guys, can't you see, such a government would prevent policies such as those wrought for the advancement of the world by people like Mr Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld! To do their work properly, giants such as these need the freedom of a no-opposition system.

0 Replies

I am not in agreement. But it seems inevitable for the next two years given this administration. After that, the problems which will be facing the US seem likely to be of a magnitude which continued gridlock will risk courting some species of authoritarianism around the next corner which could make even this present bunch look tame.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

I am not in agreement. But it seems inevitable for the next two years given this administration. After that, the problems which will be facing the US seem likely to be of a magnitude which continued gridlock will risk courting some species of authoritarianism around the next corner which could make even this present bunch look tame.

And one-party-rule won't?

0 Replies

thomas

To quote a wonderful line from West Wing, "Democracy means that sometimes the wrong guys win." If by 'one party rule' you mean arrogant and effective dominance of the machinery of government and information systems, then yes, that's a very bad thing. If you mean by 'gridlock' something considerably less than what that term usually means (no traffic flow) then I can temper my disagreement.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

If you mean by 'gridlock' something considerably less than what that term usually means (no traffic flow) then I can temper my disagreement.

I had no intellectually ambitious definition of gridlock in mind. I just don't think America's checks and balances realistically work if all branches of government are run by the same party. They way it currently works is bad. I expect things would be only slightly less bad if a Democratic landslide puts Pelosi in charge of the House, Reid in charge of the Senate, and Obama in charge of the White House. I'll give you this compromise: I'm fine if the Democrats win both houses now, but only if they lose at least one of them in 2008. I'd like Obama to be president, but I don't want an all-Democratic Congress to rubber-stamp everything he wants.

0 Replies

First, in a general sense but only in a general sense, I agree. There's much discussion now in the American press about the rise of independent voters. Time will tell if that is true, but it would be a very good thing indeed if it was and now, I think, dangerous if it does not happen. I consider it more likely than not that the stresses on the american society and social fabric over the next twenty years will be significant. And the present highly ideological and partisan division in the country could reassert itself in an even more authoritarian mode than this present situation which is already very dangerous.

But I reject the duality (either side equal qualitatively) you seem to suggest. I do not hold or think that American democrats are less susceptible to corruption or to arrogance of power. However, I do believe that cultural traditions and evolved systemic problems within the US place the nation in continuing jeopardy of moving towards authoritarianism. And that propensity is, in America, far more likely to be accomodated by republicanism. I point to the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, and both Bush administrations but most acutely this one as examples of governance which were dangerously secretive, militaristic, and which sought to escape the bonds of institutional checks and balances. And, as we know from the last five years here at a2k (and more broadly in the US), there is a significant segment of this population which is prepared, quite immediately, to hand over almost every civil right and protection (except gun ownership) when asked to do so by an authoritarian leader who so easily convinces them - using pervasive marketing strategies and information control - that they are in such danger that such rights or principles are quaint, outmoded and even effectively traitorous. Had another large attack occured, say, three years ago, I think it likely that the US would have slipped beyond the pale.

The present rejection of Bush and his ideas is very encouraging. The rise of non-aligned voters (if that proves true) is as well. But all those other systemic elements wait off stage. If the partisan divide continues and if it becomes even more acute (a real possibility given increased stresses on the society) then the temptation to saddle up with some figure of extreme ideology of the dicatorial sort will grow. Tether that with modern electronic systems of information control and monitoring and we are looking at something quite Orwellian.

The next two years will be very important. By which I mean dangerous. After that, it seems likely that the presidency will be held by McCain, Obama, or Clinton. Neither one of these individuals will present the acute danger which Bush presents. Either would make, I think, notable presidents and would work to bring Americans together rather than to divide them using fears and hatreds. We tend to cringe at the thought of Clinton in the post because we fear that division and ideological/legislative gridlock will follow. And that will only perpetuate so many of the present problems.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

The next two years will be very important. By which I mean dangerous. After that, it seems likely that the presidency will be held by McCain, Obama, or Clinton. Neither one of these individuals will present the acute danger which Bush presents. Either would make, I think, notable presidents and would work to bring Americans together rather than to divide them using fears and hatreds. We tend to cringe at the thought of Clinton in the post because we fear that division and ideological/legislative gridlock will follow. And that will only perpetuate so many of the present problems.

I guess this is where we disagree. The Clinton/Gingrich era was a time where Washington was polarized and gridlocked while America flourished. I happen to think America did well because of gridlock and polarization, not in spite of them. So I would be looking foraward to an America polarized between President Hillary Clinton and Senate speaker Orin Hatch. I don't believe in bipartisanship. Many of the worst American policies I can think of -- the War in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and the Defense of Marriage Act, and the War on Drugs, for example -- were bipartisan projects. I want fewer of them.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know