With that background, let’s see how Adolf Hitler became a maniacal dictator in a few easy, tried and true, steps. First, persuade select groups they are victims- groups can be chosen because they are large in number, are already bitter about something, and/or are willing to be “activists.” In Hitler's case, the Treaty of Versailles was a gift because in many ways it did make Germans victims, noting in his mind German was synonymous with “Aryan.” But to keep the victim theme going there needs to be oppressors, and “non-Aryans,” especially Jews, Eastern Europeans, and an assortment of others, fit that role: they either had something that “rightfully” belonged to the Aryan “race” or we’re simply trying to screw them.

Similar to the above, once the preferred groups are established, they need to be encouraged to view themselves both as superior to the others and burdened by them: the classic “us versus them” strategy. Hitler goaded his growing masses to take it to the streets; in the early days they were mostly thugs, but eventually included people who truly believed themselves as reasonable, and this- from lunatic fringe to part of the mainstream- was a significant transformation in regards to legitimacy and broader acceptance. There are several ways to achieve this, including repeating slogans over and over so that they eventually seem acceptable if not actually true, and finding support of “experts.” In the case of Hitler, he found a willing ally in the person of a guy with a doctorate in German Philology (pretty darned impressive and highbrow) named Dr. Goebbels (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Joseph-Goebbels), of “repeat a lie enough times and eventually it becomes the truth” fame. Gaining an initial foothold in the media is crucial, hence the newspaper created by Goebbels called Der Angriff, and its motto, “For the oppressed against the exploiters.” Eventually, of course, Hitler gained complete control of the media, academia, and science, so that, for example, scientific proof of “inferior races” became what we call today “settled science;” to be denied or even questioned at great risk.

Having access to the media is necessary to control the message, but you need narratives. One of these came gift-wrapped in the form of a 22-year-old Nazi street thug named Horst Wessel, who was murdered in early 1930 by his Commie counterparts. This was a local retribution murder that may have involved a prostitute and failure to pay rent, but Goebbels deftly elevated it to martyrdom, and Wessel entered the Nazi pantheon as St. Horst, an innocent victim of the opponents of the beloved Party and Fatherland. The Nazis even turned a juvenile fascist poem Hessel wrote into a national anthem.

Hitler’s message of Hope and Change resonated with the people, especially with the onset of the global economic collapse in 1929, and the Nazis won a plurality in the Reichstag (Parliment) in the 1932 election, allowing Hitler to become Chancellor in Jan. 1933. As luck would have it, less than a month later the Reichstag building was set on fire (https://www.britannica.com/event/Reichstag-fire) and a hapless young Dutch communist, who may or may not have been involved, was quickly arrested. Just as quickly, in fact the next day, in order to save the democracy, a decree was issued “for the Protection of the People and the State” which abolished most civil rights, and thus was the beginning of Hitler’s dictatorship.

Up to this point the discussion has been about the typical means really bad people use to achieve power. These include pitting different segments of the population against others (by race, religion, economic status, et al), the old “Us versus Them!” approach. Elevating preferred groups above others, and convincing the former they are oppressed by the latter, followed by inciting outrage and activism. Offering “hope and change” to remedy grievances. Find a few people who ostensibly have credentials to publicly support your movement to obtain credibility. Get a foothold in the media, create a narrative, and repeat it over and over realizing the narrative itself doesn’t have to be true. And, ultimately, make people who don’t join you pariahs in the society you are trying to create and control. There are however, two other crucial factors that help sealed Hitler’s dictatorship.

First, he developed a relationship with business and corporate leaders by appealing to their greed with reassurances that as long as they didn’t interfere, a lot of money would be thrown their way. Hitler seemed to be a virtuoso in this and collected all sorts of “look the other way” agreements with barons of the steel, energy, manufacturing, pharmaceutical, automotive industries: pretty much every economic and industrial concern in Germany. Things are not terribly different today, with the current generation of corporate barons more global, wealthier and in control of technology, financing, and information more than productive industry, but just as greedy and willing to close their eyes to evil in exchange for even more wealth. Today’s corporate leaders dress casually, as compared to the stodgy early 20^th robber baron fashions, but they are just as willing to parrot whatever the Party line might be. Hitler was officially a socialist, but he was shrewd enough to understand he needed heartless capitalists to achieve his ambitions, and they were more than happy to to go along with him as long as the money kept rolling in. Basically, this was crony capitalism, and it made the privileged and ruling class happy.

Second, one thing Hitler did that was not all that common for dictators is that he largely came through with his promises, at least for the preferred Aryan “race.” Historically, many if not most revolutionary movements appealed to the serf, the working man, the peasant, the proletariat, or whatever, then once in power marginalize them and, not infrequently, slaughter them. Communist China and Soviet Russia were the epitome of this model. But Hitler actually delivered: a booming economy, jobs, a higher standard of living and, largely without precedent, recreation: as long as someone was of the preferred Aryan demographic they even were given paid for vacations, a program called “Strength Through Joy.” And herein lies to purpose of this essay, discussing the practice and policy of gaining support, loyalty, and even adoration through carrots, as compared to sticks.

Imagine you are Hans or Fritz, a German worker (Aryan, of course) who lived through the hell of WW1 and the aftermath, only to be greeted by global financial collapse a decade later. You only occasionally find work, can barely feed your family, and live in some urban hovel, then along comes this Hitler guy and the next thing you know you have a steady job, a two bedroom apartment, a week or two at the beach, all expenses paid, and maybe even dream of owning a Volkswagen. The price for relative luxury didn’t seem too steep: sure your old neighbors the Gluckstein’s were nice people, but when they suddenly disappeared all Hans or Fritz had to do was look away; maybe mention to the local cop you overheard some guy at a beer hall say something bad about Der Fuhrer; throw a few anti-Nazi tracks or Jewish authored books on the community book burning pyre; break a few Jew windows during the excitement of Crystal Night as the police benignly looked on. Hans or Fritz aren’t really bad people, they just like what they now have and are willing to go along and get along to keep it.

The last paid/non-volunteer job I had was as a substitute teacher 2005-2006, before that an on-air disk jockey in 2002, and going back to the 1970s work as a janitor, National Guardsman/Army Reservist, lawn guy, nursing home aide, practical nurse and orthopedic tech in a hospital, and a PA at a Federal Prison then a NY State Residential facility. In none of these jobs was I ever asked about religion, political or cultural opinions, or told I had to subscribe to whatever was the cultural fad de jour: being hired and keeping the job was based on credentials and competence, dependability, and all those other traits that are now scorned under the pejorative umbrella of “meritocracy.” (though there were a few directors who were highly concerned with having their butts kissed).

How quickly things have changed from the ideal of merit to the demands of fealty to such inanities as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). Consider this little gem from Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, the heretofore “Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer” for the US State Dept (April 2023): “We made the change that if you wanted to be considered for promotion at the Department of State, you must be able to document what you are doing to support diversity, equity and inclusion and accessibility. This is how you are judged for promotion.” Note this is not from some massive global corporation with a enormously rich and privileged white CEO who assuages his guilt with unintelligible DEI non-sense, but from one of the most important departments of the Federal Government.

No longer is it Hans or Fritz willing to shout Sieg Heil on cue to hold on to their material comfort and societal status by looking the other way, but Jason or Janet, US government employees enjoying pretty sweet lives who have come to realize that going along is the key to job security and advancement. Truly, picture a mid-level career government employee, perhaps even in the military, who is making $80,000 a year or more with lots of benefits, maybe a little overextended on a mortgage on a nice house in a nice neighborhood, taking upscale vacations- all the accoutrements of a privileged and convenient life, perhaps even well and legitimately earned. But the day may come from on high- the White House- that to keep your perks, you have to play ball, in the form of smiling and saying “absolutely” to the Party Line. Actually, the Word has already come from High in regards to the Federal Government.

We have a pretty good idea how this plays out. When the deputy diversity officer shows up and informs the staff that they must use their “preferred pronouns” on all official correspondence, the “team player” says, “No problem.” When a “diversity expert” from the private diversity industry is contracted to give a mandatory in-service and informs the attendees that there is a grave problem with “whiteness,” that America was founded solely on slavery, and that systemic racism is found at all levels of society and dismantling this is the primary goal, heads better be nodding in agreement; no dissenting views or even questions will be tolerated.

Having worked in both Federal and state bureaucracies I can easily imagine an employee evaluation that minimizes competency and job performance and concentrates on DEI: the employee failed to attend sponsored “Pride” events, did not voluntarily place mini rainbow flags at the work station, failed to embrace the established doctrine that Diversity Is Our Strength. For those familiar with the classic movie Office Space, the employee will be judged on wearing lots of flair, or not wearing enough.

More seriously, say our mid-level career employee actually has an important position and also a supervisory and hiring role, and word has filtered down, likely informally, from the assistant deputy director that there is not enough “inclusion and diversity” in the staffing. Does the mid-level employee bias evaluations and hiring in favor of preferred demographics, or follow the old pracrtice of primarily considering qualifications, competency, and job performance? If an employee of a preferred class is truly inadequate, is the fear of repercussions from dealing with it enough to look the other way? When that new hire using the name Claudette, who clearly has male characteristics but shows up everyday wearing flamboyant dresses, lots of make up, and stylish high heels, tells the supervisor that long-time staff member Robert was overheard saying he believes there are only two genders and Claudette doesn’t feel like the office is inclusive and welcoming, it’s a good bet Robert is going to be sent to diversity and sensitivity training where the requirement for continued employment is to acquiesce to everything he is told to say, think and believe.

Any dictator can rule by oppression, intimidation, allocating resources only to those with absolute loyalty and, as we’ve seen repeatedly, mass killing of the opposition or simply those who are inconvenient. A smart dictator might well do all of the above- that’s what dictators do- but understands that giving enough perks and benefits to enough people is where real power can be found: wherever there are people who covet comfort, convenience, and material possessions more than doing what is right, there is power to be had and maintained. The threat of losing what you’ve have can be highly motivating for some, many, or even most people, and this is understandable. The question is, what price are you willing for others to pay, or how much humiliation and denial of reality are you willing to accept? The paradox being that the more we have the more we want. It’s terribly frustrating that in the wealthy “developed” world, what we covet so dearly are superficialities- streaming TV, the latest cell phones, “smart” vacuum cleaners and toothbrushes, next day delivery, instant and constant gratification, and to be “celebrated” by everyone for who we are-; suddenly convenience has become necessity, and avarice morality.

Smart dictators count on greed and selfishness to motivate people not just to fail to do the right thing, but to forego basic human decency and willingly do the wrong thing. This has been repeated throughout history, and it is close to being repeated today, always accompanied by soothing words and promises, of course.

*source for the quotes on Mao's "Great Leap Forward" famine, Remembering the biggest mass murder in the history of the world (Washington Post, Aug. 2016)