Deep Dive with Shawn C. Fettig

After America E3: The Rise of Nazi Germany, the Fall of Rome, and America's Future

• Sea Tree Media

Share episode

If American democracy were to collapse, what historical parallels could help us understand what we might be in for? Nazi Germany? Learn how the Nazis swiftly exploited the Reichstag Fire in 1933 to enact the Reichstag Fire Decree, leading to a brutal suppression of political opponents and securing their dominance in the March 5th elections. We explore economic and social turmoil in Weimar Germany that laid the groundwork for Hitler's ascent, drawing poignant comparisons to the fragility of today’s democratic system in the United States, and reveal the strategic maneuvers the Nazis employed to position themselves as the true representatives of Germany, transcending traditional political labels and focusing on national unity and modernization. We discuss the cultural anxieties exacerbated by rapid modernization and urbanization, and how Hitler's propaganda machine capitalized on these fears to foster a return to traditional values, further deepening societal and political divides. And, we explore the unique political skills and empathetic understanding Hitler used to galvanize support, setting a dangerous precedent for charismatic leadership in times of crisis.

But, when we consider the similarities between conditions in Weimar Germany immediately prior to the collapse of democracy to the conditions in the United States, does past mean prelude? Maybe the gradual democratic collapse of the Roman Republic is a better corollary. So, we look into how systems designed to prevent tyranny can inadvertently lead to gridlock and public disenchantment. By examining historical events like Augustus' rise to power and modern phenomena such as gerrymandering and judicial appointments, we emphasize the subtle dangers of gradual democratic backsliding. This episode helps us understand what might lie ahead for American democracy and underscores the urgent need to recognize and address threats to democratic institutions today to prevent repeating the errors of history.

Guests: Dr. Benjamin Hett, Dr. Peter Fritzsche, and Dr. Edward Watts

Music:
Infados - Kevin MacLeod
Dark Tales: Music by Rahul Bhardwaj from Pixabay

Counterpoint Podcast

-------------------------
Follow Deep Dive:
Instagram
YouTube

Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com

Music:
Majestic Earth - Joystock



Shawn:

On the cold and ultimately fateful night of February 27th 1933, the heart of Germany's democracy, the Reichstag, the country's parliament, was engulfed in flames. In many ways, the fire symbolized the impending doom of the current German government, the Weimar Republic. Amid the chaos of that night, a young Dutch communist, marinus van der Lubbe, was arrested, allegedly caught in the act of starting the fire. The Nazis, quick to seize the moment, proclaimed it a communist plot to overthrow the government. Adolf Hitler, newly appointed chancellor, and his close ally, hermann Goering, wasted no time in exploiting the government. Adolf Hitler, newly appointed chancellor, and his close ally, hermann Goering, wasted no time in exploiting the crisis. They convinced President Paul von Hindenburg to sign the Reichstag Fire Decree the very next day. This decree altered the course of democracy in Germany, ultimately dealing it a fatal blow. Wielding the powers within the decree, the Nazi party remade German politics and social life. The decree's impact was immediate and it was devastating, and it marked the beginning of a ruthless crackdown on communists, socialists and any dissenting voices, as they arrested and detained political opponents without trial. Thousands of people were rounded up. Silenced by the swift and brutal efficiency of the Nazi apparatus, the Communists, who had been a significant force in German politics were effectively obliterated. The upcoming elections on March 5th 1933 were conducted in an atmosphere of terror and intimidation, securing the Nazis a decisive victory.

Shawn:

The Reichstag fire became the pretext for the Nazis to dismantle the fragile democratic structures of the Weimar Republic and, with the Enabling Act passed later in March, hitler gained dictatorial powers, rendering the Reichstag impotent. The fire signaled not just the destruction of a building, but the incineration of German democracy, ushering in an era of totalitarian rule and unimaginable horror. Could something like this happen here? Welcome to After America. I'm your host, s C Fettig. Find, follow and like. Deep Dive with Shawn C Fettig on your favorite podcast platform and on YouTube, and check back every Sunday through September for new episodes of After America as we examine the precarious state of American democracy, how we got here and where we might be headed. We got here and where we might be headed. The clock is ticking. Democracy is at a crossroads and the time to act is now. When we consider democratic collapse and the rise of authoritarianism, our minds often turn to Germany in 1933. This was the year Adolf Hitler came to power, made himself dictator and ushered in the Nazi regime, a dark chapter in history that led to the Holocaust, World War II and the overall deaths of about 85 million people, approximately 2.3% of the global population at the time, the thought that we might be staring into a similar abyss today seems both entirely possible and utterly impossible. Yet there are striking parallels between current events in the United States and the conditions that led to the destruction of democracy in Weimar Germany. If the prelude looks familiar, then the aftermath is certainly worth considering as a potential future for America. So what were those conditions?

Shawn:

The Weimar Republic emerged from Germany's defeat in World War I, and the new government, led by the Social Democratic Party, faced the daunting task of negotiating peace with the Allied powers. The resulting Treaty of Versailles, signed in June of 1919, imposed harsh penalties on Germany, including substantial territorial losses, military restrictions and crippling reparations payments. This treaty was widely resented by the German people, fueling nationalist sentiments and undermining the legitimacy of the Weimar government from its very inception.

Shawn:

One of the most significant challenges facing the Weimar Republic was economic instability. The reparations demanded by the Treaty of Versailles placed an enormous burden on the German economy and, in a desperate attempt to meet these obligations, the government resorted to printing more money, leading to hyperinflation. By 1923, the value of the German mark had plummeted to absurd levels, resulting in widespread economic hardship. Savings were wiped out, pensions became worthless and ordinary Germans faced dire poverty and unemployment. Germans faced dire poverty and unemployment. Dr Benjamin Hett, professor of history at the City University of New York and author of the Death of Democracy, hitler's Rise to Power and the Downfall of the Weimar Republic, explains this period.

Dr. Hett:

Really, when you think about the Weimar Republic and especially the later years of the Republic from the late 1920s into the early 30s, germans were dealing with so many crises at once that it's not surprising that there was political crisis resulting out of all the other crises. But just to give you a bit of a sense, you know we need to keep in mind that in 1918, germany lost what was then the biggest war in history. And they hadn't Germans, hadn't expected to lose it. Until the very end, their propaganda told them they were winning. Their soldiers were on foreign ground, everywhere.

Dr. Hett:

It wasn't like the end of World War II, and so it was a shock that they lost, and in the course of losing they had lost about 1.7 million young men killed in action in combat. I always like to tell my students, if you sort of to get a sense of that imagine that the United States now had a war and lost about 8 million soldiers killed in action. Proportionally that would be what you're talking about and think what 8 million dead American soldiers would do to our country. I mean that's a really stunning loss.

Dr. Hett:

So there's that. Then there's all the crisis that comes with the end of the war. They have regime change which is unpopular in many sections of the country not universally unpopular, but with some sections of the country and the regime change is accompanied by civil war basically. And the civil war basically drags on for about five years. It comes in flares. It's not war all the time, but there are various kinds of flare-ups of what are basically civil war until 1923. Then things finally kind of calmed down a little bit and the Republic has about four or five years where things seem to be on the up.

Dr. Hett:

And then comes the Great Depression, of course, in 1929. And the Great Depression hits Germany harder really than any other country in the world. The only comparable place in terms of the economic statistics is the United States, but in most respects Germany gets hit worse in terms of drop in industrial production, unemployment numbers and so on. So this has been by the time we get to the early 1930s. There's been a dozen or so years here of just unmitigated crisis. Oh, and I forgot to mention the hyperinflation, of course of 1923, at the end of which, or at the last stage of which, the German mark was trading to the US dollar at 4.3 trillion marks to the dollar, meaning of course the currency had become utterly worthless and Germany had kind of reverted to a barter economy and many people, if you had any kind of bank savings, you lost it. That was gone forever. So again part of this whole sort of pattern of disasters. So those are some of the factors that are contributing to an atmosphere in which somebody like Hitler can flourish.

Dr. Hett:

And in a way, what I've said in my book, the Death of Democracy in particular, is that people didn't use the word globalization back then, but the phenomenon was happening and that was also something that a lot of Germans were reacting to.

Dr. Hett:

A lot of Germans felt and they weren't crazy to think this that Germany was kind of you know, the world's football, that in many ways in terms of trade flows, in terms of you know the whole complex subject of the reparations that Germany was supposed to pay to some of the Western allies coming out of World War I, and then all the financial arrangements that ultimately were kind of grafted onto the reparations.

Dr. Hett:

It was very complicated and basically resulted in, you know, literally Germany's central bank being largely under foreign control and its currency largely being regulated by foreign countries and all kinds of stuff like this, a situation which, at one point, germany's central banker called an invisible occupation, and he wasn't wrong to call it that. The financial control of Germany was a kind of invisible occupation. So all of this is feeding into, you know, the sort of other elements of crises that I mentioned and, you know, creating a real feeling among Germans that their country is just completely, you know, unmoored and completely a wreck, and they are dealing with so many different crises at once and they are dealing with so many different crises at once.

Shawn:

This economic chaos eroded public confidence in the Weimar government and created fertile ground for extremist political movements. The political landscape of the Weimar Republic became highly fragmented. Germany's proportional representation system meant that no single party could achieve a majority in the Reichstag, leading to a series of unstable coalition governments. This political instability hindered effective governance and made it difficult to address the very real issues that the people of Germany were buckling under. Layered on top of that was the fact that the political spectrum was increasingly polarized, with radical left-wing and radical right-wing parties gaining significant support.

Shawn:

The left-wing extremists, primarily represented by the Communist Party of Germany, sought to emulate the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. They organized strikes and uprisings which were violently suppressed by the government with the help of right-wing paramilitary groups. On the right, nationalist and anti-Semitic sentiments flourished. Right-wing paramilitary groups and factions led by Adolf Hitler capitalized on the public's discontent. They blamed the Weimar politicians, jews and communists for Germany's misfortunes, promoting the stab-in-the-back myth which falsely claimed that Germany had been betrayed from within during World War I, leading to its ultimate surrender, and current conditions. Dr Peter Fritsche, professor of history at the University of Illinois and author of the book Hitler's First 100 Days offers some insight here into the rise of the Nazi party the rise of the Nazi party.

Dr. Fritzsche:

The best way to think about the rise of and the Nazis had many antecedents. There were all sorts of proto-fascist movements coming in and out of German politics in the mid and the late 1920s. So if you take the bar graph and see that the Nazis had 2.6 in 1928 and then 18 in 1930 and then doubled that again in 1932, you miss the fact that there's a fertile ground that is measurable in many, many ways for a more radical nationalist movement. But the Nazis were the most effective stewards really of that larger anti-left but also anti-imperial, anti-monarchical environment. The best way to describe the success of the Nazis is to look at the acronym of the party, nsdap, which is National Socialist German Workers Party. With this acronym they were able to say that they were German but also different. It was time for some sort of revolution, a real revolution, a genuine revolution, a German revolution in which the community and larger social interests would have priority over individual interests. But it would be German, would be within the nation and it would not flirt in any way, ideologically or otherwise, with other international movements or the international order. After Versailles it was chauvinistically German, with the addition of the word workers. They're signaling that it's time to bring everybody into the nation.

Dr. Fritzsche:

And workers had not been integrated before the revolution. And the Nazis even understood why the Social Democrats had done well. Initially because they represented the workers who had no place and no voice. But the Nazis now offered a genuine integration into the community, not a worker state but a German state. But nonetheless they underscored that they were very anxious to include workers and all Germans, all common Germans, into their national party. So they had, you know, in various degrees, support from across the board sociologically. So they were the largest Catholic party outside of the German Catholic party. They were the largest working class party outside of the institutional socialist parties. They had rural and urban and rich and modest incomes. Now, of course, this was in various proportions, but they succeeded where the other parties did not, in creating a national front. That in itself became an advertisement for what the Nazis would do.

Shawn:

While Germany's economy did improve somewhat by the mid-1920s, this recovery was largely due to American loans and investments that came to an abrupt end with the onset of the Great Depression in 1929. The global economic downturn led to a severe crisis in Germany. Unemployment soared, reaching nearly 6 million by 1932. And the government's inability to address the economic collapse and the resulting social distress further undermined its credibility. As economic conditions worsened, the appeal of extremist parties grew. The Nazi Party in particular gained traction by promising to provide jobs and combat the perceived threats of communism and Jewish influence. Here's Dr Fritsch again.

Dr. Fritzsche:

The Nazis also used rhetoric and violence to suggest that a new era was going to dawn, and that's the key term there is the Third Reich that they were going to turn a page, not just that, start a new chapter in German history, but one to come. They were not looking back and there's very little in their appeal that really harks back to a pre-1914 Germany. So neither their voters nor the protagonists of the movement themselves were nostalgic for some older Germany which was similarly, which was flawed, basically flawed in its own ways as well. But they were going to capture and genuinely realize the revolution that had never then taken place, and they would not allow alien elements or fifth columns, or dangerous elements or those who had criminally and here are some of the contradictions, but criminally fomented revolution in war caused Germany's defeat. These elements socialist leaders, democrats, jews would be punished and segregated from the nation. But otherwise Germany as such would come to life as it had never come to life before, glimpse perhaps during the war time. Unity then would be institutionalized in a new chapter of German history and Germany would move forward.

Dr. Fritzsche:

And they were not technophobes, they embraced technology in many aspects of modern society. So they're not a backward movement and that is basically, in a nutshell, their appeal. They did not like being seated in the far right of the parliament because they believed that they were not a far right-wing party. They thought that they represented Germany as such. In fact, they didn't think in terms of left and right, they thought in terms of surface and depth and for them, the Weimar Republic was a surface thing and had been imposed from the outside and stabilized by the outside and really didn't represent Germany, whereas the Nazis represented Germans and would represent them as they had never been represented before, not through kings or anything like that, but through the people and the people's chosen leaders.

Shawn:

The party's propaganda, skillfully orchestrated by Joseph Goebbels, exploited the fears and frustrations of the German populace. The Nazi party leader, adolf Hitler, proved to be a dynamic, engaging personality that provided hope for a better German future, a return to glory and pride in a nation that had been hollowed out. Dr Hett explains Hitler's appeal.

Dr. Hett:

Hitler had some real skills and talents as a political operator, dr Hett, a voracious reader. He had a highly retentive memory on certain issues you know, like military history and military strategy and military technology. He read and remembered everything and he could sort of talk on an even keel with his generals about this kind of thing and his generals were often, almost in spite of themselves, quite impressed by his grasp of military things he had. Hitler had an ability to read people, which was quite amazing and I actually think, quite mysterious in a man who in most respects was quite cut off from close personal contact with people. And yet people who knew him would say this, and you can kind of see the effects in any case in the historical record that both on a kind of one-on-one level and in the sense of dealing with a crowd, hitler was incredibly empathetic to what people were thinking and feeling and this was a powerful weapon. Certainly it's a great thing for negotiations if you can read the other person really well, and then the other thing Hitler could deploy is very good acting skills. So if you were to meet him and he cared that you came away with a good impression. He might not care, depending who you were and depending on the day, but if he wanted to make a good impression on you, no matter who you were, he could do it, because he would read you and then he would act to the part of what he sussed out that you wanted him to be. And again we see this.

Dr. Hett:

So many people who really should have known better came away from a meeting with Hitler profoundly impressed, including seasoned Western democratic statesmen. I think to me maybe the most eye-catching example is the World War I British Prime Minister, david Lloyd George, who was himself an incredibly savvy, sophisticated, brilliant political operator, operator who also had incredible kind of radar for people. Lloyd George went to meet Hitler in I think it was 1936, and came away absolutely impressed and he said he is the George Washington of Germany. And he was. Lloyd George was so impressed with this guy.

Shawn:

Beyond the political and economic turmoil, social and cultural factors also played a role in the rise of Nazi Germany. The rapid modernization and urbanization of Germany in the early 20th century created a sense of dislocation and cultural anxiety. Traditional values and social norms were challenged by the emergence of a more liberal and cosmopolitan society, exemplified by the cultural dynamism of cities like Berlin. The Nazis adeptly exploited these cultural tensions, presenting themselves as defenders of traditional German values against the perceived decadence of the Weimar era. Their propaganda promoted a return to a mythical and homogenous German community, free from the influences of modernity and foreign elements. This created deep divides in communities, as Dr Fritsche explains.

Dr. Fritzsche:

The second thing that weakens the republic is the divide reproduced in every community, in every Protestant community so that's two-thirds of Germany, right there between left and right, between nationalists, more middle-class folks and more social democratic, usually working-class folks. That divide was expressed geographically in town, in where people lived and worked, and it was expressed in social life, so that there were, so to speak, two singing clubs, two bowling clubs, two soccer clubs, two chess clubs right down the divide, and two newspapers in town and some towns two voluntary fire companies. So that division meant almost no cooperation between left and right, even at the communal level, at the local level, all the way up to the Reichstag, to the parliament.

Shawn:

All of this instability in the Weimar Republic economic, political, social and cultural culminated in a series of backroom deals and political maneuvers. It was amidst this chaos, capitalizing on widespread discontent and nationalistic fervor, that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party came to power. In the July 1932 elections, the Nazis emerged as the largest party in the Reichstag, securing 37.4% of the vote, although they did not achieve an outright majority. And it's important at this point to note that in these 1932 elections, the people of Germany were not voting for the Germany they would ultimately get. Dr Fritsch explains.

Dr. Fritzsche:

This is 1932 or 1933 is the point of comparison. We're not talking about 1941, with the deportations from the train stations, and we're not talking about an invasion of the Soviet. Union people in 1932 would not have voted for those things and did not believe that no one was talking in those terms.

Shawn:

The Reichstag was in a state of chaos after the July 1932 election. While the election resulted in the Nazi party securing 230 seats, a plurality, they didn't have an outright majority and the political landscape remained highly fragmented. The Social Democrats and the Communists together held a significant number of seats, but they were deeply opposed to each other, meaning they couldn't and they wouldn't form a coalition in opposition to the Nazis. This inability of the various political factions to cooperate led to a deadlock. The Reichstag was unable to pass significant legislation or form a stable government, and this paralysis further contributed to the perception that parliamentary democracy was ineffective and incapable of addressing the urgent economic and social issues facing Germany. Amidst this turmoil, president Paul von Hindenburg and his advisors tried to stabilize the government by appointing a series of chancellors, none of whom, it would turn out, could command a majority in the Reichstag. So finally, in January of 1933, underestimating Hitler's ambitions and believing that he could be controlled with a conservative-minded cabinet, hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor.

Dr. Hett:

Famously. Hitler tried to carry out a coup d'etat against the government in 1923, the event known as the Beer Hall Putsch Putsch just being the German word for coup d'etat and that failed. And it failed because the police and the army shut it down. And so Hitler took the lesson from this and I think it was an abundantly correct lesson that he couldn't overthrow the state from outside. That he couldn't. A coup d'etat wouldn't work in a modern state against the army and the police. So he decided we do have to go from within, and this means we have to run in elections and we have to go till we've got a majority and then can, in a sense, do our coup d'etat from inside once we have a position in the government. So then that was the strategy the Nazi party followed, starting from 1925, early 1925, when Hitler got out of prison, and for several years it went nowhere. Through the 20s they were polling very badly in national elections 2.6% in 1928. They were a real fringe party. But then came the Great Depression and that contributed to the crisis atmosphere and contributed to their fortunes. And in 1930, in September 1930, in Reichstag elections they jumped up to just over 18%, and then two years later they jumped up to a little over 37%, which was their best showing in a fully free election, and by that time they're the largest party in the Reichstag. And by that time, because they are the largest party, they are becoming interesting to powerful people on the right who are worried about the communists, who are also gaining vote strength.

Dr. Hett:

And there are people on the right and here I really mean some top industrialists and a lot of senior military commanders feel the democracy of Weimar is really not serving their interests.

Dr. Hett:

It's much too kind of regulatory for business, it's making wages too expensive and, as far as the armed forces are concerned, the democratic parliament just won't vote enough military appropriations, and so they want to really overturn the whole democratic system and create a right-wing government.

Dr. Hett:

But some of these elite establishment conservative people, while many of them they're not stupid, they're quite sophisticated modern men and they know that even a dictatorship under modern conditions has to have a substantial popular base. You can't be a dictator against a substantial majority of the population. It just won't work. So they want a political anchor, they want a real right-wing political base, and it looks like the Nazis might be able to provide this, and so in a way, the narrative of German politics. The whole narrative between fall of 1930, let's say, and early 1933, is the narrative of a kind of awkward dance between a conservative establishment that wants to co-opt Hitler and the Nazis and Hitler and the Nazis who want to get into power. But they need the conservative establishment to really open the door to power for them to make Hitler chancellor, to create Nazi cabinet ministers, that kind of thing.

Shawn:

And once in power, hitler moved quickly to consolidate his position. As we touched on at the top of this episode, a pivotal moment came on February 27th 1933. Dr Head explains the significance of the Reichstag fire and its aftermath.

Dr. Hett:

Some things about the Reichstag fire are very controversial. Some things are not controversial. The things that are not controversial are basically that the fire happened literally four weeks to the day after Hitler had taken office as chancellor and in the context of an election campaign. The election was going to be six days later. The fire is on the Monday evening, february 27th. The election is supposed to take place on the following Sunday. So this election campaign has already been heated and, to some degree, quite violent, has already been heated and to some degree quite violent. And then comes the fire and Hitler takes the opportunity of the fire to go to President Hindenburg and get something that Hindenburg can give him, which is basically what we call in America an executive order. And the Weimar Constitution gave the president authority to use executive orders for almost anything. If he felt there was an emergency, the president could do just about anything by executive order. And so Hindenburg issues such an order, known to history as the Reichstag Fire Decree, which really just kills the whole democratic constitution of Weimar. In one stroke it cuts out all of the key individual rights which were in that constitution. You know the basic things like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom from arrest without charge, and it also this is sometimes overlooked but critically important it also gave the national government Germany was a federal state then and is now like the United States. It gave the national government the authority to take over state governments if the national government felt that state governments weren't governing properly. So you know, imagine if an American president could just walk in and take over the government of New York State or California. That's in a sense what the Reichstag Fire, that's one of the key powers that the Reichstag Fire decree gave Hitler.

Dr. Hett:

So many scholars think that this is sort of the transitional moment where Hitler really becomes a dictator. He was in a fairly weak political position up until that point. He was in a cabinet of 11 men, of whom only three were Nazis, and most observers felt Hitler was kind of hemmed in by the non-Nazi people in the cabinet, by President von Hindenburg, ultimately by the army, which everybody figured would be loyal to Hindenburg if the chips were down and there was a clash between Hindenburg and Hitler. So he's seen as a weak and probably transitory figure, and then the fire and the decree really make him effectively a dictator. That part's uncontroversial.

Dr. Hett:

Who set the fire is controversial, and it's much like the John F Kennedy assassination in the sense that there's one slightly crazy person, in this case Marinus Vandaluba, who was arrested in the building, kind of like Lee Harvey Oswald, and Vandaluba clearly had something to do with the fire.

Dr. Hett:

But whether he was doing it by himself or was a stooge in someone else's conspiracy, that remains controversial. I've gone on the record with the—I think it's still a minority position among historians, but I think it's gaining solidly—I've gone on the record with the view that in fact the Nazis themselves did set the fire as what we might call a false flag operation to give themselves the pretext to do the Reichstag fire decree. There was actually a part two People sometimes sort of mix these things up but there was a part two in his consolidation of power, which was an act through the Reichstag called the Enabling Act, which was a separate thing. It came in late March and the Enabling Act was a constitutional amendment actually which needed a two thirds vote in the Reichstag and got it, under which the Reichstag gave Hitler's administration all of the Reichstag's lawmaking powers for four years, and so that really completed the process of him being a dictator.

Shawn:

The Reichstag fire decree suspended civil liberties and granted the government sweeping powers. Its impact was immediate and devastating. The fire became the pretext for the Nazis to dismantle the fragile democratic structures of the Weimar Republic. With the Enabling Act passed later in March and the death of President Hindenburg in 1934, hitler gained absolute dictatorial powers. The democratic institutions of the Weimar Republic were systematically dismantled and Germany was transformed into a totalitarian state. The entire world would be engulfed in a world war within seven years and the Holocaust would commence. And entire world would be engulfed in a world war within seven years and the Holocaust would commence, and the world would never be the same.

Shawn:

The collapse of the Weimar Republic and the rise of Nazi Germany were the result of a complex interplay of political, economic, social and cultural factors. The harsh conditions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, economic instability and hyperinflation, political fragmentation and extremism. The impact of Versailles, economic instability and hyperinflation, political fragmentation and extremism, the impact of the Great Depression and the political maneuvering that brought Hitler to power all contributed to the demise of German democracy. And so, as we look back on the fall of the Weimar Republic and the rise of Nazi Germany, we have to ask ourselves could something like this happen here in the United States, germany. We have to ask ourselves could something like this happen here in the United States? While the context and specific circumstances differ significantly, several parallels can be drawn between the gradual erosion of German democracy and potential threats to democratic institutions in the US today. In many ways, a Trump presidency is not the beginning of democratic backsliding in America. It's just the next phase and, as I argued on last week's episode of After America, we've been experiencing such erosion since at least 2000, when the Supreme Court stopped the counting of presidential election ballots in Florida, handing the presidency to George W Bush.

Shawn:

Donald Trump has been explicit about his authoritarian agenda. He has said that he would be a dictator for day one. He plans to do mass roundups of undocumented immigrants and place them in camps pending removal. He wants to end birthright citizenship. He plans to deploy federal troops into cities. He wants to withdraw from NATO. He plans to repeal any remaining COVID mandates and withhold funding from public agencies, including schools that ever mandate. He wants to withdraw from NATO. He plans to repeal any remaining COVID mandates and withhold funding from public agencies, including schools that ever mandate mask wearing, and he wants to weaponize the federal government, especially law enforcement to target his rivals.

Shawn:

The conservative think tank Heritage Foundation has also produced a policy program called Project 2025 that outlines initiatives that the next Republican administration should take, primarily through unilateral executive action. These include eliminating federal agencies, altering education to be a propaganda wing of the Republican Party, replacing federal civil service workers with loyalists, further restricting abortion access, codifying Christian principles in American government and other radical initiatives to undermine democracy. There are striking similarities between these plans right now by Trump and the Republican Party and the tactics used by Hitler and the Nazi Party to consolidate power, fomenting and creating crises to sow chaos and justify the use of unilateral power. Using propaganda and media to spread false narratives and demonize opponents, manipulating elections and maneuvering to entrench minoritarian rule through quirks built into the democratic system. But do all of these similarities add up to Nazi Germany? Is that our future? Dr Hett provides a perspective on the differences between Trump and Hitler.

Dr. Hett:

Differences, I think, come under two quite large categories and you know, one difference is and we can talk about this maybe but one difference would be the extremely different social and cultural context of 21st century America as opposed to earlier or mid-20th century Germany. But just on the two individual persons and this is actually for us kind of good news Trump is less alarming than Hitler. I don't think Donald Trump and I will take a backseat to no one in my contempt and disgust for the man, but I would not even begin to say that he is possessed by or driven by the absolutely operatic scale of evil that Hitler was. I think there are two outstanding facts about Trump that explain almost everything about him.

Dr. Hett:

One is that he is absolutely jaw-droppingly stupid. He is mind-blowingly stupid. He has zero ability to absorb information and he has no information in his head like zip. The other thing is his enormous Texas sized inferiority complex, which means that he is incredibly vulnerable to either flattery or praise, flattery or criticism, and he reacts to people solely with that as a barometer. If you say nice things about him, he loves you. If you criticize him, he hates you, no matter who you are. And those two things his incredible stupidity and his incredible inferiority complex, I think, literally explain almost everything the man does and, in a sense, that makes him much less threatening than Hitler, because he's so stupid, he's so weak, he's so vulnerable, he's so incompetent. I mean, he tried to coup d'etat and he's too incompetent to make it work. So you know, were he to become president again, this would be bad news for American democracy, to be sure.

Dr. Hett:

But I think the bad news would be. Bad news for American democracy, to be sure, but I think the bad news would be somewhat mitigated by his extraordinary incompetence. The reality is that the options for democratic collapse in the United States are not limited to either total democracy or Nazi Germany, so perhaps we can learn from an historical example that is somewhere between these two extremes. Dr Edward Watts, professor of history at the University of California, San Diego, and author of the book Mortal Republic how Rome Fell into Tyranny, offers some insight into viewing democracy on a spectrum.

Dr. Hett:

Democracy isn't a binary in the way that we see it when we talk about Weimar, germany and its transition to Nazism.

Dr. Hett:

Democracy is instead something that exists on a spectrum, and so I think a good way to consider that and understand that is to look at something like the Economist Democracy Index, where they have a ranking of all of the world's governments on a scale of one to 10, based on how democratic they are, and so on one end is like North Korea and on the other end is somewhere like Norway, and societies and countries fall within that spectrum and, based on developments in the country, they move in that spectrum between full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime with some democratic characteristics and some autocratic characteristics, all the way down to something that is a pure autocracy like North Korea characteristics, all the way down to something that is a pure autocracy like North Korea.

Dr. Hett:

And the Weimar example suggests that you can go from 10 to 1 very quickly, and you can, but most of the time, historically, democracies don't move like that. They move slowly and they move kind of across the spectrum, but not all the way across the spectrum. And this is where I think Rome is a great example for us to think with, because the Roman Republic was never Norway. It never was a pure and fully functional and fully representative democracy. It never was a pure autocracy either, and so I think what Rome gives us is a way to better understand what might be happening in the United States. It gives us a pattern to show the progression across that spectrum, from more free to less free, without imagining that you have to tip all the way to autocracy when a democracy fails.

Shawn:

The fall of the Roman Republic and the transition to the Roman Empire is one of the most significant transformations in ancient history. This shift from a democratic republic to an autocratic empire didn't happen overnight, but it was the result of a combination of internal weaknesses, social and economic turmoil and the ambition of powerful individuals of powerful individuals. Democratic backsliding in the United States, if it continues to occur, may bear closer resemblance to the fall of the Roman Republic than to the rise of Nazi Germany. While the context and specific circumstances differ significantly, several parallels can be drawn between the gradual erosion of Roman democracy and potential threats to democratic institutions in the United States today.

Shawn:

One key similarity is the issue of economic inequality In Rome. The expansion of the empire brought immense wealth, but it also created significant social and economic challenges. The influx of slaves from conquered territories disrupted the labor market, leading to high unemployment among Roman citizens. Small farmers, unable to compete with the large estates that used slave labor, were often forced to sell their land and migrate to the cities, particularly Rome, where they lived in poverty. The Gracchi brothers, tiberius and Gaius, were notable reformers who sought to address these issues through land redistribution and other measures. Dr Watts explains the significance.

Dr. Watts:

Gaius Gracchus does something a little more radical. He introduces a grain dole, where public money is being used to provide food support to poor people in Rome. But these are ways of redirecting resources that are, in the view of some regular Romans, being overly generously given to rich people. There's another angle, too, and this is, I think, what is quite interesting. Poor people could not by themselves win Roman elections. There were more poor people than rich people, but the Roman voting system was structured in such a way that most of the poor people's votes didn't count as much as those of rich people, and there are a couple of reasons for that, but this was very much by design, and so if you actually wanted to win a Roman election, you couldn't do it by just appealing to poor people. You just wouldn't be able to win in that particular electoral system.

Dr. Watts:

And so what reformers like Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus are also able to do is channel the frustration of wealthy people who were not super wealthy.

Dr. Watts:

These are the people who, in particular, feel like the system is rigged, because they see that their prospects are not increasing as dramatically and as quickly as the people who are very wealthy. And so what the reformers of the 130s and 120s are able to do is build a coalition of poor people who really feel like the government could do more for them, and upper middle class to lower upper class people who feel like the system is rigged against their ability to actually compete with the people who are extremely wealthy. And so the reformers build a coalition of more or less poor people who want one thing from this reform and relatively rich people who want a different thing. One of them wants benefits, the other more or less just wants to control the unfettered access to capital and resources. That's fueling this wealth inequality. But that's a very potent combination because it means that significant portions of the Roman populace, for different reasons, no longer believe that the republic is working.

Shawn:

In the US. Growing income inequality, the erosion of the middle class and the increasing influence of money in politics are also pressing concerns. The wealth gap is being highlighted by movements like Occupy Wall Street and the increased attention to the 1% versus the 99%. These economic disparities exacerbate social divisions, foster populist movements and lead to a sense of disenfranchisement among large segments of the population. Another critical factor in the fall of Roman democracy was the transformation of the Roman military. Originally composed of citizen soldiers who served for short campaigns, the military evolved into a professional standing army. This change was largely driven by Gaius Marius, who reformed the military by recruiting landless citizens and promising them land and pensions upon retirement. These reforms had far-reaching consequences. Soldiers became more loyal to their generals, who could provide for their future, than to the state itself. This shift in loyalty enabled ambitious generals to wield significant political power. Figures like Julius Caesar used their military successes and populist appeal to concentrate power populist appeal to concentrate power.

Shawn:

In the US, the potential for continued democratic backsliding can similarly be fueled by charismatic leaders who challenge institutional norms and seek to centralize authority. Donald Trump's repeated challenges to the legitimacy of electoral outcomes, particularly his refusal to concede the 2020 election, and the subsequent Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, illustrate how leaders can erode democratic norms and checks and balances here in the United States. The Roman Republic, as in the United States, was characterized by a complex system of checks and balances designed to prevent the concentration of power. However, these very mechanisms became sources of political gridlock and inefficiency. Dr Watts expounds on this.

Dr. Watts:

So I think the system of checks and balances in Rome is more informal than in the United States, because Rome doesn't have a written constitution, so they don't say specifically yeah, this assembly does this to prevent, you know, this person from overstepping their bounds, but the system is in some ways, much more robust. So the basic principle of the republic is that there is nobody, unless it's an absolute emergency, there's nobody who has power without a colleague having equal power. So the Supreme Office in the Roman Republic is the consulship. There were always two. They always had equal power, and so what that meant was, you know, each one could veto the actions of the other. But it also meant that, if push came to shove, one consul had equal ability to marshal an army and equal ability to marshal the resources of the state, and therefore it would prevent somebody from trying to seize power by themselves, because there was nobody who's going to be more powerful than somebody else. And so this principle of paired magistracies was an essential function of the Republic, because it meant that you had to compromise, you know, you had to build consensus, consensus. And because they served in office for such a short period of time, there was also a sense when the Republic was really functional, that if you had an idea for how to do something, maybe you could execute it, maybe you could institute a reform and it would happen. But if the society wasn't ready for it, well, your term of office was up and if you couldn't build a consensus for it, then you would step back into the citizen population and if it was a good idea, people would keep working on it, and if it wasn't a necessary idea anymore, it would go away. But your contributions, in a sense, were things that you did on behalf of everybody else, and so the system was designed really to prevent anybody from doing anything individually, and there was a very strong reaction to people who tried to do too much or who tried to do things without the support of their colleagues and without the support of a broad segment of the population.

Dr. Watts:

What happens in the second century is this frustration with a system that felt like it was rigged, boils over because it was so difficult to reach consensus about what to do. So people you know begin saying in the 140s, even this system doesn't work, like there's a real problem here. You know, we don't like what's happening. We don't like how wealth is being divided. There are people who are suffering because of this. We need to do something about it, and they begin proposing reforms.

Dr. Watts:

The first set of reforms are about voting rights. They then begin proposing some economic reforms, but because of this process of having to get colleagues with equal power to agree with one another, those reforms don't really go quickly enough and people become frustrated with a system that just doesn't seem responsive. It seems gridlocked, and that's why they become more open to entertaining the ideas of radical people who are claiming they're going to shake the system up and overthrow the system. If they can use threats and intimidation to push something through, they're actually going to get extremely popular because they are the ones who were seen to do something, and so, in a way, the Roman system of checks and balances empowers people to try to challenge that system of checks and balances once people begin to feel like that system is rigged against them.

Shawn:

Much like in Rome, the US political system, with its separation of powers and federal structure, is designed to prevent tyranny, but can also lead to partisan deadlock and legislative paralysis. Recent examples include prolonged government shutdowns over budget disputes and difficulties in passing significant legislation on issues like comprehensive immigration reform and infrastructure. These instances highlight how political gridlock can erode public confidence in the effectiveness of democratic institutions. The concentration of wealth among the Roman elite also created economic disparity, which fueled social unrest and led to increasing demands for reform. Julius Caesar used legal avenues to reform and concentrate power, diminishing the role of representative institutions such as the Senate.

Shawn:

Caesar's accumulation of power, his appointment as dictator for life and his various reforms that concentrated power in his hands alarmed many senators. Caesar's assassination intended to restore the Republic, but instead plunged Rome into another series of civil wars. Octavian, caesar's adopted heir, skillfully navigated the chaotic aftermath of Caesar's death by presenting himself as a restorer of the public, while simultaneously consolidating power. Octavian managed to establish a new political order. Consolidating power, octavian managed to establish a new political order and in 27 BC, he was granted the title Augustus. Dr Watts describes Augustus' rise to power.

Dr. Watts:

So what Augustus did was construct a set of powers that evolved over time, and there were tweaks to the structure, but he assumed a set of powers that were governed by the institutional prerogatives and the institutional powers of magistrates that existed in the Roman Republic. And so, for Augustus, what he says is you know what? The Republic is back, we're having elections again, the Senate meets and debates important events, the Senate conducts trials. All of the things that happened in the Republic are happening again. It's just I'm here with the powers of multiple Republican magistrates to make sure everything works well.

Dr. Watts:

Most people, including most Romans, didn't really buy that, because it isn't really true. I mean, augustus did have quite a bit of more power than any Republican person ever had, but there were moments during the Republic when people were entrusted with this kind of authority over the state. So in the 50s BC, the Republic was suffering from such profound political violence that they couldn't conduct elections for magistrates, and so there was basically a lapse in the elected magistrates and they had to bring in the general, pompey the Great, to serve more or less as a strongman to bring peace to the state. And Pompey did that, and then Pompey held elections. And so you know, if you want to look at Augustus and say what Augustus did ended the Republic, I think you're right.

Dr. Watts:

But Augustus actually has a case to make where he says what I did was done before. I'm just doing it for longer. But you struggle to find a particular date that really purely works for the fall of the Roman Republic. You know, because what Augustus tried to do was not set up North Korea. What he tried to do was set up something like, say, hungary, where it is a hybrid regime, where you have elements of autocracy but you also have continued elements of democracy existing in certain structures and in certain controlled ways, so that people are able to continue to exercise their voices in a sort of meaningful context, in a political environment.

Shawn:

In the United States, similar legal avenues and reforms can be used to undermine democracy and consolidate authoritarian power. Examples include the strategic use of gerrymandering to create electoral advantages, the implementation of restrictive voting laws that disproportionately affect minority communities, and the politicization of judicial appointments. The refusal to consider President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, merrick Garland, in 2016, followed by the rapid confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, highlights how judicial appointments can be weaponized for partisan gain. All of these factors in Rome cumulatively and gradually eroded and undermined democracy until it eventually collapsed. Dr Watts explains the final stages of this process.

Dr. Watts:

When the republic stops working, it's largely because magistrates begin building power in ways that cannot be constrained by those structures within the republic, and people within the republic start acquiring more resources and more property in a fashion that doesn't look like it is lawful and just, and so people begin to suspect that the republic isn't functioning according to their wishes and instead it seems like it's broken.

Dr. Watts:

And this is what ultimately leads to the very long, century-long process through which Romans become frustrated with their republic and start being willing to entertain ideas of leaders who try to assert power outside of the structures of that republic. And when they do that, what they're doing in essence is breaking that compact. You know, the power that they're exercising is not power entrusted to them by the entire collective of citizens. It's instead power that they have taken based on the backing of some citizens. And so, ultimately, I think the decline of the Republican system is a sort of complicated dynamic between the structures of the state, the desires of individuals and the frustrations of segments of the citizen population that feel like the basic compact that's governing the republic is no longer holding.

Shawn:

Gradual democratic backsliding is more insidious than a rapid coup. Its incremental nature allows it to evade immediate detection and resistance. As democratic norms and institutions erode slowly, citizens often fail to recognize the extent of the deterioration until it's too late. This slow degradation can normalize undemocratic practices, making them harder to reverse. People become accustomed to small losses of freedom and democratic norms, making it difficult to mobilize against the cumulative effect. Gradual backsliding also maintains a veneer of legitimacy. Autocrats often keep the appearance of democratic processes like elections and judicial proceedings, while subverting their integrity. This facade confuses citizens, making it harder to recognize the authoritarian shift. A rapid coup, in contrast, is blatant and typically triggers immediate condemnation and resistance. Moreover, gradual backsliding exploits and deepens existing societal divisions. By undermining democratic norms, leaders can manipulate the media, the judiciary and electoral systems to consolidate power. This often involves subtle changes like restricting press freedom, limiting judicial independence and disenfranchising voter groups, collectively weakening the democratic fabric and creating a polarized society less capable of unified resistance. In essence, gradual democratic backsliding is stealthy. It maintains a guise of legitimacy, deepens societal divisions and erodes public will to resist, leading to a more entrenched form of authoritarianism, more so than the shock overthrow of democratic governance in Nazi Germany, the fall of the Roman Republic.

Shawn:

The gradual collapse of democracy may more closely resemble what democratic erosion could look like in the United States, driven by structural weaknesses, economic and social inequalities, powerful individuals and the erosion of civic norms. These factors are all present in American politics today, with growing income disparity, increasing political polarization, the outsized influence of money in politics and a decline in public trust toward democratic institutions. Donald Trump, a populist and charismatic leader with authoritarian tendencies, mirrors some of these historical precedents. However, history doesn't repeat itself exactly. It can offer context, a roadmap and lessons, sure, but the future is not predetermined. Unexpected events can change outlooks and prospects. Historical precedents can, however, help us identify warning signs, and right now they're going off everywhere. Check back next Sunday for episode four of After America.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Shawn C. Fettig

Host