|
Well, Hitler changed it because he got the support of the Army, and he then pretty much could ignore proper procedure. Now, why is it that the same thing couldn't happen here? If Clinton or some future President, backed by military leaders, wanted to seize absolute power, who would stop him-- a Judge issuing a Court order? A resolution of Congress? Citizens armed with pistols and shotguns? The answer is no one can help if the military leaders turn their backs on democratic principles. You can have ten constitutions, and five right to bear arms amendments, and senators and representatives and whatnot--tanks and mortars would silence all. And of course it could happen here, with the "right" leader, the "right" military men, a perceived crisis, and a frightened citizenry. Of course it can happen here; shining democracies have crumbled in the past. Who would have thought that Germany could go from having a Jewish Foreign Minister (the aforementioned Rathenau), to gas chambers for Jews in only a few years time. The Germany of Schiller, Wagner, Goethe, Brecht, Einstein--these were not barbarians living in caves. They had a working democracy under von Hindenburg--anyone could vote, anyone could do anything (yes, including own pistols). Your analogy of Clinton to Hitler simply makes no sense, Sir. Who do you think he wants to gas, kill, invade, and repress? He's a weak moral actor, but depraved bloodlust just doesn't seem to be what motivates him. If you think the Constitution is what prevents degeneration into autocracy, then you have some learning to do. It is only by collective agreement of the people (and most particularly the military) that democracy is preserved. And that can be lost, as it was lost in Germany, under circumstances that we do not wish to imagine, but which are never impossible. |
