Republicans: still conservatives or just theo-fascists?

Post Reply New Topic

This is kind of the problem when a religion is a death cult.

Absolutely.
And the thing is, they just don't want to keep their theology to themselves, but absolutely believe that they have to shove it down the rest of our throats. They even claim that mainline Christians like myself aren't really saved for not clinging to their end of the world idiocy.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I am a bit late to the party, but I have just joined this forum.

I would first like to comment on some of the posts that started this discussion about the GOP and the Nazi Party. George Santayana said, "those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." If you really want to be frightened by the way the country, especially the GOP/Tea Party, then read some of Adolf Hitler's speeches on his rise to power and compare them to the speeches being made by the GOP/Tea Party. There is talk about their image being darkened by their part in the War. There was talk about getting to christian values and getting out from under the thumb of the Jewish. The was talk about low employment, low wages, and failing economy.

Next about the Healthcare reform. It is simply the right thing to do, it is just that the most ill conceived plan was put forth to address the problem.

Finally, a large part of the problem has been created by the corruption of the education system. Ideally the education system is to not only educate upon simple facts, but more importantly to teach how to think. But if we teach people how to think then they cannot be easily manipulated and led. It has been systematically pounded into the school system by political powers, in the interest of the wealthy, that critical thought is eliminated from the curriculum. The teaching to think is to be reserved for the elite, and should be shut down in anyone of lesser worth. Of course these things are always couched in much better terms such as "No Child Left Behind." That is a great campaign slogan, but is a crime against education. This said as one that is completing my education degree and about to start my Masters of Arts in Education. Occasionally there comes someone forward trying to get education on a proper path again, but it is always shut down, often with extreme prejudice.

Just my thoughts on the issue. I could go on all night.

Hitler's program had an openly and positively antidemocratic core; not arguably autoritarian nuances (do the Republicans even have those?). It was also rather antireligious, and was, in a way, revolutionnary; he wanted to mould a new society. Hitler also hated industrial leaders and rich people in general; and he would have rather avoided that anyone learn to think, especially not the elite.

Also, FDR was elected on "low employment, low wages, and failing economy" too, so was every British and Canadian government during the period, and I sense it was a main theme... everywhere. You see, the Great Depression was quite the issue, and everyone was talking about it. The KPD and the SPD talked about those issues, the DNVP too, so did the Zentrum and the Social Democrats, etc. If you didn't notice, there is a bit of an economic issue right now too, so the right thing to learn from history would be this: "When the economy goes badly, it becomes an electoral issue."

Not that I like the Republicans, but they are not Nazis, and they are not fascists. They are just stupid.

Agreed, the Republicans are not Nazis, but just stupid - and hard hearted, might I add. Accusing your rivals of being Nazis is popular, but it's clearly hyperbolic and just plain wrong. No one are Nazis, but the Nazis.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

citing two of the richest women in the world does not contradict the phrase "almost impossible." They are literally two in more than 6 billion: similar odds to winning the lottery.

Many think that due to "Godwin's law" that any comparison to Nazis is an automatic loss, but that is only part of the law. Many arguments are weakened when there is not specific correlation between the two comparisons. I am not saying that the GOP/Tea Party are Nazis, I am saying that their speeches and Hitler's speeches on his rise to power are very similar. From your responses, especially the one saying that they were anti-religion, I can assess that you have not actually read the speeches. Once you have actually read the speeches, and then disagree you may be better able to make arguments. However, I am not saying that the speeches are exactly the same, only eerily similar. After all, the GOP/Tea Party are not against the Jews, but some could be said to be against any not-Christian. They may not be against the rich or the industrial powers, but they are against any that have power other than them. And the GOP/Tea Party is even more against thought and the ability to think than the Nazi party ever was.

To be sure, the tea party and the GOP aren't overtly Antisemitic - because they're pretty much all sold on the notion that for Christ to return, the modern political state of Israel has to be in existence. And it is certainly true that the Nazis, as with the tea baggers, there's an emphasis on the nation's past glory and traditional values, along with posing as populists - even though the wealthy would be the ones to reap the fruit of their labors.
Again, only the Nazis were the Nazis, but conservative movements all have similar strategies and propaganda.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

As Hitler was against anything that challenged or overshadowed his own personnal power, including his Nazi underlings, and the Republicans are still a political party that democratically chooses its contender, I think your comparisons are pure nonsense. Just read about the Night of Long Knives, when Hitler executed without trial the heads of a branch of his own party (the Sturmabteilung), and the internal struggles Hitler orchestrated between branches of government with overlapping functions (SA and SS, Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS, OKW and OKH, and so on) and between his leading ministers and advisors (Borman, Goering, Himmler, etc.), and you will see how much the Nazis were different from the Republicans.

Of course there are similarities; there are similarities between all political parties because all political parties are, well... political parties. There are similarities between all political speeches because it is the same medium, because they are all ridden with half-truths, emotional appeals and prejudices. Hitler and the Republicans have populist tendencies, but so do many other groups, many of which are leftist.

I mean... the last time I cared, Bush was a pro-Israel zealot, was he not? I think it is irreconciable with the NSDAP's agenda, unless you count that Madagascar silliness.

Stop trying that comparison. It doesn't work. There are many legitimate reason not to like the Republicans; work on those, not on perceived similarity to other groups whom everyone hates.

EDIT:


I'm not sure I agree. Hitler glorified the "race"'s past, but... it really isn't the same as what the Republicans seem to do. He prefered the very far mythical past to the recent "historical" one, and despised the German Empire and its associated symbolism (such as the imperial flag), even though he hated liberalism even more. As I said, his ideal was more something new, inspired by some traditonnal aspects, than simply "traditionnal values". His ideal society was still industrial, not agrarian, as most traditionnalist groups supported at that time.

(Otherwise, I should learn to post more quickly, because you said the same things as I did.)

Not all republicans are crazy. The trick with the far right is they put someone in public who says incredibly crazy things, and then bring out a "normal" right winger to split the difference with the crazy and appear like a moderate. That progressively moves the conversation right.

Shill A: Women need to live in cages with monkeys. We'll let them out to breed and cook.

Shill B: That's a little extreme, women should never be caged for more than 3 hours a day. (crowd applauds his moderation).

I believe that we agree more than we disagree, but the point that seems to come between is the term Nazi. I did not say that the GOP/Tea Party were Nazi, and I was not trying to compare them to what the Nazi Party did over the term. What I was referencing was the similarity to the current GOP/Tea Party's rhetoric and the rhetoric used by an early Adolf Hitler. To say that just because they are not the exact same, and therefore not dangerous is in my opinion naive. When Adolf rose to power he was saying what many wanted to hear, he stirred up the zealots and those unable to think for themselves. Now, think about the situation today. How much of the public do you honestly believe has the capability of thinking for itself, or the desire to do so? Then you have the current GOP/TP preaching to encourage zealotry in the name of Christian values. It is not only about the similarities of speech, which I agree that many use elements of, but it is a question of degree and circumstance. Conditions are ripe, the water has slowly come to boil on the frog, and times can turn ugly if the few of us that can think refuse to do so.

Amen

I believe they are dangerous, but my standard of comparisonis Stephen Harper, not Hitler. The Nazis do not come into the picture at all. (Compare them for our Conservatives all you want, though, it is an adequate comparison.)

ALL elected leaders tell people what they want to hear. Even those who lose do that. That is called "trying to win an election".

It is unlikely that a Republican president would do more than four years of economic, diplomatic, ecological and just general catastrophy -- and even that depends. They would not seize power and end the democratic system in America, because, for one thing, I don't think they want to, and I am certain they would fail.

I have seen six years of Stephen Harper, and he hasn't abolished democracy, and even though I disagree with him, he is nothing more than a prime minister I whom I dislike, and with whose policy I disagree, and against whom I will vote at the first occasion.

I agree that, one, they may not want to see democracy end and two that they would be successful in bringing it to an end. However, is the second more to do with there just being enough people that can think to keep that from happening, or do you think the system is just that strong? Honestly, I do not put too much faith in the strength of the system. I believe that it would be more due to those few that are capable of thought and willing to stand up that would keep complete chaos from ensuing.

I do not believe that the GOP/TP would be able to do one tenth of what they propose, but even that 10% is dangerous. What is the greater tragedy is that there are so many that want to hear the drivel the GOP/TP spews. Unfortunately my father is one of the brain dead that gobbles up this putrificatation as clotted cream. It is the surge of the unthinking that is the greatest problem.

Better the Republicans should be like me -- very intelligent and hard hearted.

ruveyn

All political systems are, by themselves, too weak to survive on their own if they do not reflect the society on which they are built.

To continue the comparison... In Germany, the Nazis took over an unpopular republic that was had only lasted fifteen years of impotency and instability, and the achivements of which were overshadowed by its controversial creation, after an unrecognized military defeat and an unfair peace treaty, and economic difficulties in quick succession, in a society that was yet divided about democracy even in principle, and hardly supportive in practice, and that was just struck by a major global economic meltdown. Also, they were brought to power by inept opponents and half-allies who thought they could control or use them, like Franz von Papen, the DNVP and the Reichswehr. (Spoiler: it failed.) This hardly applies to the United States.

To be honest, the people "capable of thought and willing to stand up" for democracy, liberalism and other nice words are those who put in place the Weimar government. It could have worked; it failed. There are stronger forces at work than pure goodwill.

In any case, people overestimate the power of any government. As I said, there are stronger forces at work. They might put into law 10% of what they want, but half of that will be inconsequential or fail through inefficiency and waste, half of what remains will be ignored, and most of the 2,5% would be reversed by the next president.