I received a couple of interesting proposals in response to my post that asked if this is really 1933. One of the authors gave me permission to reprint his proposal.
I’d want to bet on whether, between January 20, 2017 and January 20, 2021, Congress will pass and the President will sign legislation that does one or more of the following.
(a) compels the registration, internment, or deportation of a class of US citizens based on their ethnicity, national origin, or peacefully expressed religious beliefs;
(b) confiscates firearms from members of such a class based on one of the above (this would have to be across-the-board confiscation from all members of the class: the proposed restrictions on people on the “no-fly list” would not, however odious in themselves, qualify);
(c) compels members of such a class to sign loyalty oaths or face criminal penalties;
(d) empowers domestic law enforcement agencies to carry out warrantless searches and seizures of the physical property of US citizens beyond the existing recognized “Fourth Amendment exceptions” like airport security;
(e) allows _indefinitely extensible_ administrative detention of US civilian citizens without right of habeas corpus, whether “terrorist suspects” or otherwise (as I understand it, the PATRIOT Act already allows short-term administrative detention but with clear time limits);
(f) criminalizes “false or malicious writing” opposing US government policies or officials, in the senses previously criminalized by the Sedition Acts of 1798 or 1918.
In order to bet, we would have to negotiate further. I do not think that each of the possibilities in his list rises to the level of the steps that the Nazis took that I listed in my original post. However, this proposal does serve the purpose of expressing reasonable concerns.
What I come away with in the case of both proposals is that a reasonable concern is over-reaction to terrorism. For example, if Mr. Trump had been in office when Monday’s attack at Ohio State occurred, it is conceivable that some broad measures against Somali immigrants would have been adopted. I believe that if terrorist attacks escalate in terms of frequency or casualties, the possibility of a reaction of this sort will increase. It is reasonable to warn against an over-reaction.
However, I would consider such an over-reaction more comparable to FDR’s internment of Japanese than to Hitler’s war on the Jews. Jews did not commit the equivalent of 9/11 or Pearl Harbor against Germany.
Moreover, no one foresees a scenario in which Mr. Trump’s personal paramilitary force rounds up and shoots political opponents. And no one foresees a scenario in which Congress votes to effectively abolish itself and grant all power to Mr. Trump, as the 1933 Enabling Act did in Germany.
In general, I think that the cries of outrage at Mr. Trump’s victory are a risky strategy for his opponents. If he indeed commits some outrage against a group of citizens, then you get to say “I told you so.” Meanwhile, however, I suspect that social media outcries and demonstrations will alienate everyone who is not already inalterably opposed to Trump, particularly those of us who are prepared to give him a chance.
Once again, the Hitler wager is a cheap distraction. As many, many, many, many commentators have pointed out, the appropriate comparison is not Hitler but Berlusconi. Google it, you jerk! And stop pretending that this scumbag is normal or acceptable.
Meanwhile, it is absolutely appropriate to talk about Nazis (“alt-right” is a fashionable euphemism for neo-Nazi, but I prefer to use the traditional term), because so many of his followers are Nazis, and this is not an accident has been deliberately striving to attract them, as has his chief strategist. And he has been deliberately riling up their “passion.”
Here is a round-up of the explosion of hate incidents since the election, many of them explicitly in his name.
https://www.splcenter.org/20161129/ten-days-after-harassment-and-intimidation-aftermath-election
Again, there have been countless comparisons of Trump to Berlusconi but this is one by Yglesias is one of the better ones, I think.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/17/13626514/trump-systemic-corruption
Anyone who tries to normalize all this is contemptible.
Was there a wave of hate crimes in Italy after Berlusconi’s ascendance in 1994?
I think you mean deplorable.
I just reread this and noticed how rude and deranged it is. Make a bet, you jerk.
The thing is, I know you can’t see reality, so I know anything you would offer, I’ll be able to take, unless yout ofree ridiculous odds that betray the fact yout think your prediction is highly unlikely.
You don’t even realize nobody here preferred Trump, except possibly over the worst candidate in history.
I’ll even explain to you why I’m right about everything and you are wrong, if you ask nicely. In fact I already have.
One strategic error with being more specific about the Hitler comparisons is that it might inspire some people, otherwise ignorant of history as is common, to actually Google it and look it up, and then realize, wait a second, that’s totally ridiculous.
I get impatient waiting to get through moderation so here is the same comment with the links removed and a couple other changes.
Once again, the Hitler wager is a cheap distraction. As many, many, many, many commentators have pointed out, the appropriate comparison is not Hitler but Berlusconi. I thought one of the better explanations was the Yglesias piece entitled, “We have 100 days to stop Donald Trump from systemically corrupting our institutions.” but if you google Trump and Berlusconi you’ll get millions of hits, including many comparisons between the two.
Meanwhile, it is absolutely appropriate to talk about Nazis (“alt-right” is a fashionable euphemism for neo-Nazi, but I prefer to use the traditional term), because so many of his followers are Nazis, and this is not an accident has been deliberately striving to attract them, as has his chief strategist. And he has been deliberately riling up their “passion,” and they are attacking people over the country as a result.
Dismissing all this as Trumpophobia is contemptible.
A good piece on hate events since the election is “Ten Days After: Harassment and Intimidation in the Aftermath of the Election,” at the Southern Poverty Law Center website.
True or false: the nastiest hate crime in the US since the election was actually committed by a Somali refugee at Ohio State.
I honestly don’t know, but my suspicion is that that’s true.
If you want to persuade informed people of something, probably better not to use SPLC as your go-to source. They have accused practicing Muslims of being Islamophobes.
“…so many of his followers are Nazis”
The number of actual neo-Nazis in the U.S. is minuscule. It is mathematically impossible for ‘so many’ of Trump’s followers to be Nazis for any normal meaning of ‘many’.
I’m so gullible and naive I took the SPLC seriously for a minute.
“Dismissing all this as Trumpophobia is contemptible.”
It is Trumpophobia. It is also what makes them wrong about everything. I have offered several gentleman’s wagers here. Take me up on one, any, or make up your own.
And, the ones I offer, such as that he will make Romney secretary of state (which I am not confident in) are chosen because they are so jarring and remarkable that they should shock Trumpophobes out of their trance.
As someone who previously posted that a President Trump would have the advantage of being more easily being impeached/removed, I ironically also have a sense that the Republicans in Congress would be more easily cowed and not react to a ‘minor’ deplorable act by his administration. (I get this sense based on the perceived laxness of the Republican-led Congress during the Iraq War.)
NO I don’t think most multicultural liberals are thinking 1933 here. That is Straw Man material. Your bet and notes are similar to the conservatives crying Obama was the second coming of Castro in 2009!
The bet should be smaller items like:
1) Does the government have registary on Muslim or minority citizens? A national stop and frisk?
2) Does hate crimes go up against any citizens?
3) How does the state work to limit minority voting rights? Jeff Session has a history of looking to limit African-American voting.
4) Does Trump go neocon foreign policy especially if US companies can take the ‘oil’? That is one foreign policy item he was consistent on with the Iraq War.
5) How does Trump keep governing separate from his business? My guess he is OK here but it could become like HRC e-mails become a re-election narrative.
6) How bad does deportations go? The criminal deportations are about 500K to the 11M illegal aliens. So the 10.5M+ illegals are otherwise good citizens or grand-mothers with citizen families that could get bad media really quick.
7) Judging by Carrier factory deal, does crony capitalism increase? Does increase in foreign nations? Suddenly, Bahrain chooses the Trump hotel to have functions!
8) Trump is not holding foreign leader meetings without proper documentation. Look at the Pakistan report on the Trumps meeting with their Prime Minister. I think the report fake with over the top Trumpian language but nobody has a clue if this true.
9) How much help did Trump have from the Russian? Or how much money does his businesses owe?
Yes there some of over the top birther like nonsense out there but that is going to be the reality of future President.
Obama already did some of these.
E.g. habeas corpus. E.g. Boston after the marathon bombing. And WRT Boston, if I thought discriminating against refugees from Islamic State combat would protect Americans from rights infringements (and I don’t) then I would take this bet as a hedge.
a) Won’t happen. Caveat: young male refugees from ISIS battlegrounds will get extreme vetting, but won’t be deported as a class.
b) no.
c) No. Again, a subset may have similar requirements upon entry.
d) We already have the exceptions. We may add additional exceptions, but it won’t be sweeping. We’d have to discuss whether stop and frisk counts, but I doubt even that will pass.
e) Obama already did this, so what exactly is the wager? We won’t do it based on class statistics.
f) No.
Again, why don’t people understand odds or that we already did things like The Patriot Act under Democratic Congresses and Democratic Presidents?
I have found nobody who understands/can explain EXACTLY what Trump is doing. Any takers?
Basically so far nobody’s narrative is 100% accurate.
Here is a hint, he is not going to push for a law against flag-burning. I reserve the right to be wrong, but would take a reasonable bet on it. The caveat is that Congress will push such a law because they don’t understand what he is doing. Anything he has proposed he just might sign if others unwisely push it to his desk.
Isn’t (d) already allowed, i.e., civil asset forfeiture.