Crucial to distinguish between
-
People on the Right claiming the Kirk murder is an “American Reichstag fire” that justifies a massive crackdown on their political enemies is really remarkable, if you think it through: In this analogy, they are actively and affirmatively taking the side of the Nazis in 1933.
This builds on an idea that has been prevalent in rightwing circles for some time: That the country had reached its “Weimar America” period – meaning: A supposedly decadent society, ready to be wiped away by a strong leader who would restore order.
-
This builds on an idea that has been prevalent in rightwing circles for some time: That the country had reached its “Weimar America” period – meaning: A supposedly decadent society, ready to be wiped away by a strong leader who would restore order.
Once again, they were quite explicitly identifying with the Nazis in this analogy, as they were eagerly anticipating the collapse of that supposedly decadent democratic republic they despised so much. They have really been telling on themselves with the “late Weimar” talk.
-
Once again, they were quite explicitly identifying with the Nazis in this analogy, as they were eagerly anticipating the collapse of that supposedly decadent democratic republic they despised so much. They have really been telling on themselves with the “late Weimar” talk.
As a historical assessment, I do not think equating our moment with Germany in late February 1933 is plausible. To be very clear: That doesn’t mean our current situation isn’t acutely dangerous (it is!) – only that it is different in significant and illuminating ways.
-
As a historical assessment, I do not think equating our moment with Germany in late February 1933 is plausible. To be very clear: That doesn’t mean our current situation isn’t acutely dangerous (it is!) – only that it is different in significant and illuminating ways.
One difference: The Nazis had a clear pathway to instituting their comprehensive crackdown by relying on the emergency powers of Article 48 of the Weimar constitution. They used such a decree – the “Reichstag fire decree” – to abolish constitutional protections and civil liberties.
-
One difference: The Nazis had a clear pathway to instituting their comprehensive crackdown by relying on the emergency powers of Article 48 of the Weimar constitution. They used such a decree – the “Reichstag fire decree” – to abolish constitutional protections and civil liberties.
The key point: By early 1933, several consecutive governments had de facto ruled via such emergency decrees – it was an instrument that had defined the political reality in Weimar for years and had therefore become something that was widely accepted as normal and legitimate.
-
The key point: By early 1933, several consecutive governments had de facto ruled via such emergency decrees – it was an instrument that had defined the political reality in Weimar for years and had therefore become something that was widely accepted as normal and legitimate.
Another difference: The general level of crisis was much higher in Germany in 1933. The baseline level of political violence was much higher, and Germany was only just past the peak of the Global Depression with mass deprivation, mass unemployment, hyperinflation devastating the country.
-
Another difference: The general level of crisis was much higher in Germany in 1933. The baseline level of political violence was much higher, and Germany was only just past the peak of the Global Depression with mass deprivation, mass unemployment, hyperinflation devastating the country.
This all contributed to a situation in which there was a widespread desire, almost across the political spectrum, for someone to come in and wipe away the system. Much of the German population was just entirely done with the liberal democratic experiment.
-
This all contributed to a situation in which there was a widespread desire, almost across the political spectrum, for someone to come in and wipe away the system. Much of the German population was just entirely done with the liberal democratic experiment.
The idea that liberal democracy was just not working and simply not able to handle the challenges of modern mass society was widespread across the political spectrum – as was the sense that an authoritarian alternative was needed to get things back on track.
-
The idea that liberal democracy was just not working and simply not able to handle the challenges of modern mass society was widespread across the political spectrum – as was the sense that an authoritarian alternative was needed to get things back on track.
There was no consensus, of course, over whether that should be an authoritarian rightwing or an authoritarian leftwing alternative; but there were simply not enough people left at that point making an affirmative case *for* liberal democracy.
-
There was no consensus, of course, over whether that should be an authoritarian rightwing or an authoritarian leftwing alternative; but there were simply not enough people left at that point making an affirmative case *for* liberal democracy.
I do not think the United States, today, is in an equivalent situation: Yes, there is an immense level of frustration with a system that is indeed not working for many people. But in the European interwar period, people thought democracy itself *was* the problem - and far inferior to authoritarian alternatives.
-
I do not think the United States, today, is in an equivalent situation: Yes, there is an immense level of frustration with a system that is indeed not working for many people. But in the European interwar period, people thought democracy itself *was* the problem - and far inferior to authoritarian alternatives.
By contrast, it is not the case that a majority of Americans is considering authoritarianism to be a vastly superior form of ordering politics and society. Trump is unpopular; the militarization of cities is unpopular; I believe the ensuing crackdown on speech will be unpopular.
-
By contrast, it is not the case that a majority of Americans is considering authoritarianism to be a vastly superior form of ordering politics and society. Trump is unpopular; the militarization of cities is unpopular; I believe the ensuing crackdown on speech will be unpopular.
Within six weeks of the Reichstag fire, the Nazis arrested their political opponents, abolished most constitutional rights, state parliaments were brought under centralized control, and Hitler was given quasi-dictatorial powers to enact laws by himself. That’s not where America is today.
-
Within six weeks of the Reichstag fire, the Nazis arrested their political opponents, abolished most constitutional rights, state parliaments were brought under centralized control, and Hitler was given quasi-dictatorial powers to enact laws by himself. That’s not where America is today.
This doesn’t change the fact that we are in an acutely dangerous situation: The Trumpists are itching for further escalation – and meanwhile, business leaders and far too many civic institutions are choosing accommodation, acquiescence, active complicity.
-
This doesn’t change the fact that we are in an acutely dangerous situation: The Trumpists are itching for further escalation – and meanwhile, business leaders and far too many civic institutions are choosing accommodation, acquiescence, active complicity.
And yet, we must reject the projections of inevitability and strength coming from the Trumpists.
Being lawless doesn’t make them omnipotent.
America is now existing somewhere between democracy and fully established autocracy. Preemptive obedience and surrender is the fastest way to dictatorship.
-
K katharsisdrill@hub.volse.no shared this topic
T tokeriis@helvede.net shared this topic
