Posted on 07/06/2013 3:58:03 PM PDT by neverdem
“Simply put, the American people are expected to legitimize their tyrants with elections”, which is what we did last election.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Didn’t OBOZO tell his ‘hand picked’ government in Egypt they must listen to the ‘will of the people’?
Does than mean that if we could ‘muster up’ 30 or 40 million people to PEACEFULLY march on 1600 PA AVE he would abdicate the throne?
Of course, the press being what it is, we would have to gather 100 million people to get the Liberal Media to acknowledge ‘we’ had 30 million present.
‘Calypso Louie’ gets maybe 300 thou and it is called a ‘Million man march’..
The Moslem brotherhood's rise reminds me of the Bolsheviks in 1917 and the Ayatollah in 1979
In both cases, a dictator is overthrown by a rag-tag bunch of opposition forces, but then the most ruthless and fanatical party defeats the others because it has a strong core-message even if in raw numbers it is smaller than the others
I’m sorry, but by that standards (MSM in the USA), the USA doesn’t stand a chance of keeping it’s democratic values....
It would be more accurate to say the Nazis rose to power via democracy. In the Weimar Republic, with its multitude of parties, NO party ever won an actual majority.
The 44% won by the Nazis was the largest vote for any party in the history of the WR.
Look where the USA is and where it's going. We don't stand a chance.
It seems to me that hairs are being split here. The statement, “The 44% won by the Nazis was the largest vote for any party in the history of the WR,” doesn’t mean very much in view of the actual amount of time the Republic lasted ... by then just over 13 years. Hitler came to power through a plurality, as I said.
What is remarkable is how divided Germany was along political, social, and economical lines. Because someone actually put forth a concrete plan to the voters for the nation to go forward in a united fashion, as under the old monarchy, the plan itself was not examined too carefully. Suffice it to say that “hope and change” would have worked just fine as a slogan for the NSDAP platform of 1933.
Any kind of a plan in the midst of chaos looks pretty good. Unfortunately, there was no mechanism in place to allow the voters to fine tune the plan. And Hitler had no intention of letting anyone fine tune anything. In this the comparison to the events in Egypt is not far off the mark. Someone put forward a plan in the midst of chaos. It was a plan that, as also in 1930’s Weimar Germany, tugged on certain of the nation’s religio-historical heartstrings in order to deliver power to one party, which itself never had any intention of either sharing power with anyone else ever or of being servants of the people.
In a sense, Egypt really dodged a bullet, considering Morsi won a significant majority of votes. Unfortunately, there are more bullets coming.
I quite agree. In fact, it would make a fine slogan for any of the evil dictators of the past (or present).
Possibly I'm reading something into your comments that you're not actually implying, but often when people say the Nazis got "only" 44% of the vote, they are trying to imply 56% were opposed to the Nazis, which is what it would mean in USA with our basically two-party system.
The Nazis got 44%, while their allies the German National People's Party, the actual conservatives (a very different conservatism from the American version) got 8%. So they had a majority right there.
The Socialists and the Commies got 31%, and they were the only two parties drastically opposed to the Nazis.
The remaining 12% was split up among smaller parties, the Bavarian Party of which was closer to the Nazis than to their real opponents, and the Centre Party (Catholics) of whom were willing to cut a deal. Or thought they were.
You may be entirely correct to say I'm picking a nit, but I think it is a legitimate nit. My point is that Hitler and the Nazis came to power via democratic means, and got a considerably larger mandate for "hope and change" than any other party or leader had ever gotten in the 7 (more or less) free elections held by the Weimar Republic.
Hitler's power was democratically legitimate. Once he got that power, he promptly dispensed with the democracy, but his rise to power was quite democratic.
Well, I don’t see that we have much to disagree about ... mostly just word choices. But, as a historical note, to be counted among the conservatives you say were allied to the Nazis (not quite) were many if not most of the people who later attempted to assassinate Hitler. Their attraction to the Nazis, if such it can be said to be, was chiefly based on their aversion to the communists rather than their affinity to the Nazis ... as time would show.
Quite true. However, it is also fair to point out that their "opposition" to Hitler didn't go beyond the grumbling stage until the Nazis weere clearly losing the war. IOW, they weren't opposed to the Nazis as much as to being invaded and occupied by commies.
Which is entirely understandable but doesn't make them paragons of morality either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.