First of all, I want to be clear that I am not a fan of equating democratically elected leaders in the United States to Hitler. It was done when Obama was elected in 2008 and I thought it was the most ridiculous thing I'd ever heard. But, if there was ever a threat of a Hitler-esque leader taking the United States in a Nazi-esque direction, it is Donald Trump. The only similarity there was between Obama and Hitler was his charisma and passionate followers during his first campaign. That's it. And, Republicans turned those similarities into an argument for him becoming a tyrant who would destroy the American way of life, and thus an excuse to obstruct his agenda at every turn (nothing could be further from the truth as his eight years has shown us). The similarities between Trump and Hitler are many. He has unleashed and exploited a large faction of people who needed scapegoats for their fears and difficult circumstances. He gave them Mexicans and Muslims and Immigrants. He has a total disrespect for the media and sees them not as the people's last best defense against a secretive and nefarious government, but as a nuisance to be silenced by force from his followers (as he has encouraged at his rallies), if not legally through changing the libel laws (as he has proposed). He holds the same bigoted views of white supremacy as Hitler. He respects heavy-handed, unilateral power like Hitler. He uses populism to build support among those who may not agree with his bigotry, but enable it out of support for his promises to do things, like bring back coal jobs and overturn Row v Wade, that are nearly impossible to achieve. He is annoyed, at best, by pluralism, and lashes out whenever opposed by even the most trivial of opponents (i.e., SNL writers and the cast of Hamilton).
Those of us solidly against Trump are apparently inclined, as many were during Hitler's rise, to believe he won't be as bad as he sounds, or do the more radical things he has promised to do. Despite the fact that his party controls both the House and the Senate and will, through radical obstructionism of our first black President, appoint at least one and possibly three conservative Supreme Court Justices, we believe he will be kept in check by the more level-headed Republicans in Congress. Before you are so quick to be comforted by these supposed moderates, I would implore you to remember that they have been stoking the coals of bigotry, nationalism, fake news and angst toward the media, misinformation, and radical Christianity for decades. Based on their wishy-washy flip-flopping support for Trump during his campaign, it is not clear at all that they will stand in his way if going along with his dangerous and bigoted policies means getting conservative legislation passed that will serve as an albatross around the neck of future generations--generations, I might add, that are FAR from conservative in their politics (lest I remind you that marijuana is legal in a quarter of our states now, and a Democratic Socialist polled far ahead of Trump throughout the entire campaign season).
Despite a mountain of evidence pointing out that Trump means every word he has said over the last year and a half, Americans, with their hope springs eternal optimism, continue to say, "Well, this couldn't happen here, we have checks and balances." To which I say, "Maybe." Do we really want to test those checks and balances? How many of them are based on the assumption that we elected respectable, pluralistic statesmen to work together on behalf of all Americans? How do our checks and balances play out when a minority of the country puts, by all measures of human decency, an absolute heathen with no respect for said checks and balances, in the White House?
Do we want to see a President appoint military leaders who share his bigoted, war-mongering views and disregard for international law? Perhaps there are enough military leaders who would not carry out his unlawful commands, but even then, will they stand their ground and refuse to carry out orders, or will they resign, leaving a vacuum for other Trumpian leaders to take their place? And, if they do stand their ground, do we want to see what happens when a nation's military stands against its own President? Or, perhaps worse, fractures itself into those willing to follow Trump's commands and those who won't. These are terrifying possibilities. Is Civil War the kind of checks and balances Trump enablers have in mind? Because, at the end of the day, the Constitution doesn't prevent Civil War, or a military coup. And, lest you think I'm being alarmist, there have already been military leaders who have said they would not follow protocol if asked to commit war crimes, such as torture, going after the families of terrorists, or bombing opponents with no regard to civilian casualties (all of which Trump has proposed). If that actually happens, a constitutional shit storm will ensue.
There is also the question of nuclear war. Donald J. Trump will have complete autonomy in deciding if we use nuclear weapons--a man who can't watch a satirical skit about himself on SNL without voicing his hurt feelings on Twitter. There is no person in the country who can legally veto this decision by a Commander and Chief. His Secretary of Defense, whom he appoints, has to verify the order, but cannot legally veto it. Let that sink in for a minute. One man has complete power to end the world. Some check and balance. Also, Trump has said he would prefer more countries have their own nukes so they are not so dependent upon the U.S. for military protection. Where does that end? And, at what point do those countries decide they need to defend themselves against us? What many voters seem to have forgotten is that our greatest check against Presidential power is the ability to elect a President. Instead we seem to have elected a President in protest and are now assuming that the other constitutional checks can keep him for destroying everything we believe in. In a great many areas, they can't.
At the end of the day, the underlying force that keeps the peace, not only of the country, but of the world, is the United States military, intelligence agencies, and law enforcement agencies adhering to both the laws of the United States and International Law. Again, there are no checks and balances against the principle of "Might makes right," and we elected a man who has professed that he very much believes in this principle. At the end of the day, he who has the most guns, wins. I've heard Trump supporters/ enablers say such ridiculous things as, "Well, if he does anything like that, we as a people will rise up against him." To which I say, "Really? Rise up against the U.S. military? A military of 1.4 million trained killers, 4500 nuclear weapons, bombers, drones, tanks, etc, etc. And, was this your rationale when voting for him?! That you would 'Rise up' if he actually does the things he said he would do? How irresponsible are you?"
Regardless, it's too late to rethink this. He's in. We did it. And it wasn't even a majority of us. So, is Trump the next Hitler? And, if so, will our checks and balances save the most vulnerable among us (not excluding the environment we are dependent upon for survival)? We can only wait and see. One thing I would strongly advise against is normalizing this for yourself. I would not try to make this okay for yourself or for your fellow citizens who are terrified of this man and the men he is appointing. There is nothing okay about this and there is no evidence he will not turn our country into something that we, and the world, no longer recognize as a force for good. There is only him and what he decides to do. If that doesn't terrify you, then you terrify me.
No comments:
Post a Comment