Birdseye wrote:I didn't intend a direct comparison between the Nazi situation and the Iraq situation.
In the Canadian Logic thread, I didn't intend to exclude the contributions of allies by focusing on the moral authority obtained by America through the wars of the twentieth century. Sometimes we say things in small packages that do not accurately portray what honestly requires much more verbiage to express.
I'll go with the intent you are claiming.
So let's look at your clarification.
Birdseye wrote:The Goerings quote can be studied without having to be a direct comparison. Although the situations were different, there is wisdom in the words of *how* someone was able to control a nation, even if they are dispicable.
Despicable is an interesting term to apply. To despise someone is such an intense level of rejection as to approach evicting them from the human race. Too often, we have resorted to the comfortable emotional response of despising and failed to engage the critical mental response of analyzing.
Hermann Goering was a genius. He spun his prosecutors in Nuremburg around in logical circles and defied most of their arguments. The judges didn't buy it, and he was convicted and sentenced to hang, but even there he outwitted the court, taking his own life on his terms, defiant to the end. He dominated the other prisoners, led a form of spirited resistance to the whole war crimes process. One good look at his actions, it is easy to appreciate how he rose to number two, as Hitler's named successor. That he ended the war in disgrace, dismissed from his posts, is not to overshadow his genius. He made the mistake of confronting Hitler with logic when the Fuhrer had descended into madness, and out he went, a victim of the very madness that he had worked to forward.
One should not lightly call any Nazi a genius. Even when it is true, there is a hysteria around the world that so loathes and fears what the Nazis did that even reasoned debate is not tolerated. Raise any kind of praise for a Nazi, expect to be shouted down in short order, labeled, filed, stamped, numbered and discarded. You're right, Birds. There is wisdom in studying why the Nazis were successful. One ought to be extremely careful, though. On the subject of history, there are no hotter irons. Mishandle one at your own risk.
You must also be wary of mistaking Goering's defenses at trial for any sort of wisdom. The man was snapping out one liners. A lie can easily be expressed in a few words. Refuting a clever lie can take paragraphs, pages, or entire manuscripts. This is why trial by jury takes so long. The arguments must be forwarded and evidence presented, and then the totality judged with great care. There is plenty of wisdom to be had in matching Goering's explanation with the facts. The real secret lies not in what he claimed, but in what the Nazis actually did. Look not so closely at the man's words. Rather study his deeds.
The state-controlled Nazi press presented any story it liked, any way it liked, subjecting itself to no cross-examination, no investigation, no debate, no accountability, no delays, and no verifications. That is how to control a people: tell them what you want them to hear AND PREVENT THEM FROM HEARING ANYTHING ELSE. Without that last, the lies will only be exposed, debunked, and discredited. Without that last, the liars can be held to task. Even in Nazi Germany, the good people outnumbered the bad. The government kept them silent through use of terror.
To examine the Nazi performance for lessons is a worthy pursuit. To slap half-baked analogies and quotes pulled out of context onto current American activity is sloppy. To claim that a Nazi "summed up" what has happened with Iraq is grossly irresponsible.
Birdseye wrote:Strange how a Nazi basically summed up what (to me) happened fairly recently.
Use of the word "strange" in this context reveals a degree of contempt. You were mocking me.
There are people calling my "Canadian Logic" thread title a sucker punch, brutality, a cheap shot, bullbaiting, and more, but it's about four orders of magnitude less intense than what you pulled with Goering's quote.
Birdseye wrote:The media will take things grossly out of context to the point of seemingly purposeful lying.
You're absolutely right. They will and they do distort stories. However, every time they do that, they put their credibility on the line. This is why the major networks are losing market share. A wide swathe of people grew tired of the spin. When alternative sources of news opened up, many fled.
All news organizations get it wrong sometimes. That is why a free press is so important. A free press is, to some extent, self-correcting. When the news outlets overrely on a single source, as they did with Voter News Service for election-day exit polls and results projections in 2000, leading to the Florida debacle in the media, twice having to retract their projections of who had won, the pressure on the media BY THE PEOPLE and by one another mounts, and reforms are enacted. This is a slow, cumbersome process, but so is politics on the whole.
When there is no competition, no checks and balances, no watchdogs, no fact checkers, no accountability, then it is easy to lie and get away with it. In the free press that we have, one can also catch people in a lie, as CBS was caught with the fake documents about Bush's national guard service, and corrections can be forwarded.
Getting at the truth is never easy. But the clearest lessons to be drawn from Goering's words are not the ways in which America is similar to the Nazis, but the ways in which we are different. Those differences are ignored by many around the world, particularly by those who have things to gain if America loses.
Birdseye wrote:I'm simply saying that the founding fathers, as well as goering, understood the herdability of the masses, and how dangerous it can be.
The founding fathers were not of one mind in all things. They debated heatedly, much as we are doing here. Some were more right than others on the vital issues. Nevertheless, they practiced enough of the art of compromise to satisfy the bulk of the concerns of the prevailing points of view. Here's a bit I pulled from "howstuffworks.com" to explain this:
howstuffworks.com wrote:The Electoral College is a controversial mechanism of presidential elections that was created by the framers of the U.S. Constitution as a compromise for the presidential election process. At the time, some politicians believed a purely popular election was too reckless, while others objected to giving Congress the power to select the president. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.
The conservatives wanted the people to elect the Congress and then have the Congress elect the President. The liberals wanted the popular vote to elect the President. They compromised.
Politics is the art of the possible. The founding fathers were UNABLE to reach compromises on some issues, slavery foremost among them. Rather than insist on perfection, however, they took what they could get and left the rest for us to deal with later.
Birdseye wrote:Why else is there an electoral college (minus the large state vs. big state issue)
I presume you meant to say the large state vs small state issue?
You cannot subtract that issue. That WAS the issue, and it remains the issue today. If the nation's president were elected by popular vote, the campaign could focus only on the largest states. You must remember, the Constitution of the United States REQUIRED UNANIMOUS CONFIRMATION. That is a key to its success, all states and all peoples of the nation had to agree that it served their interests. To be admitted to the Union, all territories wishing to become States had to ratify the Constitition and swear to uphold it as their supreme law of the land.
The small states would not have signed without the Electoral College compromise. You may find fault with this balance, but the self-same balance is reflected in the US Senate. One chamber of Congress votes on the popular vote basis. The other votes state by state. The Electoral College combines these two principles, apportioning the presidential vote state by state, with the popular vote (as represented by number of seats in the House) on the one side, and two votes per state (as represented by the number of seats in the Senate) on the other. This distribution provide more checks and balances.
Do you also reject the wisdom of the US Senate? Shall we amend our Constitution to do away with the Senate and move to a process derived wholly from the results of popular votes? Perhaps we should do away with States and Counties as well? And State Legislatures? Why do we need Mayors and Township Supervisors? Why not elect one President and let Him or Her sit on a Throne and rule over us as a Constitutional Monarch?
We are called the united STATES for a reason. Our government includes principles of equality for individuals, but within the law, there are also principles of equality for the states. Many have criticized this system, but none have produced applied theory that actually outperforms it.
To compare the Electoral College with the philosophy of Hermann Goering is astounding.
I tried to reach out a hand to grab you, but you just kept sawing away at that branch.
- Sirian
)
). I think his "feminine" verbal style is where all these "whiny biatch" comments are coming from. Anyway, let's face it, most middle class voter-types wouldn't be too thrilled to stand next to him in line at the grocery store.
