1. Julian Assange on Democracy Now!
2. Needed: A Democratic Shadow Cabinet
3. Five Top Papers Run 18 Opinion Pieces Praising Syria
Strikes—Zero Are Critical
4. Neocons Have Trump on His Knees
5. Lessons from Hitler’s Rise
This is a Nederlog of Tuesday, April 11, 2017.
Summary: This is an
ordinary crisis log with five items and
five links: Item 1 is about some interviews Julian Assange gave to Democracy Now!; item 2 is about an idea I know but missed: A Democratic Shadow Cabinet; item 3 is about the - quite shocking -
solid totalitarian attitudes displayed by the American mainstream media; item 4 is about Trump's defeat by "neocons": I haven't seen it yet, but Robert Parry may be right; and item 5 is about a long review of a recent book about Hitler by Christopher
Browning, who is one of the best writers about Hitler that I've read.
April 11: As to the
The Danish site was again
on time today; but the Dutch site again failed to upload and is still stuck - again - on Saturday, April 8. These horrors happen now for the 16th month in succession.
1. Julian Assange on Democracy Now!
And I have to
add that about where my site on xs4all.nl stuck for others
I have NO idea AT ALL: It
2015. (Xs4all wants immediate
payment if you are a
week behind. Xs4all.nl has been destroying
my site now for over
a year. I completely distrust them, but I also do not
know whether they are doing it or some secret service is.)
The first article today is by Democracy Now! that in fact has three interviews with Julian Assange, or at least one interview packed as three aricles. I use a comprehensive title:
The first interview starts with the following introduction:
When I review articles from Democracy Now! I
usually include the introductions, because they are well done and
provide good context to the interview and the interviewees.
As President Trump’s presidency nears its first 100
days, Trump and his campaign are facing multiple investigations over
whether the campaign colluded with Russian officials to influence the
2016 presidential election. In a Democracy Now! exclusive, we speak with
a man who has been at the center of much discussion of Russian election
meddling: Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.
Just before the Democratic National Convention last July, WikiLeaks
published 20,000 internal emails from the Democratic National Committee.
Then, between October 7 and Election Day, WikiLeaks would go on to
publish 20,000 of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s emails,
generating a rash of negative stories about the Clinton campaign.
Intelligence agencies have pinned the email hacking on Russians.
WikiLeaks maintains Russia was not the source of the documents.
For more, we speak with Julian Assange from the Ecuadorean Embassy in London.
It's the same here. Here is Amy Goodman:
Yes - and after the fact (which was unknown when it happened) this may have been an extremely sad event: The Democrats illegally "worked behind the scenes to discredit and defeat Bernie Sanders" in fact because he "was challenging Hillary Clinton for the nomination". It is extremely sad, because if Sanders had been elected as the Democratic candidate, he probably would have won the elections.
WikiLeaks’ activity before the 2016 election is also still generating
headlines. Just before the Democratic National Convention last July,
WikiLeaks published 20,000 internal emails from the Democratic National
Committee. Within two days, the head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, resigned her post, in part because the emails showed the DNC
worked behind the scenes to discredit and defeat Bernie Sanders, who
was challenging Hillary Clinton for the nomination. Less than three
months later, WikiLeaks began publishing internal emails from Clinton’s
campaign chairman, John Podesta. Soon, Donald Trump was praising
WikiLeaks on the campaign trail.
DONALD TRUMP: This just came out. This just came out. WikiLeaks—I love WikiLeaks.
Here are two parts of Assange's answer, and Schiff indeed is a
Democratic congressman about whom there is considerably more in the
interview. He doesn't much interest me:
Well, Mr. Schiff is a Democratic congressman who’s trying to whip up a
kind of neo-McCarthyist fervor in order to distract from the epic
failure of Hillary Clinton and that team when they lost, of all people,
to Donald Trump. So, it’s not particularly interesting.
Yes indeed. Here is Assange on the background of the US government:
This is correct, though I should add that most ordinary voters do not know these things. Then there is this about what Wikipedia published (Assange is still talking):
I think we should pull back and put things in context. The United
States government, since 1950, has intervened in 81
elections—interfered, to use Schiff’s language, in 81 elections. That is
not including coups, which have overthrown the government. So there’s a
long history of the United States doing this to places around the
world, in infamous ways, and, most recently, alleged interference in the
election of Israel. So, I think we should understand that the United
States is in a glass house when it comes to allegations of attempting to
interfere with or influence election results.
Now, what is in our publications? Well, from our perspective, we have
just published, accurately and fairly, what Hillary Clinton said her
positions were, in her secret speeches to Goldman Sachs and in relation
to the DNC and its attempt to rig the election
to exclude the primary—primary person, sorry, to exclude Bernie
Sanders. So, at the heart of this issue is whether people were told the
truth about Hillary Clinton and the DNC. If
there hadn’t been an ugly truth there, it wouldn’t have made any
difference. There was an ugly truth. And we published, accurately and
fairly, that ugly truth.
I think that is true, which is to say that the Democrats rigged one of their own candidates so that he would not win.
Then there is (a bit later) this on what might also be rendered as the presumed fight between the deep state and the government started by Trump:
Well, I don’t want to be an apologist for these people, but, really,
party politics in the United States is something that everyone has to
get away from, this creation of two polarities by different elites that
then suck up all the political energy in the country. Well, we can talk a
little bit later about what’s happened to the Trump administration and
this fascinating process that we have been seeing about how many days
does it take for the security sector to digest a president. Something
like 75 appears to be the answer.
This may be true, though - I think - we have
to see some more. Now I turn to the second interview, which also comes
with an introduction:
In March, WikiLeaks published what it says is the largest leak of secret CIA documents in history. The thousands of documents, dubbed "Vault 7," describe
CIA programs and tools that are capable of hacking into both Apple and Android cellphones. The documents also outline a CIA
and British intelligence program called "Weeping Angel," through which
the spy agency can hack into a Samsung smart television and turn it into
a surveillance device that records audio conversations, even when it
appears to be off. For more, we speak with the founder of WikiLeaks,
I have reported on this and I think this is quite interesting and very dangerous, for secret services that insist on knowing everything about everyone, which we seem to have anywhere, are preparing an authoritarian neofascist revolution that is extra-ordinarily dangerous and may set back the earth hundreds of years by preparing an authoritarian state by and for the very rich (like the Roman Empire, more or less) where the rich have all the powers and nearly all the money and know everything about anyone, and where those who are not rich are the tools of the rich, who can be manipulated or ordered around by the rich as pleases the rich.
And here is some more on Vault 7:
Yes, I think that is all quite important, and it shows that the CIA cares about one thing
Vault 7 is the largest intelligence leak in history. We’ve published so
far less than 1 percent of that material. Now, so far, the publications
that we have published reveal that the Central Intelligence Agency has
decided to create, in the last 10 years, its own captive version of the
National Security Agency, not specialized in bulk interception, but
specialized in semiautomated hacking processes. That’s creation of
viruses, Trojans, etc., to put in people’s computer systems, telephones,
TVs, and have those then report back to CIA listening posts that collect that information, ingest it into the broader CIA
process. And also information can be pushed, using these mechanisms,
onto those telephones, computers, etc., etc., to, for example, plant
information that could implicate someone falsely, or perhaps even truly,
in a crime.
So, I think it’s—it’s significant that as the Central Intelligence
Agency gained budgetary and political preeminence over the National
Security Agency, which used to have a bigger budget—in the post-9/11
environment, the CIA’s budget has now increased to about 1.5 times that
of the National Security Agency.
only: To know absolutely everything about absolutely everyone, and
all in secret and without any control or any - certain - knowledge by
Then there is this quite interesting bit from the third interview:
Well, look, up until very recently—and I guess we still have to see how
it goes—I’ve been delighted by the conflict that has been occurring
between the incoming administration and between the security services,
etc. Why is that? Because it has shed light on both. It is resulting in
the courts throwing nooses around the power of the presidency and tying
him down. And, I mean, that’s something that I predicted would happen,
and it is happening very rapidly.
I take two points from the last quotation:
So you can see this in our DNC leaks, that
you have educated, professionalized Democrats, who have lifted off the
working-class base and who are then involved in a revolving-door system,
becoming lobbyists, going back into the DNC,
etc. If you read the emails we’ve published about John Podesta, you can
see this is not just simply something that happens. This is an
expectation within that community. And anyone who doesn’t engage in that
expectation, anyone who doesn’t go into private industry and get a
$400,000-a-year consulting contract as a local or foreign agent, is
viewed to be as a fool.
First, I think I agree with Assange about his delight in "the conflict that has been occurring
between the incoming administration and between the security services,
I do so, in part for the reason he gives (it will shed light, and in fact we have - in spite
of Snowden - still not much light on the constant spying that is done by very many secret services on absolutely everyone), and also because I think that Trump is so
dangerous (especially because I - who is a psychologist, among other things - believe Trump is not sane, and I don't think people like that should have the power to blow up
everyone and destroy human civilization).
And second, I like the cynical appraisal of the DNC, which shows
itself - in its e-mail leaks - to be a very conscious collaboration of
liars who decided to become rich frauds: It seems to be the "expectation" that anyone who did get into the leadership of the Democratic Party is one who is set to get "into private industry and get a
$400,000-a-year consulting contract as a local or foreign agent".
This does seem to be correct about the vast majority of the
leading Democrats, who indeed stand behind a leader who was made a
multi-millionaire by gifts from rich bankers.
Finally, here is Julian Assange on the deep state:
We’re seeing the—we’re seeing the conflict with the security services,
the deep state. Now, I’ve been writing—well, I’ve been writing about the
deep state for a decade, using that word. Now, Turkish academics have
been writing about the equivalent in Turkey. Some Hungarian
investigative journalists, the same within Hungary. And finally, this
word is now something in U.S. politics. It’s not a new concept. It’s,
you know, essentially the military-industrial complex plus lobbyists,
plus contractors, plus people in the Senate Intelligence Committee,
I think that is probably correct, and these where three interesting interviews that are all recommended.
2. Needed: A Democratic Shadow Cabinet
The second article is by Robert Kuttner on AlterNet and originally on The American Prospect:
This starts as follows:
Donald Trump, precisely because his behavior is so outlandish and
unpredictable, has dominated the news coverage. It’s unreality TV, and
the media can’t stop covering it.
The benefit is that Trump’s
sheer craziness gets a lot of scrutiny. But the downside is that
Democratic critics have trouble getting much airtime.
If this were
a parliamentary democracy, there would be a leader of the opposition,
and a whole “front bench” of opposition spokespeople, issue by issue—a
kind of Shadow Cabinet.
Leading Democrats could both hold Trump
accountable for his bizarre positions (and those of his Republican
allies in Congress), and the Democrats could also offer more attractive
They could also show up Trump’s sheer ignorance of
the issues, and his crazy inconsistency, and hold him accountable, item
I say. I do so because I live in "a parliamentary democracy", namely in Holland, and I do know about Shadow Cabinets, but I admit I had not thought of them in connection with the USA.
Here is some more about a shadow cabinet:
Once a week, the Democratic front bench could hold its own press
briefing; and particular spokespeople could be the ones to whom the
media would turn. The press would have to cover this, much as they cover
Sean Spicer’s zany White House briefings—and the contrast would be
startling. The bizarre versus the normal. Fact versus fantasy.
time to think outside the box. Here’s the idea: House Democratic leader
Nancy Pelosi, Senate leader Chuck Schumer, and the new Democratic
National Committee Chair Tom Perez should put their heads together and
appoint a Shadow Cabinet.
They would need to confer with
colleagues to accommodate egos, of course. And there would be some
jockeying for position. But this is a national emergency. I don’t think
this would be all that hard.
The Trump/Republican policies are so
crazy that the more Democrats are able to expose them and pose
alternatives, the more the sheer unpopularity of Trump’s agenda will be
this may be a decent idea, especially because this might provide a
regular - say: weekly - Democratic reply to Trump's crazy lies. Then
again, I know from Holland, where there have been shadow cabinets, that
while there is some attention from the media, it is not much.
But the times are abnormal, and systematic replies to Trump's crazy lies are important, so I do think this is a decent idea, and this is a recommended article.
3. Five Top Papers Run 18 Opinion Pieces Praising Syria Strikes—Zero Are Critical
The third article is by Adam Johnson on AlterNet and originally on FAIR:
This starts as follows:
Five major US newspapers—the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today,
Wall Street Journal and New York Daily News—offered no opinion space to
anyone opposed to Donald Trump’s Thursday night airstrikes. By
contrast, the five papers ran a total of 18 op-eds, columns or “news
analysis” articles (dressed-up opinion pieces) that either praised the
strikes or criticized them for not being harsh enough:
I say, although I am not very amazed about the astounding totalitarian
character of large parts of the mainstream media. I have written
several times about it, and I think the main explanation is here: Crisis+More: About Jante's
Law, totalitarianism, ordinary people and groups. I believe this ought to be quite revealing to some.
Here is some more on American totalitarianism:
Cable news coverage was equally fawning. In the hours immediately
following the attack, MSNBC had on a seemingly never-ending string of
military brass and reporters who uncritically repeated the assertion the
strikes were “proportional” and “limited.” MSNBC didn’t give a
platform to a single dissenting voice until four hours after the attacks
began, when host Chris Hayes, according to his own account, had on two guests opposed to the airstrikes in the midnight slot.
In fact, this sounds very much like the Gulf War (of 1990/91), which was the first American war run as a propaganda
by the mainstream media (and where extremely little reliable true
information was given: instead, everyone praised the military and
their expoits, often with considerable enthusiasm, and without any thought or any mention of the Iraqis that were being killed).
Here is the last bit that I'll quote from this article:
Due to the mostly bipartisan support for the airstrikes, it’s
somewhat predictable that corporate media would follow suit. No need to
debate the morality or utility of the strikes, because the scene played
out per usual: Dictator commits an alleged human rights violation, the
media calls on those in power to “do something” and the ticking time
bomb compels immediate action, lest we look “weak” on the “global
stage.” Anything that deviates from this narrative is given token
attention at best.
Yes indeed. And this is a recommended article.
4. Neocons Have Trump on His Knees
The fourth article is by Robert Parry on Consortiumnews:
This starts as follows:
After slapping Donald Trump around for several months to make him
surrender his hopes for a more cooperative relationship with Russia, the
neocons and their liberal-interventionist allies are now telling the
battered President what he must do next: escalate war in the Middle East
and ratchet up tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.
I say, which I do because I did not know that - as the title says - the neocons have Trump on his knees. They may have (and indeed I saw a similar radical shift in early 2009, with Barack Obama), but I don't know.
Then again, I agree Parry knows more about American politics than I do. Here is some more:
But groupthinks die hard – and pretty much every Important Person in
Official Washington just knows that Assad did carry out that sarin
attack, just like they all knew that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was hiding
WMDs in 2003. So, it follows in a kind of twisted logical way that they
would build off the fake history regarding the 2013 Syria-sarin case and
apply it to the new groupthink that Assad has carried out this latest
attack, too. Serious fact-finding investigations are not needed;
everyone just “knows.”
As for groupthinking, see the last link: It is done very much more than most people realize. I have to add that I am also a bit amazed that "every Important Person in
Official Washington" believes in alternative facts rather than real facts, but it is true
that the same was true in 2003.
Then there is this:
To put this message in the crude terms that President Trump might
understand, now that the neocons have forced him to his knees, they are
demanding that he open his mouth. They will not be satisfied with
anything short of a massive U.S. military intervention in the Middle
East and a full-scale confrontation with Russia (and perhaps China).
It is not obvious to me that "the neocons have forced" Trump "to his knees" but I grant that they may have. I also do not really understand why "the neocons" would want "a massive U.S. military intervention in the Middle
East and a full-scale confrontation with Russia (and perhaps China)", for that seems to me quite silly and very dangerous, but
This sort of belligerence is what the neocons and liberal hawks had
expected from Hillary Clinton, whom Kagan had endorsed. Some sources
claim that a President Hillary Clinton planned to appoint Kagan’s neocon
wife, Victoria Nuland, as Secretary of State.
then again "the neocons" (in Washington, who run no personal risks of
being killed on a battlefield, nor do their children since Nixon
privatized the US army) may expect to grow quite rich from their investments in arms sales. But I don't know.
O, and Kagan and Nuland are two fat and ugly Republicans - sorry: they
are - about whom there is a lot more in the article. I skipped most of
Here is the last bit that I'll quote from this article:
As I started saying in the beginning of this review, Parry may be right, but I don't know as yet.
Now, with the neocons regaining influence on the National Security
Council via NSC adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster, a protégé of neocon favorite
Gen. David Petraeus, the neocon holding action against the New Détente
has shifted into an offensive to expand the hot war in Syria and
intensify the Cold War with Russia. As Kagan recognized, Trump’s hasty
decision to fire off missiles was a key turning point in the reassertion
of neocon/liberal-hawk dominance over U.S. foreign policy.
It’s also suddenly clear how thoroughly liberal Democrats were taken
for a ride on the war train by getting them to blame Russia for Hillary
Clinton’s defeat. The liberals (and even many progressives) hated Trump
so much that they let themselves be used in the service of
neocon/liberal-hawk endless war policies.
5. Lessons from Hitler’s Rise
The fifth and last article today is by Christopher R. Browning (<-Wikipedia) on The New York Review of Books:
This is a
review of a book by Volker Ulrich "Hitler: Ascent 1889-1939". But
before considering Browning's review let me explain why I like
Christopher Browning and why I know more about WW II than most people
Chistopher Browning wrote an excellent book about the murders of around 6 million Jews, which is called "Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland",
that was first published in 1992, and that was soon read by me. And it
was soon read by me because both of my parents were in the real
resistance against the Nazis in WW II, which was mostly organized in
Holland by the Dutch communists (who lost over 2000 men and women
through resisting), which is what both of my parents were (from 1935
and the early 1940ies onwards), indeed mostly because of the Nazis.
And then both my father and his father (also a communist) were arrested
in June of 1941, and were convicted by collaborating Dutch judges to
concentration camp imprisonment as "political terrorists", of which my
father survived 3 years, 9 months
and fifteen days as a "political terrorist" in four German concentration camps, but which my grandfather did not survive.
Hence my somewhat special interests in Nazism and also in Christopher Browning, for
while I did read quite a few books about Nazism, Browning's "Ordinary Men" was especially good, indeed because it did explain plausibly how ordinary German men could
be transformed into mass murderers, through a combination of war, an
authoritarian and totalitarian political climate, and military
Sofar for my introduction. The review starts as follows:
When the original German edition of Volker Ullrich’s new biography, Hitler: Ascent 1889–1939,
was published in 2013, the current political situation in the United
States was not remotely conceivable. The reception of a book often
transcends the author’s intentions and the circumstances in which it was
written, of course, but rarely so dramatically as in this case. In
early 2017 it is impossible for an American to read the newly published
English translation of this book outside the shadow cast by our new
To begin I would stipulate emphatically that Trump is
not Hitler and the American Republic in the early twenty-first century
is not Weimar. There are many stark differences between both the men and
the historical conditions in which they ascended to power. Nonetheless
there are sufficient areas of similarity in some regards to make the
book chilling and insightful reading about not just the past but also
Yes indeed, and Browning gives considerable attention about the many differences between Germany in the early 1930ies and the USA now. I agree with them but skip them.
The following points I will also mostly skip (as does Browning, indeed) but I mention them because I agree with them and because they concern Hitler's personality:
Ullrich takes a very commonsense approach to Hitler’s sex life, eschewing
sensational allegations of highly closeted homosexuality, sexual
perversion that caused him to project his self-loathing onto the Jews,
asexuality commensurate with his incapacity for normal human relations,
or abnormal genitalia that either psychologically or physically impeded
I agree with these estimates (and read several psychiatrists who wrote about Hitler),
although I also think Hitler was far from an ordinary man.
Next, here is a list of similarities between Hitler and Germany in the early 1930s and Trump and the USA in the late 2010s:
However unequal in severity the situations in the two countries were,
large numbers of Germans and Americans perceived multiple crises of
political gridlock, economic failure, humiliation abroad, and
cultural-moral decay at home. Both Hitler and Trump proclaimed their
countries to be “losers,” offered themselves as the sole solution to
these crises, and pledged a return to the glories of an imagined golden
past. Hitler promised a great “renewal” in Germany, Trump to “make
America great again.” Both men defied old norms and invented
unprecedented ways of waging their political campaigns. Both men
developed a charismatic relationship with their “base” that centered on
large rallies. Both emphasized their “outsider” status and railed
against the establishment, privileged elites, and corrupt special
interests. Both voiced grievances against enemies (Hitler’s “November
criminals” and “Jewish Bolsheviks,” Trump’s “Mexican rapists,” “radical
Islamic terror,” and the “dishonest” press). And both men benefited from
being seriously underestimated by experts and rivals.
I think this is all quite correct. And there is this on the points that the "traditional Republicans" share with Trump:
Trump the populist and the traditional Republicans have likewise made a
deal to work together, in part to realize those goals they share: tax
“reform” with special emphasis on cuts for the well-off; deregulating
business and banking; curtailing environmental protections while denying
man-made climate change; appointing a Scalia-like justice to the
Supreme Court; repealing Obamacare; increasing military spending;
increasing the deportation of undocumented immigrants and “sealing the
border”; shifting resources from public to charter schools; expanding
the rights of individuals or businesses to discriminate against
unprotected groups in the name of religious freedom; ending the right to
abortion; and on the state level intensifying voter suppression.
Then there is this on the differences between Germany in the early 1930ies and the USA in the late 2010s:
If both Hitler and Trump made deals with conservative political partners
on the basis of partially overlapping goals and those partners’ wishful
thinking, it is simply not possible for Trump to consolidate absolute
power and dispense with his allies with either the speed or totality
that Hitler did. One of the most chilling sections of Ullrich’s
biography deals with the construction of the Nazi dictatorship. Through
emergency decrees of President Hindenburg (not subject to judicial
review), freedom of the press, speech, and assembly were suspended
within the first week. Due process of law and the autonomy of state
governments were gone within the first month, as the government was
empowered to intern people indefinitely in concentration camps without
charges, trial, or sentence, and to replace non-Nazi state governments
with Nazi commissioners. By the sixth week, the Communist Party had been
outlawed and the entire constitution had been set aside in favor of
Hitler (rather than Hindenburg) ruling through decree.
Note that these are large differences: Within 6 weeks the "freedom of the press, speech, and assembly were suspended"; "due process of law and the autonomy of state
governments were gone"; concentration camps were started in which many were locked up "without
charges, trial, or sentence"; and the main political opposition (the German
Communist Party) was "outlawed", while "the entire constitution had been set aside in favor of
None of this happened - so far - in the USA, and we have now nearly three months of Trump's rule. In fact, what happened was this:
Courts continue to exercise judicial review and uphold due process,
governors in states like California and Washington are not being deposed
and replaced, the exercise of free speech, press, and assembly under
the Bill of Rights is still intact, and opposition parties are not being
outlawed. Equally important, large numbers of people are frequently and
visibly exercising their rights of assembly and speech, and the news
media have not sought to ingratiate themselves with the new regime,
thereby earning the administration’s reprimand that they are both the
real “opposition” and the “enemy of the people.” Whatever the
authoritarian tendencies of Trump and some of those around him, they
have encountered limits that Hitler did not.
Yes indeed - and these are grounds
for (a limited) optimism. Here is some more on the differences and
similarities between Hitler and National Socialism on the one hand
and Trump and the Republicans on the other hand:
Hitler and National Socialism should not be seen as the normal
historical template for authoritarian rule, risky foreign policy, and
persecution of minorities, for they constitute an extreme case of
totalitarian dictatorship, limitless aggression, and genocide. They
should not be lightly invoked or trivialized through facile comparison.
Nonetheless, even if there are many significant differences between
Hitler and Trump and their respective historical circumstances, what
conclusions can the reader of Volker Ullrich’s new biography reach that
offer insight into our current situation?H
I agree and turn to some of the lessons that Ullrich's biography of Hitler suggests:
I mostly agree, and I also think that Trump's
character is both flawed and sick, and that his ideas are stupid and
repulsive, although I do find his appeal comprehensible, quite possibly
because I know of Jante's Law - see: Crisis+More: About Jante's
Law, totalitarianism, ordinary people and groups - since 1975, while I was convinced that most ordinary people are more totalitarian than not before 1975. (I admit I expected Clinton to win the elections, but this was only because I believed in the
First, there is a high price to pay for consistently underestimating a
charismatic political outsider just because one finds by one’s own
standards and assumptions (in my case those of a liberal academic) his
character flawed, his ideas repulsive, and his appeal incomprehensible.
There is also this, that seems correct:
Third, the assumption that conservative, traditionalist allies—however
indispensable initially—will hold such upstart leaders in check is
dangerously wishful thinking.
Here is the end of the article:
If we can still effectively protect American democracy from
dictatorship, then certainly one lesson from the study of the demise of
Weimar and the ascent of Hitler is how important it is to do it early.
I agree, and I note both the starting "If"
and the considerable differences between Germany in the 1930ies and the
USA now. But the danger is still there as long as
Trump remains president, though I grant that I am a little less pessimistic than I was in December of 2016.