The last days of Weimar?

One has to wonder sometimes. Yeah, I know: Bush is no Hitler and history never really repeats itself (or as Heraclitus would say, "You cannot step into the same river twice...for different and again different waters flow."). Still I and others have noted that there is a uniquely American form of fascism rearing its ugly head that has found friends in the White House, Congress, and elements of the mass media and corporate sectors. A round-up of some stories that grabbed my attention:

Not Scared Yet? Try Connecting These Dots by Ray McGovern. Among other things, McGovern looks at how Americans might react to a possible "delay" of elections:

On Friday I listened to a reporter asking a tourist in Washington, DC, whether he felt inconvenienced by all the blockages and barriers occasioned by the heightened alert. While the tourist acknowledged that the various barriers and inspections made it difficult to get from one place to another, he made his overall reaction quite clear: "Safety first! I don't want to see another 9/11. Whatever it takes!" I was struck a few hours later as I tuned into President Bush speaking at a campaign rally in Michigan: "I will never relent in defending America. Whatever it takes."

How prevalent this sentiment has become was brought home to me as Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) quizzed 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey (a former Democrat Senator from Nebraska) at a hearing last week on the commission's sweeping recommendation to centralize foreign and domestic intelligence under a new National Intelligence Director in the White House. Kerrey grew quite angry as Kucinich kept insisting on an answer to his question: "How do you protect civil liberties amid such a concentration of information and power?"

Kerrey protested that the terrorists give no priority to civil liberties. He went on to say that individual liberties must, in effect, be put on the back burner, while priority is given to combating terrorism. Whatever it takes.

Does this not speak volumes? Would Kerrey suggest that Americans act like the "good Germans" of the 1930s, and acquiesce in draconian steps like postponement or cancellation of the November election?

These are no small matters. It is high time to think them through.

RNC Protest Organizers Reject Rally Site looks at the on-going struggle for protesters to be seen and heard at the upcoming GOP convention in NYC. On a related note, Jim Hightower of The Nation looks at Bu$hCo's efforts to quash free speech and protest even before the 9/11 tragedy in Bush Zones Go National.

One crucial element in the development of a fascist state is the merging of the federal government and big business to the extent that it is unclear as to where the public sector ends and the private sector begins. We see in this article, Big Business Becoming Big Brother by Kim Zetter of Wired.com that the US government is increasingly contracting out surveillance work to private corporations which apparently allows the feds to keep an eye on the theat posed by peace sign-wearing activists without the inconvenience of those restrictions regarding privacy rights. Nice.

And David Neiwert of the excellent blog Orcinus continues to look at the role of mainstream media and (yes) mainstream GOP voters in allowing virulent racists and virulent racist ideas to go unchallenged in Home to Roost. Remember that old parental admonition that you are judged by the company you keep? Well, as long as GOP types continue to keep a blind eye to the right-wing extremists who've aligned themselves with the GOP, it'll be difficult to impossible for independents of a variety of political stripes (from the very liberal such as myself to those who are more moderate or libertarian) to trust representatives of that party. Something to think about.

While were on Neiwert's blog, don't forget to check out the post Good Christian Hate which looks at a recent gay bashing crime by someone who apparently was quoting Biblical scripture while working over his victim. In another post by Neiwert Shades of Kristallnacht, we get some commentary on a recent anti-Semitic vandalism of a large number of businesses in the Bay Area of California that had displayed signs for a local Board of Supervisors candidate David Heller, who so happens to be Jewish and whose grandparents had been killed by the Nazis during WWII. The vandals spray-painted swastikas on the windows of those businesses. Finally, Neiwert tackles one of my least favorite right-wing gasbags, Bill O'Reilly, in a post titled Just like the Klan which discusses a recent "debate" between O'Reilly and Paul Krugman on Tim Russert's CNBC show. I put "debate" in quotes as O'Reilly wasn't actually there to discuss issues as a rational human being and was instead content to threaten and intimidate. Real nice guy. Fair and balanced, and all that. In making the claim that the watchdog group Media Matters is just like the Ku Klux Klan, Neiwert notes that not only is O'Reilly factually wrong but is serving a sinister purpose with that claim:

Not only does O'Reilly smear one of his political nemeses -- he soft-pedals what real hate groups stand for. When he compares Media Matters to the Klan, he's not only telling his audience that the former is full of hateful vitriol that poisons the public well, he tells them that the Klan is a reasonably legitimate organization that mostly is engaged in mere political partisanship.

And that makes O'Reilly appear not only ridiculous, but genuinely dangerous.

Food for thought.

•  Tip Jar

  if the spirit moves you.

  by James Benjamin on Wed Aug 11, 2004 at 04:37:14 PM PDT

  •  Nice post, and I too feel the tremors

    I guess many of us do. It's sort of strange dealing with intelligent friends who think this is just "another election" between "two politicians." Who like to talk about horse race stuff like "Hillary in '08" (as if there will be a viable democratic party in 4 years).

    It's a curse to feel these tremors, to know what's at stake, what could happen.

    by grushka on Wed Aug 11, 2004 at 04:52:52 PM PDT

  •  Jim Benjamin?

    You're not the Jim Benjamin I know in Santa Fe, are you?

    by claude on Wed Aug 11, 2004 at 05:07:19 PM PDT

    •  nope. fraid not

      Some of my friends do call me Jim, but I've never lived in Santa Fe.

      by James Benjamin on Wed Aug 11, 2004 at 05:10:31 PM PDT

      •  OK, James, thanks

        by claude on Wed Aug 11, 2004 at 05:46:13 PM PDT

•  good post

  i recommended this diary.

  this struck me, from one of the stories you link to:

  What was especially striking about it (and isn't really clear in the transcript) is the way O'Reilly behaved during the whole interview. O'Reilly is big on insisting on placing his remarks "in context," and the context here was significant. He didn't argue: he bellowed, he jabbed his finger, he threatened and intimidated. Krugman looked a little shaken, and frankly, I don't blame him. This wasn't debate -- it was an exercise in verbal thuggery. And the "fair minded" Russert just sat there and watched.

  This is the substance of discourse in this nation right now. Someone, generally on the liberal side of things, will attempt to explain his side of the issue via facts. The other participant in the "discourse" will flatly deny the other's facts. These denials take several forms:

  • ad hominen attack
    
  • maligning the source as partisan
    
  • dismissing the issue as unimportant to the substance of the debate
    
  • contradicting it with another fact (often dubious)

  This sort of national debate is really troubling. It enables people to ignore the facts and persist in believing whatever they want, no matter how much reality tells us otherwise.

  The danger of such discourse should be obvious. This is how we are able to invade on basis of national security a nation that posed no threat whatsoever. This is how we can attempt for a second time an economic plan that already bankrupted this nation once, only 20 years ago.

  This discourse "enables" us to turn a blind eye to the deteoriation of America, both its standard of living and its international standing. And even though many patriotic Americans are valiantly trying to warn everyone of what is happneing, this kind of discourse encourages their dismissal.

  by scottesposito on Wed Aug 11, 2004 at 05:51:07 PM PDT

  •  Not to fall into the ad hominem trap, but...

    and I know the word "fascist" gets thrown around a lot, but O'Reilly really seems to me to have a strong fascistic personality.

    I don't have cable any more, but when I watched him, I felt as though I was watching some Irish Oswald Mosley supporter (don't know if OM hated the Irish) turning bright red and telling some effete Oxonian to "SHUT UP."

    Unfortunately, fascism's spirit is alive and has willing receptacles in the American right.

    by grushka on Wed Aug 11, 2004 at 06:17:18 PM PDT

    •  its true

      o'reilly is pretty out of alignment. it's pretty much he's right and you're wrong, so get used to it.

      sometimes i try an dspeculate how o'reilly got to the point that he knows everything. i mean, at some point he must have been open-minded, if only because we all start out at least a little bit openminded. he seems to have worked up this huge pesecution idea, like "the establishement" is trying to suppress his truth from coming out. its how i think he can justify to himself (and work up such rage) shouting down everyone he interviews and never listening to any honest criticism.

      by scottesposito on Wed Aug 11, 2004 at 06:29:00 PM PDT

•  Not a chance

  America is not even close to being in the same situation as the Weimar Republic.

  America has more than 200 years of continuous constitutional democracy.  Germany in 1933 had only 14 years, punctuated by two coup attempts.

  All German parties at the time had local militias that regularly brawled in the streets - Communists, Social Democrats, and Catholic Centrists as well as Nazis.  Hitler had two militias, the SA and the SS, with 3.5 million members between the two of them.  And by the time he seized power, the Gestapo had already been in existence for over two years.  Nothing remotely comparable exists in the US.

  The Nazis were openly racist.  They didn't use code words, they spoke openly.  There are pockets of racism in the Republican party, but even they are kept hidden most of the time.

  Hitler had a political ruthlessness that even Bush doesn't match, and I'm not even talking about genocide.  In 1933, he turned on several of his top lieutenants that he suspected of disloyalty - Ernest Rohm and others - and had them executed.  Can you imagine Bush publicly executing Colin Powell?

  by tyronen on Wed Aug 11, 2004 at 06:30:46 PM PDT

  •  It's a lot closer than you think

    There are some important parallels - a stressed middle-class, a sense of wounded national honor, a cultural war, a weakening public faith in democracy and a growing desire for some sort of executive rule, and all of these problems being blamed on the political left. Note that the Nazis ruled under the Weimar constitution, at least in name, for many years.

    But the problem with historical comparisons is that people get hung up on the details - which, as you point out, are certainly different - and not the fundamental process. In Weimar Germany you saw an economically weak country led by the liberal-left and a large number of people increasingly blaming their problems on that liberal-left and turning to the radical right to restore national honor and culturally traditional rules.

    By that comparison we're not there in 1929 yet. But I believe we absolutely will be if Kerry gets elected and the economy does not improve. If the Kerry administration is a troubled one, with worsening economic problems at home (not unlikely given the staggering Bush legacy) and a seeming inability to command dominance abroad (also possible given how Iraq has hamstrung us re: Iran, North Korea, etc) then I would expect the right to get extremely ugly really quickly.

    by eugene on Wed Aug 11, 2004 at 06:44:14 PM PDT