Nazis and the Republican Party

[El Brujo]

A Fresh Look
by Carla Binion

Nazis and the Republican Party

Investigative reporter Christopher Simpson says in BLOWBACK
that after World War II, Nazi
émigrés were
given CIA subsidies to build a far-right-wing power base in the
U.S. These Nazis assumed
prominent positions
in the Republican Party's "ethnic outreach committees." Simpson
documents the fact that these
Nazis did not
come to America as individuals but as part of organized groups
with fascist political agendas. The
Nazi agenda
did not die along with Adolf Hitler. It moved to America (or a part
of it did) and joined the far right
of the
Republican Party.

Simpson shows how the State Department and the CIA put
high-ranking Nazis on the intelligence
payroll "for
their expertise in propaganda and psychological warfare," among
other purposes. The most
important Nazi
employed by the U.S. was Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler's most senior
eastern front military intelligence
officer. After
Germany's defeat became certain, Gehlen offered the U.S. certain
concessions in exchange for his
own
protection. Gehlen promoted hyped up cold war propaganda on
behalf of the political right in this
country, and
helped shape U.S. perceptions of the cold war.

Journalist Russ Bellant (OLD NAZIS, THE NEW RIGHT, AND THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY)
shows that
Laszlo Pasztor, a convicted Nazi war collaborator, built the
Republican émigré network. Pasztor,
who served as
adviser to Republican Paul Weyrich, belonged to the Hungarian
Arrow Cross, a group that helped
liquidate
Hungary's Jews. Pasztor was founding chairman of the Republican
Heritage Groups Council.

Two months before the November 1988 presidential election, a
small newspaper, Washington
Jewish Week,
disclosed that a coalition for the Bush campaign included a number
of outspoken Nazis and
anti-Semites. The
article prompted six leaders of Bush's coalition to resign.

According to Russ Bellant, Nazi collaborators involved in the
Republican Party included:

1.Radi Slavoff, GOP Heritage Council's executive director, and
head of "Bulgarians for Bush."
Slavoff was a
member of a Bulgarian fascist group, and he put together an
event in Washington honoring
Holocaust
denier, Austin App.

2.Florian Galdau, director of GOP outreach efforts among
Romanians, and head of "Romanians
for Bush."
Galdau was once an Iron Guard recruiter, and he defended
convicted Nazi war criminal
Valerian Trifa.

3.Nicholas Nazarenko, leader of a Cossack GOP ethnic unit.
Nazarenko was an ex-Waffen SS
officer.

4.Method Balco, GOP activist. Balco organized yearly memorials
for a Nazi puppet regime.

5.Walter Melianovich, head of the GOP's Byelorussian unit.
Melianovich worked closely with
many Nazi
groups.

6.Bohdan Fedorak, leader of "Ukrainians for Bush." Fedorak
headed a Nazi group involved in
anti-Jewish
wartime pogroms.

The Philadelphia Inquirer ran an article on the Bush team's
inclusion of Nazis (David Lee Preston,
"Fired Bush
backer one of several with possible Nazi links," September 10,
1988.) The newspaper also ran an
investigative
series on Nazi members of the Bush coalition. The article confirmed
that the Bush team included
members
listed by Russ Bellant.

Journalist Martin A. Lee, has written for The Nation, Rolling Stone,
The San Francisco Chronicle,
and other
publications. In THE BEAST REAWAKENS, Lee confirms that
during both the Reagan and Bush
years, the
Republican Party's ethnic outreach arm recruited members from the
Nazi émigré network.

Lee says that the Republican Party's ethnic outreach division had
an outspoken hatred of President
Jimmy
Carter's Office of Special Investigations (OSI), an organization
dedicated to tracking down and
prosecuting Nazi
war collaborators who entered this country illegally. Former
Republican Pat Buchanan attacked
Carter's OSI
after it deported a few suspected Nazi war criminals.

According to Lee, public relations man Harold Keith Thompson
was principal U.S. point man for
the postwar
Nazi support network known as die Spinne, or the Spider. In the
late 40s and early 50s,
Thompson worked as
the chief North American representative for the remaining National
Socialist German Worker's
Party and the
SS. Lee writes that the wealthy Thompson gave generously to
Republican candidates Senator
Jesse Helms and
would-be senator Oliver North. Thompson's money gained him
membership in the GOP's
Presidential Legion
of Merit. Lee says Thompson also "received numerous thank-you
letters from the Republican
National
Committee." Those letters are now in the Hoover Institute Special
Collections Library.

Christopher Simpson writes in BLOWBACK that in 1983, Ronald
Reagan presented a Medal of
Freedom, the
country's highest civilian honor, to CIA émigré program consultant
James Burnham. Burnham was
a
psychological warfare consultant who promoted something called
"liberationism." Just before the
1952 election,
the CIA worked up a multimillion-dollar public relations campaign
aimed at selling Americans on
expanding
cold war activities in Europe. Part of the guiding theory (given the
name "liberationism" was the
idea that
certain Nazi leaders from World War II should be brought in as
"freedom fighters" against the
USSR.

Reagan said that Burnham's ideas on liberation "profoundly
affected the way America views itself
and the
world," adding, "I owe [Burnham] a personal debt, because
throughout the years of traveling on the

mashed-potato circuit I have quoted [him] widely." Reagan may
not have known Burnham's
theories were
based on his work on projects that enlisted many Nazi
collaborators, but it seems that Reagan's
CIA Director
Casey or former CIA Director, Vice President George Bush, would
have informed him.

At a May 9, 1984 press conference, Simon Wiesenthal said, "Nazi
criminals were the principal
beneficiaries of
the Cold War." The cold war mentality, hyped by Reinhard Gehlen
and other Nazis, became the
shelter for tens
of thoU$Ands of Nazi criminals. Helping the far right in this country
to promote cold war hysteria
became the
Nazi war criminals "reason for being." As Christopher Simpson
says, the cold war became those
criminals'
means "to avoid responsibility for the murders they had
committed."

Journalist Seymour Hersh says Christopher Simpson's
BLOWBACK is "the ultimate book about
the worst
kind of cold war thinking, in which some of our most respected
statesmen made shameful decisions
that they
mistakenly believed to be justified." To this day, says Simpson, the
U.S. intelligence agencies hide
the scope of
their post-World War II collaboration with Nazi criminals.

Are Republicans like George H. W. Bush, Oliver North, and Jesse
Helms, aware they have been
assisted by
Nazi collaborators? Bush once worked for the CIA and should
have known about the nature of the
Nazis in his
'88 campaign. No doubt he knows the history of Nazi/CIA
collaboration. Whether or not Bush
knew of the
fascists' involvement in his campaign, the Republican Party should
have done a far better screening
job. One
thing is certain: The intelligence agencies know the scope and
extent of Nazi involvement with the
political
right in this country. It is a shame they keep it hidden from the
majority of the American people.

© 2000 Carla Binion All rights reserved

[Nateddi]

I think every cappie on this board is a republican. Or has converted after sept 11

[Moskitto]

I'm a republican, although a republican is something completely different in the UK.

That guy who broke into buckingham palace and got into the queens bedroom was an idiot. Why didn't he take a few petrol cans with him and light them? I mean a nice fire which kills the whole royal family would be a good thing.

[Imperial Power]

Sig Hail!

No, I'm not a nazi. That nazi bull shit is always used to as anti-reublican propaganda. It's not true.

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from Imperial Power on 10:06 pm on Jan. 25, 2002
Sig Hail!You spelled that wrong. Just thought I'd point that out. :)

I'm not sure what I think about that Nazis-and-Republicans stuff, but there are definitely racists in the Republican party.

Has any capitalist here read Buchanan's new book?

[El Brujo]

Do you have proof that its not true, Imperial Power? I mean the U.S. has done some extreme shit in their fanatical rage against communism as well as setting up millitary dictatorships in latin america that harboured nazis, as a matter of fact, latin america was one the most common destination for the nazis after WW2 simply because of the dictatorships set up by your CIA.

[Imperial Power]

Argentena was major destination for nazis; the birth place of che. I'm not sure but didn't Peron side with the Nazis? Without finding a document that says republicans are not nazis I will tell you that if there was any truth to that the media would eat it up and it would be on TV all the time. Republicans are just more conservative and, naturally for propaganda purposes the bleeding heart liberals try to connect us with everything bad that ever happened.

[Moskitto]

Peron was a fascist but he didn't fight with the Nazis.

The Axis Powers that actually fought against the Allies were.

Germany
Italy
Austria
Japan
Thailand

[Red Star]

(Edited by Red Star at 6:34 pm on Jan. 26, 2002)

[Imperial Power]

True Moskitto but I've read that much of the Aregenta population supported Germany during the war even though they didn't actually join the axis powers.

[El Brujo]

Argentina declared war on the nazis a few days before WW2 ended, the millitary coup that ousted Peron (which was also backed by the CIA if Im not mistaken)was the one that harboured some of the major nazi criminals. And learn how to spell ARGENTINA, Imperial Power.

[Capitalist]

The Republican Party was founded by abolitionists.

They wanted to stop the spread of American Slavery.

Abraham Lincoln the 1st Republican President vowed to prevent any new slave states from entering the the United States.

Republicans have nothing to do with Nazis!

Although I do not support political parties - I consider the Republican Party to be the most genuine political party. The American Democrats might as well call themselves communists - because there is nothing democratic about reverse racism, high taxes, and big government/social programs.

Perhaps we need to start a new topic.

The Democrat Party and Communists!

[Xvall]

Quote: from Imperial Power on 8:58 am on Jan. 26, 2002
Argentena was major destination for nazis; the birth place of che.


Are you accusing Che of being a Nazi or something? Yes.. I'm sure.. A Mexican, Communist, Nazi... Right..

- Drake Dracoli

[I Will Deny You]

Che's family was in a local anti-Nazi organization and Che was anti-Nazi and defended a Jewish kid at his school, just for the record.

Quote: from Capitalist on 7:52 pm on Feb. 4, 2002
The Republican Party was founded by abolitionists.

They wanted to stop the spread of American Slavery.

Abraham Lincoln the 1st Republican President vowed to prevent any new slave states from entering the the United States.

Republicans have nothing to do with Nazis!

Although I do not support political parties - I consider the Republican Party to be the most genuine political party. The American Democrats might as well call themselves communists - because there is nothing democratic about reverse racism, high taxes, and big government/social programs.

Perhaps we need to start a new topic.

The Democrat Party and Communists!
I don't recall the Republican Party being founded by abolitionists. And everyone has acknowledged that in the mid-1800's the Republicans were to the left of the Democrats, but now it's the Democrats who are to the left of the Republicans. So anyone with any common sense knows that if the Civil War were to happen today, Daschle would be a lot more likely to support the Union than Bush would be, and it would be Gephart, not Armey, who would be the biggest Union supporter in the House. Lots of wackos in the South--you know the kind, the "I'd fight to the death for the Confederacy" bunch--voted Democrat for a very, very long time just because Lincoln was a Republican, but now they are voting Republican because even those who are lost in an era that ended a VERY long time ago have acknowledged that the dynamic and relationship between the two parties has changed. So don't pull any of that Lincoln-was-a-Republican crap, Lincoln was on the left side of the spectrum. Very few people here call themselves Democrats, but almost all of them call themselves leftists.

Whether Democrats promote reverse racism is debatable at best. There is, in fact, something democratic about high taxes when a clear majority of the American people want them. Clinton won by a mile both times he ran and he improved the American economy by raising taxes. The American people realized it was worth it to pay slightly higher taxes because they were making a lot more money and had a lot more job security. Bush I, who also was clearly favored by the majority of Americans, promised lower taxes and did not deliver. Bush II promised lower taxes, but can you say that a man who did not get the majority of the vote was elected democratically? It's the high taxes that have the vote of the people behind them.

There aren't a ton of rich people in America, but there ARE a ton of poor people. Besides them, there are plenty working-class and middle-class people who care and are willing to pay slightly higher taxes or wait another few years for development of that bullshit "Star Wars" crap to be developed if it means feeding, housing and taking care of the poor. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but there are a ton of Americans who favor this evil "big government" of yours.

[Moskitto]

Same thing in Britain. Tony Blair promised 10% tax rates and a massive increase in spending. What do we get? 23% tax rate and spending which doesn't go on anything useful.

At least in America people actually do realise that money doesn't grow on trees and you actually have to pay to get better services.

[Nateddi]

No, believe me, not the ones that actually make the decisions.

[redpeekay]

"True Moskitto but I've read that much of the Aregenta population supported Germany during the war even though they didn't actually join the axis powers. "
I have heard this somewhere too and can't deny it, but in response I say that many American capitalists supported the Nazis. Why? because it was profitable. The book "A man called Intrepid" deals mainly with the information war of WWII but also talks a great deal about American buisnessmen who were Nazi sympatheizers (spelling?)

[redpeekay]

"which was also backed by the CIA if Im not mistaken"
I hate to go against my own kind...but I don't think the CIA existed at this time

[Pillar of Maturity]

The CIA was founded after World War II if I'm not mistaken. Their goal was to find future Hitlers and Stalins and kill them.

That's why you don't hear about LSD and mind control experiments until the 1950s. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theory nut, the CIA used Hoffmann's research as soon as they got the chance.

I think the FBI or NSA handled all intelligence until then. You've probably already guessed this, but the FBI was not the best agency to trust when the government needed intelligence.

[MrWinkle]

I can't speak for the others, but I despise the Republicans more than the Democrats. The Republicans have Bush and co, but let's not forget the censorship touting Lieberman and his career-politician buddy Gore...

When I vote, I vote Libertarian, and when there is no libertarian candidate, I don't vote. Not that voting makes much of a difference; it's purely a symbolic act, and a conceptually defunct one at that. There's a anarcho-capitalist joke floating around that I doubt you commies have heard which goes:
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on one to have for dinner. A Republic is where the sheep gets to pick which one of the wolves will represent him."

Oh yes, and if anyone tells you the WTO or the Republican Party are for a free-market, they are either lying or stupid.

[El Brujo]

Quote: from Capitalist on 3:52 am on Feb. 5, 2002
The Republican Party was founded by abolitionists.

They wanted to stop the spread of American Slavery.

Abraham Lincoln the 1st Republican President vowed to prevent any new slave states from entering the the United States.

Republicans have nothing to do with Nazis!

Although I do not support political parties - I consider the Republican Party to be the most genuine political party. The American Democrats might as well call themselves communists - because there is nothing democratic about reverse racism, high taxes, and big government/social programs.

Perhaps we need to start a new topic.

The Democrat Party and Communists!


Well then, what do you have to say about your buddie's PAT BUCHANAN and Berry Goldwater (republican candidate in the 1960's that was supported by the grand wizard of the KKK). And whats so anti-democratic about reverse-racism, high taxes and big government? Racists, first of all, are anti-democratic themselves and are libeling groups groups of people (other races) for something ridiculous which they don't have controll over anyways (Im all for free speech unless it dosent hurt or put anyone down for no logical reason), allowing them to demonstrate is anti-democratic. High taxes are the only thing keeping the U.$. from being a lazzeiz-faire economy with the upper class absurdly rich while not working hard at all and the lower class at the verge of slavery and big government is the only thing that ever kept the U.$. from being a society completely ruled by $$$. Dont get me wrong, Im not a democrat (Im not even American) but I support the democrats over the republicans because they are the lesser of the two evils.

[MrWinkle]

Quote: from El Brujo on 3:34 am on Feb. 5, 2002
[quote]Quote: from Capitalist on 3:52 am on Feb. 5, 2002
The Republican Party was founded by abolitionists.

High taxes are the only thing keeping the U.$. from being a lazzeiz-faire economy with the upper class absurdly rich while not working hard at all and the lower class at the verge of slavery and big government is the only thing that ever kept the U.$. from being a society completely ruled by $$$. .

C'mon now! That's entirely incorrect. Can you even give me a definition of what "laissez-faire capitalism" means?

[Markxs]

laiszez fairez (spelling ?) is simple. just let the free market take care of everything. no goverment at all. the capitalist (liberal) ideal. so no social security, the rich getting richer the poor getting poorer.

ignorance is strength
freedom is slavery
war is peace

[James]

"laisez fair" (spelt?) means to leave alone (near enough) . So come on, put the two together. Leaving alone + capitilism = (u can do this bit). Its simple. Even a monkey could understand.

[Moskitto]

laisez-faire leadership styles don't normally work in businesses anyway. Workers lack motivation because they don't have any orders and don't know really what is meant to be done. Consultative and Persuasive Democratic leadership styles are best.

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from MrWinkle on 3:07 am on Feb. 5, 2002
Not that voting makes much of a difference; it's purely a symbolic act, and a conceptually defunct one at that. There's a anarcho-capitalist joke floating around that I doubt you commies have heard which goes:
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on one to have for dinner. A Republic is where the sheep gets to pick which one of the wolves will represent him."People died for the right to vote, and now you have that right but you only vote when there's a candidate who you agree with on every issue? The whole idea of democracy is that everyone has a preference. It's lesser of two evils, and that's all. How odd that people here have so much time to complain but not everyone can find the time to vote. It's not just a symbolic act, but it really is a meaningful one. My one vote has never made the difference, but I'm sure there are a bunch of people like yourself in South Florida who wish they voted in 2000. The WHOLE POINT of democracy is that one person can't decide who rules--that's a dictatorship.

[El Brujo]

Quote: from MrWinkle on 1:16 pm on Feb. 5, 2002

Quote: from El Brujo on 3:34 am on Feb. 5, 2002
[quote]Quote: from Capitalist on 3:52 am on Feb. 5, 2002
The Republican Party was founded by abolitionists.

High taxes are the only thing keeping the U.$. from being a lazzeiz-faire economy with the upper class absurdly rich while not working hard at all and the lower class at the verge of slavery and big government is the only thing that ever kept the U.$. from being a society completely ruled by $$$. .

C'mon now! That's entirely incorrect. Can you even give me a definition of what "laissez-faire capitalism" means?


Lasseiz-faire economy is when the government has no control over business, therefore the rich basically control everything and will go to the point of almost enslaving the workers just so they could have their little extended vacations to the moon. It also brings about monopoly's and dosent allow any opportunity for the poor to get out of their misery. In short temrs, a handfull of people live the life of kings and queens while the majority feed on their shit. Lasseiz-faire was applied during the 1800's (Rockefeller times) and this was the worse period ever for the workers, you would be better off as a slave during this time.

[MrWinkle]

RE: "I will deny you"

People also died for my right to own slaves and kill jews. Just because they lost doesn't change the fact that they died for that right. Just because they died for the ideal doesn't make it a good one. The whole point of democracy might be the lesser of two evils, which as a basic idea, I'll agree with. Afterall, capitalism isn't perfect, but it's better than...
Anyhow, to choose the better of two evils when there are far weaker evils elsewhere is stupid. One wouldn't support Mussolini's dictatorship because it's better than Hitler's! Why choose democracy when you could have anarchy? www.anarchism.net

RE:El Brujo

First off (to everyone), the spelling is "laissez-faire". Trust me. You're right that it is the absense of government control over markets, but I don't agree that such is the great evil you think it to be.

To site the turn of the century as the paradigm of laissez-faire capitalism is not entirely accurate. Granted, governmental regulation was virtually non-existent outside of tarrifs. The tarrifs though, helped (and continue to help) make sure that goods which would be highly affordable maintain an inflated price "for the good of foreign farmers and workers". This translates into groceries, for instance, costing much more than a realistic selling value, thus keeping them affordable for the middle class, but much less affordable as one descends the economic ladder. Of course every one pays more so that a few hundered farmers (and this includes corporate farms) can maintain high income in exchange for their political favor (back to the democracy thing again). This was the case then, as it is now. Other tarriffs of course existed as well, but you get my point.

Next point: markets, though without regulation as we think of it today, were heavily under the constraint of government in the form of Jim Crow laws and the devestating economic effects of the Reconstruction which deeply offset the natural flow of the markets (at the expense of everyone, laborers included, at that). Markets certainly were freer, but not laissez-faire, and at that, their constraints were in some respects more damaging.

[vox]

Winkle posits that tarrifs were "for the good of foreign farmers and workers". (sic)

Howevrer, that's not at all true. Tarrifs were, and remain, not some sort of altruistic donation, but a vital standard of protectionism. The point is not to assist foreign laborers, but to aid domestic capiitalists!

That Winkle misundertands this makes me wonder about his education.

vox

[I Will Deny You]

Mr. Winkle - But if someone said to you, "Either Mussolini or Hitler will be President of your country and it will take less than a half hour of your time to put in your two cents," it might be a good idea to go vote for Mussolini. I'm not saying you have some calling to work for his campaign or actually carry out what he'd want you to, but if you know that one of them is going to win, it may as well be the one you like better.

[MrWinkle]

Vox:

Tarriffs protect foreign and domestic interests; it depends on the tarriff and the situation. A tarriff on farm goods from abroad and a price intervention internally helps domestic farmers, but harms foreign farmers and the rest of the domestic population (especially the poor, where the extra couple dollars on groceries can make a real difference.) Of course, a Costa Rica, for instance, doesn't want to trade at all with the US if we put tarriffs on their exports to protect our own goods. They'll refuse to trade unless we offer some compromise that equally benefits some other interest group in their community at the expense of our workers (in whatever field) and the expense of the rest of Costa Rica's population.

And...the fact that you resort so quickly to ad hominem attacks makes me question your thoughtfulness.

IWDY:
I agree with you that it's better to pick Mussolini over Hitler. But those two cents amount to nothing but a symbolic gesture when what needs to be 'bought' (if I can extend the metaphor) is something in the millions. My point is that (as our past American election arguably helped illuminate) one person, or even a large demographic's vote is impotent in the face of the existing status quo. In this sense, voting is 99.9% symbolic, but the symbol is potentially harmful. That less than 50% of the population voted for GWBush says something about the legitemacy of his power. Imagine if 60% voted and Gore even won, he now has a clear majority, which looks more legitemate; yet, it's still not necessarily the will of at least 40% of the people. More than that actaully. I don't think that's a highly worthwhile institution myself. I'll thow out a link for a slightly more eloquent essay: http://www.economic.net/dontvote/

In other words, voting lends the existing corporate state a legitemacy I don't want to give it, nor do I wish to even symbolically offer my support for something as gross as Bush or Gore, let alone Mussolini.

[El Brujo]

Quote: from MrWinkle on 2:22 pm on Feb. 6, 2002
To site the turn of the century as the paradigm of laissez-faire capitalism is not entirely accurate. Granted, governmental regulation was virtually non-existent outside of tarrifs. The tarrifs though, helped (and continue to help) make sure that goods which would be highly affordable maintain an inflated price "for the good of foreign farmers and workers". This translates into groceries, for instance, costing much more than a realistic selling value, thus keeping them affordable for the middle class, but much less affordable as one descends the economic ladder. Of course every one pays more so that a few hundered farmers (and this includes corporate farms) can maintain high income in exchange for their political favor (back to the democracy thing again). This was the case then, as it is now. Other tarriffs of course existed as well, but you get my point.


More than a few tarriffs (which actually benefitted the upper and middle class more than the workers) are necesarry to improve the below-decent lives of workers in a system with economic inequality. Thats like giving someone a paper cup when they are about to be shot in the nads. What workers need is direct protection similar to what is exercised in western europe.

[MrWinkle]

Those who are workers one the one end of the equation are consumers on the other. An American auto worker is helped by tarriffs on incoming foreign autos. However, as a consumer, he is hurt by all other tarriffs. Some are undoubtedly hurt or helped to varying degrees, but on the whole we buy far more things than we produce. As a general rule, tariffs hurt the majority of consumers and help politically powerful interest groups.

This alone is enough to evoke opposition, but I'll reiterate that a spike in grocery prices, car prices, oil, polymers etc. will affect the living conditions of the workers/lower-class consumers more so than the upper parts of society who have more money to waste.

[peaccenicked]

Private property=theft of property
You talk about conumers but how many consume
trillions of dollars on defence. How many like elton John can spend a million pounds on flowers in one year?

[I Will Deny You]

I didn't have a lot of time to go to that site and most of the points there were point that I've seen 100 times before, but what was interesting to me was that it said something to the tune of "democracy might be the worst form of government." What is better than a form of government where less than 50% of the voters get what they wanted--a dictatorship where 0% of the people even have the opportunity to be voters?

As I recall, not only did less than 50% of the population vote for George W. Bush vote, but less than 50% of the population voted in the first place. As long as there is so much voter apathy (and a bit of educated, contemplated and strategic refusal to vote), any ruler of this country can (perhaps rightly) claim that they're as legitimate as it's going to get. With democracy it's impossible that everyone will be pleased, but a perfect democratic system would please as many people as possible. While America's system is very far from being ideal, it's also very far from being as bad as it gets. When a person over 18 doesn't vote, they are still doing something--they're doing exactly what you're doing. It's your choice and I'm not saying you're wrong, but better to have a legitimate-looking Mussolini than an illegitimate-looking Hitler. When you don't vote, you lose the right to complain about who was elected. While you may be most worried about illegitimate leaders, I'm worried about illegitimate children in the inner city and the healthcare that they would receive from a Democrat but not a Republican.

[MrWinkle]

Of course an established, Constitutionally-limited democracy will probably be better than a dictatorship. This disregards first of all that many dictatorships emerge out of democracies that collapse upon themselves either through bad choices of the public, or more often, the manipulation of the higher-ups (Hitler's for instance; other examples litter post-colonial Africa and Central America). Clearly - it's clear to me at any rate - democracy by itself is not a guarantee on freedom, let alone prosperity or stability; particularly not in the Third World. Democracy is typically not the worst case of all scenarios, but is also not necessarily the best. A democracy without a free-market, or a democracy which can be bought and sold is not necessarily representing the will of the people any how. The virtue of the free-market is that allows for far more than two options.

On a side note, not everyone can consumes the same amount. Elton John consumes more and is thus hurt more by tarriffs. A worker consumes less, but he still must consume goods to survive. Though he is hurt less by tarriffs, their affects upon him is far stronger. In other words, though Elton John perhaps looses $2000 over a number of months due to tarriffs, this will affect his living style (and means of survivor) far less than the $300 a worker might loose in the same time period. To Elton, that's just 2000 less to buy shitting expensive clothes with; to the worker, the money lost on tarriffs can mean a house payment, clothes for children, groceries, etc.