It was common
on the left to intimate that George W. Bush was like Hitler, a remark
that would drive the National Review crowd through the roof
but which I didn't find entirely outrageous. Bush's main method
of governance was to stir up fear of foreign enemies and instigate
a kind of nationalist hysteria about the need for waging war and
giving up liberty through security.
Hitler is the
most famous parallel here, but he is hardly the only one. Many statesmen
in world history have used the same tactics, dating back to ancient
times. Machiavelli wrote in his Art
of War advice to the ruler: "To know how to recognize an
opportunity in war, and take it, benefits you more than anything
else."
But what's
the point of studying Hitler's rise to power unle
You are free to comment on this discussion in any way you feel is appropriate. If you choose to use to use any language which our editors feel is vulgar -- by their standards -- your comment may be tagged "Crude or Lewd" and may be filtered out of the discussion by those who prefer not to read that sort of thing. If you know you have entered something which will cause your comment to be tagged, we ask that you tag it yourself to save us the time. We do encourage everyone to be civil and not make rude attacks on other people in the Forum. We don't censor out those remarks, but few people enjoy reading them and we would like participation in our Forums to be a pleasant experience for everyone. And, by concentrating on what is said instead of who is saying it, even those who may disagree with you will be more likely to consider your opinions valid.
