[Snuffington]

Charley Reese is becoming less and less interesting to read. His "Weimar" reference above is so thin, it's worthless. He acts like that's the only example of a failed democratic government he's aware of. In fact, it's not a very analogous situation. Weimar was a defeated nation, with little history of a functioning democratic government, and a strong cultural tradition of authoritarianism. Charley ignores these differences, because they also carried a large debt. That's terribly lazy.

A more rigorous analysis of the Oswald Spengler angle would have made a much better article. I happen to think that part is right on, and I'm not sure there is much anyone can do about it.

I suspect Charley's choice of Weimar in this article is a thinly veiled attempt to paint Bush, or others like him, as a rising Hitler, which is absurd. The feverish efforts of some to portray Bush that way effectively distracts attention from the political forces that are truly endangering our republic.

[Chi-townChief]

Reese is stuck in a quagmire.

[u-89]

>A more rigorous analysis of the Oswald Spengler angle would have made a much better article

His use of The Weimar Republic could be thin and lazy or even sinister as you suggest OR it could be that for reasons of lowest common denominator he used it. Anybody who reads a newspaper to the point of reading the op eds is educated enough to have heard of Weimar - the paramount thing Weimar is known for is hyper inflation. 2nd most known fact would be its being transformed into a dictatorship. Perhaps not perfect choices but both illustrate the points he wishes to make. If he cited ancient Syracuse how many people would readily understand the reference?

[meadsjn]

I suspect Charley's choice of Weimar in this article is a thinly veiled attempt to paint Bush, or others like him, as a rising Hitler, which is absurd.

Hitler's socialist party came into power after a decade+ of economic decline during the Weimar republic years. Most of those economic problems were punishment by external forces for Germany's part in WW-I. Some were due to the inability of the Germans to elect sane or wise leaders.

A really bad economy split the major parties (all socialists of different sorts) enough for the NAZIs to grab power with a narrow plurality (not a majority). Hitler used street thugs to consolidate power and elevate himself to the level of dictator.

It is not Bush who would be compared to Hitler, but whoever the Democrats promote to "save" the country from really bad economic conditions -- conditions which can be traced to policies implemented during the Clinton decade.