Where are the leaders in the Republican party? What are they thinking? What are their plans? Are they willing to take a stand for what they believe in—which I think is the true measure of leadership? Or are they going to passively allow an autocratic bully to highjack their party?
♦◊♦
Welcome to America, Mr. von Papen. More on him later.
Lots of things have shocked me about the 2016 primary season, including the lack of civility, the hostility among voters, and the rise of populist movements on both sides of the aisle.
But nothing, nothing could have prepared me for the way Republican party leaders and influencers have cowered at the sight of the Trump election machine. They have mainly, one by one, fallen in line behind a man who, in a many ways, represents the opposite of what has made America great in the modern era: tolerant democratic pluralism.
I say this as a pro-business, pro-growth, lifelong Republican voter (at least until W’s second term in office). I want to support the GOP. I want to make America a better version of itself. I want to have a strong military.
But I won’t appease an autocrat.
I won’t do it.
I won’t.
And I find it extremely ironic that the party which is so quick to label Democrats as appeasers in global affairs can’t stand up for its ideals in managing the selection of its own presidential candidate.
Ronald Reagan, conservative hero, feller of communism, said in his famous Evil Empire speech to a meeting of evangelical preachers:
“I know that you’ve been horrified, as have I, by the resurgence of some hate groups preaching bigotry and prejudice. Use the mighty voice of your pulpits and the powerful standing of your churches to denounce and isolate these hate groups in our midst. The commandment given us is clear and simple: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’”
I wonder how President Reagan would react to his party’s presumptive nominee’s behavior:
- Labeling Mexican immigrants as thieves and rapists.
- Inciting violence at his rallies by offering to pay legal bills for those who mete out vigilante justice on protesters.
- Waging venomous, misogynistic attacks on female journalists who question him.
- Suggesting that an entire religious group be halted from immigrating to America.
- Defaming decorated war heroes, such as John McCain, for getting caught by the enemy.
- Refusing to condemn Ku Klux Klan leaders for their actions.
- Stating plainly that a federal judge is unable to do his job because of his ethnicity.
I think he would say that the party is not living up to its ideals.
All of this brings me to Franz von Papen.
♦◊♦
When most people think of appeasement and Adolf Hitler, the first person who comes to mind is Neville Chamberlain, the disgraced prime minister of Britain who helped negotiate the Munich Agreement in 1938 that handed over part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler’s Germany. Chamberlain and his supporters thought that negotiating with Hitler would prevent a giant war and contain Hitler’s aggression. It didn’t, and Chamberlain’s name is forever associated with a failed policy that emboldened one of history’s most evil bullies.
This was not the first politician, however, to appease Hitler.
Franz von Papen was a relatively minor politician in the Weimar Republic era of Germany (named after the government that ruled Germany between the end of World War I and the Nazi party). He was a close advisor to President Paul von Hindenburg, whose job it was to appoint a Chancellor to run the government. Both men saw the meteoric rise in popularity of Hitler and the Nazi party in German politics. Both men feared the influence that this radical element posed to German society.
Von Papen was an ambitious politician who knew he lacked the charisma of Hitler. He knew he stood no chance of supplanting Hitler in a head-to-head contest. His strategy, then, was to elevate Hitler in order to contain him, as odd as that may sound. Therefore, Franz von Papen recommended to President Hindenburg that he appoint Adolf Hitler to chancellor so that Hitler would be exposed as an incompetent leader and be forced out by parliamentary politics.
Sadly, this is not how it turned out. Hitler went on to destroy his enemies, establish a dictatorship, and initiate policies that led to the murder of tens of millions of people.
♦◊♦
Donald Trump is not a new Hitler. Making a direct comparison between these two individuals is sensationalistic and absurd. Yet Donald Trump is an outside populist who represents a serious threat to America’s established political system. He is also an aspiring politician who blatantly disregards America’s political conventions and standards of conduct in ways that I deem dangerous.
I don’t think restoring America’s greatness involves promoting xenophobia, misogyny, vigilantism, or character assassinations.
And while a few notable Republican party leaders have spoken out against Trump’s tactics, where are the rest? Mitt Romney has bravely called for a different option. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has voiced concerns. Senator Lindsey Graham has expressed deep frustration with many of Trump’s comments. Junior Senator Mark Kirk has said he will not vote for Trump.
But where are the rest? Are they too worried about their own political futures to make waves? Are they now onboard and in agreement with Trump’s views on minorities, women, and public policy—they just didn’t say it before? Are they simply out of ideas?
I think they’ve been bullied. I think they’re appeasing the autocrat. I think they’re refusing to take a stand for what is right.
And while don’t think a Trump presidency would lead to a holocaust, I do think that it could make the country a less safe place for millions of Americans, reverse the course of American leadership on the world stage, ruin America’s relations with its key neighbors and allies, and launch a series of misguided domestic policies that could effectively shut down the economy.
And where might this lead? I don’t want to find out. I’m not sure that having an aggressive, impulsive, and untested politician in the highest office in the land is an experiment I want to carry out. The stakes are too high.
♦◊♦
So where are the leaders in the Republican party? What are they thinking? What are their plans? Are they willing to take a stand for what they believe in—which I think is the true measure of leadership? Or are they going to passively allow an autocratic bully to highjack their party?
♦◊♦
Photo by Michael Vadon
Dave, you’re an honest, authentic, brave, bright light on the path to human progress. Thank you for being an important voice at The Good Men Project and consistently framing your point of view with eloquence and bold candor.
I’m afraid that I believe you’ve been hijacked by the media David. When trump talked about Mexicans being rapists an thieves, you took him out of context in that he is portrayed as a racist but he was talking about the word we seem unable to say. Illegal immigrants. They are de facto criminals as a result which the media doesn’t want to acknowledge. I have no love for the Republican party. They were hijacked by the far right evangelicals. OTOH, the Dems were hijacked by the Saul Alinsky revolutionaries. Just as bad for reason and progress, real progress. And… Read more »
Mark, I appreciate you contributing. I’m all for having difficult conversations, I just don’t want to have them the way that Donald Trump presents them.
True. How he presents them leaves much to be desired. But I think he’s doing this as a channel for the anger of the American people.
I have to ask you David, do you read responses to the various articles that have been published here that pretty much say the same thing? The reason I ask is that your bullet points have all been addressed and some dispelled with proof.
Just because someone says it, doesn’t make it true.
Nonetheless your welcome to your opinion. As a Republican, I find it bothersome that you have fallen lock step with main stream media … sad. But I guess as long as long as you and Hillary are paid by the fortune 500’s, I guess it’s okay.
Tom, thanks for chiming in. I can see how some of Trump’s comments have been taken out of context. I do. Some, however, I find repugnant, regardless of context.
You were saying Hillary and her views on immigration?
Labeling Mexican immigrants as thieves and rapists. – See more at: https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/lifelong-republican-who-wont-vote-for-trump-dtv/#sthash.lWMRtsBV.dpuf
I doubt that this will make it past review but what the heck.
Each party has had moments like this in its past. This reminds me of a phenomenon in the 1990’s, a group of people in New York City known as “Democrats for Rudy,” i.e., members of the Democratic Party who supported the Republican mayoral candidate, Rudy Giuliani, instead of their own party’s nominee, Al Sharpton. I probably would have done the same thing. (I wonder who would be more offended by this comparison, Sharpton or Trump….) Many of my fellow Democrats, especially those to the left of myself, have taken to repeating the same joke: “Hillary is the best Republican in… Read more »