![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hitler et al. as threats to democracy
Nov. 21st, 2020 09:11 pmIn order to destroy a democracy from within, it seems, you need to be
wicked,
smart,
deemed useful,
serious, and
lucky.
Hitler gets 5 stars. Many respectable Germans who despised him nevertheless deemed him useful for combatting the red menace, and thought they could get rid of him if he became a nuisance; but he outsmarted them. He needed luck too, of course, but that was provided by the waffling of his opponents, notably Hindenburg.
Huey Long had a spectacular piece of bad luck, which made the other four qualifications moot. However, I don't think he was wicked enough, and I think FDR was smarter---and had no use for him. The reason I don't think he was wicked enough is not any particular evidence, but the mere fact that he was an American. Yes, I am an American exceptionalist (or, more exactly, an Anglophone exceptionalist---I am one of those who think of the Brits and the Canucks and the Ozzies as "not really foreigners"). There seem to be no world-class sons of bitches in this country. Try to think of one (J. Edgar Hoover?), and then think of a comparable Eurasian (Lavrenti P. Beriya!). There is no comparison.
Senator Joseph McCarthy was, I suppose, tolerably wicked & smart. He was not serious, however. He had no particular animosity toward Communists and in fact was elected with their help. He had no lust for power, but only for attention; he was an expert headline-grabber. He had the luck to light on antiCommunism as a means, at a time when the government was following Sen. Vandenberg's advice to "scare hell out of the American people" in gearing up for the Cold War, and when the liberal opposition was partially demoralized by the rebound from its romance with the USSR. More respectable people, including many who found him embarrassing, found him useful for that purpose and thought they could get rid of him when he had served it. Unlike the Germans who thought the same of Hitler, they were right. They gave him enough rope. Eventually he attacked people who could hit back---the army, the Protestant clergy, Harvard, etc.; after the resulting harumphs, he dried up & blew away.
And now we have Mr Trump. By American standards, he is pretty vile, tho admittedly in a very American way. I bring you the news that people who use "loser" as a term of abuse are morally depraved. They think life is a game in which they know the rules and are entitled to keep score. They can't imagine that losers might be more honorable than winners, or even that time & chance happeneth to them all.
He is stupid.
He is deemed useful by many Republicans (tho not quite so many as before) in that his antics distract the public from their depredations.
He is not serious. He is an attention addict like McCarthy.
And he came into a lot of money.
It probably won't happen here.
wicked,
smart,
deemed useful,
serious, and
lucky.
Hitler gets 5 stars. Many respectable Germans who despised him nevertheless deemed him useful for combatting the red menace, and thought they could get rid of him if he became a nuisance; but he outsmarted them. He needed luck too, of course, but that was provided by the waffling of his opponents, notably Hindenburg.
Huey Long had a spectacular piece of bad luck, which made the other four qualifications moot. However, I don't think he was wicked enough, and I think FDR was smarter---and had no use for him. The reason I don't think he was wicked enough is not any particular evidence, but the mere fact that he was an American. Yes, I am an American exceptionalist (or, more exactly, an Anglophone exceptionalist---I am one of those who think of the Brits and the Canucks and the Ozzies as "not really foreigners"). There seem to be no world-class sons of bitches in this country. Try to think of one (J. Edgar Hoover?), and then think of a comparable Eurasian (Lavrenti P. Beriya!). There is no comparison.
Senator Joseph McCarthy was, I suppose, tolerably wicked & smart. He was not serious, however. He had no particular animosity toward Communists and in fact was elected with their help. He had no lust for power, but only for attention; he was an expert headline-grabber. He had the luck to light on antiCommunism as a means, at a time when the government was following Sen. Vandenberg's advice to "scare hell out of the American people" in gearing up for the Cold War, and when the liberal opposition was partially demoralized by the rebound from its romance with the USSR. More respectable people, including many who found him embarrassing, found him useful for that purpose and thought they could get rid of him when he had served it. Unlike the Germans who thought the same of Hitler, they were right. They gave him enough rope. Eventually he attacked people who could hit back---the army, the Protestant clergy, Harvard, etc.; after the resulting harumphs, he dried up & blew away.
And now we have Mr Trump. By American standards, he is pretty vile, tho admittedly in a very American way. I bring you the news that people who use "loser" as a term of abuse are morally depraved. They think life is a game in which they know the rules and are entitled to keep score. They can't imagine that losers might be more honorable than winners, or even that time & chance happeneth to them all.
He is stupid.
He is deemed useful by many Republicans (tho not quite so many as before) in that his antics distract the public from their depredations.
He is not serious. He is an attention addict like McCarthy.
And he came into a lot of money.
It probably won't happen here.
