The liberalized world-view tries to understand and forgive the ordinary German for the holocaust. When I was a kid, we were taught that it was mostly Hitler’s fault, but that a smallish coterie surrounding him supported the effort.
That’s a nonsensical view, because the entire German economy and its institutions wrapped around and participated in the holocaust; the whole thing would not have worked, else. It may not be the case that the average German was OK with nazism and the holocaust, but the truth is that – whether they were OK with it or not – they did not intervene. Intervening would have required, perhaps, collapsing society from within, but that’s perhaps what it would have taken. Failure to intervene is not “necessary” for individual survival and well-being, it might be necessary to intervene in order to uphold one’s own beliefs. The alternative is to wake up one day and realize that we participated in, and aided, a disaster.
It seems abstract but it’s actually all around us right now. We just witnessed a case study in the whole process, surrounding the whistle-blower and impeachment proceedings. Step back and bit and watch: one person sort of came forward, and there was a brief firestorm of others rallying around – a brief rebellion of sorts. Now, the people involved in that are going to be punished. In order for that to happen, the justice department, senior agencies, CIA (probably) and the white house are going to have to work together to some degree. Their lack of coordination aside, this illustrates what I’m talking about: for it to work, everyone’s got to be in on it. That’s why we should reject Hitler-centric explanations of nazism. We need Austria/Germany-society-centric explanations and nobody’s looking for those because the conclusion of that search is something nobody is prepared to deal with. It’s similar to the pathetic soul-searching the US went through, trying to figure out who to point the finger of blame on for Trump. Was it the rednecks in “fly-over country?” Was it racists? Was it southern power politics? Was it a failure of the democrats? Was it systemic corruption in the electoral system? Yes. Yes, it was. It was all of them, working together.
The same reasoning explains why Trump’s impeachment failed. The democrats did not approach the event as though they were in a war for their lives. The justice department was already rigged. The senior agencies were already rigged. The white house met with senators and made whatever private promises were necessary; there was a whole series of meetings between Trump and various senators at Camp David, presumably while the price of his ‘exoneration’ was worked out. That was reported by the media, who also did not approach the event as though they are in a war for their lives. In part, that’s because Fox isn’t; they expect to be repaid for their service by becoming the official news channel of United States 2.0. – which they will, but I predict they will not like it. For what has happened to happen, it’s a big cooperative effort. It’s far more pervasive than people seem to want to recognize. For one thing, we have ICE basically doing whatever they want, so long as it’s reducing the size of the non-white population of certain states that might have “flipped” from the republican party. In the meantime, they can get their sadism on, but they know their real mission. For another thing, we have absolutely horrifying things like the Pennsylvania GOP telling the State Supreme Court that he’ll ignore its anti-gerrymandering orders. The GOP senators are refusing to turn over requested records, too – doing whatever they can to obfuscate and delay until the next election. Sound familiar? [think progress] The system is not broken it’s working as intended; it’s just gone off the rails because it’s been steered off the rails. This is the republicans making their big move – they are going to do whatever it takes to hold the white house and the senate and if they can do that, they’ll finish the rest of the job.
Last year I did a posting in which I pointed out that the republican party cannot just be beaten, it must be destroyed. Unfortunately, they’re way ahead of me; they figured that out years ago and re-arranged the system so that the checks and balances were removed and the new system’s components can work together and reinforce eachother. That does not require a precise, planned conspiracy with expert timing and kung fu fighting – it’s an emergent conspiracy that results from all the republicans recognizing an existential threat to their way of controlling the government, and they’re all responding each in their own way, across the board. When they get that done, they cooperate as necessary. If you want something to really scare you, look at the way Trump and McConnell have quietly packed the federal judiciary. We already know about the supreme court, but when Trump took office there were over 100 vacancies in the lower federal courts and courts of appeals – those vacancies were a result of the Obama administration eventually giving up when they realized that none of their candidates were going to be seated. This is exactly the same trick McConnell pulled to keep Obama from appointing a supreme court judge (giving Trump’s handlers that opportunity, instead) – except on a vast scale. The 100+ vacancies have now been filled with fascist republicans who will support the republican party’s agenda. We’ve already seen how Trump’s packing the appeals courts has protected him from having his taxes subpoena’d and it appears to be waylaying a fairly credible rape accusation against the man; that is going to get worse. [pbs] Those are lifetime appointments. The only way the democrats could possibly respond to this would be by expanding and re-packing the courts, or changing the appointment laws (which would result in the republicans fighting like the cornered rats they are) – I don’t think the democrats have the spirit for that kind of fight.
From PBS:
“They are the ones that judge all your disputes,” Trump said in a March 2018 speech. “They judge on what’s fair on the environment and what’s not fair.”
“I don’t know why Obama left that,” he added, referencing the vacancies. “It was like a big, beautiful present to all of us.”
It wasn’t a present; it was outright theft. That’s just Trump gloating like an asshole; he knows exactly what was going on.
As of May 16, 107 of President Trump’s nominees have been confirmed, including 40 appeals court nominees. In March, a federal appeals court flipped to a majority of Republican appointees for the first time under Trump.
They are mostly young, white and male. They will decide cases about elections, voting rights, immigration, the environment, labor, abortion, gun control and other issues that impact the lives of Americans. And long after Trump’s presidency is over, they will remain on the courts.
This is what I mean about how, when the nazis took over, they didn’t break things – they re-integrated them into a new control structure. They could not have accomplished the burst of economic and military activity that they did, if they had a dysfunctional, divided, political system. Sure, there were plenty of cogs in the vast machine that wished they could do something to stop it, but they were either unable to do anything, or scared to. Or both; usually both. That’s what we’re heading toward in the US, right now.
Look at the number of people who were involved in the impeachment fiasco who have been hounded out of the government: McKinley from state department, Yovanovich from state, god knows how many from FBI and justice, George Kent from state department probably has a target painted on his back and will least another few months at most, etc, etc. That’s how the third reich staffed itself up, too: people of good will were driven out, or scared into silence while the rest of the mechanism of power was re-structured to make their efforts moot.
I don’t think this was a conspiracy, but what happened was that the election-riggers and vote-suppressors realized that the headlights were on them and it was time to turn it up to 11. At about the same time, Mitch McConnell realized that his “Merrick Garland Trick” could also allow packing the appeals courts and judiciary and that’s why he was walking around with a big shit-eating grin for the last few years. Trump was like a crystal dropped in a super-saturated solution, like Hitler was, and around him congealed his Reynhard Heydrichs and Stephen Millers and faceless ICE administrators. It was an emergent conspiracy, triggered by the deer-in-the-headlights moment in which the republicans realized they’d either have to cheat harder, or play fair. That was a choice of no choice, because they don’t know how to play fair.
Just yesterday, I opined that what I see as the Rubicon for the US is when one political party uses the mechanism of power and the judiciary to outlaw the other. [stderr] Again, I was behind the leading edge of the slippery slope; it’s already passed me by: [slate]
Lindsey Graham Warns GOP Will Investigate Whistleblower, Biden After Impeachment Trial
“The Senate Intel committee under Richard Burr has told us that we will call the whistleblower,” Graham said on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures. “Why is it important? I want to know how all this crap started.” Graham went on to say that he wants to know what ties the whistleblower who first raised a red flag regarding Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has with Democrats. “If the whistleblower is a former employee of, associate of, Joe Biden, I think that would be important. If the whistleblower was working with people on Schiff’s staff that wanted to take Trump down a year and a half ago, I think that would be important”
My immediate reaction was the wrong one. I immediately thought “God damn that’s hypocritical! They can’t pretend to care about those very events that they refused to answer the house enquiry about.” Except the situation has moved past rational; hypocrisy doesn’t matter. If Graham has paused to reflect long enough to realize it’s hypocrisy, he doesn’t care – he just gargled in shit for Trump and hasn’t had time to wipe his lips, what’s another mouthful to Lindsey?
They are going to do this because they can.
[alternet] – psychologists on why we don’t stand up to oppressive regimes. Their answer is “cost/benefit analysis and our sense of what is appropriate” and I think that’s probably not too bad (though I am skeptical of the methodology by which one might support such a theory)
They argued that human behaviour is governed by two complementary, and very different, “logics”. According to the logic of consequence, we choose our actions like a good economist: weighing up the costs and benefits of the alternative options in the light of our personal objectives. This is basically how we get what we want.
But there is also a second logic, the logic of appropriateness. According to this, outcomes, good or bad, are often of secondary importance – we often choose what to do by asking “What is a person like me supposed to do in a situation like this”?
The idea is backed up by psychological research. Human social interactions depend on our tendency to conform to unwritten rules of appropriate behaviour. Most of us are truthful, polite, don’t cheat when playing board games and follow etiquette. We are happy to let judges or football referees enforce rules. A recent study showed we even conform to arbitrary norms.
I suppose it’s an answer of sorts to De Boétie’s question [mises] – oppressive regimes attack all the aspects of our cost/benefit analysis. Not only do they convince us that we will suffer if we resist, they convince us it won’t work, anyway. By pushing all the justifications away, they only have to deal with the few who are so unhooked that they really don’t care if they live or die, anymore.
sonofrojblake says
“That does not require a precise, planned conspiracy with expert timing and kung fu fighting”
Please accept a short round of applause for that phrasing.
polishsalami says
The reality is that life under oppressive regimes isn’t oppressive for large segments of the population. Someone living in the USA right now with a nice house, decent income, 2.4 kids isn’t going to see much change in their day-to-day life, even if they vote Democrat.
The GOP have no intention of going after Democrats, because they don’t see them as a threat. They know they can do what they want, with only token resistance. The same is true about the gun fuckers running around Richmond & Kentucky; the Ruling Class knows these people will never attempt an insurrection against any government.
Andreas Avester says
For me there’s only the cost-benefit analysis. For example, if doing the right thing meant getting imprisoned and waterboarded, then I would choose not to do what I perceive as right.
Whether my actions are perceived as appropriate by other people is near irrelevant for me. I have no intrinsic reasons to care about other people’s approval. I care about their opinions only when it influences my life quality (for example, other people disliking me can result in me losing my income).
Andreas Avester says
polishsalami @#2
Until they need an abortion. Until one of their 2.4 kids turn out to be LGBTQIA. Until they get sick and find out that health insurance no longer works for them. Until capitalists take away their job.
Marcus Ranum says
sonofrojblake@#1:
Please accept a short round of applause for that phrasing.
(takes a small bow)
Pierce R. Butler says
At about the same time, Mitch McConnell realized that his “Merrick Garland Trick” could also allow packing the appeals courts and judiciary…
Nah, he’d already been using that tactic for years, all the way back to the Clinton days.
Andrew Molitor says
And here we all sit, typing furiously on our computer’s keyboards.
Marcus Ranum says
Andreas Avester@#4:
It’s all fun and games until it’s your own ox that gets gored.
Here is a case in point:
https://www.alternet.org/2020/02/sickening-2016-trump-voter-turns-on-the-president-after-his-wife-gets-deported-to-mexico/
He thought Trump’s anti-Mexican immigrant stuff was all puffery so he voted for Trump in spite of his wife being a Mexican; then they took her away. I feel bad for her but stupid gomer got what he asked for.
komarov says
I don’t think that’s it. It has nothing to do with hypocrisy*, but is about something completely different: Betrayal. Leaking information about something Perfectly Legal And Normal The President Did Behind Everyone’s Back is treachery. As such it must be investigated relentlessly, until every last goat has been throughly scaped.
There’s the embarassment to consider. The time the opposition wasted, making all those bored senators sit through a pointless show-mistrial. There’s fear to be struck into the hearts of peons, who might otherwise be inspired to take action themselves. (Merely demonstrating the futility of their efforts might not be enough) And last but not least, there might be the opportunity to take some old enemies down a peg in the process. Oh, and as with everything US politicians do, it’s a chance to profile oneself for the next election. That alone is probably reason enough to misinterpet every law, bend every paragraph and squeeze every legal phrase into a cudgel to beat someone, anyone, down with, just as long as there are headlines.
*Except plainly being hyprocisy, yes, but that’s incidental.
—
Unfair though it may be, I’m going to guess, “by secretly observing their PhDs and Post-Docs as they toil away, trapped in their own microcosm of merciless tyranny.”
cvoinescu says
Marcus:
The liberalized world-view tries to understand and forgive the ordinary German for the holocaust. When I was a kid, we were taught that it was mostly Hitler’s fault, but that a smallish coterie surrounding him supported the effort.
That’s a nonsensical view, […]
I mostly agree with you, but I would like to emphasize what you’re saying only indirectly. I am under no illusion that another people would have behaved much differently under similar circumstances, so it’s a bit unfair to blame ordinary Germans specifically. We all suck, collectively, when the incentives line up in certain ways. It just happened that they were the ones measured with the suck ruler. Sadly, history provides several other data points, all tragic, and is in the process of providing a few more (one of which you’re talking about later).
John Morales says
cvoinescu, good point.
Marcus Ranum says
cvoinescu@#10:
It just happened that they were the ones measured with the suck ruler.
Well said. And I agree. That’s the point: totalitarian regimes arrange it so that people will go along with them (carrot and stick and inertia) and make examples of those that resist, specifically to achieve that effect.
To De Boetie’s point: they don’t resist because they have been slowly cowed. For someone like Estienne or me to walk up and go “why are you going along with this?!” is not reasonable because we are outsiders who are taking a new perspective on the situation, we did not participate in the gradual change and watching those that complained get disappeared.
Andreas Avester says
Marcus @#12
Often the insider perspective isn’t really that warped. Many citizens do not truly support their oppressive regimes, instead they simply do not resist because they are scared of imprisonment or executions. For example, in 1990 in the USSR a lot of formerly obedient citizens noticed that they could get away with opposing the regime, and they started doing exactly that. My grandmother and also my parents who previously hadn’t resisted against the regime became pretty politically active the moment it became apparent that they could get away with it without getting sent to some prison.
abbeycadabra says
Since we’re living in crazytown anyway, I’ve been wondering if it would be possible to sue McConnell? His whole schtick is about selectively refusing to do his job, which is at least officially that of a public servant, therefore couldn’t the argument be made that he’s in breach of contract, possibly with every citizen in the country but CERTAINLY with his own constituents? SOMEONE’S got to have standing…
Saad says
Andrew Molitor,
Because that’s the extent of American activism. That, and standing in orderly queues to vote in gerrymandered, voter-suppressed, foreign-influenced elections.
Marcus Ranum says
Saad and Andrew Molitor:
Because that’s the extent of American activism
Yeah, until we get riled up enough to do something truly stupid. I approve in principle of some of the things the weathermen did, but blowing up cops is not effective and there really is no “trigger” that can be pushed to start a revolution – unless you’re the CIA and have laid all the ground-work.
Marching in a rally to paint a target on my back? I did that in the 70s and 80s and at the time it was a fun outing but it was hardly pitchforks and torches, which is what I think we need to jump to.
khms says
#14 @abbeycadabra
Probably not, at the most other senators.
Because politicians have always been careful to protect themselves (and the judiciary, and other branches of the government) against such things.
Because, unfortunately, these things can just as easily be used to install an oppressive regime.
And that is the fundamental conundrum. Every variant of checks and balances can be abused against what it is supposed to protect, because it’s all humans, all the way down.
John Morales says
khms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeepMind
Doesn’t have to be all humans, all the way down, anymore.