|
Articles:
Politics
The
Birth of Dictatorship
Impeach Bush, Part 2
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Political
parties in the United States have always been fluid, their
reigns both fragile and temporary. Parties develop in order
to further a core group of beliefs. They gain strength based
on the number of people who agree with the party and vote
for the party's candidates. A party can gain power, enjoy
success for a time, but eventually public opinion and support
shifts to another political ideology. In United States history,
no party has remained dominant for long. The beauty of our
system is that checks and balances among the branches of government
along with popular opinion ensure the balance of power that
is essential to democratic government.
But
what if a party isn't content with a balance of power? What
if they desire to ensure their party's dominance in spite
of popular opinion, and in the face of checks and balances?
What if they change the laws to suit their desires, to ensure
the longevity of their party, and to consolidate power in
the hands of a few like-minded individuals?
The
rise of the German Socialist Worker's Party, also known as
the Nazi party, in Germany in the 1930s is a fine example
of the manifestation and evolution of a young dictatorship.
It starts off with a small group of political ideologues who
decide to start a political movement. They speak about their
ideals, and other people agree with them. Support grows, and
a party is formed. They run candidates for public office,
win some elections, and in general have their ideals represented
in government operations. At this point, everything is running
normally. These events transpire in every democratic nation
of the world. It's what can come next that begins to get unsettling.
The
Nazi party gained support as described above. But it wasn't
enough for the leaders. They wanted to control every aspect
of the government, and wanted to ensure that they would retain
such control indefinitely.
One
of the primary means in their quest was the transformation
of the Prussian secret police into the Gestapo. As the domestic
enforcement arm of the Nazi party, the Gestapo's purpose was
to investigate and combat "all tendencies dangerous to
the State". This ambiguous role left the execution of
their goals open to abuse. In this role, the Gestapo conducted
surveillance against Germany's own citizens. Constantly seeking
out "unpatriotic" members of the public, they arrested
and detained political opponents. Early in the history of
the Gestapo, there was a system in place that checked their
power. Their actions were subject to judicial review. They
were also accountable in administrative courts where citizens
could sue the state to conform to laws. Recognizing the limitations
such checks placed on their power, Nazi leaders used their
elected officials to change the laws. They exempted the Gestapo
from both judicial oversight and from accountability in administrative
courts. These actions essentially gave the Gestapo, and ultimately
the Nazi party, the power to do whatever they wanted, whenever
they wanted.
It
was also during this time that the Nazi party consolidated
support among the public by driving a campaign of fear and
intolerance against foreigners, Jews, and anyone not considered
to be "normal". The party used a campaign of lies
to whip up a frenzy of anger against such people, accused
them of all of Germany's ills, and turned the majority against
them.
Additionally,
the Nazi leaders used this intolerance and fear to begin waging
war against their neighboring countries. Seeking the "just
domination" by their "superior nation", they
convinced the public to support military actions.
It's
at this point in time that we find United States history running
hauntingly parallel to German history.
First,
the Bush administration seeks to use domestic spying in an
effort to combat terrorism. They've worked to suspend judicial
oversight of such activities, for the sake of national security.
Second,
the dominant Republican party and their followers have accused
such groups as homosexuals, pro-choice advocates, middle-easterners,
and political opponents of being responsible for all of our
nation's problems. They seek legislation to curb their liberties.
Finally,
they used fear, intolerance, and deception to justify a war
in Iraq and gain public support.
Consider
the following quote:
Naturally,
the common people don't want war, but they can always be brought
to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and endangering
the country. It works the same in every country.
These
were the words of Nazi member Herman Goering at the Nuremburg
Trials. This quote is particularly disturbing because it foreshadowed
the Bush administration's actions that led us into war with
Iraq. They led the American people into believing Iraq presented
an immediate threat to our welfare, when it has now been proven
that they were not. They still carry out a campaign of denouncing
opponents to the war as "unpatriotic" and "un-American".
Currently, they claim anyone speaking out against the war
hurts the morale of troops and must therefore be "endangering
the country". Exactly how Goering put it sixty years
ago.
It's
what came next in German history that I hope we do not repeat
here. The Nazis began to use coercion and force against their
political opponents. They arrested and detained people at
will, with no real cause. People disappeared with no explanation.
They started rounding up political opponents and the minorities
they accused of causing their problems. The put them into
forced labor, into concentration camps, and started an organized
campaign of mass execution. They became the unquestioned,
unchallenged dominant party. They controlled all branches
of government, all aspects of its operation.
To
a lot of people, such a scenario here in America sounds ridiculous.
Looking back at the German people prior to the dominance of
the Nazis, they too thought such a nightmare was impossible.
But it happened there, and it can happen here. All we have
to do is sit back and let one party gain complete control
over our government, and then nothing can stop their will.
The
GOP has controlled the executive branch for six years. They've
also long been in control of the legislative branch. Now,
with the ascension of Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court,
the top of the judicial branch is now in conservative control.
The rest of the judicial branch is under fire from the GOP,
accused of "legislating from the bench" and generally
meddling with the actions of the executive and legislative
branches. Reality check: that's what they're supposed to do!
That's the concept of checks and balances, to prevent single-minded
dominance. If Republicans succeed in castrating the judicial
branch or molding it in their own image, they will have succeeded
in controlling all aspects of government. What comes after
that can be learned from studying 1930s German history.
Rather
ironic, since the GOP is supposed to hate big government.
The
German people could have prevented the rise of Hitler, the
dominance of the Nazis, years of world war and their own subjugation.
They could have stood up and opposed the consolidation of
power in one group, and in the hands of the few. They didn't,
and it led to disaster on a previously unseen scale. In the
interest of learning from our past, it's crucial that the
American people do everything in their power to prevent single-party
dominance.
The
Bush administration has used deception in order to gain support
for the war in Iraq. They violated the US Constitution by
having Congress transfer authority to declare war to the executive
branch. They've spied on our own citizens, violated our liberties,
and attempted to deny it. They've detained "enemy combatants"
indefinitely with no formal charges. Their party has waged
an organized and slanderous campaign against their opposition
in order to control all aspects of government. If Clinton
lying about adultery constituted the "high crimes and
misdemeanors" requisite for an impeachment, then the
actions of the current administration must certainly also
meet that requirement a thousand times over.
The
President must be held accountable for authorizing a program
that clearly violates the law and then misleading the country
about its existence and its legality. The President's actions,
as well as his misleading statements to both Congress and
the public about the program, demand a serious response. If
Congress does not censure the President, we will be tacitly
condoning his actions, and undermining both the separation
of powers and the rule of law. --Senator Russ Feingold,
3/13/06, asking the Senate to censure President Bush for his
authorization of an illegal wiretapping program and subsequent
deception about such activities
It
takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship,
but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.
Attacks on the judiciary by some Republican leaders pose a
direct threat to our constitutional freedoms. I am against
judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning. We
must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the
judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. --Former
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 3/10/06, speaking
on NPR concerning attempts by GOP leaders to control the judiciary
|
