Dictators and police states

I watched two fascinating documentaries the other night that ran back to back on The National Geographic Channel about Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich.

Both shows broke new ground and presented information I had not seen or heard before, including taped conversations Hitler never knew existed.

It was fascinating because Hitler showed a side in these candid conversations that most of us have not been exposed to. A human side. A thoughtful side. We have been force-fed the ravings of a lunatic which, of course, his actions proved he was, but the question has always been how he seduced the German people into going along with his madness. These two programs went a long way in answering that question.

Hitler was a charismatic guy. He was a tremendous and convincing speaker who always infused enthusiasm and support to those he spoke to, and he accomplished this principally by telling people what they wanted to hear. In 1930s Germany, it was nationalism and Germanic pride.

He spoke only to the majority because he knew how they thought and what they wanted. He promised them a place in the sun and a return to greatness in exchange for their loyalty and their support.

It's not surprising that they gave it to him. He told the majority repeatedly that they were the greatest people living in the greatest country in the world and that Germany would once again take its rightful position and rule for a thousand years if they would just heed his commands.

And they did. He also told them that the true weakness of Germany were those living inside its borders who belonged to the minority and that they had to be eliminated if Germany was to once again become great. This included the Jews, the ethnic and racial minorities, the infirmed and sick, the mentally and physically handicapped, and homosexuals.

This is when the true evil of the man emerged, because he wanted to do far more than simply deny them the rights of the white, fair-haired majority. He wanted to exterminate them and exterminate them he did, with at least the tacit support of the native-born German people.

Even though this occurred several decades ago, it has been repeated time and time again across the globe, primarily under the guise of ethnic or racial cleansing.

It can happen anywhere and anytime. That is why it is so crucial that we Americans hold our politicians' feet to the fire. That's why red flags should go up every time a politician kowtows only to the majority, telling them only what they want to hear, and working them into a nationalistic frenzy in the process.

Pandering to the majority is, by far, the easiest and simplest political tactic there is. But it's also the most disingenuous. It requires no courage and, even worse, no character to whip up the support of the masses by playing up to their biases and prejudices. Yet it continues to happen and we continue to reward some who do so with elective political office.

Our forefathers anticipated this. That's why a balance of powers was constitutionally developed between the three branches of government so one branch could not develop enough strength to dictate to the other two branches.

But there was also a flaw in this plan. The Executive and Legislative bodies are elected and the Judiciary is appointed, but the Judiciary is appointed by the Executive branch and confirmed by the Legislative branch.

What happens when the Executive branch and the Legislative branch stay in the hands of the same interests too long? It means the federal Judicial branch becomes dominated by appointees from the same interest group and, when that happens, the whole idea of checks and balances goes out the window.

We are hearing a lot today about proposed constitutional amendments to ban flag burning and homosexual marriages. The country is in an uproar over illegal aliens to the point that some politicians are suggesting that walls be built along our southern border to keep them out.

The American Constitution is the most enduring political document ever written. It has stood the test of time. But some argue that the Constitution is a "living" document and should be amended as times change.

That is not a vacant argument, but amending the Constitution should always be done with great care and only when the proposed Amendment does not change or alter the spirit of the original document and is not a response to the temporary whims of the current majority.

Amending the Constitution is the most prodigious and potentially life-altering act we can participate in and, consequently, should be attempted only after great soul-searching, discussion, and debate. I, for one, cannot imagine anything currently being discussed that is worth changing our original document for.

We have seen a hardening of attitudes occur in this country in recent years. We have heard our leaders say that the Geneva Convention rules of conduct do not apply to the war on terrorism. We have, for the first time in the history of this country, started an unprovoked war.

We are discussing possible constitutional amendments to control or banish thought or behavior that we disagree with. We have seen the Supreme Court issue decision after decision that strengthens police power at the expense of Constitutional guarantees.

The Fourth Amendment, for example, protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures and forbids the government from entering into our private lives except when there is probable cause to do so. And yet the Supreme Court has eroded some of these very protections through recent decisions.

The thief in the night does not suddenly appear. He enters our lives with stealth and often in the disguise of someone who is here to help us, often with a smile on his face. It is only when we have been lulled into contentment, acceptance, and trust that he is able to rob us of our greatest possessions. That is why we must always be vigilant and on guard against those who would erode the very document this great country was founded on.

Because the wolf often appears in sheep's clothing.