Bush=Hitler?

A brouhaha has arisen over West Virginia Senator Byrd's latest comments about Bush and the Republicans threat to do away with filibuster rules in the Senate. Byrd said the tactics were Hitler like refering to the badly dressed Colonel's path to power which included a steady erosion of Democratic rights which led to a personalistic fascist regime as brutal as any in human history. Republicans have screamed foul calling the rhetoric over the top. Some leftists have cried foul claiming hitlerite tendencies are in the Bush's genes, bologna!

Bush and company are dangerous plutocrats and imperialists. They would kill hundreds of thousands (particularly "feerners") to expand transnational power and to expand their political power but we are not heading towards a fascist state.

All societies are constantly in flux depending upon the relationship of forces in said society. At this point we are no where near establishment of a dictatorship based on the personality of an ill mannered vegetarian.

Prisons in the US are over filled, the fourth amendment is practically dead, nationalism and war are national sports, covert racist arguments are used in the popular discourse. But compare this to the 1950's or the 1920's when overt racism was all the rage, the Klan was out, the President touted Birth of a Nation as a national treasure, segregated Federal jobs, etc... If anything we have moved away from outright fascism. If the president advocated segregation he probably would be impeached. We now have the voting rights act, the ability to speak any idiotic statement possible without government harrassment (sometimes), Jews, gays, gypsy's, and other traditionally oppressed groups are out and meet in the White House. This is not a fascist state.

Yes, liberal capitalist states have extremely complex propoganda systems that buffalo the masses. But this is not the same as a fascist state that allows no freedom of expression, puts people in camps and has no pretense of democratic governance.

The rules by the way ARE anti-democratic, as well as the entire Senate. Madison and co. set it up that way to make sure that the aristocracy could block any piece of popular legislation. Two Senators for California and South Dakota? I think not.

Daniel Lazare on Senator Byrd and the Senate as a democratic institution.