Reply #195: The only election Hitler ever entered for government office... [View All]

[SDuderstadt]

he lost. Hitler ran for President of Germany and was defeated by Paul Von Hindenburg. He never again ran for government office.

Contrary to popular belief, Hitler was never elected Chancellor of Germany; he was appointed by Von Hindenburg, who was trying to head off a coup. The Nazis also never won a majority of either the seats in the Bundestag or the Reichstag. In fact, Hitler and the Nazis seized power through armed coercion and intimidation.

I am not arguing here that we don't have the right to depose a despotic and tyrannical government, elected or not. I'm arguing that the framers were pretty brilliant and that our system was constructed with a series of remedies embodied within the checks and balances that would make it close to impossible for anyone to establish a despotic, tyrannical government and I haven't heard anyone here propose a scenario yet that even sounds plausible.

The OP asks whether americans should have the right to VIOLENTLY oppose THEIR government, which implies that it still enjoys the consent of the governed, even as some oppose it. If any administration were to act extraconstitutionally and managed to defeat all the constitutional remedies (which I would argue is highly implausible and approaching impossible) it would, by definition, not be THEIR government any longer and would have been imposed upon them. As such, we would not only have the right to oppose it, we would have the duty to oppose it, by violence if necessary.

The problem I have with those who voted "yes" (given the way the OP is worded) is that they are giving a simplistic answer to a complex question. Yeah, you can quote Jefferson all you want and talk about being "founded by violent overthrow", but it's plain that Jefferson was addressing a despotic, tyrannical monarch that had rebuffed all negotiation from the colonists. Implicit in the establishment of our democratic republic was that the citizens did not have the right to violently oppose it AS LONG as it remained as such. This is seen in the wording of the 1st amendment and is also reflected in the power granted to Congress in Article 1 to suppress insurrections.

As I have tried to make this argument, I have gotten the predictable response from certain posters who have misrepresented what I said to imply that I am some sort of "authoritarian follower" or otherwise meek soul that would simply acquiesce to despotism. What I am most appalled by is the plurality that voted "yes", then go on to make arguments that are nearly indistinguishable from those of the teabaggers and, in fact, that of nearly any militia or anti-government group. When called on it, these posters try to mount an unsuccessful argument along the lines of, "well, of course, I am opposed to the teabaggers and they would not have the right to violently oppose our government", never once giving a convincing argument as to how that works.

How can we oppose the "right" of teabaggers to violently oppose our government, yet claim we retain that right? Frankly, that's one of the most stunning non sequiturs I've ever witnessed. I am certainly aware that many do not trust the government and, after eight years of the abuses and outright crimes of the Bush administration, it's easy to understand why. However, the argument made by the teabaggers amounts to insurrection and, sadly, that same argument is made by a number of our own. Our ability to preserve our democratic republic rests upon the recognition and of agreement of sane people on both "sides" that resorting to insurrection is not an option.

For those that choose to ignore this on either "side", my simple prediction is that you will soon be facing down the U.S military, including a federalized national guard, who have taken an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic". I sincerely hope it never happens, even to the teabaggers, whose biggest crime is being unbelievably stupid and acting upon it. However, if it does, in fact, happen, I believe the most important value is the protection and preservation of our democratic republic against all those who would take up their popguns against OUR government, even though they may be wrong for all the right reasons. To those who voted "no", I commend you. To those who voted "yes", I sincerely ask you to reconsider or, alternatively, explain to me how the "teabagger exception" works.

P.S. Even though I responded to Hack's post, my words are not directed to him.