shader
Footballguy
I've been reading a lot of r/pol. I always think it's fun to read the extremes, and trust me some of these people think Trump actually is Hitler. But in between their bits of insanity there are some really good points being made about the power of the executive branch.
First of all, the president seems to have more power than presidents in most modern democracies. Although the president is quite limited in terms of passing laws the traditional way, executive orders are being issued at an escalating pace. The president has unbelievable power when it comes to the armed forces. He can make major decisions on a global scale without congressional approval.
When it comes to his conduct, the president is essentially above the law. The only way to get him out is by impeachment AND removal, which is a virtual impossibility if his party is behind him.
The big check on his power is the election. If you do a poor job, you're outta there in 4 years.
So imagine that an Adolf Hitler clone were running for president, only he hadn't written Mein Kampf, and had done a better job of masking his true intentions. This clone could run on the peace platform, (as Hitler actually did when he convinced most of the world that all he wanted was peace, but really was just stalling for time so that he could build Germany's army), but truly wanted war.
When elected how much damage could he do? As bad as Hitler was, he wasn't a dictator that went against his countries wishes. He played into their fears and desires and he knew the importance of perception. When making decisions (invading Austria and then Czech) he used lies to assure the public that these things had to be done.
Perhaps the Hitler comparison is inflammatory to the overall discussion of whether the executive branch has too much power. You don't need to actually be Hitler to do damage. But I think it's interesting to study how past dictators arose, and when you look at the power of the presidency in the US, I can't help but wonder if it could happen again?
First of all, the president seems to have more power than presidents in most modern democracies. Although the president is quite limited in terms of passing laws the traditional way, executive orders are being issued at an escalating pace. The president has unbelievable power when it comes to the armed forces. He can make major decisions on a global scale without congressional approval.
When it comes to his conduct, the president is essentially above the law. The only way to get him out is by impeachment AND removal, which is a virtual impossibility if his party is behind him.
The big check on his power is the election. If you do a poor job, you're outta there in 4 years.
So imagine that an Adolf Hitler clone were running for president, only he hadn't written Mein Kampf, and had done a better job of masking his true intentions. This clone could run on the peace platform, (as Hitler actually did when he convinced most of the world that all he wanted was peace, but really was just stalling for time so that he could build Germany's army), but truly wanted war.
When elected how much damage could he do? As bad as Hitler was, he wasn't a dictator that went against his countries wishes. He played into their fears and desires and he knew the importance of perception. When making decisions (invading Austria and then Czech) he used lies to assure the public that these things had to be done.
Perhaps the Hitler comparison is inflammatory to the overall discussion of whether the executive branch has too much power. You don't need to actually be Hitler to do damage. But I think it's interesting to study how past dictators arose, and when you look at the power of the presidency in the US, I can't help but wonder if it could happen again?
Last edited by a moderator: