The Erosion of Trust in Democracy

From Weimar to MAGA

On February 1, the new Reichskanzler Hitler addresses the German nation in a call of the Reichsregierung, broadcast over all German transmitters. (Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-1987-0703-506 / Unknown author / CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 DE)

Winston Churchill famously quipped that "democracy is the worst form of government—except for all those other forms that have been tried." His remark captures a paradigm of modern Western politics: We have an imperfect system of governance, and it is, therefore, natural that some voters are drawn to a call for other forms of government. 

After nearly 250 years, the United States has reached a pivotal point in its history. It is possible that the American form of democracy as we know it will soon be replaced by another system. Many voters seem to have lost their confidence that democracy works for them. Their analysis of what's wrong in the system may not be detailed or even correct; they feel the political establishment in both parties has forgotten about their needs.

Many voters feel that only a radical solution—and radical leader—will get the U.S. back to the (undefined) good times of the past. Their support for the MAGA cult is likely not because of plans to abolish democracy, and Trump is only hinting at such a move. However, we may expect that democracy as we know it will not survive another Trump term in office.

It is a feeling fed by the information voters receive via Fox News and social media.

Last year, I traveled for two weeks through the American West. In most gas stations, cafes, or restaurants where I stopped along the way, there was always the familiar sound of Fox News in the background. Traveling alone, I often ate my sandwich (if I could find one meat-free) while watching the same disinformation everyone consumed. I experienced the power of well-told and repeated lies, especially when news broke, and I had yet to learn about the event via regular media.

Keep repeating the lie

Authoritarian regimes love modern media to reach the masses. The Nazis cleverly used radio; it was a relatively new form of media. Until they started to use it for their propaganda, it was a trusted source of information. The national socialists' radio broadcasts didn't tell the truth (nor were they social); it was the perfect mass medium to endlessly repeat a lie until people believed it was the truth.

Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, is often attributed with the quote: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." However, the evidence suggests this exact phrasing may not be his.

The original description of the "big lie" technique appears to have been in Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf, where he accused Jews of using it. Hitler wrote that the "big lie" has "a certain force of credibility" because the masses are likelier to believe a colossal falsehood than a small lie.

Goebbels did describe a similar concept in different words in a 1941 article, accusing the British of employing the "big lie" tactic. He wrote: "The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big and stick to it."

As so often with (in)famous quotes, this is another example that can't be attributed correctly even though the sentiment matches Goebbels views.

Note another intriguing parallel here: blaming others for what they rightly blame you for; not much has changed.

Growing up in the decades after the short-lived Thousand-Year Reich

Voters in Germany in the early 1930s fell for a call for another system. My generation learned in high school why the evil cult of Nazism attracted such a large following during the young democracy of the Weimar Republic in the cultured country of famous writers, musicians, and painters. Losing the First World War, the punishing terms of the armistice, the impact of the global economic crisis, and hyperinflation all played a role. 

And if you are reading this with the present threat of MAGA-nationalist right-wing Trumpism in mind, do note that Hitler wasn't supported by a majority of the German population when he came to power in 1933; the Nazi Party only held a minority of seats in the Reichstag at the time. Democracies are only resilient until a certain point; beyond that, they are vulnerable.

I was born 20 years after the end of the short-lived Thousand-Year Reich. For my teachers, the horrors of the occupation of the Netherlands had left zero sympathy for fascism. Nor did the Soviet version of communism appeal to any of them. But in all lessons at school, as well as the articles and books I read, nazism was always explained by referring to the fertile breeding ground of the poverty and hopelessness experienced by millions in Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Similarly, they explained the Russian Revolution through the desperation about the regime, the war, and the poverty.

And that makes such an interesting comparison with today's popularity of populist right-wing solutions. Even though tens of millions of people in the U.S. live in poverty, more than ten percent of the population, and even though inflation has been high, it's hard to find parallels with the misery experienced in Germany during the rise of fascism when there was 30 percent unemployment, hyperinflation, and lost lives, pride, and hope.

Instead, the economic results of the Biden administration are impressive, even though they haven't reached everyone. There was no hyperinflation but high inflation; a recession did not follow it, and Biden's policies created millions of jobs. The worst economic hardship for the country should ease by now, even though it is not felt yet by many at the individual level. Nobody migrated to Germany in 1930, but in the U.S., many voters see immigration as a problem, not a wake-up call that the country is better off than many other countries.

The differences can be just as fascinating

We can learn from history, but I risk drawing too many parallels. Differences can be just as fascinating. While Trump boasted during his first presidential campaign about tackling the massive infrastructure challenges in the U.S., he didn't do anything about it in the four years he was president. It was President Biden who rolled out a spectacular investment policy in infrastructure. Sadly, when asked in a poll who did more to improve infrastructure, half of the population named Trump and the other half Biden. 

The difference I want to mention here is another historic one: while President Trump completely ignored infrastructure once he was in power, Hitler's regime was effective. The last Weimar government had initiated some public works programs aimed at economic recovery, including plans for infrastructure projects like highways. However, they did not fully realize these policies before the Nazis took control.

Hjalmar Schacht, appointed by Hitler as Minister of Economics, continued and expanded these initiatives, significantly reducing unemployment through large-scale public works and military rearmament shortly after Hitler came to power in 1933. People did notice progress, and this period has cynically been referred to as the good years of fascism (note that the Nazis had already set up concentration camps and abolished democracy, and many groups, like women and Jews, were not counted in the positive economic statistics).

The second America First movement