5 ms·

I'm not sure their characterization of the past is accurate; all of those tactics have long been practiced widely. Hitler was elected and had genuine support. T

I'm not sure their characterization of the past is accurate; all of those tactics have long been practiced widely. Hitler was elected and had genuine support. The Soviets and many others held periodic fake elections, as did many other dictators, and even today there are people in Russia who love Stalin. Saddam Hussein had the Sunnis and Baathists. Every dictator has sufficient genuine support, or they would be overthrown; you can't imprison everyone. Propaganda and harassing political opposition are very old tactics. > replacing comprehensive political ideologies with an amorphous resentment of the West Interestingly, isn't that the outlook of the Tea Partiers? The only consistency I see is a rejection of the West: Science, liberty (for groups other than Tea Partiers), tolerance, democratic government (if they are outvoted, government is illegitimate and to be violently resisted), environmentalism, organized labor, secularism, etc.

humanrebar 12y ago
I liked your first point. The second reads like so much resentment of an amorphous group. I'm not sure why I should prefer your brand to the other.
- hackuser 12y ago
  > The second reads like so much resentment of an amorphous group. I'm not sure why I should prefer your brand to the other. I don't see resentful language and I built an argument on reasonbaly well-established facts. I understand my point may provoke members of that group; that's not my goal but it may be unavoidable when making a point that critical. I'd be interested in learning from you where you think the argument falls short. Your comment is only a negative characterization.
logfromblammo 12y ago
Hitler was not elected. Please stop propagating the myth. Hitler did have genuine support, but he lost the 1932 presidential election. The Nazis never achieved a parliamentary majority as a party until all the other parties were banned. In 1932 Germany, the Chancellor was appointed by the President, who was elected. Paul von Hindenberg won the election. He appointed Hitler to the Chancellorship. Hitler achieved power via the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act, not ballots.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  The head of government in a parliamentary system (in the German system of the time, the Chancellor) is usually appointed by the chief of state (in that system, the President), but this is usually constrained by constitutional restrictions governing who the chief of state can ask to form a government and requiring the government to be supported by a majority of the parliament. The Nazi party was the largest party in both 1932 parliamentary elections, with no party securing a governing majority after the July election (leading to rule by emergency decree by the President and a minority government), but after the November election the Nazi party formed a coalition with various others to form a government (now, those others thought that they'd be able to blunt the Nazi party and their growing popularity more by including them in a government and giving Hitler the chancellorship, but that's not an uncommon reason for bringing trying to bring a party into a governing coalition.) Hitler was elected in the same sense that Benjamin Netanyahu, or any other head of government in a parliamentary system whose party only directly controls a minority of seats, was, or is, elected. > Hitler achieved power via the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act, not ballots. Hitler achieved greater power through those mechanisms, sure, but he was in a position to do so only because of the Nazi parties strong showing in both of the 1932 elections, and the inability of any opponents of the Nazis to form a government without them.
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    > Hitler was elected in the same sense that ... any other head of government in a parliamentary system whose party only directly controls a minority of seats, was, or is, elected. Which is to say... not elected. Becoming the head of a coalition government is more akin to a negotiation than an election. In this case, the "negotiation" involved a lot of arm-twisting.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Becoming the head of a coalition government is more akin to a negotiation than an election. Well, except for the whole election to the parliament that is necessary to even be in the negotiation -- the same election that if you won enough seats outright would make you the leader without the need for a coalition -- and which sets the degree of power you have in the negotiation. > In this case, the "negotiation" involved a lot of arm-twisting. Arm twisting which was only possible because the Nazis were the largest party in the July election, and then again in the November election, and because there was less common ground between the non-Nazi parties around which to form a majority coalition than between the Nazis and the various conservative parties (who, to be sure, still hated the Nazis, but hated them less than the they hated the other non-Nazi parties.)

humanrebar 12y ago

I liked your first point. The second reads like so much resentment of an amorphous group. I'm not sure why I should prefer your brand to the other.

hackuser 12y ago
> The second reads like so much resentment of an amorphous group. I'm not sure why I should prefer your brand to the other. I don't see resentful language and I built an argument on reasonbaly well-established facts. I understand my point may provoke members of that group; that's not my goal but it may be unavoidable when making a point that critical. I'd be interested in learning from you where you think the argument falls short. Your comment is only a negative characterization.

logfromblammo 12y ago

Hitler was not elected. Please stop propagating the myth. Hitler did have genuine support, but he lost the 1932 presidential election. The Nazis never achieved a parliamentary majority as a party until all the other parties were banned. In 1932 Germany, the Chancellor was appointed by the President, who was elected. Paul von Hindenberg won the election. He appointed Hitler to the Chancellorship. Hitler achieved power via the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act, not ballots.

dragonwriter 12y ago
The head of government in a parliamentary system (in the German system of the time, the Chancellor) is usually appointed by the chief of state (in that system, the President), but this is usually constrained by constitutional restrictions governing who the chief of state can ask to form a government and requiring the government to be supported by a majority of the parliament. The Nazi party was the largest party in both 1932 parliamentary elections, with no party securing a governing majority after the July election (leading to rule by emergency decree by the President and a minority government), but after the November election the Nazi party formed a coalition with various others to form a government (now, those others thought that they'd be able to blunt the Nazi party and their growing popularity more by including them in a government and giving Hitler the chancellorship, but that's not an uncommon reason for bringing trying to bring a party into a governing coalition.) Hitler was elected in the same sense that Benjamin Netanyahu, or any other head of government in a parliamentary system whose party only directly controls a minority of seats, was, or is, elected. > Hitler achieved power via the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act, not ballots. Hitler achieved greater power through those mechanisms, sure, but he was in a position to do so only because of the Nazi parties strong showing in both of the 1932 elections, and the inability of any opponents of the Nazis to form a government without them.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  > Hitler was elected in the same sense that ... any other head of government in a parliamentary system whose party only directly controls a minority of seats, was, or is, elected. Which is to say... not elected. Becoming the head of a coalition government is more akin to a negotiation than an election. In this case, the "negotiation" involved a lot of arm-twisting.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Becoming the head of a coalition government is more akin to a negotiation than an election. Well, except for the whole election to the parliament that is necessary to even be in the negotiation -- the same election that if you won enough seats outright would make you the leader without the need for a coalition -- and which sets the degree of power you have in the negotiation. > In this case, the "negotiation" involved a lot of arm-twisting. Arm twisting which was only possible because the Nazis were the largest party in the July election, and then again in the November election, and because there was less common ground between the non-Nazi parties around which to form a majority coalition than between the Nazis and the various conservative parties (who, to be sure, still hated the Nazis, but hated them less than the they hated the other non-Nazi parties.)