This is a good take: how can you carry out long term plans when leadership changes every four years? Maybe it was easier in the American past when the parties weren’t so hostile to each other, but that hasn’t been the case for some time. When I think about this, I’m often reminded of Herman Goering’s contention at the Nuremberg Trials th…
This is a good take: how can you carry out long term plans when leadership changes every four years? Maybe it was easier in the American past when the parties weren’t so hostile to each other, but that hasn’t been the case for some time. When I think about this, I’m often reminded of Herman Goering’s contention at the Nuremberg Trials that democracy had failed in Germany for similar reasons and that a dictatorship was the only way to get anything done. Not advocating nazism him, just the sentiment that this is a drawback of democracy.
Goering wasn't put on trial because democracy failed. He was just angling for excuses. What led him to swallow the cyanide pill was his letter to Heydrich on July 31, 1941.
Dictatorship can me quicker and more decisive. That's why the Romans had it for emergencies. I don't see many examples of successful dictatorships and the Soviets and Maoists were famous for their five year plans and ten year plans and great leaps forward. Sure it's tougher for a democracy but with common culture and goals we can have functional plans.
And c'mon, democracy had failed the Germans? They had only tried for decade and then the great depression hit. You can't blame that on German democracy!
Everyone should be aware of the facist critique (re parliaments, free speech, and party competition), even though not necessarily persuaded that dictatorships work. Germany came out of the Great Depression shortly after the Nazis took over, but fascism did not pull any other government out of depression, and I have no idea what the Nazis did that was helpful for their economy. (They didn't start large-scale rearmament until 1938). Ref Hitler's Social Revolution by David Schoenbaum.
This is a good take: how can you carry out long term plans when leadership changes every four years? Maybe it was easier in the American past when the parties weren’t so hostile to each other, but that hasn’t been the case for some time. When I think about this, I’m often reminded of Herman Goering’s contention at the Nuremberg Trials that democracy had failed in Germany for similar reasons and that a dictatorship was the only way to get anything done. Not advocating nazism him, just the sentiment that this is a drawback of democracy.
Goering wasn't put on trial because democracy failed. He was just angling for excuses. What led him to swallow the cyanide pill was his letter to Heydrich on July 31, 1941.
Dictatorship can me quicker and more decisive. That's why the Romans had it for emergencies. I don't see many examples of successful dictatorships and the Soviets and Maoists were famous for their five year plans and ten year plans and great leaps forward. Sure it's tougher for a democracy but with common culture and goals we can have functional plans.
And c'mon, democracy had failed the Germans? They had only tried for decade and then the great depression hit. You can't blame that on German democracy!
Everyone should be aware of the facist critique (re parliaments, free speech, and party competition), even though not necessarily persuaded that dictatorships work. Germany came out of the Great Depression shortly after the Nazis took over, but fascism did not pull any other government out of depression, and I have no idea what the Nazis did that was helpful for their economy. (They didn't start large-scale rearmament until 1938). Ref Hitler's Social Revolution by David Schoenbaum.