Replies

Interesting you should bring old Adolf into the discussion. In 1928 the Nazis were a minor party of what was called the extreme right. In the elections of that year they got a derisory 3% of the vote. He got into power because after the wall street crash and the onset of the great depression, German political opinion polarised very rapidly. The “moderates”, who supported democracy, got squeezed out by the Nazis and the Communist extremists, who between them got nigh on 60% of the vote in the elections of 1932.

So who’s to blame then?

The “moderates”, who supported democracy, got squeezed out by the Nazis and the Communist extremists, who between them got nigh on 60% of the vote in the elections of 1932.

Sooo... you are saying that Democracy is a compromise between Nazism and Communism? If those two are the extremes then Democracy would have to be in the middle. Except that Nazism and Communism are both forms of socialism. So those still wanting democracy would have been the extremist minority. Isn't it handy when you can just tag everything you disagree with as 'extreme'. Like lower taxes and less government. So extreeeeeeme. Why it must be one step from suicide bombings. Moderate is not a actual view point. It is simply a dislike of conflict and disagreement. You can be moderate between theocracy and despotism and your stances would look nothing like a 'moderate' in a time and place were the two parties were communism and Nazism. Hence it is not an actual political philosophy. It is simply a dislike of conflict or inability to defend a composite position. If you can't put together a comprehensive defense of a viewpoint then you can't defend against all comers.

Conservatism IS a balanced point of view between two ideals. Except that those ideas are personal liberty and the rule of law. We balance ourselves between the desire for unrestrained personal liberty and the needs of an peaceful society. We carefully define certain things as indispensable to liberty. Life is one of those. And this puts us in a position were we can not compromise on that position. If humans no longer have the right to be alive then there are no other liberties. On the other hand some issues are more open for compromise. Regulating drugs for one, or even pollution. Unfortunately on many issues we find the country is so far left that we have no choice but to push hard right. No conservative would want to return to the days of companies dumping radioactive waste into rivers with no legal consequence... but taxing carbon dioxide? Insanity. Sometimes you can't compromise.

German democrats were not promoting democracy to be seen as less extreme or to 'compromise' or avoid strident debate. The future of their country was on the line and they were advocating what they thought would fix it. They were not trying to be the fulcrum between flavors of Socialism.