From: ridenour@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lynn Ridenour)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 03:15:22 GMT

In article <LEE.92Apr10150455@meercat.wang.com> lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes:
>(Robert Lynn Ridenour) writes:
>
>   Well, the dopey American public is well on its way to making the U.S. a
>   first rate third world country.  And there aren't too many third world
>   countries with stable governments.  We NEED a strong leader since we
>   obviously can't do it ourselves.  Now, Hitler was a bit overzealous
>   (serious understatement), but comparing any potential U.S. President
>   to Hitler is just rationalizing your own disapproval of the candidate.
>
>I have the absolutely horrible feeling that Mr.Ridenour is well-intended
>in these statements.  Worse, that a majority of Americans may agree with
>him.  The most serious flaw in the demonification of Hitler is that many
>people seem to have come to see him as a total aberration, rather than as
>one more in a *very* long line of egotistical populists who would do
>*anything* for power.  Does anyone remember Genghis Khan, Timur Lenk,
>Caesar, Napoleon, Stalin?  Does anyone fail to recognize that the former
>chief of our international murder-and-mayhem organization (maybe a
>necessary post, though I would hope not) is now President...that we're
>on a slippery slope?  Or that the best guarantee of political stability
>in modern history has *not* been a strong leader, but a government of
>the people, by the people, for the people?

Sheesh, people!  I get cut up every time I mention the fact that serious
problems demand serious leadership.  I just don't understand this huge
negative response unless the case is that you don't understand my
position.  So...

   1) Don't you agree that a strong leader of some sort is the only
      effective way to bring the country together with a clear vision
      of the future - especially given the fact that if we continue
      the way we have, we'll just continue to bicker among ourselves
      while the special interests dismantle the country?

   1a) Was JFK so bad?  He was a strong leader.

   1b) If you really dislike leadership then why do you care about
       the Presidential campaign at all?  Or are you trying to make
       sure that the weakest candidate wins?  And if so, why not
       emphasize the negatives about your candidate since they seem
       to be the qualities you care about?

   2) Let's just drop the Hitler thing altogether, shall we?  My
      point is not so much that someone couldn't be like our old
      friend Adolf, but that the political and social climate in the
      U.S. is so different from those in which Hitler and others
      flourished that even if they were elected President, they'd
      have one heck of a time turning America into Nazi Germany.

   2a) At any rate, I still stand by my statement that comparing any
       of our candidates to Hitler is simply a rationalization of
       your dislike for the candidate.  And I might add that comparisons
       of this nature do nothing but discredit the comparator.

   3) Let's not confuse "strong leader" with dictator.  And at any
      rate, your last statement above clearly suggests the United
      States as the "best guarantee of political stability."  Do
      you realize, however, that the U.S. is an infant country
      with respect to virtually every other power that has existed
      on the planet?  And it's already stumbling and falling on it's
      face.  Real stable, if you ask me.

Bob