Trump Is Not Hitler, Yet.

Time To Fess Up. Is Trump Hitler Or Not?

Let’s be clear. Trump is not Hitler. Hitler had better hair and larger hands. I also suspect the furor had a better sense of interior deign.

Of course, those small details has not stopped us from making other comparison, and feeling concern about them, including myself. I’ve been laying he groundwork for a while, so let’s finally ask the question: Is the Trump Candidacy dangerous to our democracy? (Well, it took long enough.)

In The Repeal of Godwin's Law I discussed whether we should even asked that question. Part of the problem is that accusing a politician of acting like the H-word has become standard rhetoric. So, while it is appropriate to ask that question (and sometimes desperately necessary), we do need to show why this case is different.

In Call Him Hitler But Let's Be Fair About It, I tried to setup some basic ground rules. If I am successful, we can talk about this without just going into rants or hyperbole. (But I so want to rant) It does matter how we phrase the question, and as I pointed out this is really an examination of his campaign and not him. Hence, I refer to the ‘Trump Candidacy’ instead of ‘Donald J. Trump’.

So, I did my research. Read up on leaders that did become the H-word. (Okay I did some internet searches.) Thought about it. Couldn’t sleep. Drank a lot. And finally came to a conclusion.

Trump Candidacy is NOT a danger to our democracy, YET.

Didn’t see that one coming. Did you?

I bet you’re saying right now, “Wait, you’ve been writing posts about this for almost a month and now you say he’s not Hitler? Why have you been wasting our time with this.”

Hey, I’m as surprised as you. Believe it not, I thought it’d come out differently. I tried, I really tried, but I said I would do this objectively and that’s where it led.

Was I right to be concerned? Darn tootin. Should you have been concerned? Darn rootin tootin. Should we remained concerned? Double Darn rootin tootin.

So, here was my process.

When I started to write this post, I thought I would examine specific traits of the how the Trump Campaign mirrored the infamous figures (Ceasar, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Simmon Cowell, that guy who hosts Iron Chef. You know, people like that.). In “The Repeal of Godwin’s Law”, I referenced three.

1. Scapegoating
   
2. Appealing to resentments
   
3. Creating fanatical followers by manipulating group identity
   

I also found this article, Donald Trump wasn’t a textbook demagogue. Until now., which gives four.

1. Posturing as a common man
   
2. Triggering powerful emotions
   
3. Manipulating those powerful emotions for political benefit
   
4. Threatening to break established principles of governance
   

I bet you can find a bunch of others, and what I realized after reading a couple, I’m not that smart. Books have been written on what makes someone an H-word (or demagogue, or autocrat, or dictator, just go on and insert your favorite term). So just go on and read one of those. I’m too lazy to do all that work. (Besides do you really want to read 100 blogs on Trump = Hitler).

So, l took a different tact. As I’ve written before, the problem with these checklists is that a lot of politicians have used these tactics to some extent. Granted that the Trump Candidacy uses them as if Mein Kampf was a campaign textbook. But, comparing the Trump Candidacy to one of these checklist puts us in the position of proving “how much is too much”.

Instead, I assumed that the checklist from other articles and books has been met. (If you don’t like that, well read one and come back to me.) We are assuming that the Trump Candidacy is demagogic, but, what more is needed. I came up three.

1. Could be elected

Now I don’t think he has a good chance to win, about 30% (which tracks well with such projections as FiveThirtyEight)^[1] However, if you went into surgery with on a 70% survival rate, you would be seriously worried the night before. You certainly would not elect to have that surgery unless it was life and death.

2. Accountable to Political Norms

I covered this in That Orange Guy Defies Conventions and pointed out how being a conventional politician acts as a safety measure.

For awhile now, the Republican party has been hoping he will “come around”. In other words, hold himself accountable to political norms. How has that worked out for you Rience? Nor has bad press stopped him. The Trump Candidacy’s latest response has been the Popeye Strategy (I am what I am). So, if you thought he was defying political norms before, than he’s basically promising to continue.^[2]

3. Fanatical Followers

And here is where we fall short.

In the end, it does not depend on Trump. It depends on Trump supporters. A dictator cannot rule alone, and unless he has followers that are willing to go to extreme measures, he’s really just a ranting orange person.

In my last post, Trump’s My Man, I asked if Trump supporters were fanatical. I took a stance and concluded a solid “I don’t know”. (Yeah, I’m a wuss).

Certainly, many aspects of Trump’s support are concerning. The fact that his supporters seemed more motivated by their faith in him, rather than a set of ideas. That they respond to demagogic rhetoric. And so on.

In truth, however, his supporters have behaved well within the bounds of the democratic process. Their arguments my not have the sophistication of a Sunday morning talk show, but that’s the points. A lot of people have been left out in our politics, and maybe some of our overly sophisticated idea are to blame.

So, it’s up to all you Trump supporters^[3] out there, because everyday your leader is pushing closer and closer to the line. One day he’s going to cross it. Maybe he’ll suggest we need a new form of government. He’s already suggesting our election is rigged. Maybe he’ll suggest violence. He’s already come close to that.

The question to you Trump supporters is, when he does, what will you do? Trump is not a danger to our democracy, YET. You Trump supporters are the YET.

As for me, I haven’t bought a ticket to Canada so far, but I am packing a “bug-out bag”.^[4]