this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024
344 points (96.7% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3138 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 67 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Since 1930s Germany is mentioned, it also didn't really work there. Hitler only won with 35 percent of the popular vote. So Trump in the US is already more popular as Hitler was then.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That statement kind of elides the whole electoral and legislative structure of the Weimar Republic at the time, though. It was a parliamentary system (whose legislative body was - and was again, after the fall of the Third Reich - the Reichstag). So in point of fact, though the NSDAP (the Nazi Party) received a plurality of the votes in the WR’s last three elections, nobody “voted for Hitler”. So the analogy of political tribalism being leveraged by a fascist party with a fascist cult-of-personality head actually holds up a good bit better than the numbers you present here might lead one to assume.

It’s fair to point out that the NSDAP sort of formed around Hitler, where as the GOP (“Weimar” Republicans? Might have to start using that as a sneaky jab in conversation, hah) was subsumed by Trumpism, but all he really did was to turn the quiet parts of their platform up to 11 and emphasize populist and tribal (not as in “First Nation”) sentiments. However, I’d argue that that makes the GOP/Trump combination a good bit more insidious than the NSDAP - especially considering how much the GOP loves to lean on the technically-true-but-deeply-misleading line of “we’re the party that ended slavery”, since it utterly ignores the ideological shift of the party over the intervening 160 or so years.

Note: absolutely none of this should be construed in any way as Nazi apologia. It is simply a technical clarification on the system of government and the electoral and leadership-selection mechanics that existed in the Weimar Republic at the time.

[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

Absolutely correct, as a German it just irks me that the popular belief about Hitler Germany was that all Germans were in favour of it. Many very much weren't, at least at the beginning before all media was turned into a pure propaganda apparatus.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

France is a bit more analogous. The left had the most votes and Macron just appointed the conservatives to be Prime Minister.

[–] Blackout@fedia.io 20 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Kind of scary to think if we had parliamentary type elections Trump has a dedicated 35. There may be a larger coalition of liberal parties still but this election wouldn't be the moratorium of Trump as we hope it turns out. Him and his party would win a substantial amount of seats.

Then you see the example Macron in France just set. Overwhelming liberal victory and he's handing the PM spot to a very old, homophobic conservative.

[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Hitler could only take over because the conservatives were more afraid of the communists and thought they could control Hitler and use him. He used them instead.

Something similar seems to happen again now in Germany.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

~~Hitler~~ Trump could only take over because the conservatives were more afraid of the ~~communists~~ the left and thought they could control ~~Hitler~~ Trump and use him. He used them instead.

As the other comment or noted, that still works for trump. That's basically 2016 in a nutshell

[–] Blackout@fedia.io 11 points 2 months ago

That kind of talk has been consistent with the conservatives now too. The big bad scary socialist coming to the white house to destroy the economy. Same playbook. My point stands

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Hitler only became Chancellor because "moderates" were more afraid to form a coalition with leftists than allow a fascist to rise to power. Sound familiar?

If we had a parliamentary system, we would have been able to organize a much larger coalition against Trump, especially the second time around.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Most people don't realize this. You might enjoy this book:

Takeover: HITLER'S FINAL RISE TO POWER

It's frightening to realize how the nazis were barely clinging to power and almost disappeared before becoming dominant. We're right there now.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

There's nothing more dangerous than a cornered animal as they say...