Heil Trump?

Bill Maher put it well:  the trouble with branding the Guy You Hate (or in HRC’s case, Madame Mao) as “Hitler” is that when someone who does actually resemble Hitler comes around, no one believes you.  But how dangerous IS the Mango Mussolini? 

I’ll agree that in terms of his pompous personality, he shares a lot in common with Hitler and Mussolini.  Trump considers himself a leader, a man who “get things done”, and who doesn’t tolerate dissent, opposition, or any form of disagreement.  He doesn’t take advice well and only trusts his own judgment.  He’s intoxicated with his own persona.  Of course he’s arrogant and strong-willed.  In the face of facts to the contrary he simply repeats his assertions bluntly and expects to be believed no matter what he says.  Trump is very much a megalomaniac. 

I believe it’s pertinent to raise certain issues concerning major differences between Trump and Hitler.  Hearing Trump speak on any political issue, it’s clear from the consistency of his inconsistency that he has a very poor grasp of political topics.  Reading from a speech (e.g. last night) is one thing:  responding to questions from reporters and commenting off the cuff is another.  Someone put together a montage of Ron Paul from 1980 to the recent past, and he was extremely consistent.  Most politicians who have a clearly defined ideology are.  In Hitler’s case, the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP, better known as the Nazi Party) in fact articulated its platform in 1920 with its 25 Points.  I’ve read Mein Kampf (in English, after many false starts, years ago).  As wrong as Hitler’s politics may have been, at least he grasped them.  Trump is all over the place.  It seems that he cannot grasp politics.  Why is he President??

Other differences are in past and lifestyle.  Trump inherited millions; Hitler was homeless in Vienna before the war.  Trump married three times and has several children; Hitler had a mistress, Eva Braun, and no children with her.  Trump is brazen in his nepotism; Hitler threatened to draft his nephew, and gave his extended family no favors whatsoever.  But these issues pale in comparison to the difference in political acumen between the two. 

However, having said all that, Trump is President and not dictator – at least, not yet.  How dangerous is he?

Emergency Powers.  Trump’s arrogance and cluelessness aside, what made Hitler dangerous was gaining emergency powers in March 1933 after the Reichtag Fire.  This let him suspend habeas corpus, round up all his political enemies, and throw them into freshly-built Dachau.   By the time Hindenburg died in 1934, there was no one to stop AH from merging the positions of chancellor and president together.  And it all went downhill until the Red Army took care of things in Berlin in April 1945.

Here?  Good luck with that.  If a bunch of clowns set Congress on fire, that body would NOT simply vote for emergency powers to Trump.  Never mind Rand Paul, none of the Democrats and almost none of the Republicans (if not none) would approve that.  So the very issue which gave Hitler his dictatorship is a non-starter here.

Absent that, what can he do?  He can’t replace the Supreme Court, and the sole replacement he’s picked (Neil Gorsuch) actually looks sane.  The US Circuit Courts of Appeals appear immune to his charms, as do the lower US District Courts – judges cannot be told “You’re fired!”   Congress isn’t rubber stamping his edicts, and those 535 cannot be summarily dismissed by him.  Congress, not the President, passes laws.  Even in the Executive Branch, something like 70% is immune to political change, as was designed back in the early twentieth century (thanks, Teddy Roosevelt) for the express purpose of insulating the federal bureaucracy from a tyrannical president; they had the recent memory of the “spoils system” from the late 1800s to persuade them to make the bureaucracy more effective and less corrupt, which mean giving it a degree of independence from the chief executive.  Then you’ve got 50 state governors AND 50 state legislatures which are also immune to him – plus their judiciaries and executive branches, which are likewise insulated from their governors’ whims.    

He can start wars and launch nukes, which remains a concern.  IF the FBI was 100% on his side, that might be a problem, BUT you still have all those US attorneys across the country with the discretion to act.  The Justice Department can’t necessarily be depended upon to back him up.  Same with the NSA and CIA.  Of course you have 50 state police departments and local PDs which are also independent.  That will make any marijuana crusade a problem in any state where the local government has legalized recreational marijuana – as a more glaring example of how the Feds do NOT have full control of our country no matter who is in the Oval Office. 

So here’s where he screwed up.  It’s tempting to view the US government as something that can be “managed” by someone with sufficient experience in upper level management positions, a CEO who has run a few big firms.  Hell, I added BMGT as a second degree track to GVPT at University of Maryland.  But through most of the private sector, “employment at will” lets a CEO pretty much do as he pleases so long as he doesn’t violate laws – though in the case of ENRON that’s somewhat debatable.  The same degree of omnipotence in business doesn’t exist in government (outside of totalitarian regimes).  I get the impression that people like Mark Cuban and Warren Buffett, or even Mitt Romney, can grasp that – notice how little interest the most highly capable business leaders show in running for any political office.  I don’t think Carly Fiorina understood that – nor does Donald Trump, but he’s quickly learning…the hard way.  He walked into a buzzsaw. 

Impeachment.   Now I zone out when I hear the I-word burped about on Facebook by those who obviously didn’t vote for Trump and feel his election is some massive travesty.   Except that impeachment is so obviously politically motivated, a hopelessly un-subtle attempt to achieve judicially that which could not be done last November at the ballot box, that no one need concern themselves with the issue.  IF and WHEN Trump does commit some major crime which does legitimately merit impeachment, then and only then should we go about the process.  With his arrogance, cluelessness, and tendency to ignore advice which contradicts what he would do anyway, that’s actually not nearly as remote a possibility as it would be for previous Presidents, even George W. Bush, with the sense to play by the rules.  Otherwise we’re in a position where the losing side invariably barks and brays for this, gets it, we get stuck with Pence or Biden (until they screw up in turn) and we’re left with a revolving door of Presidents. 

[Actually, the closest parallel to Hitler I see in American politics is fictional:  Frank Underwood, from "House of Cards".  Fortunately, Underwood remains a fictional character.   Or has Kevin Spacey put his hat in the ring?]

Enough already.  Focus on the 2018 elections and picking the right person to run against Trump in 2020.