Re:Pelosi defends stock trading by lawmakers. ‘We are a free...
by animal_spirits on Friday December 17, 2021 @12:41AM
(#29588281)
I think we can argue that Hitler's power _was_ indeed given by the people. Hitler tried to overthrow the government in the 20s with a march on Munich [0]. He ultimately failed because he didn't have enough support and was driven out. After this incident he pledged to get into power the legal way, and by that time he _did_ have the support of the people. He appealed to the masses. If people did not support his rise to power and immediate control of the government through the Enabling Act [1] they could have marched on the government themselves to try and overthrow him. Higher ups supported him, and the working class supported him.
[0]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch [1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
Re:Pelosi defends stock trading by lawmakers. ‘We are a free...
by kolbe on Saturday December 18, 2021 @01:36AM
(#29602274)
My history is a little outdated and hazy, but my recollection was that the Nazi Party suppressed voting via violence in 1933. By then, it was clear that if people marched on the government, they would be risking their lives. What little consent Hitler did have before then (which was never a majority) was not based on the views that he ultimately carried out. The people never had any say in anything ever again after 1933. I could grant you the notion that the people under free will chose the Nazi Party in a non-majority way for about a year. But after 1933, dissent was a death sentence.
I think it's pretty rough to say Hitler was given power from the people in the sense that Rousseau would use the phrase.
Kinda? I know that's the supposed cliche, but it doesn't really ring true. The "people's" will as defined by some collective subset of the population has certainly been a powerful influence at times, but it's far from a concept that is simply "given by the people." I don't think Pol Pot's power was given by the people. Hitler's wasn't. Xi Jinping's isn't.
And even Nancy Pelosi's isn't given in the way you imply. Through a strong network of bribing and brainwashing, our entire political system leaves us with the choice of empowering corrupt militaristic theocrats or a party that mostly uses tax dollars to bribe voters. I think a very good response to this situation is "I don't like what Pelosi is doing, but I would really hate what a republican would do in her place." And that doesn't sounds like people have much power at all.