Archive for the ‘Democracy’ Category

How the EU uses migration to batter democracy – Spiked

And it wasnt just the mishandling of the migrant crisis, fuelled by EU member states destabilisation of the Middle East and exacerbated by Angela Merkels decision to throw open Germanys borders to refugees, that forced the EUs hand. The detentions, the deportations and the grubby deals with Third World dictators have been going on for years. In August 2010, Muammar Gaddafi met with the EU to strike a deal aimed at avoiding, in his words, a black Europe. The EU offered Libya 50million over three years, to stop Africans and Arabs crossing the Mediterranean. Everyone knew this was going on. In 2014, Amnesty International criticised the EU for outsourcing migration control to Turkey, Morocco and Libya.

Leavers should take no lectures about immigration, openness and egalitarianism from supporters of this brutal institution. The chaos across Europes borders gives the lie to the neat divide between inward-looking Leavers and open-minded Remainers. If these people were so compassionate, so open to outsiders, how can they stomach whats going on? And isnt it suspicious that a political elite that cares little for liberal values, which across Europe bans hate speech, e-cigs and, er, power vacuum cleaners, has suddenly discovered a passion for freedom? Indeed, for the most controversial and potentially disruptive freedom there is: the freedom to move, work, live and flourish in different parts of the world. Clearly, they never gave a damn about it in the first place.

Given their horrendous track record on migration, what are we to make of the EUs and leading Remainers sudden interest in defending migration against what they see as backward Brexiteers? This is where their behaviour becomes deeply cynical. They are interested in free movement now only insofar as it can be used to dilute democracy. Weve glimpsed that in the wake of the Brexit vote: immigration has become the primary means through which Leavers are deligitimised, their 17.4million-strong vote for greater democracy reduced to a nativist howl. But it runs deeper than that. The dissolving of borders between European nations, enshrined in the EUs four freedoms, and its imposition of non-EU-migrant quotas on member states, look more and more like an expression and institutionalisation of disdain for the ideal and practice of national sovereignty. The attack on borders is really an attack on the democracies, and the democratic citizens, contained within them. Migration, scandalously, is now used as a weapon in that attack.

No one benefits from this. Turning migrants into battering rams against any sense of attachment to sovereign principles, against the right of nations to control their borders, is a recipe for conflict. It pits migration against national democracy. For those of us committed to free movement, this weaponisation of immigration is a tragedy. Its clouded the issue. Immigration is no longer a question of freedom but an instrument of elite control, used to burnish politicians moral credibility, fulfil treaties and batter the native demos. Its taken immigration out of the publics hands and in doing so turned it into a symbol of peoples feelings of disorientation and lack of control. The real divide in Britain, and across Europe, is not between open-hearted liberals and fearful nativists its between democratic citizens and the elitists who loathe them. Its only by embracing democracy that we can demystify free movement, and reclaim it from its phoney defenders.

Tom Slater is deputy editor at spiked. Follow him on Twitter: @Tom_Slater_

For permission to republish spiked articles, please contact Viv Regan.

Visit link:
How the EU uses migration to batter democracy - Spiked

Leaders for Democracy Fellows arrive on Grounds – University of Virginia The Cavalier Daily

NEWS Center for Politics to host fellows for five weeks by Mairead Crotty | Mar 01 2017 | 13 hours ago

Twenty-three nonprofit, journalist and civic leaders from 11 countries in the Middle East and North Africa arrived in Charlottesville Feb. 18 to participate in the Leaders for Democracy Fellowship. The Universitys Center for Politics Global Perspectives on Democracy Program operates the fellowship in Charlottesville.

The goal of the fellowship sponsored by the Department of States U.S.-Middle East Partnership Initiative is to provide civic leaders with experience and practical skills they can use when they return to their home countries.

For five weeks the fellows participate in workshops and design a civic action plan for Charlottesville that will serve as a model for projects in their own communities. The fellows remain in Charlottesville until March 26, and after they go to Washington, D.C. to participate in internships for eight weeks.

The internships are coordinated by World Learning, a nonprofit organization dedicated to empowering people, communities and institutions around the world. The fellows will be placed in organizations related to their interests.

Maram Suleiman, from Amman, Jordan, works for Oxfam and volunteers with the World Youth Alliance. She said her passion is working for youth and womens rights, and she applied to the program to learn different advocacy strategies.

Im hoping to gain more tools to work with youth and gender, especially mens enrollment in womens rights projects, Suleiman said. Im hoping I will have some new ideas and initiatives that I can work on as a personal level and in my community with youth and the people in my network. Maybe our project will open more doors for grants or sponsors and donors.

The fellows have participated in workshops and seminars, such as a briefing on U.S. politics by Center for Politics Director and Politics Prof. Larry Sabato Tuesday. The fellows also have the opportunity to tour the University and meet with University and Charlottesville advocacy groups.

We also get a chance to meet with very good speakers from Charlottesville, like women in leadership positions, Suleiman said.

While many of the fellows have different interests, Suleiman said she believes the program will provide each fellow with the knowledge and experience to better their communities.

Theres exchange experience, theres many experiences you can have, and it will open the doors for us to learn from each other, to network and to get the chance to gain more expertise from the State Department, World Learning and U.Va, Suleiman said. So I think its a very interesting opportunity for all of us, and it will open many doors.

The fellowship will specifically benefit Suleimans work in Amman, as she applied to learn more about lobbying, advocacy and campaigning. She is interning with Youth Service America in Washington, D.C., where she will learn those specific skills.

My work in Jordan for the rest of the year will be an advocacy campaign on my project, so it will be interesting for me, Suleiman said.

Abdulrahman Elgheriani, a Libyan who recently earned his masters degree in the United Kingdom, applied to the fellowship program to learn more about American politics.

Since I studied in the UK, Im familiar with the UKs administrative model and Westminster model of politics, Elgheriani said. I was excited to learn about the American model of politics and administration and to network.

Elgheriani was recently appointed acting manager of a new government organization in Benghazi, Libya called the Elmresia Free Zone. He hopes to be able to implement what he learns as a fellow when he returns to Benghazi.

I would love to apply as much as possible from what Ive learned, but it would be quite difficult because of the context on the ground, Elgheriani said. However, it would be great if we can establish channels of communication.

Libya was one of seven countries affected by President Donald Trumps executive order signed on Jan. 27. Until the suspension of the executive order was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Feb. 9, Elgheriani was unsure he would able to attend the program.

Elgheriani said he was relieved when he learned the executive order was suspended.

I was excited as much as when I applied to the program the first time, Elgheriani said. I knew from the beginning it was going to be a great opportunity to learn, network and sharpen my skills to hopefully better serve my country.

The fellows are part of the 21st exchange group that the Politics Global Perspectives on Democracy Program has hosted at the University.

Read the original here:
Leaders for Democracy Fellows arrive on Grounds - University of Virginia The Cavalier Daily

The Ways to Destroy Democracy – The Nation.

Hitler with Hermann Gring, Joseph Goebbels, and Rudolf Hess. (Franklin D. Roosevelt Library)

There are more ways of destroying a democracy than sending troops into the streets, storming the radio stations, and arresting the politicians, as Adolf Hitler discovered after the failure of his beer-hall putsch in 1923. Ten years later, on January 30, 1933, when he was appointed head of the German government, Hitler was the leader of the countrys largest political party, the National Socialists. Even five years earlier, in May of 1928, hed been a political nobody, with the Nazis gaining less than 3 percent of the vote in national elections. But in the elections held in July 1932, they won 37 percent of the voteand six months later, Hitler was in power. He seemed to have come from nowhere.

As the German historian and journalist Volker Ullrich shows in the first part of his highly readable and well-researched new biography, Hitler: Ascent, even if Hitler wasnt directly elected to power, his appointment as Reich chancellor was legal and constitutional, the result of political intrigue surrounding Germanys aging conservative president, Paul von Hindenburg. Many people in Germany thought that Hitler would be a normal head of government. Some, like the conservative politician Franz von Papen and the leaders of the German National Peoples Party, thought that theyd be able to control him, because they were more experienced and formed the majority in the coalition government that Hitler headed. Others thought that the responsibilities of office would tame and steer him in a more conventional direction. They were all wrong.

Hitler won mass support between 1928 and 1930 because a major economic crisis had driven Germany into a deep depression: Banks crashed, businesses folded, and millions lost their jobs. Hitler offered voters a vision of a better future, one he contrasted with the policies of the parties that had plunged the country into crisis in the first place. The poorest people in Germany voted for his opponents, notably the Communist Party and the moderate left-wing Social Democrats, but the lower-middle classes, the bourgeoisie, the unorganized workers, the rural masses, and the older traditionalistsProtestants and evangelicals who wanted a moral restoration of the nationswitched their votes from the mainstream centrist and right-wing parties (save for the Catholic Center Party) and gave them to Hitler instead.

Whereas other politicians seemed to dither or to act as mere administrators, Hitler projected purpose and dynamism. They remained trapped within the existing conventions of political life; he proved a master at denouncing those conventions and manipulating the media. The first politician to tour the country by air during an election campaign, Hitler issued an endless stream of slogans to win potential supporters over. He would make Germany great again. He would give Germans work once more. He would put Germany first. He would revive the nations rusting industries, laid to waste by the economic depression. He would crush the alien ideologiessocialism, liberalism, communismthat were undermining the nations will to survive and destroying its core values.

Ullrich quotes a police report on one of Hitlers early speeches, in which he used vulgar comparisons and did not shy away from the cheapest allusions. Hitlers language was never measured or careful, but like something merely expulsed. Yet, revising earlier opinions, Ullrich shows how carefully Hitler prepared his speeches. Seemingly spontaneous, they were in fact calculated. Full of base allegations and vile stereotypes, they were precisely designed to gain maximum attention from the media and maximum reaction from the crowds he addressed. When he declared that fines were of no use against those he called Jewish criminals, his listeners interrupted him with chants of Beatings! Hangings!

Aided by his talented propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels, Hitler not only flaunted his vulgarity and exploited tribal hatreds; he also lied and lied his way to success. The Jews, he argued, had stabbed the German Army in the back in 1918; the politicians of the other parties, he insisted, were hopelessly venal and corrupt and should be put in jail; the Nazi thugs who were condemned to death in 1932 for the Potempa murders were victims of a monstrous blood-verdict; liberal newspapers that criticized Hitler were, as Goebbels put it, the Jewish lying press.

Few took Hitler seriously or thought that he would actually put his threats against the countrys tiny Jewish minority, his rants against feminists, left-wing politicians, homosexuals, pacifists, and liberal newspaper editors, into effect. Fewer still believed his vow to quit the League of Nations, the forerunner of the United Nations. But within a few months of taking office, he did all of these thingsand much more.

Once in power, the Nazi regime was run exclusively by men: Only heterosexual white males, the Nazis thought, had the required detachment and lack of emotional connection to the issues at hand to make the right calls. Nazi propaganda mocked disabled people; within a few years, they were being sterilized and then exterminated. Hitler railed against the roving bands of criminals who were destroying law and order and called for the return of the death penalty, effectively abrogated under the Weimar Republic. Within a short space of time, the executions began again, reaching a total of more than 16,000 during his 12 years in power, while Germanys prison population rocketed from 50,000 in 1930 to more than 100,000 on the eve of the war. Feminist associations were all closed down, the law forbidding homosexual acts between men was drastically sharpened, vagrants were rounded up and imprisoned, illegal Polish immigrants were deported. Germany pulled out of international organizations and tore up treaties with cynical abandon, dismantling or emasculating the structures of international cooperation erected after World War I and freeing the way for rogue states like Italy and Japan to launch their own wars of conquest and aggression. Ullrich tellingly quotes the Nazis triumphant declaration of our departure from the community of nations, buttressed by Hitlers assurance that he would rather die than sign anything that was not in the interests of the German people. Hitler followed up on this commitment as well, though of course this proved not to be in the interests of the German people in the end.

The story of German politics between January 30 and July 30, 1933, is essentially the story of how the Nazis shut down the countrys democratic institutions, destroyed the freedom of its press and media, and created a one-party state in which opposition was punishable by imprisonment, banishment, or even death. It was Hitlers first hundred days, but the radical changes went on for longer and seemed terrifyingly easy to perpetrate.

There was nothing underhanded about these changes: Nazi leaders gave clear warnings about what they planned to do. But too few people saw them as a threat before they came to power. As Goebbels said on February 10, 1933: If the Jewish press still thinks it can intimidate the National Socialist movement with veiled threats, if they think they can evade our emergency decrees, they should watch out! One day our patience will run out, and then the Jews will find their impudent, lying traps plugged.

Ullrich shows how newspapers were weakened by the economic pressure applied by the Nazi government. Editors were forced out, reporters were disciplined or imprisoned, and an increasing number of newspapers were shut down altogether, leaving only a captive press that confined itself to parroting the news issued by the government in Goebbelss daily morning press briefings. All that the few remaining decent journalists could do was to write in Aesopian language, or in fables involving figures from the past like Genghis Khan; their only hope was that readers might get the message.

With the disappearance of a free, critical media and the subordination of law-enforcement agencies, the path was open for a massive expansion of political corruption at every level of the regime. Ullrich makes good use of recent research to underline the fact that the Nazi regime was, among other things, a kleptocracy; it was dependent on patronage and clientelism all the way down the line, since the formal procedures for state appointments and the rules of conduct for the occupants of high office were scrapped or bypassed in favor of a personal style of rule. The confiscation or forcible takeover of Jewish businesses lined the pockets of the partys leaders; they also benefited from seizing the property of oppositional institutions like the socialist-oriented trade unions, the Social Democratic Party, and many others.

Goebbels ensured that he was paid a vastly inflated salary as editor of a Nazi Party magazine, while Hermann Gring was given enough money by people seeking his patronage that he was able to buy and furnish five hunting lodges and to operate a private train. Hitler ostentatiously refused a salary as head of the German government, but he made sure that he earned royalties from the display of his face on postage stamps, which brought him enormous wealth. Well before the war, the Nazi leaders had become millionaires.

How did all this happenand with so little opposition? What caused German democracy to react so toothlessly and to collapse so swiftly? Historians used to argue that German democracy had shallow roots, having come into existence with the Weimar Republic after the end of the First World War, and thus lacked any kind of tradition in a country whose basic political culture had always been authoritarian. But as the historian Margaret Lavinia Anderson and many others have shown, Germans were in fact already practicing democracy under the kaiser: Political parties were strong and becoming stronger; legislative institutions were gaining more power and influence; and a lively range of newspapers and magazines fostered vigorous public debate, despite the feeble attempts of the government to censor them.

By the time Hitler began his rise to power, the German state, reconstituted after the war, possessed robust constitutional and legal structures that were designed to frustrate any attempt to undermine or circumvent democracy. Judges were independent, as were police and prosecutors. In fact, early in 1933, the provincial Nazi government in Prussiathe state that covered over half of Germanys territory and included more than half of its populationwas declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But the Nazis simply ignored this ruling, as they did the thousands of prosecutions brought by local and regional authorities against the storm troopers and others who had beaten up, imprisoned, and, in many hundreds of cases, murdered the partys opponents.

The courts could safely be ignored, not least because Hitlers government was able to govern by executive order after the burning down of the Reichstag, the national parliament building, on February 2728, 1933. A lone, deranged Dutch anarchist was found guilty of setting the fire, but the Nazis portrayed it as a terrorist act by the Communist Party in a nationwide conspiracy to take power. The government declared a state of emergency, and Hitler exploited a provision in the Weimar Republics Constitution that permitted him to rule by decree in such times. Hitler would repeatedly renew the Reichstag Fire Decree all the way up to the end of his rule in 1945.

The Nazi seizure of power was carried out step-by-step through the first half of 1933, each step disguised as a seemingly legal act. On April 7, 1933, the government issued an executive order dismissing Jews and the regimes political opponents from state employment. Many similar orders followed, culminating in a law to establish a one-party state and then, in the late summer of 34, a law to declare Hitler dictator for life.

It was possible to do these things because Hitler had pushed a bill through the national legislature on March 23, 1933, that effectively disabled the parliament and devolved its power to make laws onto his cabinet. He was able to secure the necessary two-thirds majority by arresting Communist deputies who would have voted against it and by persuading the large Catholic Center Party to vote for it through a mix of promises and threats. Issuing from the government, these laws had the appearance of legitimacy, and almost no one stood up against them as they were put into effect.

Even after the legal profession and the judiciary had been purged of the Nazis opponents, there were still some judges who retained a modicum of honesty and independence. Hitler was furious when the Supreme Court, trying the alleged perpetrators of the Reichstag fire, acquitted all but one due to a lack of evidence. He rapidly set up a parallel apparatus of Special Courts crowned by a national Peoples Court, all of them packed with committed Nazis. But the vast majority of the legal profession and law-enforcement agencies went along with the party anyway, even as the Nazis passed a raft of new treason laws and transferred the task of enforcing political conformity from the storm troopers and concentration camps to the police, the courts, and the prisons.

There were plenty of Germans who disapproved of these measures: Hitler didnt attain supreme power on a wave of popular acclamation. On the contrary, in the last free elections of the Weimar Republic, the left-wing partiesthe Communists and Social Democratswon more votes and gained more seats in the national parliament than the Nazis did. But they were fatally divided, spending at least as much time fighting each other as they did trying to stop Hitler from establishing a dictatorship. Their rhetoric was feeble in comparison with his, their supporters less fanatical, their electoral propaganda less powerful and less sophisticated.

The concentration of political and legislative power in the cabinet didnt last long. Beneath the surface appearance of normality, the cabinet was being marginalized as Hitler appointed his own cronies and disciples to new positions or pushed out his conservative coalition partners. The men who ruled Germany did not do so because they were constitutionally acting government ministers but because they were Hitlers cronies: Goebbels, Gring, Heinrich Himmler, Robert Ley, and a handful of others.

Before long, the police and the Gestapo had been merged into Himmlers SS, while regional Nazi Party leadersGauleiterswere bypassing the formally appointed state governors and administrators at every level. Senior civil servants were fired if they made any difficulties or were effectively supplanted by parallel appointees of the regime even if they conformed, as the vast majority of them did. German bureaucracy was famously punctilious, but under Hitler decisions were increasingly made on the hoof, by verbal order, leaving behind no paper trail.

Hitler made sure that the armed forces were on his side by giving them massive increases in funding and a huge new armaments program. In 1935, he introduced a draft that forced millions of young men into military service. His program for making Germany great again included a new aggressive attitude in international affairs. He sent the army into the Rhineland, occupied Austria, and annexed Czechoslovakia, before invading Poland and launching a European and, eventually, a world war. All along, the Soviet Union was targeted as Germanys main external foe, even if, for tactical reasons, Hitler concluded a temporary nonaggression pact with Stalin in August 1939.

Hitlers seizure and remaking of the state was buttressed by a wholesale reorganization of the education system and an effort to redefine German culture. Many, if not most, of Germanys leading scholars and scientists were forced to leave the country, either because they were Jewish and so regarded as non-Christian foreigners, or because they were opponents of the regime (or, indeed, as in the case of Albert Einstein, both). The intellectual quality of German universities, which had led the world in research before 1933, plummeted. It has never fully recovered.

Hitler didnt care. For him, education was a matter of practical instruction; it had nothing to do with the transmission of pure knowledge, let alone the traditional humanistic values that had underpinned the German educational system since the early 19th century. Before Hitler took over, a fifth of all university students were enrolled in the humanities; by the eve of the war, that portion had been cut in half, in a student body that was itself shrinking rapidly, from a total of 104,000 in all universities in 1931 to just under 41,000 in 1939. By this time, fully half of all students were taking degree courses in medicine, its importance boosted by the Nazis focus on racial research and eugenics.

The regimes assault on culture extended to its policy toward the arts, which were coordinated by Goebbels in a Reich Chamber of Culture that ended funding for modern painting, sculpture, and music, and banned allegedly subversive artists from working. Almost all of Germanys major artists and writers left the country, turning it into a cultural desert. The mostly second-rate artists and writers who stayed behind had little choice but to propagate German art and culture, and their work was often unimaginative, conformist, and dull. Theater and cinema put out trivial productions aimed at a broad popular audience: costume dramas, musicals, and other forms of light entertainment. Outright propaganda films were relatively rare, though these are the ones remembered today. There were no game shows or reality TV in Hitlers day, but if there had been, Goebbels would have loved them.

The main objective of Nazi education and culture was not, however, to distract people from issues of political importance; it was to instill a new sense of patriotism. Pupils were made to salute the flag before school every morning, and the religious assembly that opened the school day was turned into a festival of obeisance to Hitler. All children had to join the Hitler Youth or its female equivalent, the League of German Girls, where they sang patriotic songs and performed military exercises and drills. History lessons were turned into a celebration of German heroes from the past. Geography was Nazified in order to justify German claims on other parts of Europe. Math students were required to do calculations based on the number of racially inferior people in the population.

Such exercises pointed to the fact that the regime constantly targeted minorities as a way of mobilizing popular approval and support. The Nazis may have dominated state power, but this wasnt the kind of dictatorship that depended solely on repression, important though it was. Like many other modern dictatorships, it wanted to appear popular, not least because this strengthened its hand in negotiations with foreign powers. Regular elections and referendums were put to the voters, and they routinely delivered majorities of 99 percent in favor of whatever the government proposedresults achieved by depriving known or potential opponents of the vote, by manipulating the electoral process, and by directly or indirectly intimidating the great mass of people into supporting Hitlers government.

A key part of the process was the vilification of political opponents. The Communist Party, a mass movement that had gained 100 seats in the national legislature in the last free elections of the Weimar Republic, was suppressed, accused of preparing a violent revolution. The moderately progressive Social Democrats, who enjoyed even more widespread support, were damned as November traitors, a reference to the November revolution in 1918 that overthrew the kaisers regime. They were also maligned by the Nazis for having signed the ignominious peace treaty with the Allies at Versailles.

Nazi media and officialdom heaped abuse on democrats and harassed them at every turn. These opponents of the regime bore the brunt of the new treason laws from 1933 onward; in 1935 alone, there were some 23,000 political prisoners in Germanys jails, and more than 5,000 people were being tried and condemned for treason every year.

In speech after speech, Hitler and the other leading Nazis attacked the Jews, who, they claimed, had orchestrated the efforts by these political parties to destroy Germanys military prowess and cultural purity. Hitler was a conspiracy theorist without equal: Influenced by a bizarre forgery known as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, he believedperhaps as early as 1919, when he incorporated these views into his first-ever recorded speechthat there was a worldwide conspiracy of Jews, directed by a secret cabal probably located somewhere in Paris, to overthrow the German race, annihilate its culture, and render it impotent before its enemies. All Jews everywhere, no matter their political views, were part of this vast plot.

When the Nazis came to power, Jews made up less than 1 percent of the population in Germany, but the Nazis regarded them as a vast, powerful, and deadly threat. Hitler was convinced that without a proper sense of urgency, Germany would be eventually defeated, dominated, and very likely destroyed by them. This is what made anti-Semitism different from the other kinds of racial and religious prejudice held by the Nazis. The disabled and the mentally ill, Gypsies, homosexuals, habitual criminals, Jehovahs Witnesses, and the other minorities targeted by Hitler were seen as obstacles to Germanys renewal; they weakened the race and undermined its will to assert itself in the world. But the Jews were different: They were the world-enemy, as Goebbels called them, the Weltfeind. Far more than an obstacle, they were an existential threat. This is why Hitler deprived them of German citizenship, robbed them of their livelihoods, stripped them of their possessions, forced as many of them as he could to emigrate by making their existence in Germany a living hell, andwhen he had conquered areas of Europe that, unlike Germany, had very large Jewish populationseventually murdered some 6 million of them.

Ordinary Germans were not wholly won over by such acts of persecution and destruction; only a minority applauded them. But the great mass of Germans did nothing to stop any of this. Civil courage was in short supply in a country cowed into submission by a ruthless dictatorship that knew no limits in its willingness to apply violence to those it hated. This included foreign states as well as domestic minorities. From the outset, Hitler intended a war of European conquest and, most likely, had that been victorious, world hegemony as well (as demonstrated by his megalomaniacal building plans for Germania, a renamed Berlin, as world capital and intended permanent site of the Olympic Games after the war had been won).

With the support of the countrys military-industrial complexgrudging and cautious at first; then, after the defeat of Poland in 1939 and France in 1940, fulsome and enthusiasticHitler threw caution to the wind and launched a war that could only end in Germanys defeat. His indifference to human suffering, and his willingness to devise and use weapons of mass destruction, knew no bounds. It is fortunate that he never got his hands on nuclear weapons, though they were in development in Germanys laboratories well before the end of the war.

Violence indeed was at the heart of the Nazi enterprise. Every democracy that perishes dies in a different way, because every democracy is situated in specific historical circumstances. In Hitlers case, as Ullrich shows, the essential context was supplied by World War I, an unprecedented conflict in which millions were killed and those who survived were plunged into a new, militarized, and brutalized world where violence in the service of politics became the norm.

Every political party in Weimar Germany had its paramilitary wing, ready to beat up and even kill its opponentseven the Social Democrats, whose Reichsbanner was committed to the defense of democracy. Yet with the unbridled brutality of the storm troopers, the Nazis outdid them all. The election campaign of JuneJuly 1932 saw 105 people killed. This gave the Nazi seizure of power much of its historical distinctiveness and helped acclimatize the German people to the massive violence that underpinned it, with up to 200,000 opponents of the regime thrown into concentration camps in 1933 alone and more than 600 killed, even according to official figures.

For many, the legacy of World War I has long since faded away, and the destruction of Germanys cities, the mass murder of Europes Jews, and the vast slaughter of World War II have acted as a sharp antidote to cultures of political violence and the militarization of party politics. Anyone who wants to use violence against his opponents to establish a dictatorship today would need to employ a different kind of force. Rather than sending armed and uniformed squads onto the streets, he or she would need to rely on harassment and persecution carried out by a captive media, and eventually, if opposition persisted, on the state power of the military and the law-enforcement agencies to crush it.

The stakes are higher now than ever. Get The Nation in your inbox.

Above all else, Hitler was a media figure who gained popularity and controlled his country through speeches and publicity. Far from being a consistent and undeviatingly purposeful politician, he was temperamental, changeable, insecure, allergic to criticism, and often indecisive and uncertain in a crisis. There were many occasions in which he nearly came to grief, most notably as a result of his unconventional private lifesuch as when the suicide of his half-niece Geli Raubal, with whom hed been having an affair in the early 1930s, threatened to destroy his reputation with the respectable classes of German society.

Ullrich convincingly links Hitlers personality traits with political events. At key moments, such as the crisis of 1934, when the army threatened to move against him if he didnt curb his violent, raucous supporters in the Brownshirt movement, Hitler hesitated and dithered before finally making up his mind. Ullrich corrects many misapprehensions and disposes of many myths. And he paints in the broader political context with great skill and the knowledge gathered over a lifetime of studying German history of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Over the years, there have been many biographies of Hitler, most of which have, in some way, underestimated his talents or underplayed his personal life. Alan Bullocks Hitler: A Study in Tyranny (1952) was the first serious life of the German dictator, but it depicted him primarily as an opportunist with no consistent ideas or purposes except the gaining and wielding of power. In Joachim C. Fests Hitler (1973), hes an ignorant, unintelligent, vulgar petty bourgeois whose rise to power owed much to his ability to articulate the resentments of his class at the coming of the modern world. For Ian Kershaw, whose two-volume biography currently holds the field, Hitler was almost an unperson, a man without a meaningful personality or private life, the creature of larger forces in German history. Others have seen him as a psychopath, a warped personality, a man who didnt conform to the normal standards of human behavior. None of these pictures really grasps the man, however. Volker Ullrich provides a more complex and, perhaps for this reason, an even more troubling account of Hitlers ascent to power. His Hitler is one whose personal life provides a key to understanding how he achieved and used supreme power, and his biographyby providing the wider context of German society and politics in which Hitler ascendedalso attempts to explain why so many Germans were willing to allow him to do so.

Everyone concerned about democracy should read this book. For the Nazis were a warning from history (to quote the title of the still-unsurpassed 1997 television history by Ian Kershaw and Lawrence Rees, now being rebroadcast in the United Kingdom as a response to current political events), and we would all do well to heed it.

Read the original:
The Ways to Destroy Democracy - The Nation.

Why American Democracy Will Hold – The American Prospect

(Photo: AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer takes questions on February 22, 2017.

An earlier version of this story appeared at The Huffington Post. Subscribe here.

After five weeks of steady pummeling, American democracy is holdingbecause its institutions are stronger than Donald Trump. Lets begin with the press.

As John McCain reminded us, dictators get started by suppressing free pressand Donald Trump is no exception. Trump and his press spokesman Sean Spicer will not be satisfied until there is a totally sycophantic press, accepting Trumps twisted view of the truth, and adoringly reflecting it back to the great leader and his people. Kind of like the free press in Putins Russia.

But thats not going to happen. The press has never been more determined to hold its ground.

Certainly, press solidarity behind the First Amendment is not all that it should be.

In last weeks schoolyard game of banning from a White House briefing media with the temerity to expose Trumps lies, propaganda organs like Fox News and The Washington Times were all too pleased to play Sean Spicers petty game. Shamefully, so were ABC and NBC, whose correspondents did not walk out when The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, and other mainstream media were banished.

But maybe this charade is a blessing in disguise. For one thing, news organs will have to decide whether they are part of White House propaganda machine, or genuinely independent media. The ones that show up to meekly parrot Trumps lies will start looking very foolish.

For another thing, White House press briefings are vastly overrated. Its no accident that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were on the Metro staff of The Washington Post, and did not cover the Nixon White House. They went after the real story where they found itand press aide Ron Zieglers pressroom was the last place to look.

I had a White House press pass in the Watergate era, and I seldom used it. I can tell you that precious little news emerged from Nixon press conferences or briefings.

Fencing matches between reporters and Spicer are a weird form of entertainment, but not a venue from which truth will emerge. Besides, spectacle is Trumps genre, not that of a free press.

Theres a good case that the serious press should not allow itself to be props in Spicers petty games. Yes, they should demand equal treatment, but if he continues to play favorites, the hell with him. Indeed, if the Times, the Post, and other serious news organs are banished from the White House, they will have more time and resources to ferret out the truth.

Bullies usually turn out to be cowards. Spicer is hiding from the serious press because he cant face the truth. Likewise Trumps own refusal to follow custom and attend the White House Correspondents annual dinner. Hed be roasted alive.

Each day that Spicer stage-manages a phony press conference, the serious media should publish lists of questions that demand answers. If Spicer ducks them, hes that much more of a coward, because he and his boss cant face the truth.

The press is one of several firebreaks in an era when the president of the United States wants to govern as a dictator. And the press is not alone. Indeed, some of the firebreaks, institutions usually considered conservative, are already surprising both Trump and his critics.

One is the courts. Even with the eventual confirmation of Trumps Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, the courts will take a dim view of efforts by Trump to defy court orders. There is a higher loyalty to the independence of the judiciary. As opportunistic as many conservative judges are, an open attempt to place the president above the law would be struck down.

Another is the military. The military tends to be conservative in the best sense of the word. When zealous civilians (Cheney, Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, LBJ, Richard Nixon, et al) send American forces on fools errands based on grandiose lies, it is the military that pays the price. And the generals know that.

It is strange for people with no love of militarism to admit that the security of American democracynot just in the sense of the national defense but of democracy itselfis now in the hands of three retired Marine Corps generals: Defense Secretary James Mattis, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, and John Kelly, the secretary of homeland security.

These are serious men, with the patriotism and self-respect to tell the president when he is blowing smoke. He cant fire them all.

As Patrick Granfield wrote in a thoughtful piece for Politico, a fundamental shift in civil-military relations is taking hold. Rather than civilian leaders checking military power, it is now military leaders who represent one of the strongest checks against the overreach of a civilian executive.

A fourth firebreak is the more high tech part of corporate America. The nations most innovative companies have little patience for Trumps war on immigrants, and are willing to say so. (Other corporations, alas, are following a venerable tradition of getting in bed with fascism if it serves their bottom lines.)

Yet another firebreak is American federalismin two senses. Some blue states and cities can demonstrate policies that are the opposite of Trumpism. These policies are vulnerable, however, because most waivers that allow states to have policies at odds with those of the national government (such as higher minimum wages or tougher clean air standards) are merely statutory, not constitutional. And law can be changed.

But a stronger federal firebreak is the power of state attorneys general, who are beyond the reach of the Trump administration. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is said to be pursuing major investigations of Trump corruption under state law. Among other findings, these investigations could force the release of Trumps tax records.

The press by its nature is an insurgent institution. It has always battled privilege and deception. But its a little strange for progressives to be cheering for other institutions that only yesterday were seen as citadels of conservatism: the military, the courts, and states rights. Yet these are not just instruments of right-wing policiesthey are conservative in a deeper sense, one that is especially needed now.

One institution, however, is missing from this list of conservative defenders of the Constitutionthe Republican Party. To an appalling degree, Republicans have been willing to let Trump govern as a would-be dictator, as long as it serves their policy and partisan goals.

If John McCain can shame a few more Republicans into remembering true conservative principles, it will drastically shorten this terrible time for America. Trump would be gone and McCain could win a Nobel Peace Prize.

See the original post:
Why American Democracy Will Hold - The American Prospect

Liberal Democracy in Retreat? – Project Syndicate

DENVER We are only in the second month of Donald Trumps presidency, but many Americans have already tired of the drama, and are wondering what the next 46 months have in store.

Beyond producing constant anxiety, Trumps bizarre presidency poses a more fundamental question: Having already come under siege in many of its outposts around the world, is liberal democracy now at risk of losing its citadel, too? If so, the implications for US foreign policy, and the world, could be far-reaching.

The United States has elected a president whose understanding of American democracy is apparently limited to the fact that he won the Electoral College. To be sure, this does require some passing acquaintance with the US Constitution, where the Electoral College is defined. Beyond that, however, Trump seems to have little respect for the Constitutions system of checks and balances, and the separation of powers among the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. Nor does he respect Americas fourth estate, the press, which he has begun describing as the enemy of the American people.

Elections, while necessary, are hardly sufficient for upholding liberal democracys central tenets. After all, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan, and many other despots have come to power by winning a popular vote.

As any schoolchild should know, elections require all citizens to tolerate views that differ from their own. Elections are not meant to transcend or overturn democratic institutions or the separation of powers. Regardless of how the Trump administration ultimately performs, its first month of presidential decrees or, in American political parlance, executive orders can hardly be viewed as a triumph for liberal democracy.

Trump would do well to study the Constitution; and while he is at it, he should find time to read some of the republics other founding documents. He could start with the 1620 Mayflower Compact, which implicitly recognized the rights of political and social minorities in one of Americas earliest religious colonies.

But Trump is not the only American who should use this moment to reflect on his countrys history and its role in the world. Although the administrations America first sloganeering may sound frightening to some foreign ears, it might come as a relief to others.

Since the end of the Cold War, more than a quarter-century ago, the primary goal of American foreign policy has been to spread democracy around the world. But in pursuit of this lofty ambition, the US has sometimes overreached. Although Americas support for democracy would seem to put it on the side of the angels, its policies have often been implemented with a measure of arrogance, and even anger.

America has sometimes force-fed democracy to countries, or even delivered it at the tip of a bayonet. There are many reasons why liberal democracy seems to be in retreat around the world. But among them is surely the growing resentment of other countries and their leaders, who have tired of listening to American accusations, lectures, and admonitions.

Consider Iraq. Many Western observers were inspired by the sight of Iraqis ink-stained fingers after they had cast their ballots in that countrys first election. But while free elections are often a first step on the road to democracy, the aftermath was not so smooth in Iraq. Political identities became increasingly defined by sectarianism, rather than substantive issues; and it soon became clear that democratic institutions and the culture of tolerance on which they rely are not so easily introduced to societies that have not known them before.

Some years ago, I spoke to a Balkan leader who had just spent the day listening to an American philanthropist lecture him about all of his troubled young countrys democratic shortcomings. As he contemplated the political pain of following the philanthropists free advice, he asked me, What am I supposed to do with that? He had identified a fundamental shortfall in the movement to promote democracy: telling someone how to implement democratic reforms is not the same as taking on the risks and responsibilities of actually doing it.

Notwithstanding its currently toxic political scene, the US still has one of the most successful democracies in history. It provides a great model for others to emulate, but its example cannot be forced on the world. Telling people that their countries have to be like America is not a sound strategy.

Liberal democracy was already off balance before Trumps victory; now it has lost its center of gravity. The next four years could be remembered as a dark period for this precious form of government. But liberal democracy has outlasted its rivals in the past, and it will likely do so again. Those who have fought so hard and sacrificed so much for it will be ready to ensure that it does.

See the original post here:
Liberal Democracy in Retreat? - Project Syndicate