Hello everyone,
I was watching the Colbert Report a little while ago and this author named Naomi Wolf was being interviewed. I couldn't help but notice how applicable her statements were to our study of the Weimar Republic. Wolf has written a book called “The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot," warning that American democracy is in danger in the same way democracy was endangered in the Weimar Republic. There's more information about her book here and there is also a video. It's almost an hour long, but it's very itneresting; there's also an anecdote at the beginning about her conversations with a Holocaust survivor who when discussing current American politics often says "this happened in Germany" in reference to the Weimar Republic. Wolf makes a list of ten actions that occur when dictatorships replace democratic governments, many of which are discussed in this article, where the use of torture and surveillance are both mentioned as part of the democracy-to-dictatorship process.
What are your thoughts on Wolf's opinion? Do you think America is in a similar state as the Weimar Republic before WWII in any respect? If so, why, and to what extent? If not, why not? Do you agree with the steps mentioned inthe second article as being indicative of a transfer away from democracy? If not, which steps do you think are not legitimate?
Do you have any other thoughts about Wolf's points that don't correspond to these questions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Though I think that policies like the patriot act are in no way reinforcing our nation's democracy, I do believe that the United States government has enough checks and balances built in to prevent our country from becoming dictatorship without a coup or some drastic change. Though the president does have control over the military, I think that the U.S. is bureaucratic and power is distributed equally enough to prevent the president from being able to have full control of the military and use it to enforce laws that he or she passes without the consent of congress.
I think their have been some signs recently that are democracy is in trouble. National sentiment about the war and the president are clear, yet our government isn't listening to us. Our rights to privacy and free speech are being violated by the patriot act, because in my opinion we aren't in as dire a situation as the government wants us to think. They say the law is there to ensure our safety, but I question whether we are in significant enough danger to give up our rights. We have a President who is making decisions based on his own personal beliefs instead of the desires of the American people(abortion). Luckily, although I question how much things will change, their is an election coming up where the voices will have to be heard.
I am always curious to know the sentiments of other Americans outside of the Bay Area and California. I think it is true that a number of people are unsatisfied with the current government, as can be seen in approval ratings. However, at the same time, I would like to hear other perspectives that stand in support to our current government. All of our recent classes have also made me wonder how we ever know if the information that we receive about current events is accurate.
How much of the information that we receive is unbiased or without propaganda? Is it ever possible to cover the news in an unbias way?
I also found this cartoon that draws a comparison between Nazi Germany and the US, and that hints at US's direction toward a situation like Weimar's. You can take a look and respond to its assertions:
US to Nazi Germany Cartoon
I think we are also once again back to the dilemma of little steps and knowing when the US government has crossed the final line and when something definitive must be done to prevent a situation like Weimar.
i strongly disagree with her statements. i don't think that president bush is anything near a dictator, or even coming close.
i just read the summary of the patriot act on thomas.gov (since the actual act is horrendously long and i don't have that much spare time.) i thought i ought to do this, since we're always discussing it on the blog and (at least... i don't think) anyone has actually looked at the real thing.
IT STARTS OFF BY SAYING: "the civil rights and liberties of all Americans, including Arab Americans, must be protected, and that every effort must be taken to preserve their safety." as well as noting that discrimination or violence against ANY americans is "condemned." - that sounds like it's protecting civil liberties... but let's read on.
the first section says the treasury will fund the FBI so that it can "[enhance] domestic security against terrorism."
the second section gives the FBI power to what we call "wiretap" only if they suspect "chemical weapons or terrorism offenses" OR "computer fraud and abuse." this isn't prohibiting free speech or taking away any civil liberties that i can see.
the third section addresses the "anti-terrorism act of 2001."
under this section, there are two subsections:
A: the FBI can demand financial records from companies that are "money laundering" with suspected terrorists or narcotics traffickers (among other things).
B: again, talking about anti-laundering issues.
and that's the end of the summary. (did anyone actually read that?)
so, what does this mean? i don't think that it takes away any freedoms of speech or privacy... unless you're engaging in things that are already illegal (money laundering, computer fraud, chemical weapons/terrorism, etc.)
also, president bush HASN'T outlawed abortion, and probably isn't going to. he hasn't made a firm decision about that - he HAS said that he's against abortion, but he hasn't passed any laws.
president bush is strongly AGAINST socialized anything - he says that he'll help the poor, but he won't create socialized medicine, etc. THIS is something that is AGAINST dictatorships and totalitarianism - in fact, it is the complete opposite. so in this way, i don't think president bush is at all like a dictator.
our constitution still works wonders - it maintains checks and balances well. we still hold elections, and, as leo said, another is coming up in which bush must step down. how is this a dictatorship? (or even close?)
sorry for the long post, but i felt it had to be said.
-coe
ps: i know melanie said this once, but i think her comment was generally ignored... WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY. we are a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. there is a serious difference, and the founding fathers KNEW it, too. (just go and read the federalist... you'll see what i mean.)
looking at the cartoon Melanie posted about... I can see that it is a fairly clear (if a tiny bit exaggerated) depiction of the US. In day to day life I hear a lot more people discussing gas prices than the genocide in Darfur for example.
Does what people discuss influence/demonstrate what they consider to be important?
Is it bad that oil prices are of so much interest to individuals in the US?
These are really interesting points. Coe, I just wanted to repsond to your comment and start off my response by saying that I definitely agree with some of your arugments. I do not think that President Bush has intentions near those of Hitler's or wants to start a totalitarian regime. However, I just wanted to respond to the comment about the Patriot Act. Having read about it (although not having read the thing in its entirety) I understand that it states that civil rights are important, but saying that something is important in a piece of legislature does not guarantee an action based on that legislature. In other words, what the act says is right or wrong is not necessarily what really has to happen. Civil liberties are being violated and discrimination is occurring. The Patriot Act states that wiretapping is legal if involvement in terrorism is suspected, and that's where the grey area starts, because it doesn't only affect people who are already doing something illegal, it affects anyone the government thinks is doing something illegal. The grounds for that are shaky enough that encroachments on civil liberties can potentially occur.
I think that a lot of the time (not just involving the Patriot Act) the threat of terrorism is used as an excuse for human rights violations. For instance, take a look at this website from the Amnesty International webpage...:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511632007?open&of=ENG-313
Here's a quote: "The CSRT – a scheme described by the administration as 'intended solely to improve management within the Department of Defense concerning its detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay' – consists of panels of three military officers who can consider any information, including information that is hearsay, classified, or that has been obtained under torture or other ill-treatment, in making their determinations."
So, often, information that is used to prove involvement in illegal activity is not legitimate.
Again, I am not equating Bush to Hitler, and I definitely recognize the checks and balances that are preventing the US governmetn from becoming totalitarian. I just think that there are definitely human rights violations occurring as a result of actions of the American government, and that similarities do exist in those little steps.
Post a Comment