The other Awards Obama will will this year...

[kandrathe]

In Italy, Mussolini took power in a paramilitary coup - the march on Rome. So scratch that one.

No. The march on Rome was a quasi-paramilitary "brown shirt" group of about 20,000 people. We frequently have millions march on Washington DC, without anyone even changing their mind, let alone cede power. Italy became a totalitarian state with out a bloody coup or revolution. Rather, Victor Emanuel decided the Mussolini government wouldn't be that bad.

In North Korea, Kim Il Sung took power during WWII, with the support of the Soviet Union's military - same as most of Eastern Europe. So scratch that one too.

Nope. North Korea became a totalitarian state without a revolution or bloody coup. Kim Il Sung was given the leadership in the wake of a power vacuum left by the Japanese. He didn't take power, he was given it by the Soviets. But, ok, yes, a war did create the vacuum. But, then again, any political crisis will do, such as planes flying into buildings.

Germany before WWI was not, in any meaningful sense, a totalitarian state. So scratch that one as well.

Nope. Germany became a totalitarian state. Although, one might argue it took the beer hall putsch and the night of the long knives to intimidate the opposition enough to stand down.

Japan is the strongest case, but it was hardly a country that had a solid democracy that slid slowly into totalitarianism piece by piece. The Tokugawa shogunate was an absolutist dictatorship, and even Meiji Japan was hardly a functioning democratic state - more like a militaristic oligarchy. But I'll even spot you Japan, as an interesting sort-of-exception. In all other cases, Totalitarianism has been imposed by some kind of force - a coup, a revolution, a takeover by a foreign nation, or something similar. Functioning democracies have not historically just drifted aimlessly into totalitarianism through "creeping socialism".

Right. Often in the past they went that way rather quickly as an overreaction to socialism or communism, but that is still neither here nor there. The American political system has blended itself into a quasi-socialist pablum, whether you are talking about Nancy Pelosi, Olympia Snow, John McCain, or George Bush. They have all gone to the politically expedient position of raiding the future to toss money at the electorate in an ever expanding array of social spending and expeditionary wars we cannot afford. Our people are tuned out to the political system, and are rather happy willing slaves of the state as long as you keep the boob tube filled with T&A and football games.

Sure, plenty of functioning democracies have had "supertaxes" that tax the extremely wealthy at rates of 90% or higher. Not many of them have kept them, but most of Northern Europe has had them at one time or another. Executive salary caps are also not particularly unusual in countries with a closer relationship between the state and business.

Whether or not they are extremely wealthy is not part of the determination. The State is preventing private companies from compensating their employees in the manner they see fit.

As for "de facto" censorship, and "punishment" towards domestic "enemies", I'm not sure what you're going on about, but it sounds kind of paranoid.

Shocking! Yes, for example the "Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services" ordered Humana to stop scaring its customers when they sent out a mailing that stated that if health care reform legislation as currently drafted, goes through, the Medicare Advantage program may be eliminated. Nope, we can have Humana warning its customers about the negative effects of legislation. Maybe you haven't heard about Sen. Rockefeller's bill S.773, which among other items gives the government emergency powers to disconnect private companies from the internet. Maybe you didn't know that Anita Dunn has come right out and announced that with regards to the Fox News network, the White house plans "to treat them the way we would treat an opponent". So what does that mean? Do you want to be an "opponent" of the executive of the most powerful government on the planet? Seems petty to me. Perhaps Rupert Murdoch will suddenly die in mysterious circumstances. Eric Holder an avowed champion of internet censorship, hasn't moved on anything yet, the government seems to have other fish to fry. I could go on and on... But, you get the idea. The Obama administration has made it clear that if you f**k with them, they will f**k with you. It's the Chicago way.

I was just making fun of your slippery slope argument. Obviously, nobody is killing kittens or creating death camps, and it is silly to suggest as much. You, however, are talking about Totalitarianism.

Yes, I know. I was making an obscure joke about death camps for kittens, and clubbing baby seals for fun and profit. Because exaggeration is so effective in making a rational arguments seem ridiculous, also in the congruence of mountains and molehills. I believe ridicule is in the debate play book... yes, here it is... ... exaggerate the opponent's position...

As per health care, I see you haven't budged much since the last thread on the topic, but if you want my reply to any of that, it's all sitting there, so I won't bother going over it. Anyone interested is more than welcome to read through it again.

Thanks for not going down that road again. You are right. I haven't spontaneously changed by mind since it still seems reasonable to let the free market offer services for people to purchase. You do still believe in the "supply" and "demand" curve, right? And, I'm pretty resistant to the idea that "more government" is an answer to any problem. I'm not resistant to government leading us to resolve our own problems, like unaffordable health care.