(Editor’s note: Fifth in a series)
History reveals that once authoritarian leaders take or consolidate power, one of their first and most important moves is to attack human rights. These include free speech, fair legal procedures, a free press, political dissent and the rule of law — one of the most important targets.
These things are eroded not by brute force at first but often through subtle legalistic and psychological means that can convince a large part of the population that the loss of the above items are either necessary or beneficial. If we review the 1930s and 1940s in Germany, we can see clearly what the result was.
The erosion doesn’t happen with a single event. Rights are chipped away piece by piece: emergency decrees, rules hampering the free press, suppressing or arresting opponents. Many people don’t notice or don’t object strongly until much of civil liberty has been lost. This is precisely what happened in the German Republic some 85 years ago. History does repeat itself.
Today, many Americans believe “he who should not be named” can be controlled by things like lower court rulings, the Constitution and, ultimately perhaps, the Congress. Recent non-action by the Congress and rulings issued by the Supreme Court suggest otherwise. It is unclear if anything will slow the steady drumbeat of authoritarian actions taken almost daily by the administration.
Today, those who oppose “he who must not be named” sincerely believe that our democratic institutions and the courts will somehow restrain repressive changes. It’s clear this is an error as we have seen how the executive branch has eclipsed and taken over all the levers of power in Washington, D.C. Those who oppose these changes are made to look dangerous or powerless. Most Americans underestimated how fast and furious “he who must not be named” would move when given the opportunity.
In the Germany of the 1930s and 1940s, citizens were seeking someone to be in control, someone who could speak clearly, who promised action. They felt the democratic norms weren’t working for them. Many Americans today have the same feelings as well.
Once in power, “he who should not be named” began restructuring the institutions of the state. He replaced or co-opted people controlling institutions of the government. Dissent became increasingly dangerous, very much like today’s climate.
This erosion of rights is generally gradual and feels to many like a trade-off that makes sense under stressful or crisis conditions. Popular support or acquiescence can help legitimize what would otherwise be clearly tyrannical moves.
Once people believe that giving up certain freedoms will benefit them or protect them, resistance becomes much harder.
Fred Gault, a local business owner, is a former radio, television and newspaper journalist. He worked at the Chattanooga Times in the 1960s.