Trump and Hitler: are they the same?
Two days ago, Louis C.K. added a lengthy postscript to a regular PR email regarding a new episode of his web series. “Please stop it with voting for Trump”, his essay began - so far so good. He then made a rather far-fetched claim about Trump: “this guy is Hitler”. Parallels certainly exist between the two, but how far does this similarity extend?
FYI:
If you’re here solely to read about Trump, scroll through to the next
divider; this little section is a [hopefully interesting] history lesson
into how, and why, Hitler came to power.
Germany
did not elect Hitler himself; that Hitler was democratically selected
to be President of the Reich is one of the main misconceptions about the
Second World War. Granted, in 1930 Hitler’s NSDAP, or Nazi Party, had
indeed taken 18.25% of the popular vote in the federal election
(equivalent to a Congressional election), making it the second largest
party in the Reichstag at the time, but its 107 seats were far short of
the 289 required for a majority - the Nazis had achieved relative
success, but they were in no fit position to begin a revolutionary
uprising.
No
party won a majority in that election, so Brüning, the incumbent
Chancellor, remained in power, despite a lack of popular support for his
governance. In May 1932, increasing pressure from President Hindenburg
(and Kurt von Schleicher, who will rear his ugly head later) led Brüning
to resign from his post. His successor, von Papen, was in an
appallingly weak position. With only 12% of Reichstag seats, von Papen
lasted just three days and was then forced to dissolve the Reichstag and
call elections in the hope of winning more seats. This would strengthen
his position; if he failed then power would fall to the Nazis, the SPD
(social democrats) or the KPD (Communists).
In
this election (31st July 1932), von Papen’s allies, the Zentrum
(‘centre’) Party gained 7 seats - von Papen could rejoin his old party
to earn parliamentary support in a coalition agreement. However,
Hitler’s Nazis won 123 seats; a swing of over 19%, establishing his
party as the largest in the Reichstag, yet still not a majority. At this
point, von Papen gave up all pretence of accountability; he demanded a
decree - based on Article 48 of the constitution of the Weimar Republic,
that gave emergency powers to the President without the consultation of
the Reichstag - from Hindenburg, that dissolved the Reichstag and
suspended elections. He was assured this task would be completed, and he
arrived at the newly elected Reichstag ready to shut it down and start
discussing how to keep a grip on the Chancellorship with his close
advisors. To his surprise, the first item on the agenda was not his
democracy paralysing decree, it was a vote of no-confidence from the
Communists. This vote was passed by a margin of 512–42, despite von
Papen’s demands to take the floor and pass his decree - Hermann Göring,
the Nazi president of the Reichstag (equivalent to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives) pretended not to see Papen’s protest, passing
instead the vote of no-confidence with haste. Von Papen then announced
new elections in a final bid to avoid resignation or deselection, to be
held that November.
The
Nazis were in decline - Hitler’s share of the vote fell by over 4%, but
his party remained the largest in the Reichstag. Von Papen’s beloved
Zentrum lost 5 seats, yet the DNVP, who had supported him as Chancellor,
won 15 seats. Despite these gains, von Papen was greatly lacking in
public support, so was superseded by his Defence Minister, Kurt von
Schleicher - one of the men who had shoehorned von Papen into the role
of Chancellor was now replacing him in the very same job.
But
not for long - von Schleicher failed in negotiations with the Nazi
Party, and von Papen approached Hitler with a proposition. He would form
a government under Hindenburg’s watch, with Hitler at the head, and
himself as vice-Chancellor. Hindenburg agreed; he assumed that with a
cabinet full of non-Nazi members, Hitler would be muzzled and powerless.
Almost immediately, he set to work altering the demographic of his
cabinet. Centrists were out, Nazis were in: this began with the
installation of Joseph Goebbels as Minister of Public Enlightenment and
Propaganda.
Hitler
then used stunts such as the Reichstag Fire, the Enabling Act and the
Night of the Long Knives to solidify his position: politically, by using
the Reichstag Fire as an excuse to remove most of his Communist or
centrist opposition; legally, through the declaration of the Enabling
Act that effectively gave all power to him personally; and finally
militarily, ensuring no armed opposition could overthrow him by crushing
any potential resistors before they resisted. However, though these
events concreted Hitler’s leadership over Germany, the foundation for
his domination was built upon years of manipulation of government
figures, relentless candidacy in a number of elections, and simply the
ability and initiative to take advantage of a weak, unpopular and
vulnerable government in the form of the Weimar Republic.
This leads me on to Trump.
I personally dislike the man, and I don’t believe he deserves to be the
next President of the US. I have a number of reasons for this: I
believe the image he projects of being self-made is a lie, and perhaps
most importantly, I believe that mass immigration, contrary to
destroying America, or “killing us at the border”, as Trump refers to
it, is actually beneficial for world development. Nevertheless, Donald Trump is not Hitler.
Recent social experiments have shown that it is difficult, nay,
impossible, to distinguish between the rhetoric of the pair, yet
equating a self-styled businessman, who makes racist statements on a
regular basis, to a dictator, who caused the deaths of around 60 million
through war in Europe, is simply wrong, and borders on scaremongering.
Despite this, there are undeniable parallels between the two men - by no means are they equal,
but they do share traits and experiences that are interesting to
explore, because they reveal an awful lot about the voting habits of
people who feel like they're getting a rotten deal from the political
system. In other words, examining what made Hitler popular, and what
made Donald Trump popular, as well as figures such as Margaret Thatcher
or Tony Blair (politicians who have engaged an entire nation in
politics, for bad or good), may well be the key to a phenomena coined
“youth disillusionment”. If certain methods can be used to effectively
inspire a nation, surely they can also be used to awaken young voters
from their decade-long slumber, and get under-25s to engage in
democratic proceedings - this can only be a good thing.
Donald
Trump, despite dipping his toe into the political water by considering
running for President in 2012, is a newcomer to politics; that’s what
makes him so appealing to voters. He represents an alternative to the
Establishment; he threatens to rock the status quo of America, and this
is what has earned him victory in 12 states so far. His appeal stems
largely from his ability to shock and distract: his manipulation of mass
media outlets is second to none. Trump is not afraid to say things that
are controversial, and he is exceptionally good at managing scapegoats
and manufacturing stereotypes - indeed, his popularity reached a new
high following his promise to ban Muslims entry to the USA earlier in
the campaign. Further, and perhaps most worryingly, Trump did declare
that he wished to bring back water-boarding - and “worse” (although he
later asserted that he would not order troops to commit war crimes,
muddying the water somewhat).
Similarly,
Adolf Hitler was viewed as a newcomer. Although he had campaigned for
several years and was very tenacious as a political candidate, his ideas
were original and captured the imagination of the German people.
Secondly, whilst Hitler himself was not a master of media, he appointed
one of the best in the business to be his Minister for Public
Enlightenment and Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. Thirdly, Hitler was the
master of scapegoating: through the manufacture of the Dolchstoßlegende
(the myth that Germany had been forced to surrender in World War One by
a coalition of Jews, Bolsheviks and Marxists) was one of the most
successful campaigns of scapegoating in the 20th Century.
There
remain two key differences between Hitler and Trump: these differences
are absolutely vital. Firstly, Hitler killed people; Trump has not
(although he has said that he would murder the families of terrorists).
Hitler was a man who sent 11 million to die specifically because of
their race. I believe that Donald, whilst not an incredibly charming
bloke, would still struggle to send that amount of people to die, for no
reason other than the race into which they were born.
Finally,
and most importantly, there was one reason that I failed to mention
above as a reason for Hitler’s popularity. He received votes
disproportionately from women. Historians debate the reason for these,
but the most watertight theory appears to be that Hitler was viewed as a
sex symbol. This was what caused many women to vote for Hitler, and
this represents a large reason for his success.
Thankfully, Donald Trump is not a sex symbol.
Yet.
NOTE
1: I do not believe that Hitler and Trump are equal, I merely believe
that they share some intriguing qualities that can be useful for a study
of populist politics, and may potentially be of merit when considering
the best way to reconnect with currently disillusioned sectors of
society.
NOTE 2: Well this is awkward.
