Some Political Thought From 1934

For my class I recently read an article written in 1934, called "Dictators and Democracies" by Calvin Hoover. In the paper his main goal is to understand what is causing the rise of these dictatorial regimes and what can be done in the rest of the democratic world to defend itself from falling.

The main argument from Hoover is that chaos, either economic, political or social, is the main cause for any government succumbing to a dictator and eventually a totalitarian regimes. A democracy, in his view, will not fall during prosperous times. His main evidence for this claim is the fall of the interim parliamentary government in Russia to the communist and the Weimar Republic in Germany to the Nazis. He claims that if a democratic government cannot maintain “tolerable economic conditions” then the masses will support a dictator because a dictator promises to restore peace and security and the democratic system will collapse. 

Ultimately people have a desire to live in peace with their family and friends but when that is disrupted for any reason people start to go to extremes to find peace and security. We can easily see this in the reaction of the German people to Hitlers rhetoric and the Russian people to the communist ideology. Hoover pushes it further though by stating that a democratic government is inherently weak and susceptible to a dictators rise because when chaos hits the government is too divided and they lose the will to fight and lose confidence in their ability to pull their country out of chaos. Because of this weakness, dictators have an easy opportunity to come to power.

I believe that Hoover is correct in concluding that chaos precedes a democratic fall. This is almost common sense and is seen time and time again throughout the world. I think it goes both ways though. Dictatorships fall when they are not provided prosperity and security as the "arab spring" has shown us. Any government must provide peace and security or it is running the risk of collapse. 

I believe that hoover dramatically overestimates the weaknesses of the parliamentary system based a few weak democracies. Not all democracies are as weak as the Weimar Republic in Germany or the interim government in Russia and have leaders who do not run at the sight of chaos but stand firm in the defense of democracy and are able to combat the chaos that would result in their fall. Hoover is right that chaos always is present at the rise of a dictatorship, but his statement that parliamentary systems inherent weaknesses are the cause of the rise of dictators is dramatically overstated. Many democracies have withstood chaos and did not fall to a dictatorship. 

While I have tremendous respect for Hoover ,the final pages of his article severely frighten me. What comes is his suggestion on how a democratic government avoids falling to a dictatorship and ultimately a totalitarian regime. His solution is to have democratic governments leave their traditional laissez-faire economic ideals and take an authoritarian style role in the economy.In order to achieve this authoritarian style control over the economy, Hoover states that the executive branch of the government would need more power entrusted to it. There would also have to be control of the different branches of government by a single party not coalitions or split government. Hoover believes that if a democracy can do this and be successful at economic control then the threat to internal overthrow by Fascists, Communist, or Nazis would be highly unlikely. 

What Hoover is not understanding is that a government does not necessarily have to completely fall to become a totalitarian regime. It can transform itself into one from the inside. He lived in a time period where revolts and revolutions came from the people against the government and I dont think he thought about it the other way around. The government could easily revolt against its own constitution and people. If the executive branch is given extreme power in the economy I do not think it would stop there and it would expand its power into every part of society. Especially if there was one party ruling in government. There has to be an opposition party in government to keep the other party in check. I think Hoover's suggestions would lead a democratic government to become a totalitarian regime and would lead to the horror that he wanted to avoid.     

Hoover's ideas however, seem to have taken hold in the United States over the years. Since the great depression the executive branch has had massive power entrusted to it (which in reality is a violation of the constitution) and has taken a very large role in the economy. We are slowly leaving a laissez-faire economy and becoming an authoritarian style run economic system. The more power the executive branch has gotten in the economy the more it has tried to interfere in other things not related to the economy. I believe that the executive branch has way too much power and needs to be reigned in an brought back to its original role as laid out in the constitution. This is where I differ greatly with Hoover and believe that by allowing the executive branch to get more power indirectly leads to a totalitarian regime evolving from a democratic regime. The reason people want the executive branch to have so much power is the same reason people want a dictator. They believe it makes things get done and they dont have to abide by ridiculous regulations and can provide them with more security regardless of the freedoms they sacrifice to gain that security. I will end with a paraphrased quote by Benjamin Franklin who said that those who sacrifice their freedoms for security are worthy of neither. 

image take from my.opera.com

 

Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Communist Russia

Nazis, Fascists, and Communist, Are They Different or the Same Evil in Different Costumes?                          

Growing up, I was taught in school that there is a "left" and a "right" and teachers tried to portray the fascists on the right to be something vastly different from the communists on the left. The U.S foreign policy during the cold war also hung onto this idea, so much so that the U.S supported right wing governments against the communist as if they were a better alternative. An example of this was the United States support of the Apartheid government in South Africa against the communist in Angola. The interesting thing is the far right governments, like the one in South Africa, were just as repressive and brutal as the communist regimes were. The United States was stuck on the traditional spectrum which has a right and a left and that is it. I however like the non-traditional circular political diagram. While not completely accurate, I believe the circular diagram shows more of the truth of politics than the traditional spectrum does. It shows a right and a left in ideology but instead of heading in opposite directions both ideologies curve and end up in the same place: totalitarianism. So in the end the right and left extremist are no different; they want and need complete power.

      Traditional Political Spectrum                                            Circular Political Diagram 


   
Granted they all stem from different desires and goals and at the start there could be made a distinction between right and left but that slowly fades away. The communist in Russia were driven by pro proletariat ideals, the Nazis in Germany were driven by pro race ideology and the fascists of Italy were driven by ideas of a strong Italian Nation. Even with these different goals they ended up in the same place. So while many people automatically relate totalitarianism with racism because of Hitler, a totalitarian regime does not have to be driven by racism just taking the examples of Italy and Russia prove that.
So what does this have to do with us? Well understanding the circular nature of political ideology and seeing that different motives can lead to totalitarian regimes should make us wary of radicals on both sides of the spectrum. Its not only racists that can lead us to totalitarianism but those driven by hyper-nationalism or class issues as well. We must be constantly vigilant and not let ourselves get wrapped up in any form of radical thought, for all radical thought slowly leads to tyranny and slavery.
(Images taken from fhsdfhn.sharpschool.net, www.flame.org and www.thoughtsaloud.com)

The following was an email conversation that took place between myself (Shad Larson) and Thamasanqa Mahlangabeza April 30th and May 3rd 2013. All the questions presented to me by Thamasanqa are in blue and my responses are in red.

A lot has been happening in the States in the past couple of weeks which makes it difficult to know where to begin. But you can rest your mind assured that I want to pick your brain on all of them.

Firstly, what's your take about what happened in Boston?

As for Boston I do not know what to make of it exactly. It definitely does seem to be caused by religious extremist thought, but I do not think it is attached to anything international and was just the actions of rogue misguided people. I am scared that people are again going to have a knee jerk reaction and continues grouping all Muslims into the category of terrorist. I really like the Muslim people and believe that the majority of them just want to live peacefully and believe that attacks on civilians is a sin. Of the American Muslims I have met, I see them as simply Americans just like me who want to live the American dream in peace. Its always unfortunate when extremist step in and put a bad reputation on an excellent group of people. If Christians could live Christianity as good as Muslims live Islam, the world would be a much better place. Now to how the government reacted I do not agree with the actions they took. First of all the police and FBI stormed and searched hundreds of houses and kicked normal Americans out of their homes without Warrants or without declaring Martial law. Also by forcing a shutdown of the entire of city of Boston again without declaring martial law is a problem. Thus I see a grave violation of constitutional rights and law by the security officials, the mayor, and the Governor. Secondly I did not like the call by many republican congressmen to try the suspect as an enemy combatant thereby striping him of his rights as an American citizen and being able to hold him indefinitely without a trail. I do not care what crime he committed, he is still a citizen and has the same rights as any other citizen convicted of a crime regardless if he was born here or immigrated here. So that was extremely concerning to me that there were actually lawmakers who would violate constitutional rights so quickly and easily. I care deeply about the precedent such decisions would set. In the future, the government could just claim any citizen a combatant and suspend habeus corpus and ship them to some CIA black site. That is scary to me. Now I am glad that the Obama Administration decided to try him in the civilian court not as an enemy combatant, but I am very disappointed that the administration chose not to give him his Miranda Rights till around 4 hours after FBI interrogation. This is another scary move by the government who seems to be able to justify bypassing laws set up to protect its citizens when it thinks its national security is at risk. So by and large I do not like the government reaction to the situation and I see a potential for the government to act in a Totalitarian manner easily. By them being so easily to disregard the laws for people rights it scares me to think what they will do when a larger problem shows up. 

Secondly, apparently there are two important pieces of legislature before Congress (Immigration and Gun Control), please weigh in on these?

Now for the immigration bill I do want our immigration laws changed. I haven't necessarily looked at the entire bill but I do like the idea that would allow illegal immigrants to gain citizenship status. We have millions of illegals in this country and contrary to the Republican ideas we CANNOT deport them all. It would be practically impossible to do so and they actually do benefit our economy greatly. As for me I view the United States as a land of immigrants and I would love more people from every country in the world to immigrate to the U.S.A. Its what makes us America. Being American to me does not mean that you have to be white and speak english. American to me is black, white, latino, asian, ect.. and all their different languages. WE ARE ALL IMMIGRANTS. Somewhere down the line someone in everyone's family was an immigrant. So I hate our current immigration policy and I look forward to it changing so that legal immigration is easier and illegals in the country have a chance to earn their citizenship and become American. As for the gun bill I am kind of split. I am, probably to your dismay, a gun rights proponent. I am a concealed carry permit holder and do own my own guns. Parts of the bill I did not totally disagree with such as the background check when a person buys a gun. I had to get a background check to get my concealed weapons permit so I do not see a problem with it every time a person buys a gun. Do i think it would solve the issue, no, but it would help a little bit to keep legal guns out of the wrong hands but if bad guys want guns they will get them somehow. So that part I was ok with, but excessive gun control by the government scares me. I do not like when governments gets larger and has more people. It needs to fear its people so that it does not overstep its bounds. It reminds me of what happened to the saints of the church in Missouri at the beginning of our LDS history when the Missouri government took away all of the saints weapons promising protection but then turned on them and illegal drove them out of the state and allowed hundreds to be killed by mobs because they could not protect themselves. As I see the government step more into controlling guns I see a totalitarian tendency for complete control. The government does not like uncertainty and civilians having so many guns creates uncertainty for the government which they do not like. So problems like that always come to my mind when I think about government controlling the arms of civilians. I do not trust government enough to advocate for strict gun control. If we had a perfectly upright and good government I would advocate for gun control but we do not and we the people have the right to protect ourselves where the government fails to do so. 

Thirdly, Obama said "a red line" would be crossed by Syria if they start using chemical weapons against its citizen. A report to confirm that they have crossed it is out, so it would appear that Al Basir has called your president's bluff; what now for America?

Over the Syrian issue I am very torn over what to do. First off I am disgusted by American hypocrisy in the matter. We justified going into Iraq because we claimed that they had these weapons of mass destruction but they didn't. The whole premise of the attack was based on that one point. Now Syria has apparently used chemical weapons and the U.S does nothing. Its interesting that for a potential Iraq with these weapons we justified attacking, but a Syria with confirmed reports of using these weapons we do nothing. I just think its interesting. However, this does not mean that I am necessarily advocating for a U.S intervention considering we do not even know who the rebels are anymore. Also I do not want a direct U.S intervention because the United States has proved it cannot be unbiased in helping other countries and is always just interested in its own interests and not necessarily the interests of the people that live in these other countries. I would however support a U.N led intervention in the country with U.S support. I do not want the U.S doing anything for their own interests, if we do anything it must be for the best interests of the people of Syria and the best way to ensure this is the U.N taking the lead in the matter. Maybe a no fly zone imposed over the country by U.N countries would be an appropriate response to the use of chemical weapons by Assad. As for Obama's red line comment he should have never made it. It doesn't look like he will do anything which weakens his rhetoric in the Middle east and he should just have directed all response to the U.N because that is what it was created for.   

Fourthly, North Korea is proving to be menacing the Korea Peninsula. South Korea is saying that we cannot always rely on US to be a deterrent when it comes to Pyongyang. Their fear is that when things get too hot to handle you would ditch them the way you ditch "Vietnam". So, do you think their fears are unjustified or you think America would stand by South Korea and Japan no matter what?

I do think that South Korean fears are unjustified. We have never shown any lack of commitment to the country and have been consistently aiding the country in deterring the North. Also I think the U.S will stand by Japan and South Korean more than it did for Vietnam because we have much more to loose if South Korea or Japan fall. First off we need our bases in Korea and Japan. They are located in a very tactical position to deal with any potential Chinese threat and provide security for the region. Also we are so economically tied to both Japan and South Korea it would be a big blow to our economic interests if they were to be overrun by North Korea. So yes I do think that they can rely on the U.S to provide security and deterrence against North Korea. But in the end it will probably never really be needed because the North is just full of threats but will never do anything, They know they cannot win a war against the South and the U.S. This aggressive behavior is just an attempt to get the U.S to enter into bilateral negotiations. They just want more aid and concessions from the U.S. This is how they have always acted in the past and it is what they are doing now. It is just a political game they are playing with the international community and the international community is playing right into their hands. We need to just ignore them and not respond to their threats. 

Fifthly, Japan is at loggerheads with China over five small inhabited islands. 

From both sides tough talk and rhetoric have been coupled with a show of military force. What do you think the American need to do to quell the tensions?

Finally for the Japanese and Chinese problem I think the U.S needs to try and get the U.N more involved to create a compromise. It seems that neither country is willing to back down from the Islands so there does need to be some sort of international negotiating started so that we can avoid incidents liked the Chinese radar locking Japanese naval vessels which could easily spark into war dragging the U.S, who is treaty bound to Japan, into an unwanted conflict. In reality neither country really cares about the cultural connection to the islands. All they really want, is control of the 200 mile Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ) of ocean that they would get if they had the islands. So whatever country controls the islands gets 200 miles of ocean around the islands and these 200 miles around the islands are filled with natural resources that both countries need to continue to grow. So a compromise could be reached where the U.N places a small peace keeping force on the islands and each country is given an equal amount of drilling rights for the region. Get rid of the EEZ and create a system where both countries have access to the resources in the region. I believe this would be the only quick peaceful solution to the problem. Whether it is possible is another matter. I believe that this would be an excellent way to cool down temperatures in the region because the U.S does not want another large military conflict on its hands.