If Hitler had intended from the very beginning to install a small elite group of supporters in a position of authority in a democratic country, which mostly disagreed with his basic premise that only a limited number of citizens were qualified to run the affairs of state, would it have been a wise course of action for him to candidly admit from the start what his ultimate goal was; or would it have been more expedient for him to do a bit of prevaricating and then use the principles of democracy to subvert the very system of government which he was trying to eliminate?
Didn't he explain in detail, before he started in earnest, how he would achieve his nefarious objective by reducing all issues down, via à ¼ber-simplification, to a basic slogan and then coast to an easy win? Were some Germans caught off guard when he did exactly what he said he was going to do?
If a country had a political party that had openly announced that they swore allegiance to the country's flag and were fully committed to returning to that country's founding principles; would anyone who fully understands the meaning of the word "Republic" really be surprised to learn that such a party was working to disenfranchise citizens they deemed ineligible to vote?
Could they secretly have a broad mental reservation about not being obliged to adhere to election results that they considered invalid? If they did, could they openly announce an effort to challenge the system's validity or would it be better for their ultimate goal if they ostensibly asserted that democratic values were so important that they would send their kids into battle to earn and keep those principles, while secretly working to restore the right to vote only to men who owned land?
Obviously their efforts would initially be better served by very loud assertions of their belief in the method they hoped would become obsolete rather than being so crass and blunt as to proclaim: "Vote for us so we can disenfranchise you!"
Reducing the issues down to absurdly simplistic slogans (as Don Imus would say: "bumper sticker it for me.") might seem to streamline the debate, but more often than not it means "the lowest common denominator" rather than providing "a level playing field."
For example could a pseudo intellectual liberal pundit who resorts to long complex sentences, with subordinate relatives clauses and numerous prepositional phrases which would challenge a tea bagger's analytical ability and stymie any effort to correctly diagram it on the chalkboard, be dismissed by a diabolical troll for being "rambling and incoherent"? Surely Hitler would bestow kudos for such a "slip the punch" response.
In the film "Point Break," the surfing guru Bodhi (Patrick Swayze) advises an FBI agent: "Think it through, Johnny." In politics the conservatives prefer to toss out a hot potato and offer the advice "Think fast!" with an accompanying smirk.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
