I tend to see the worst in Trump myself, and his campaign's strong-man worship of personality and power at the expense of the scapegoat du jour has honestly reminded me also of the rise of the Nationalist Socialist German Workers' Party.
But in fair defense of @Maj. Bill Martin, I think the Major has drawn very credible distinctions between the current situation in the US versus Weimar Germany, and between Hitler's pursuit of power and Trump's pursuit of hedonism. The major has been very clear throughout his posts that he did not support Trump in the primaries and only plans to vote for him now because Hillary is worse. Unlike those who continue to insult my intelligence in their insistence that Trump is some kind of omnicompetent visionary, the major is clear about Trump's many faults, he just doesn't reach the same conclusions about what those faults mean in this country's present context.
I agree with you @Smokin Joe that we might be experiencing the leading edge of a very bad change in American politics and values as the Republican Party now resorts to many of the same tactics that the Democrats have used for years. I hope we can discuss those concerns without making enemies of people who see the current election from a very similar, but not identical, perspective.
Finding myself in agreement with much of what you both say Major and Smokin, I'll put on my best Rodney King hat and ask "Can't we all just get along?"
Sam, I guess I just wondered from an early age how any people could let a Hitler rise to power. Keep in mind that he promised he'd restore the country and did. He had a huge public works project which put enormous numbers of his people back to work (unemployment was high when he became Chancellor, and he fixed that). Autobahn=wall? Our unemployment/underemployment is way off the official numbers because of the way the Fed Gov counts people who are unemployed. Reality is worse than portrayed for even the best off groups, and a horror show for the worst demographics.
He rebuilt the military, modernizing it, and did so well that treaty obligations were ignored, letting him amass five times the number of troops he was supposed to. He nationalized the police.
The economy improved, and the improvements, economically and technologically, put his nation at the forefront again. The turnaround was so remarkable, that he'd made his country 'great again', that large numbers of people in power in other nations held him in high regard.
He revamped the health care system, provided schooling for the young, and facilities for those with disabilities, all State run. The State took over raising Children, and we are far closer to that in America than most know or want to admit.
Perhaps none of these concepts sounds familiar. These were, indeed, heady times, when a nation so bitterly defeated in war less than 20 years before was hosting the Olympics...had the premier transatlantic service, and was highly regarded in the world. It just didn't stop there.
The ugly side didn't come out until later, but the seeds of that ugliness were present in the Party apparatus and the person at the top.
He vilified a particular group as being the source of many of his country's economic ills, and to popular acclaim, set about solving the 'problem'. (We have two such groups, handy scapegoats, and another in the wings should they misbehave. If all else fails, he could always turn on his supporters, whatever would grant the best advantage. That precedent is established.).
Then the ugliness became more open with the seizure of absolute power, military ambitions were stripped bare and war ensued, along with the systematic removal of people who disagreed with him or who were considered disloyal or who were members of scapegoat groups.
Schoolchildren were indoctrinated in the catechism of the State, and knew of nothing wrong unless they knew someone who got the knock on the door in the middle of the night, had a relative who dissented, or ended up as a high school girl 'manning' an 88 mm antiaircraft gun. They were so thoroughly indoctrinated by the end of the war that mere 'kids' of 13 and 14 would not surrender but fought to the death against allied troops. The cult of personality had been rooted that deep by most of a generation of State control.
It would be folly to ignore the economic distress the US currently is in ($20,000,000,000,000.00 in debt), dependent on foreign sources for much of what we consume, high unemployment, inflation masked by cheap foreign products and downsizing of units of food sold, with the poorest of the poor well fed by the onerous burden of taxes on those who are still productive.
It would be silly to ignore the anger, both at illegal immigrants (and the blame for real Americans not having jobs), and at those 'refugees' being brought in who share an ideology with which we are, fundamentally, at war.
Anger, fear, and easily directed animosity all can be whipped to a crescendo in short notice, especially with the media of today, not just technologically, but psychologically adept at goading emotion to the fore, distorting any message, and limiting disclosure, and without the internet or other media (or controlling them), no other narrative would be heard, except in quiet whispers. Other technical advancements since then would have had the agencies of that State waking in pools of nocturnal emissions over newfound ability to track movement, expenditures, income, communications, and behaviour, as well as to eliminate specific targets. No totalitarian state of the past would have enjoyed such control. It would be easier to strip someone of all but their physical assets than ever, to track their movements and seize even those physical assets, to scan crowds for their faces by remote control.
Both candidates have shown support for gun control in the past, and Trump has only recently shown any resistance to that. Where he stands on the issue is not completely clear.
As always, that is the last step.
Under their other layers, both of the major candidates are control freaks. Both have THE solution to the country's problems, and both have the only one. Both stand to make ridiculous fortunes with the ability to invest heavily in situations where they would control the outcome.
We once said that character counts. Neither of them has the appropriate character for the job. Simple as that.
One is pushing the buttons of the 'underclass' to get them to rise against the merchants and the elites, even while being one of the latter.
Another is harnessing the hatred, anger, and angst of the productive masses (or those who desire to be), and focusing that xenophobia on 'undesirables', making that the signature issue, along with a large public works project and renewed employment, and claiming he will restore our nation's prestige in the world, militarily and otherwise.
It isn't just the seed, it's where it lands and takes root.
I get that no one is happy about our options, least of all me, but I don't, from the viewpoint of an original intent Constitutionalist see much difference. Either is toxic to the Republic.
