Comments on: It’s a Mad Mad World, Senator Harris http://dublinopinion.com/2007/08/03/its-a-mad-mad-world-senator-harris/ It's a group blog. What more do you need to know? Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:56:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Donagh http://dublinopinion.com/2007/08/03/its-a-mad-mad-world-senator-harris/#comment-29865 Donagh Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:21:26 +0000 http://dublinopinion.com/2007/08/03/its-a-mad-mad-world-senator-harris/#comment-29865 Hmmm, Pavement Trauma, in retrospect I'm not happy with the explanation’ of pre-WWII appeasement either. I guess I was reacting to the use of the abusive term 'appeasment' used by Berman, Cohen and others whenever anyone suggests that invading Iraq was a bad idea. It seems easy for these people to say that being soft on 'Islamofacism ' as they call it is the same as those who allowed the Nazis to take power in Germany. On the point <i>"It was not necessary to choose between imperialism and fascism, because there was no essential antagonism between them. The war that eventually broke out was a continuation of a quarrel within capitalism"</i>. This analysis seems far to simplistic to me. Imperialism had given way to a fledgling democracy in Germany in the Interwar years. It was this domocracy's inability to be maintained under the pressures from economic collapse (a combination of the Great Depression and the after effects of the Versailles Treaty) that arguably led to war. In Johnathan Writes LRB article he gives a very good summary of the situation, which was an education to me: "<i>What is not in doubt is that pragmatism provided an insufficient basis for resisting the Nazis once the Depression took hold. The left, both Socialist and Communist, and the Catholic Centre party were able to hold their own, but the Protestant Nationalists lost heavily to the Nazis while the two Liberal parties and various middle-class splinter groups were virtually wiped out. The Social Democrats lost ground to both the Communists and the Nazis: as they were the party with consistently the largest vote until the elections of July 1932, between 20 and 30 per cent, that is hardly surprising. The Nazis also did well with new voters and previous non-voters, who were caught up in the general excitement. But that was not enough to deliver a majority of the electorate. In fact, the Nazi vote fell in November 1932 to 33 per cent, suggesting they had peaked. More than half of voters continued to support the Social Democrats, Communists and Catholic Centre. Why were they not able to stop the Nazis? The Centre had lost faith in democratic politics and the Vatican looked instead for security in Hitler’s promises and a Reich Concordat. The Communists and Socialists were enemies, competing for the same vote. The Social Democrats were demoralised, particularly once they had lost their bulwark in Prussia in 1932, when Nazi gains made majority government impossible and Chancellor von Papen took over the government as part of an inept and illegal attempt to establish an authoritarian state. The Social Democrats turned to the law for protection but, although they won a partial victory, it did not restore them to power. Options for direct action were limited. A general strike, which had been effective against a military putsch in 1920, was impractical in conditions of mass unemployment. They could have resorted to armed resistance, using their paramilitary units, the Reichsbanner, but if the army, the Nazis and their allies in the ex-servicemen’s ‘Steel Helmets’ organisation had been deployed against them, they would have had no chance. Nevertheless, Evans suggests that this would have been their best hope; the army might have held back for fear of being seen to provoke a civil war. Evans’s conclusion demonstrates that the polarisation of the electorate during the Depression had made democracy unworkable. But the anti-Nazi opposition had not gone away. The last section of The Coming of the Third Reich deals with the way in which it was overwhelmed and ‘co-ordinated’. Hitler showed political skill in adapting his rhetoric to his audience, exploiting legal loopholes to provide cover for the suspension of civil liberties, reassuring potential allies of his good intentions in order to secure a two-thirds majority of the Reichstag for an enabling act which in effect made the suspension permanent, while at the same time presiding over a campaign of terror against his enemies. Stormtroopers took their cue from above without waiting for specific orders, in a way that anticipated future patterns of violence. When this was not enough, Goering and Himmler provided direct encouragement. Individual acts of terror were soon complemented by the first concentration camps and legal restrictions on Jews. Fear and the desire to conform combined to make the process of co-ordination, in Evans’s word, ‘breathtaking’ in its scale and scope. Civil servants, lawyers, teachers, those involved in universities, the press, film, broadcasting, music, literature, theatre, painting – all were to be brought into line in the new ‘total’ state, orchestrated by Goebbels’s propaganda ministry. There are painfully few examples of anyone showing solidarity with colleagues who were identified as political or racial enemies. That moral collapse – part opportunism, part an overwhelming desire to be identified with a ‘national’ awakening – was what ultimately made the Third Reich possible."</i> Sorry for the long quote, but I think its facinating. On Bertie, I think you're exactly right. According to The Pheonix, Bertie is shit scared of the Sunday Indo, and with the Tribunal looming is looking to keep them on side, considering that they pretty much went for him before Eoghan conversion to the FF cause. Hmmm, Pavement Trauma, in retrospect I’m not happy with the explanation’ of pre-WWII appeasement either. I guess I was reacting to the use of the abusive term ‘appeasment’ used by Berman, Cohen and others whenever anyone suggests that invading Iraq was a bad idea.

It seems easy for these people to say that being soft on ‘Islamofacism ‘ as they call it is the same as those who allowed the Nazis to take power in Germany.

On the point “It was not necessary to choose between imperialism and fascism, because there was no essential antagonism between them. The war that eventually broke out was a continuation of a quarrel within capitalism”. This analysis seems far to simplistic to me. Imperialism had given way to a fledgling democracy in Germany in the Interwar years. It was this domocracy’s inability to be maintained under the pressures from economic collapse (a combination of the Great Depression and the after effects of the Versailles Treaty) that arguably led to war.

In Johnathan Writes LRB article he gives a very good summary of the situation, which was an education to me:
“What is not in doubt is that pragmatism provided an insufficient basis for resisting the Nazis once the Depression took hold. The left, both Socialist and Communist, and the Catholic Centre party were able to hold their own, but the Protestant Nationalists lost heavily to the Nazis while the two Liberal parties and various middle-class splinter groups were virtually wiped out. The Social Democrats lost ground to both the Communists and the Nazis: as they were the party with consistently the largest vote until the elections of July 1932, between 20 and 30 per cent, that is hardly surprising. The Nazis also did well with new voters and previous non-voters, who were caught up in the general excitement.

But that was not enough to deliver a majority of the electorate. In fact, the Nazi vote fell in November 1932 to 33 per cent, suggesting they had peaked. More than half of voters continued to support the Social Democrats, Communists and Catholic Centre. Why were they not able to stop the Nazis? The Centre had lost faith in democratic politics and the Vatican looked instead for security in Hitler’s promises and a Reich Concordat. The Communists and Socialists were enemies, competing for the same vote. The Social Democrats were demoralised, particularly once they had lost their bulwark in Prussia in 1932, when Nazi gains made majority government impossible and Chancellor von Papen took over the government as part of an inept and illegal attempt to establish an authoritarian state. The Social Democrats turned to the law for protection but, although they won a partial victory, it did not restore them to power. Options for direct action were limited. A general strike, which had been effective against a military putsch in 1920, was impractical in conditions of mass unemployment. They could have resorted to armed resistance, using their paramilitary units, the Reichsbanner, but if the army, the Nazis and their allies in the ex-servicemen’s ‘Steel Helmets’ organisation had been deployed against them, they would have had no chance. Nevertheless, Evans suggests that this would have been their best hope; the army might have held back for fear of being seen to provoke a civil war.

Evans’s conclusion demonstrates that the polarisation of the electorate during the Depression had made democracy unworkable. But the anti-Nazi opposition had not gone away. The last section of The Coming of the Third Reich deals with the way in which it was overwhelmed and ‘co-ordinated’. Hitler showed political skill in adapting his rhetoric to his audience, exploiting legal loopholes to provide cover for the suspension of civil liberties, reassuring potential allies of his good intentions in order to secure a two-thirds majority of the Reichstag for an enabling act which in effect made the suspension permanent, while at the same time presiding over a campaign of terror against his enemies. Stormtroopers took their cue from above without waiting for specific orders, in a way that anticipated future patterns of violence. When this was not enough, Goering and Himmler provided direct encouragement. Individual acts of terror were soon complemented by the first concentration camps and legal restrictions on Jews.

Fear and the desire to conform combined to make the process of co-ordination, in Evans’s word, ‘breathtaking’ in its scale and scope. Civil servants, lawyers, teachers, those involved in universities, the press, film, broadcasting, music, literature, theatre, painting – all were to be brought into line in the new ‘total’ state, orchestrated by Goebbels’s propaganda ministry. There are painfully few examples of anyone showing solidarity with colleagues who were identified as political or racial enemies. That moral collapse – part opportunism, part an overwhelming desire to be identified with a ‘national’ awakening – was what ultimately made the Third Reich possible.”

Sorry for the long quote, but I think its facinating.

On Bertie, I think you’re exactly right. According to The Pheonix, Bertie is shit scared of the Sunday Indo, and with the Tribunal looming is looking to keep them on side, considering that they pretty much went for him before Eoghan conversion to the FF cause.

]]> By: Pavement Trauma http://dublinopinion.com/2007/08/03/its-a-mad-mad-world-senator-harris/#comment-28940 Pavement Trauma Wed, 08 Aug 2007 11:48:40 +0000 http://dublinopinion.com/2007/08/03/its-a-mad-mad-world-senator-harris/#comment-28940 My take is that it is purely a distracting curve ball from Bertie, probably originally timed to provide cover from any new information that would have been coming from the Mahon tribunal if Bertie had got his chance to take the stand last week. Now he'll have to come up with a plague of frogs/an Irish space mission/additional grandchildren come September instead. And I'm still sitting here mouth agape at the 'explanation' of pre-WWII appeasement. My take is that it is purely a distracting curve ball from Bertie, probably originally timed to provide cover from any new information that would have been coming from the Mahon tribunal if Bertie had got his chance to take the stand last week. Now he’ll have to come up with a plague of frogs/an Irish space mission/additional grandchildren come September instead.

And I’m still sitting here mouth agape at the ‘explanation’ of pre-WWII appeasement.

]]> By: RainyDay http://dublinopinion.com/2007/08/03/its-a-mad-mad-world-senator-harris/#comment-28819 RainyDay Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:57:02 +0000 http://dublinopinion.com/2007/08/03/its-a-mad-mad-world-senator-harris/#comment-28819 A cynic might wonder if a deal was done with Bertie for the Seanad before Harris's Late Late appearance on the final Friday of the campaign which (along with Waters) had a huge impact in turning the campaign in FF's direction. A cynic might wonder if a deal was done with Bertie for the Seanad before Harris’s Late Late appearance on the final Friday of the campaign which (along with Waters) had a huge impact in turning the campaign in FF’s direction.

]]> By: Senator Harris, mar dhea! « Splintered Sunrise http://dublinopinion.com/2007/08/03/its-a-mad-mad-world-senator-harris/#comment-28545 Senator Harris, mar dhea! « Splintered Sunrise Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:13:53 +0000 http://dublinopinion.com/2007/08/03/its-a-mad-mad-world-senator-harris/#comment-28545 [...] still hanging open, you can read detailed accounts of Eoghan’s political peregrinations from Donagh and [...] […] still hanging open, you can read detailed accounts of Eoghan’s political peregrinations from Donagh and […]

]]> By: A past gone mad…a present no less so… The Senate nominees and what this tells us about contemporary Irish politics. « The Cedar Lounge Revolution http://dublinopinion.com/2007/08/03/its-a-mad-mad-world-senator-harris/#comment-28380 A past gone mad…a present no less so… The Senate nominees and what this tells us about contemporary Irish politics. « The Cedar Lounge Revolution Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:23:02 +0000 http://dublinopinion.com/2007/08/03/its-a-mad-mad-world-senator-harris/#comment-28380 [...] but her somewhat eccentric demeanour is interesting and colourful. Donagh also has an interesting critique of Harris on a left/right political [...] […] but her somewhat eccentric demeanour is interesting and colourful. Donagh also has an interesting critique of Harris on a left/right political […]

]]> By: mickhall http://dublinopinion.com/2007/08/03/its-a-mad-mad-world-senator-harris/#comment-28369 mickhall Sat, 04 Aug 2007 10:33:42 +0000 http://dublinopinion.com/2007/08/03/its-a-mad-mad-world-senator-harris/#comment-28369 Ah well, the RoI is merely catching up with the UK where media gofers are regularly given gongs of one sort or another. Despite his tunnel vision Eoghan was often a good read, even if one disagreed with every word he wrote. Thus when this type of thing happens I find it sad if predictable, for when a journalist openly takes the politicos coin; and make no mistake this is a pension top up as I understand there is a decent salary when one becomes a member of the Seanad, they lose all credibility, even amongst those they serve. Last I heard Eoghan was raging about a secret LP-SF deal to get SF into the Seanad, whoops. Ah well, the RoI is merely catching up with the UK where media gofers are regularly given gongs of one sort or another. Despite his tunnel vision
Eoghan was often a good read, even if one disagreed with every word he wrote. Thus when this type of thing happens I find it sad if predictable, for when a journalist openly takes the politicos coin; and make no mistake this is a pension top up as I understand there is a decent salary when one becomes a member of the Seanad, they lose all credibility, even amongst those they serve.

Last I heard Eoghan was raging about a secret LP-SF deal to get SF into the Seanad, whoops.

]]> By: Hugh Green http://dublinopinion.com/2007/08/03/its-a-mad-mad-world-senator-harris/#comment-28244 Hugh Green Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:11:13 +0000 http://dublinopinion.com/2007/08/03/its-a-mad-mad-world-senator-harris/#comment-28244 He was also an adviser to Ahmad Chalabi, you know. Gave Chalabi a bit of advice on how to work a TV audience, apparently, and also on how to refer to Aristotle and 'good authority' once a week for fifteen years. He was also an adviser to Ahmad Chalabi, you know. Gave Chalabi a bit of advice on how to work a TV audience, apparently, and also on how to refer to Aristotle and ‘good authority’ once a week for fifteen years.

]]>