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