The Pianist succeeded in showing the incrementall corrosion. Bit, by bit, slowly, slowly, each step unalarming, until the cumulative effect was alarming and too late to undo.
Humans are highly susceptible to social norms, compliance. More so when the progression of change is gradual. This is no different to any government seeking to shift public policy and gain broad acceptance. Or corporations convincing usl that our personal digital data is a small price for access to everything the internet has to offer.
Hitler was certainly popular, he was considered a charismatic leader (difficult to believe, yes, but true, and seen that way not only in Germany, but internationally).
Nazi Germany targeted Jews, the disabled, gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, gays, and many other groups.
Worth tracking it down. Although confined to a couple of hours of cinema, I was struck by how well the film addressed the question of 'how could this possibly happen '. Pretty easily, it turns out. We'd all like to believe we'd be resistant, horrified. It haunts my mind that most people wouldn't. Any population is susceptible. That's the problem. It wasn't special to one country or one era. I don't think we've learned from history.
Thanks for this review. Will definitely read it. Wondering to what extent the book focuses on the socio-economic context? Germany, was, of course under terrific economic distress after WWI and the Treaty of Versailles; and then there was probably the German pride/identity sting as well. Presumably, this would make a broader set of the population more amenable to a charismatic leader who is all about rebuilding military, economic, and traditional German-pride strength . . . And to do so in a way that exacts some level of retribution or cathartic payback for real and perceived injustices.
Seems to me that this is what Trump has quite effectively teed-up among a substantial minority of Americans. And the power of the autocratic appeal seems to rest in the determination and capacity -- immediately, often by defiant fiat -- to redress populist grievances. In our age, autocrats seem to be able to be effect this under the cover of institutionalized democratic electoral mechanisms.
This raises the question of how a democracy intercedes in this sort of domestic uprising? I’m thinking that perhaps the only effective counter to the mass appeal of this sort of autocratic subterfuge, “direct action,” and creeping hegemony is for pro-democracy leadership to demonstrate very aggressively the capacity to directly address the real and imagined underlying popular grievances -- and to do so in very visible, impactful ways with extremely aggressive messaging and abundant direct, public engagement that can and WILL be covered by the press.
I think this is where our democratic leadership is falling short in very worrisome ways. While Trump, DeSantis, Abbott and so many other leading autocratic insurrectionists show the efficacy and economy of, “Only I can fix it,” Biden and the rest of our democratic leadership are still operating in the shop-worn, ineluctable, “I have a plan” politics with the conventional “laundry-list” promises and solutions that elicit little more than cynicism from voters in both parties.
How else, but with bold, impactful actions from our pro-democracy leadership, can we counter the widespread appeal of dictatorial solutions to mass popular grievances, however they have originated and been cynically cultivated?
The problem is that the grievances in question are basically worry of loss of status if marginalized ppl are treated equally. That’s not something ds can or should address. And Rs block most measures to help ppl because those would undermine the hierarchy they support.
Thanks for the reply. I am wondering about your statement: “That’s not something ds can or should address.”
Seems to me that addressing this “status” issue is pretty much our nation’s founding and animating principle and mission. “. . . Dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” “Equal justice for all.” “E pluribus unum.” Etc.
Isn’t this exactly what ds should and must address? And if they can’t or shouldn’t then what does that mean for our experiment in democracy?
well, let me try this way...you were talking about addressing grievances. The problem is that the right's anger isn't really based in economic injustice. It's very much about christofascist white male hegemony; white Christians feel they're losing status and are no longer the unchallenged rulers of our increasingly multiracial and diverse democracy. Trump can sound forceful in addressing those grievances because he basically wants to just genocide anyone who dares to challenge white male christofascist hegemony. Democrats can't rival him there, and shouldn't!
Democrats can push for policies to help less affluent people, and should! and in fact they are doing that in many ways. They could go further there...but the GOP blocks most of those initiatives. That's the problem. the gop is a minority, but they have structural advantages, and so can block changes that would help us move towards a real democracy. that's our dilemma.
Ah, Yes, I get what you are saying now. That is definitely a dilemma. But I wonder how much of MAGA is Christofascist (i.e., like a vanguard) and how much is, in fact, based enough in economic injustice (say 40 years of Neo-Liberal trickle-down economics, union-busting, and globalization that eviscerated the economics, agency, and wellbeing of much of the working and middle class). Totally agree that it’s hard to do other than defeat the former. But, to the extent that there is a softer “middle,” perhaps Biden and the Dems could do a much better job of swinging some of them if they can be really convinced that the dems are demonstrably on their side?
Color me skeptical about the response of Germans to their own culpability in the Holocaust and to their own participation (or tacit support) of National Socialism in the 1930s. Let's not forget that the NSDAP won a huge electoral victory in 1933 which was driven more by fear than by the intimidating behavior of the SA thugs.
The Pianist succeeded in showing the incrementall corrosion. Bit, by bit, slowly, slowly, each step unalarming, until the cumulative effect was alarming and too late to undo.
Humans are highly susceptible to social norms, compliance. More so when the progression of change is gradual. This is no different to any government seeking to shift public policy and gain broad acceptance. Or corporations convincing usl that our personal digital data is a small price for access to everything the internet has to offer.
Hitler was certainly popular, he was considered a charismatic leader (difficult to believe, yes, but true, and seen that way not only in Germany, but internationally).
Nazi Germany targeted Jews, the disabled, gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, gays, and many other groups.
yep. (I think Roma is preferred, btw; the other word is often considered a slur.)
Yes, these days, but not back in the 40s.
Gypsy always sounded exotic and carefree, to me. In Europe, that's not how it's used.
I really should watch the pianist; I still haven't seen that.
Worth tracking it down. Although confined to a couple of hours of cinema, I was struck by how well the film addressed the question of 'how could this possibly happen '. Pretty easily, it turns out. We'd all like to believe we'd be resistant, horrified. It haunts my mind that most people wouldn't. Any population is susceptible. That's the problem. It wasn't special to one country or one era. I don't think we've learned from history.
Thank you for this substantive post. I was about to cancel my subscription but this substantive post changed my mind & I renewed.
yay! I will hold onto you for another month...
Thanks for this review. Will definitely read it. Wondering to what extent the book focuses on the socio-economic context? Germany, was, of course under terrific economic distress after WWI and the Treaty of Versailles; and then there was probably the German pride/identity sting as well. Presumably, this would make a broader set of the population more amenable to a charismatic leader who is all about rebuilding military, economic, and traditional German-pride strength . . . And to do so in a way that exacts some level of retribution or cathartic payback for real and perceived injustices.
Seems to me that this is what Trump has quite effectively teed-up among a substantial minority of Americans. And the power of the autocratic appeal seems to rest in the determination and capacity -- immediately, often by defiant fiat -- to redress populist grievances. In our age, autocrats seem to be able to be effect this under the cover of institutionalized democratic electoral mechanisms.
This raises the question of how a democracy intercedes in this sort of domestic uprising? I’m thinking that perhaps the only effective counter to the mass appeal of this sort of autocratic subterfuge, “direct action,” and creeping hegemony is for pro-democracy leadership to demonstrate very aggressively the capacity to directly address the real and imagined underlying popular grievances -- and to do so in very visible, impactful ways with extremely aggressive messaging and abundant direct, public engagement that can and WILL be covered by the press.
I think this is where our democratic leadership is falling short in very worrisome ways. While Trump, DeSantis, Abbott and so many other leading autocratic insurrectionists show the efficacy and economy of, “Only I can fix it,” Biden and the rest of our democratic leadership are still operating in the shop-worn, ineluctable, “I have a plan” politics with the conventional “laundry-list” promises and solutions that elicit little more than cynicism from voters in both parties.
How else, but with bold, impactful actions from our pro-democracy leadership, can we counter the widespread appeal of dictatorial solutions to mass popular grievances, however they have originated and been cynically cultivated?
The problem is that the grievances in question are basically worry of loss of status if marginalized ppl are treated equally. That’s not something ds can or should address. And Rs block most measures to help ppl because those would undermine the hierarchy they support.
Thanks for the reply. I am wondering about your statement: “That’s not something ds can or should address.”
Seems to me that addressing this “status” issue is pretty much our nation’s founding and animating principle and mission. “. . . Dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” “Equal justice for all.” “E pluribus unum.” Etc.
Isn’t this exactly what ds should and must address? And if they can’t or shouldn’t then what does that mean for our experiment in democracy?
well, let me try this way...you were talking about addressing grievances. The problem is that the right's anger isn't really based in economic injustice. It's very much about christofascist white male hegemony; white Christians feel they're losing status and are no longer the unchallenged rulers of our increasingly multiracial and diverse democracy. Trump can sound forceful in addressing those grievances because he basically wants to just genocide anyone who dares to challenge white male christofascist hegemony. Democrats can't rival him there, and shouldn't!
Democrats can push for policies to help less affluent people, and should! and in fact they are doing that in many ways. They could go further there...but the GOP blocks most of those initiatives. That's the problem. the gop is a minority, but they have structural advantages, and so can block changes that would help us move towards a real democracy. that's our dilemma.
Ah, Yes, I get what you are saying now. That is definitely a dilemma. But I wonder how much of MAGA is Christofascist (i.e., like a vanguard) and how much is, in fact, based enough in economic injustice (say 40 years of Neo-Liberal trickle-down economics, union-busting, and globalization that eviscerated the economics, agency, and wellbeing of much of the working and middle class). Totally agree that it’s hard to do other than defeat the former. But, to the extent that there is a softer “middle,” perhaps Biden and the Dems could do a much better job of swinging some of them if they can be really convinced that the dems are demonstrably on their side?
Color me skeptical about the response of Germans to their own culpability in the Holocaust and to their own participation (or tacit support) of National Socialism in the 1930s. Let's not forget that the NSDAP won a huge electoral victory in 1933 which was driven more by fear than by the intimidating behavior of the SA thugs.