Here are some specific things that Trump has done that are very similar to Hitler:
1. Created a narrative via dog whistles that white folks are actual victims in this country in the hands of minorities, immigrants, BLM etc. A strong undercurrent of "us" vs. "them" narrative. As a result a significant portion of Republicans believe that white people are more discriminated in this country
2. Undermined free press with constant attacks and going so far and creating his own news network - a clear propaganda approach
3. Allowed the FCC to enable Sinclair broadcasting takeover of local news media, creating a powerful propaganda arm in the form of local news
4. Undermined democracy via nepotism and nominating unqualified family members to important positions
5. Brutally attack critics in an attempt to shut down criticism
Ooh! This is fun. The "how someone is just like Hitler game." I know this game.
Here's my entry: 5 things Barack Obama did that were very similar to Adolf Hitler:
1. Assumed a populist mantra of taking back government from corrupt politicians ("change you can believe in" "not beholden to special interests")
2. Employed blitzkrieg tactics against unsuspecting and peaceful nations (Hitler: Poland; Obama: Libya)
3. Armed and funded radical revolutionaries in other nations in hopes of governmental overthrow and replacement by sympathetic new governments (Hitler: Spain; Obama: Ukraine, Syria, Iran; the Arab Spring more generally)
4. Designed a national healthcare system with a close analogue in Hitler's national socialist healthcare
5. Used inspiring rhetoric to distract from policies unpopular among the majority of the electorate (such as Obama's transgender bathroom policies, which almost 2/3 of Americans disliked)
Who should we do next? I'm thinking challenge round: either Bono, Hulk Hogan, or the Dalia Lama.
1.) That might be populist opinion but surely is not comparable to what Hitler did. Or do you seriously claim that people like Sanders, Warren use the same rhetoric as Hitler? That's ridiculous. Hitler was blaming Jews and other minorities and the Versailles treaty for the bad economic situation in Germany. Interestingly Trump is doing the same thing (Nafta, China, Mexicans etc)
2.) The overthrow of the Libyen regime was mainly pushed and pursued by us Europeans (France, England, etc). The USA was in the beginning hesitant and eventually participated. Just to make clear: This was a stupid decision and Obama also admitted this as his worst mistake. Hitler never admitted a mistake or defeat (see Leningrad). Guess what Trump also does not admit
3.) Sorry, but that's part of geopolitics (just to make it clear: It's actually the reason why half of the world is fucked up by wars) and almost every powerful nation has done this in the past and will do this in future. So not sure what you are comparing here.
4.) So then almost all of Europe must have a Nazi healthcare system? Hitler was also a fascist and thus more an ally of corporations, banks and companies than of the people. Some of his policies could have been mistaken as socialist but in reality they were part of his plan to please the population (construction of highways, pumping money into the economy for short term gain). His entire ideology was built around a super-race and elites which is quite the opposite what a "socialist" healthcare system is all about.
5.) Citation needed for the fact that 2/3 of Americans dislike transgender bathrooms. Trump's policies (taxes, healthcare) are so unpopular that he can't even pass them with a Republican Senate and House. Apart from that Hitler tapped into a huge antisemitic sentiment that was carried by a wide majority of people. If that hadn't been the case, he would have never be able to create his Nazi regime. I also think this is the main difference to today. The alt-right, KKK and Nazi clowns are a minority - a loud one - but still a minority. So I don't think that we are facing another Nazi regime.
Nevertheless you can clearly see similarities between Trump and Hitler behavior. The only difference is that Trump lacks the intellectual capacity (maybe Bannon has it) in order to pull something off that Hitler had done.
I don't think there is a game to know in this instance. Failing to recognize authoritian leaders and their often zealous followers has killed far to many people through history to be dismissed easily. Hopefully Trump is not either one of them, or paving the way for one, but it's certainly no game.
I'm sure Obama did things wrong, but all that has already happened, and I fail to see how it's even remotely relevant to actual current events, and it doesn't in any way refute what the parent poster wrote.
Well, you are really reaching there. Hitler liked Beethoven and so did Obama is not a valid comparison. I gave specific examples of undermining democracy. Building a healthcare system is not undermining democracy nor is bombing Libya. Bombing foreign countries is an American tradition like Football on Sunday
Here's the key quote
"The moves, which include easing a cap on how many stations a broadcaster can own, have opened up lucrative opportunities for Mr. Smith, among them a $3.9 billion bid to buy Tribune Media, another large owner of stations."
For starters, he has singled out a religious minority for persecution (Muslims instead of Jews this time), endorsed the use of violence to silence political opponents and protesters, and encouraged law enforcement to use violence against suspects.
Oh, he also failed to do anything about it when a foreign government (Turkey) used violence against protestors on American soil. Hitler never had the opportunity to do that, but he surely would have approved.
By putting people in 'groups' and having those who support him also enforce this idea that we're all in separate groups and need to look out for own little group--this is how fascism grows, this is how hitler took over Germany, this is how a new Hitler figure could take over America too... It's not outside the realm of possibility sure Germans in 1900 couldn't forsee the horrors of 1940.
I know. I just found it amusing to read it like that. And even though using the term "both sides" has now become tricky, I think indeed left and right have done their fair share to make it come to the situation we are in, with constant hyperbole and hysteria and grandstanding in the media, rather than discussing issues (which probably still happens, one would hope, but it does not make it to the front pages any more).
"Supreme Court opinions decide only the individual case before the court, Lincoln argued. They do not bind members of Congress or the President in their political actions. It was thus proper for the other branches of government — and for the people — to resist wrong and harmful decisions of the Supreme Court and to seek to have them reversed and overturned. That was simply part of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances. …"
Hitler placed almost all of the blame for German hardships on the 1% (racial stereotype: Jews). This may also be a good time to point out that Nazi stands for National Socialist.
Nazis were not socialists, that was optics. The Nazi party actually got into power in a reaction to an attack that was blamed on communists (burning of the reichstag). Whether it was actually communists, or a false flag by the Nazis to seize power is an ongoing debate without enough evidence either way. What is a matter of record is that the very first thing the Nazis did after seizing power was to round up all the communists, and communist sympathizers (or political rivals they could accuse of being communist sympathizers) and arrest them.
Communists were globalist socialists and the Nazis were nationalist socialists. Hitler went after the communists because he felt they wanted to subjugate Germans under an international Jewish global finance regime (1%ers again).
Hitler was just a hair to the right of Stalin. Sure, the nazis did some union busting but that's only because they viewed the unions as stealing loyalty from the state. However, the Nazis had the same redistributive ideology of the Communists. Only the communists focused on class while Nazis focused on race. Nazis separated church and state. Germany had universal healthcare and demanded the state be responsible for providing jobs rather than the free market. Today, we'd call this a "jobs program." Nazis were into eugenics. Guess what country just managed to rid itself of 100% of down syndrome babies via abortion? Socialist leaning Iceland.
I mean, what did Hitler do exactly to redirect the party that you see as not being socialist?
> I mean, what did Hitler do exactly to redirect the party that you see as not being socialist?
Among the more obvious things, displaced the focus on levelling social and class heirarchy with imposition of the heirarchical doctrine of Führerprinzip, and abandoning any substantive pursuit of the platform plank for confiscation of all non-labor income, and maintaining a robust insistence on the importance of private property and private initiative in industry.
>imposition of the heirarchical doctrine of Führerprinzip
Communists were globalist socialists, Nazis are nationalist socialist. The imposition of the Führerprinzip was pulling power away from the global political regimes supported by the communists into the German one. It's nearly irrelevant with respect to the socialist bit, it's all about the globalist vs nationalist.
>and abandoning any substantive pursuit of the platform plank for confiscation of all non-labor income
What do you think the killing of all those Jews was about? The Jews were stereotypically the wealthy bankers, the 1%ers in today's parlance. One of the first things Hitler did after taking power was run around killing all the communists. Why? Because he believed that the communists wanted to turn over power to international finance regimes (Jewish 1%ers). Obviously the murdering and the racism bits are the key factors for why we hate the Nazis. But murdering and racism aren't what determines whether something is socialist. This was definitely socialism implemented through the eye of a racist.
I'll grant you that Hitler was a hair to the right of Stalin. There was a ghost of private property ownership but the substantive powers of property ownership were held by the government, not by private owners. The government determined what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was distributed, as well as what prices could be charged and what wages would be paid. Does that sound like private property ownership or capitalism or a free market to you? It certainly doesn't sound like it to me.
Well, vaguely revisionist history aside, that was at least part of what the civil war was over. The southern states were upset that the constitution in the case of slavery could override their state powers and ban slavery. The confederate states wanted to rewrite the constitution to strip the federal government of essentially all powers except the power to wage war and the regulation of interstate commerce, essentially blocking it from having any impact on the activities wholly within a state. The Union states of course wanted to keep the constitution as it was (or even strengthen it), that is giving the federal government veto power over states and the ability to enforce human rights guaranteed by the constitution. Thus in one sense the civil war was a fight over a weak vs. strong federal government. When making that argument though it's important not to downplay the importance of slavery as a motivating factor for the confederate states. Many revisionist white supremacists try to make that argument as a way of whitewashing the confederate states actions and trying to re-frame the confederate states motivations as being non-racist, when they were anything but.
> This may also be a good time to point out that Nazi stands for National Socialist.
Not without also pointing out that not only are political party names often misleading, and also that the “National Socialist German Workers Party” name was with the party before Hitler and his gang took over the party and threw out its old platform, specifically getting rid of the socialist bits.
What socialist bits, exactly, do you believe Hitler's Nazis got rid of? Did they get rid of nationalized healthcare? Nope. Did they get rid of the idea that the government, not the free market, had the responsibility of providing you with a job? Nope. Did they get rid of political redistribution of wealth? Definitely not, they just focused more on race while the communists focused on class. Did they have the same beliefs in eugenics that has modern Socialist leaning Iceland ridding itself of 100% of its down syndrome babies via abortion? Yep. Now the Nazis did do some union busting but that's only because they thought unions would steal loyalty from the state. Did they get rid of any socialist bits?
The Weimar Republic (German Government Prior to Hitler) was a socialist country. The parties that countered the socialists were the communists, the people who supported the old monarchy, and the Nazis.
Hitler didn't bring socialism to Germany. The party introduced extreme nationalism.
If you're suggesting that Hitler also placed all of the blame on immigrants, you must mistakenly believe that the Jewish people were immigrants to Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe. This was not the case. The Jewish victims of the Holocaust were targeted for being Jewish, not because they hadn't been born within certain borders.
Trump's attacks on both Muslims and Hispanics have not been restricted to immigrants (though in the latter case the attack on non-immigrants has been based on their presumed alignment with immigrants of the same ethnicity.) Like Hitler's attacks on, among others, Jews they are treated as alien others even when not immigrants.
Trump isn't going after immigrants, he is going after brown people and more generally non-white people. It doesn't matter to him if they were born here or came here.
