By 1932 Adolf Hitler had risen to Chancellor of The Reich, a very powerful position in the German government.
He wasn't elected to the office as, in the 1932 presidential election, Hitler lost to the incumbent Paul Von Hindenburg. Hindenburg lead the right wing of German politics in 1932, but the left and moderate wings of the German political system joined forces with the right wing for the sole purpose defeating Adolf Hitler. It worked for the Germans in that election.
So many of us voted for John Kerry in 2004 simply to see George Bush defeated. Many of us are progressives. Kerry is a Democrat who was calling for an increase in troops in Iraq during the 2004 campaign.
We progressives so wanted George Bush defeated that we ignored the truly progressive candidates that year, Ralph Nader and The Green Party's David Cobb. It didn't work in the 2004 Former United States of America. Bush was elected, possibly with fewer popular votes than Kerry and possibly for the second time with fewer popular votes. We'll really never know.
But there stood Adolf, in the upper crust of the German government. No he was not president of the Reich, he was simply Chancellor of Germany.
Just as George Bush may never have truly been elected president of The FUSA, Hitler was never elected to the presidency of the Reich. When Hindenburg died in 1934, Hitler succeeded him by doing away with the presidency of the Reich and the Weimar Republic's constitution.
Bush still refers to himself as the president of The United States, but we've all heard him lust after a dictatorship in The FUSA, so long as he was the dictator. He certainly has been chipping away at the US Constitution, has he not?
The Reichstag Fire in 1933 gave Hitler an opportunity to scare the hell out of the German people. Hitler convinced the Germans that Communists and Jews were going to take over the German nation. He convinced the Germans that drastic times called for drastic measures. One of these measures was The Enabling Act which helped to implement Gleichschaltung, an initiative which consolidated power in a few elite hands at the top of the German government. This was no time for government bureaucracy to slow down needed actions to stop Germany from falling into the hands of terrorists such as the Communists and the Jews.
In initiatives in California during the past two elections, any social initiative meant to help those of lesser privilege was always rebuffed by whatever corporate giant would lose business due to the initiative by citing government bureaucracy and its incompetence and untimely method of implementing and facilitating such initiatives.
For example, the initiative in the 2006 election which would have set people in motion looking for alternative sources of fuel for California was going to create a "government bureaucracy" which would waste taxpayer money. The rebuke went on to say that those looking for alternative fuel sources could take this taxpayer money without promising results. They didn't even have to show progress in their endeavor.
That kind of propaganda is like making a sandwich. You take what you like and leave the rest. It's propaganda that chooses which parts of "the sandwich" we keep and which parts we don't like and, therefore, will not use. Some call it cherry picking and/or spinning truths until they sound absurd.
Just as many Americans sit back while The Regime gains more and more control over the government of The FUSA, Germans sat back while Hitler controlled the German government. Hitler placed himself in a position where he didn't need to use signing statements as Hindenburg did him the favor of dissolving The Reichstag before his death.
When there is a Reichstag or Parliament or Congress, signing papers becomes the best way to circumvent any law that the Congress may pass. The Regime doesn't always sign away the laws in toto. Sometimes it signs away parts that it doesn't like. Again, Bush is catering to his yearning to be an official dictator. This is as close as he's come so far. There's time yet.
German citizens supported Hitler's power grab because they needed a strong leader to ensure their safety, to protect them from the desire for world domination shared by the Communists and the Jews.
The Patriot Act is The Regime's Enabling Act and far too many Americans see the "need" for the Patriot Act. Like the Communists and the Jews in 1930s Germany, Fundamentalist Muslims, for no good reason, want to destroy America, America's allies and their own neighbors.
Just as Saddam Hussein shook the hand of Donald Rumsfeld in 1983, Neville Chamberlain shook the hand of Adolf Hitler in 1938. Hitler would later be the main driving force behind air attacks on London and the killing of British citizens.
Michael Bonanno is a published poet, essayist and musician who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. Some of his poetry can be found at The Poetry Corner at OpEdNews.He is an associate editor for OpEdNews.
Bonanno is a political progressive, not a Democratic Party apologist. He believes it's government's job to help the needy and that leaving the people's well being to the so called "private sector" is social suicide.His CDs may be purchased at CD Baby.
Perhaps Hussein had to be silenced as he knew too much....Now we will never know what he knew.
I believe that we are in a cycle, politically speaking, one in which we are swung to the right, and have been since the Reagan era. That man sowed the seeds for much of the destruction of our democratic processes and our economy as well. But I do believe that this pendulum will swing inevitably to the left, as it has before , several times in fact. It is sad that much death and chaos will continue before the swing occurs, very sad indeed.
How long it will take depends upon each one of us, how diligently we work to pull against the right, how much our consciences refuse to allow us to rest.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 6:20:06 PM
I'm glad that you point out that supporting the Democrats as the lesser evil is comparable to the citizens of Germany electing Hindenberg in 1932 as the lesser evil to Hitler. Ralph Nader was indeed the progressive alternative to the Democrats and Republicans. But "safe states" David Cobb with his stategy of only making a serious attempt to campaign in states where there was no chance of his throwing the election to the Republicans was merely a retread of the liberal strategy of supporting the Democrats as the lesser evil. His vice presidential running mate Pat LaMarche, is on record as saying she wasn't even going to vote for herself unless the polls predicted Kerry would win 70% of the vote in her state. Those Greens who cave in under the pressure of the liberals hysterical accusations that "You got Bush elected!" destroyed much of the progress towards an independent third party achieved in 2000 and it is still an open question whether their caving in will lead to the demise of the Green Party.
Robert Halfhill Green Party member and Nader supporter
by
rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 285 comments)
on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 3:03:52 AM
and I almost did in 02. I would encourage you not to give in to despair and continue to work towards the emergence of a third party presence on the national scene.
It is certainly slow work given the way the two so-called major parties have things all their own way, but it is necesary and important work also. We will see more relevent candidacies than La Marche's soon enough.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 7:24:47 AM
Some time ago, I jumped on a "Boxer For President" bandwagon. I even published a couple of letters I wrote to the good senator asking her to throw her hat into the ring.
When she traveled to Connecticut to support Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont, a true progressive, she proved to be a true Democrat and not necessarily a true progressive. I was disappointed and could no longer support her.
After almost totally disagreeing with John Kerry before Kerry's nomination in '04, Dennis Kucinich supported Kerry after Kerry was nominated. He said that "at least we have a chance (of progress) with Kerry." He said that voting for Nader, whose views lined up more with his own, would ensure a Republican victory. I hoped to show in the article that "voting against" a candidate is not necessarily successful. It's a whole lot more like running away from defeat than running toward victory. I would rather run toward victory than away from defeat.
He's once again running and my question is does he have a solid platform or is his platform so flexible as to support someone whose views he adamantly opposes just because that someone is a Democrat?
What would Kucinich do if he was ever elected president? Would he fight to get his initiatives like universal health care and his Department of Peace passed or would he succumb to the "realities" of congressional support (or lack thereof) after a feeble fight.
If all of the progressives in congress would either walk away from the Democratic Party and create a new party, maybe calling it The Populist Party or The Progressive Party (I know those names exist here and there) or would join the Green Party and if all of the people who say that they don't vote for Greens because a vote for Greens is a vote for Republicans, just imagine how strong the new progressive party or the Green Party would become?
As was mentioned, Green Party candidates have to start voting for themselves and the Green Party has to start taking itself seriously. The Green Party, in its methodology, is more like the Republican Party in that there is very little disagreement among its members. Unlike the Republican Party, Greens don't shut down opposition. They merely agree with one another for the most part. It should consider itself an opponent of the Democrats, not a supporter of some progressive Democrats.
As long as Democrats disagree among themselves on major, important issues like the Iraq occupation, universal health care and globalization, it's going to go nowhere – it can't.
We progressives need strong progressive candidates and, as long as progressive candidates need to battle for recognition within their own party, they're going to continue to be marginalized.
If progressives break with the professional political system, the system which includes both Democrats and Republicans and which takes corporate money under quid pro quo conditions, they will begin to be noticed and will stand out as viable alternatives.
What ever happened to the kind of courage shown by Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 or Eugene McCarthy in 1968 and 1972? They saw that the major parties were stale and actually in agreement with one another and struck out on their own. We need people with that kind of courage to take the political fight where ever it has to be taken today.
It's time to suck it up, break with the two professional parties and work our "way up" to legitimacy. We may take some whacks in the beginning, but at least we'll be seen as a force with which to be reckoned and not as the "liberal wing of the Democratic Party".
by
Michael Bonanno (85 articles, 19 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 123 comments)
on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 12:00:22 PM
The paragraph in the above comment which reads "If all of the progressives in congress would either walk away from the Democratic Party and create a new party, maybe calling it The Populist Party or The Progressive Party (I know those names exists here and there) or would join the Green Party and if all of the people who say that they don't vote for Greens because a vote for Greens is a vote for Republicans, just imagine how strong the new progressive party or the Green Party would become?"
should read
"If all of the progressives in congress would either walk away from the Democratic Party and create a new party, maybe calling it The Populist Party or The Progressive Party (I know those names exists here and there) or would join the Green Party and if all of the people who say that they don't vote for Greens because a vote for Greens is a vote for Republicans would start voting for Greens, just imagine how strong the new progressive party or the Green Party would become?
by
Michael Bonanno (85 articles, 19 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 123 comments)
on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 12:04:55 PM
6 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
