Plum Crazy

Reichstag = WTC

It is generally true that any perceived externally-caused catastrophe will cause an upswing in the approval ratings of the leader of a country. This, in and of itself, is not proof that the leader was the cause of or involved in it. I benefit if Texas wins the championship in that I win the pool. I have no influence over the game, however. Therefore we need more. There was evidence that Hitler may have been behind the Reichstag fire, then again perhaps he seized upon it opportunistically. There is no evidence that Bush was behind the WTC. Did the government seize upon it opportunistically to pass legislation granting them more powers? Undoubtedly (legislation I was against, as you may recall).

Some key differences, however, between the events surrounding the passing of the Enabling Act (the act that gave Hitler dictatorial powers) and the passing of the Patriot Act. On the night of the vote of the Enabling Act, Nazi troopers were marching around the Reich chanting "Full powers or fire and murder" or some such threat. Shades of militarism to come. The Enabling Act also gave Hitler equal powers to pass legislation as the Reichstag. He was, therefore, in absolute control of both executive and legislative power. No Bush supporters were marching around Congress chanting threats, nor does Bush, as a result of the Patriot Act, have the ability to make legislation. Such power is still vested in Congress, and I do not imagine they will lightly abdicate such power to the President. Too fond of their own power, they are.

Bush's installation = Hitler's installation

First of all, it is a canard that Hitler was unconstitutionally appointed Chancellor of Germany. He was the head of the party with the most seats. In pretty much every case in a parliamentary system, the head of the party with the most seats gets to be chancellor/prime minister/whatever. This occurs in Britain all the time and no one thinks it weird or undemocratic or anything. This idea that they were a small minority party at the time of his appointment is a complete fallacy. The Nazis had won 230 seats in July 1932 and 196 seats in the November 1932 election, far more than the second place Social Democrats with only 121 seats. This is positively documented. I hate to say it, but every source that insists that Hitler was appointed chancellor even though the Nazis were just a small minority party is either incredibly mistaken and lazy (since it's easy enough to research) or outright lying. Furthermore, this idea that Hindenburg was enthralled by Hitler is a mistake also. He used to contemptuously refer to Hitler as "the little corporal." For crying out loud, Hindenburg tried to appoint two other men chancellor before Hitler (von Papen and Schleicher) even though the Nazis had the largest number of seats in the Reichstag. The Reichstag overwhelmingly voted "no confidence" for von Papen. Schleicher was a general with no real political experience, and, again, the Reichstag rejected him. What the hell was Hindenburg supposed to do? There was no Hitler installation as a result of some backroom deals.

As for whether or not Bush was unconstitutionally appointed President of the United States, again, there is dispute. Many well-respected legal scholars believe that SCOTUS was acting within the law in deciding the case as it did. Further, had the Florida Supreme Court properly ordered recounts in the first place, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. I don't believe there is a conspiracy large enough to include the Democratic registrar in Palm Beach County, the voters in Florida, the Florida Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court. Could you make an argument that SCOTUS seized upon the occasion opportunistically? Yes, and I doubt they were being completely unpartisan in their ruling.

But this is a non-starter vis a vis parallels, since Hitler was never "installed" but was constitutionally appointed chancellor as the leader of the majority party after Hindenburg tried like hell not to appoint him.

Homeland Security = Homeland Security

Yes, here I do see some unfortunate similarities, with respect to passing of acts in the name of security to strip away civil rights. Here is where I really see the need for vigilance on our parts.

Bush rabidly christian = Hitler rabidly christian

I think we already covered this off in a previous post. [In fact, I had covered this off in a previous post in which I pointed out that it was untrue that Hitler was rabidly Christian, although he made use of Christianity as a propaganda tool with the Germans. Hitler himself believed that Christianity caused weakness, and it was his long-term goal to wean Germany off it while allowing Italy to stay on it, as this would give the Germans an edge over them. There are numerous quotes of Hitler's which support this stance.]

Bush out to get Middle Easterners = Hitler out to get Middle Easterners

I honestly don't think that Bush has the same hatred for Muslims that Hitler had for Jews. Hitler was on record years before being elected as believing Jews were the enemy and an alien and subhuman race of people (see also Mein Kampf). Although initially he wasn't talking about executing us, he was certainly on record as believing we should be ousted from any country of civilized peoples. He never had a kind word to say about Jews or Judaism. He blamed Jews for every ill imaginable, including, oddly, Christianity (see also his words as recorded by his intimates).

Bush, on the other hand, has publicly espoused Muslim as a religion of peace, which is a very different tack from one that Hitler took. His actions against Muslims are primarily focused outwards, whereas Hitler's actions against Jews were focused inwards. Part of Hitler's actions against German Jews were to make them second-class citizens and strip away their rights more so than anyone else's. Bush has yet to do anything like that. If he does, then we have more reason for concern and vigilance.

Bush's small scale pre-emptive war against Iraq = Hitler's small scale pre-emptive war against Austria

There was no war against Austria. The Anschluss was a fairly bloodless affair done primarily through propaganda and political means. They marched the troops in (at the invitation of the Austrian government, puppet though it may have been), but the whole affair was over in one day with nary a drop of blood being spilt. The goal was to expand German borders, not to divert attention from internal problems. Hitler had had a vision of a Teutonic empire of which Austria was a part. The fact that he was Austrian himself no doubt played a large part in his desire to fold Austria into the Wehrmacht Reich.

Do you mean the invasion of the Sudetenland? In that instance, Hitler had instigated violence in the Sudeten as a pretext to invasion. Again, the goal was to fold a German-speaking peoples into the Wehrmacht Reich. At one point, the Sudeten had been part of Germany as was part of Poland (hence the invasion). The borders in this part of Europe were quite fluid. Hitler also wanted Alsace back.

What is interesting to note is that Hitler truly believed that the British would be his allies throughout his entire conquest. It was part of his plan to have them aboard, as he viewed them as being sort of the second-best thing to being Aryan (them being partly descended from a Germanic tribe).

As for the war with Iraq, I am unclear as to what Bush's precise motivations are there. I think it is wrong and is a mistake. It's just not clear to me at this time precisely why we went in. The story keeps changing. First it was WMD, but we know he doesn't have them now and we're not going afters that either do have them or are closer to having them (think North Korea). Then it was 9/11, but there are no real links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. There are links between Hamas and Iraq, but Hamas has never attacked Americans on U.S. soil. Then it's about liberating the Iraqis, but since when did we start liberating peoples? Are we now going after all brutal, oppressive dictators on a worldwide cleansing sweep? Anyway, I don't believe it was really about any of those things. Could it be to divert attention from internal problems? I think so, which is much the same reason I thought Clinton pre-emptively bombed Iraq (and you were wrong previously when you claimed we never pre-emptively attacked anyone under Clinton).

Where I think you really have something is with respect to the stripping of civil liberties. The rest of it is kind of nice window-dressing, and in certain instances false window-dressing, but the meat of it is the stripping of civil liberties (with respect to parallels and nothing else). And I do think we need to be hypervigilant to make sure we're not increasingly stripped of our civil liberties in the name of Homeland Security.

I do have reason to believe we won't necessarily be. I know you discount the cultural history theory I put forth, but I think you are mistaken to do so. Look around you at the governmental forms in place in most countries today and ask yourself how different they really are from ones they had for centuries. Where they are different, consider how recent that difference is and that the difference is towards more liberalization, not less. People's ideals of government and life do not easily change. If a country is used to having republican or parliamentary forms of government, they will generally retain those. If a country is used to an autocratic form of government, they will retain those more easily and have great struggles to reform towards something more liberal. Consider the problems in Russia. For centuries the Russians had an autocratic form of government. Why do you think the Revolution, with all its hopes of a more free form of government, devolved back to an autocracy? It was certainly not Lenin's intent to have an autocracy. But the Russians were used to it and took naturally to it. Do you think the British would have the same experience? Of course not, they are used to having limited government.

Consider China. They, too, had an autocratic form of government for centuries and still do. The Germans in 1933 were not far removed from the days of the Kaiser. The whole idea of a republic was foreign to them. It is not surprising that they easily slipped back into autocracy from their republic. Americans have never had an autocratic form of government. I do not believe we will easily devolve into one. I know you disagree with me, but I have valid, historical reasons for my theory.

Now something for you. What is your view of the things Hitler did in his first two years of power where there are no parallels?

1. Nazis declared only political party.

2. Laws passed to strip Jews of rights to serve in civil service or any government position, enroll in public schools, act as doctors in state-run institutions, attend cultural events, and be journalists (consider that as any group of people)

3. Public book-burnings

4. Hitler declares himself supreme judge of the German people after the "Night of the Long Knives" in which he ordered 74 people be shot by the Gestapo.