Hmm, interesting question. I think the defense tends to take the form of denial instead of an actual defense:
• With respect to all of all of Trump’s horrible words and behavior up to the election of 2016: his followers and fellow travelers made lots of excuses–“He’s joking!”–while denying that the behavior represented any sort of danger. There was a debate about Trump and his shit at this point, including among Republicans.
• During the administration itself, it was a mix of chaos, bad right-wing shit, and normalcy (note that there aren’t all that many Trump policies that Biden has reversed, such as his tariffs, though I am not saying those were good…), but Trump was not successful in consolidating power a la Hitler. There was certainly discussion about every.fucking.thing Trump said or did, but the fascism debate was mostly absent, understandably, since Trump wasn’t coherently moving in that direction.
• After the election, Trump went for broke and went full fascist, and he’s only emphasized how much he really wants to play evil dictator since then (“I am your retribution”–um, maybe not statesmanlike?!). So NOW is really when that debate should be ongoing, especially with the election looming. Oh, and like 10 different trials for this disgraced scumbag.
Web search of multiple sources show the time was months, not years:
January 1933 - Hitler comes Chancellor
February 1933 - Legislature burned; new elections called
March 1933 - Enabling Act makes Hitler dictator; Dachau opened to house political prisoners
April 1933 - Communist party banned; Jews removed from civil service
May 1933 - Trade unions abolished
Mussolini worked a bit slower, but I’m reading that several thousand were killed by fascist squads in his first year in power (1922), and he had the newspapers under control by the end of 1924.
Trump is far more like a Latin American caudillo than a fascist. Yes, that’s ironic given what he thinks of people from those countries.
Hitler also had to play nice with Hindenburg until the latter died in 1934, as the president had the legal power to sack the chancellor, and Hindenburg also could have turned the military against the regime.
Governors such as DeSantis say (and may genuinely feel) that they’re simply enacting the policies a majority of their state have voted to see enacted. If they’re democratically elected and just doing what their constituents want, how can that be fascism?
(Point out that Hitler was elected, too, and their argument is … beats me.)
With respect to January 6, we agree to run this country based on elections–always. There is no such thing, no matter how many people may want to do so, as throwing out elections and having a dictator. That’s a ground rule that Trump didn’t respect.
Hitler wasn’t a member of the Reichstag and so wasn’t elected to office himself. He was chosen by Hindenburg as chancellor based on pressure by Nazi and conservative party members of the Reichstag. Later, the Nazis would hold questionable* plebiscites to confirm that the people wanted Hitler to continue as Fürher, so at that point one could say that he had been “elected,” I suppose.
*Although the Nazis were never going to let Hitler lose in these plebiscites, he probably did enjoy majority popular support when they were held, sadly.
I was thinking more along the lines of the fascist-ish policies DeSantis (and other GOP governors have enacted in their states – drag show bans, erasing mentions of racism from school texts, etc. If accused of fascism, they can trot out the “democratically elected” defense.
OK, Hitler gained power through democratic means. #NotAHistoryBuff
This is done with dignity and gravitas, something of which Trump is incapable. Hitler is comforting the widows of those who died in the Putsch, and he doesn’t seem to be faking it. This is some good propaganda (for evil purposes, yes).
Further, the Nazis had a medal, their highest honor, to commemorate those who died or were wounded in the Putsch: Blood Order - Wikipedia.
The point being that the Nazis always celebrated this explicitly undemocratic means of taking power.
As to whether the Nazis used truly democratic means to take power is highly debatable. One example of an action that few would consider democratic is that when Hindenburg died in 1934, Hitler simply rolled the powers of the president into those of Führer. There was nothing in the German constitution that permitted this.
Also, people know about the Enabling Act of 1933 - Wikipedia, but fewer know about the Reichstag Fire Decree - Wikipedia, which Hindenburg signed as a presidential decree. This suspended most civil liberties and “softened up the target,” so to speak, before the Enabling Act was voted upon soon thereafter. One could argue the constitutionality of this decree, etc. etc.
Hitler certainly violated the letter of the Weimar constitution at times, but he was trampling on its spirit from the moment he became chancellor.
This.
The closest that we get to addressing a point is to whatabout it to the other side.
Even something less abstract, like white supremacy, say. In the aftermath of yet another white supremacist killer, who wanted us all to know the ideology that inspired him, how can anyone possibly deny it exists and is a problem? Well, easy: “…what I know about, is the racism of the left!”
They feel this way, and they’re right. The country they know is a racist, xenophobic, anti-gay, misogynistic oligarchy that pretends to be a nominal democracy. If it should turn into an actual democracy, their very existence would be tenuous.
If it should turn into an actual democracy, their very existence would be tenuous. position as unquestioned and undeserved top dogs would come to an abrupt end.
You can’t get people to “address” accusations of authoritarianism if that is exactly what they want. That would make as little sense as getting pro-lifers to “address” the fact that they are creating a country where abortion access is difficult.
Exactly. For a lot of the people we’re talking about here, I’m fairly certain that they see single-party rule (as long as it’s their party), and marginalization (if not outright criminalization) of dissent, of opposing political parties, and of “undesirables,” as a feature, not a bug.
“Just go back to the way things used to be, and have everyone quietly stay in their God-given place, and we can have THAT ‘democracy’ happily ever after.”
I heard a guy on the radio this morning say “If Trump can win in '24, the nation can return to normal and heal. If he looses, I truly feel it could be the end of our constitutional republic.” I couldn’t listen too long, but I never heard an explanation of what the Democrats would do that would be so dangerous. I guess it’s assumed that all his listeners already know that.
The important thing is to whip up fear. Even better if the thing to be afraid of is left unsaid. That lets each audience member pick their own personal bogeyman, whether it’s immigrants or blacks or crime or taxes or “morals” (spare me) or … to wind themselves into a quaking bundle of pure cowardice.
One more vote for this.
They usually never defend Trump, simply using an attack on him to try to attack his critics. They have nothing to offer, so they offer nothing.
