You are the one who is misreading what I am saying.
When I say that we have to worry about protecting democracy before oppositions are banned, you say that I am putting words in your mouth saying that he was elected on a platform of executing Jews.
Clearly I am not saying you said that. I have understood your dismissal of my apt statement.
You are essentially saying that 1) there are complex historical reasons for Nazism
2) Our democracy is strong
3) Therefore the comparison is not apt and is offensive, as we are a long way from Nazism
Neither of your first two points at all counter what I have said, and your third point does not naturally flow from your first two.
As you have said, there are not that many failed democratic states (though there are a number of "semi" democratic states). If we try to analyse why democracies fail, firstly we draw upon a limited number, and secondly, the failed states are pretty vile. This does not invalidate attempts to find why democracies fail though, though I have noted that doing so can be troubling because democracies, even when not strong, are usually a long way from the vile conditions of the few post democratic societies.
So, to directly address your arguments as succinctly as I can:
1) there are complex historical reasons for Nazism.
Yes, there are. I acknowledged some of them. Nevertheless, the point that I have made, that is irrelevant to this argument, is that Germany was a democracy, that through democratic processes (and yes, plenty of others, with help from such august institutions as the church and major business groups) eroded its own democracy to become a disgusting authoritarian country.
You say you acknowledge that it was a democracy, but you don't really agree to this point that democracy can be eroded through processes that are legal in a democracy, as you reiterate that Germany is unique, and besides which...(point 2)
2) Our democracy is much stronger. Which is again a bit of a dodge. You acknowledge Fiji as a Westminster democracy that has failed and still tout our house of review and Westminster system, but even if their were no failed Westminster brand democracies, the point that democracy can devolve through action from democratically elected leaders remains.
The problem with the Nazi label, as I have said, is that it easily offends. You seem caught up with it when you say things like I made a "dogmatic statement", and that you would not apply the "apt tag" (there is no tag), and it is an "appalling comparison". Because of your horror for this horrific regime, you are still leaping to emotional comparisons of the vile things Nazis did in a totalitarian state, which are not at all the things I am saying are "apt".
You are so adamant to make the point that we are nothing like Nazi Germany you have backed down on your earlier distaste for the anti democratic things that have been done recently in Australia (though you hedge on freedom of press).
We are on the same page, you just don't like the comparison.
We both (all) agree that Nazi Germany is a blight on humanity (not hard to agree). We both agree that no democracy currently (and probably even few authoritarian states at the moment) are anything like Nazi Germany in terms of how evil they are (I guess ISIS/ISIL would be up there, and Syria).
We both agree Nazi Germany came from a democratic state, that failed for a variety of complex reasons. We both know that Hitler didn't just gain power, he worked a democratic system (including using terrible violence like the "Night of long Knives", that also had political backing from politicians, the courts and the military despite being technically illegal according to the democratically formed laws) to become a supreme leader above the law.
We also both agree that our governments, even the ones you would find it "appalling" to apply the "apt tag"
to, have been caught out doing things that erode democracy. You have backtracked on that here, but you know spending tax payer money for blatant political purposes is both corrupt, and an erosion of democracy.
The only difference in our positions is how offended you are by any thought that our democracy could collapse. I don't claim it is imminent.
I have said that the extent to which you erode democracy is the extent to which you can be compared to Nazism in terms of political processes, in that it came about from eroded democracy.
If a poorly worded headline is a very minor erosion of democracy (which it is, but very minor), it is not very similar to the well organised propaganda of Goebbels. To call the paper Goebbels like would be unfair. To say that propaganda undermines democracy and allows authoritarian rulers to fool people into giving up democracy, as happened in Nazi Germany, is not unfair. Then it would be apt to remind people that while propaganda starts small and unorganised it has not much effect, it can lead (not by itself, it needs other historical factors) to Nazi like states.
If it were otherwise we would not value free press.
Only because we know that failed democracies can come about and can be terrible, and processes like propaganda, non independent judiciary, police over using powers, no transparency in law etc are tools in creating such states do we value their opposite, democratically affirming processes.
That’s right, this is coming from the Hitler comparison guy.
