"Change" and Dictatorship

The Great Depression

By Robert Ringer

I ended the last article in this series by pointing out that the power to create the kind of change Obama is talking about can be made possible only by dramatically increasing the supply of paper or electronic dollars. Which causes people a lot of pain, because it decreases their buying power — and that, in turn, makes them very angry.

History teaches us that as people's desires (under the guise of "rights") fail to be met, they tend to panic. Ultimately, deprivation panic can turn to violence. And, as the situation deteriorates, either the existing government steps in and imposes martial law or a new government arises to suppress the chaos.

Unfortunately, there is overwhelming historical evidence that when social order completely breaks down — when anarchy and pandemonium reign — both citizens and elected officials not only yield to dictatorial power, they welcome it. Comments to that effect were common during the Great Depression.

For example, the governor of Kansas, Alf Landon, opined, "Even the iron hand of a national dictator is in preference to a paralytic stroke." Senator David Reed of Pennsylvania was even more specific: "If this country ever needed a Mussolini, it needs one now."

Which is precisely what brought Franklin D. Roosevelt to power. His dictatorial reach encompassed an expanse not dreamed possible just a few years earlier. In Germany, during the same period, Hitler used social chaos (brought about by runaway inflation!) as the excuse to implement a permanent police state, which was hailed by millions of weary, frightened, and confused Germans.

The same scenario has been replayed time and again throughout the centuries. History repeats itself not only because human nature genetically repeats itself generation after generation, but because the masses possess a superb ability to ignore the lessons of the past.

Which is a rather nice deal for politicians, because it allows them to keep right on recycling the same old ideas that have already brought so much suffering in the past. Which brings us back to Obama. Undaunted by his recent setbacks in Ohio and Texas, he is still babbling about change.

Perhaps even some Democrats are starting to realize that the change he is talking about is changing back to the Great Depression kind of economy-killing, redistributionist system that has been tried over and over again throughout history — with a 100 percent failure rate.

As the great Thomas Sowell said, "Everything is new if you are ignorant of history. That is why ideas that have failed repeatedly in centuries past reappear again, under the banner of 'change,' to dazzle people and sweep them off their feet."

Austrian economist and Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek explained man's stubborn attraction to self deception this way: "It seems almost as if we did not want to understand the development which has produced totalitarianism because such an understanding might destroy some of the dearest illusions to which we are determined to cling."

Of course, most Americans don't believe that a dictatorship is possible in the land of the free and the home of the brave (just as their counterparts in Germany refused to believe it nearly one hundred years ago).

Many with whom I have spoken do not believe that Obama can win the general election if he should succeed in getting the Democratic nomination. They don't believe it's possible for him to continue fooling people into believing that he's America's savior while advocating a Marxist agenda.

(Especially if his handlers can't find a way to muzzle Mad Mama Obama, his pit bull wife who seems determined to make sure that the entire world knows how angry she is about ... hmmm ... maybe about being deprived of a good education at Princeton and Harvard?)

To those who doubt Obama's ability to fake his way through eight months of scrutiny, I offer the words of supreme historian Will Durant: "It may be true ... that 'you can't fool all the people all the time,' but you can fool enough of them to rule a large country."

But, hey, cheer up. Maybe Hillary will manage to pull it off and we'll be treated to another four to eight years of entertaining scandal and intrigue like only the Clintons can offer. And think about how much fun those conservative talk-radio guys and gals will have if that happens. C'mon, Rush, admit that you'd love it.

Previous - Money XII - Be Careful What You Wish For: Inside the White House

Go to top of "Change" and Dictatorship: The Great Depression"