Newsweek is reporting that the Department of Homeland security is investigating what would be necessary to postpone the presidential election, should the U.S. be attacked by terrorists.

On its face, the proposal seems like prudent planning.

But we've been through this before.

Following World War I, Germany was in ruin. American loans entirely propped up its economy, domestic industry was struggling. The great depression forced American investors to recall loans to German interests. This set off a chain reaction in the German economy.

The Nazi party capitalized on this, playing on fear and prejudice in the German population. A radical conservative movement, they slowly infiltrated the German government. Following the election of 1933, the Reichstag was bombed and burnt to the ground. Seeing the opportunity, Hitler and the Nazi party falsely accused a rival political party of the bombing. Civil liberties granted by the Weimar Constitution were revoked, and special "People's Courts" were established to try people deemed to be criminals.

The Nazis banned opposition newspapers and burned books. They concentrated power among a small group of party members. Finally, when President Von Hindenburg died, power was consolidated under Hitler. Hitler's radical plans for control of trade unions, religion, and the press were put into place.

All this happened gradually, in an otherwise democratic republic. Hitler and the Nazi party used the democratic structure of Germany to ascend to power, all the while rejecting the legitimacy of the very structure of the democratic government. And German citizens were sharply divided by the Nazi party; only after considerable manipulation did the Nazi party gain the necessary majority vote needed to assume power.

Fast forward to 2004. The United States suffered a bloody attack on its own soil. The Bush Administration vilified Sadam Hussein, leader of sovereign Iraq, making false claims about connections to the terrorist attack, as well as false claims about Iraq threatening national security. A radical conservative movement (i.e. neo-conservative) is rapidly gaining power in Washington, a group that openly denies the legitimacy of many fundamental tenets of American democracy. We are sharply divided between right and left, even more so because of the nature of the last presidential election. We have seen unprecedented domestic propaganda put before the American public by shady, government-connected organizations like the Carlyle Group. Many of these actions are justified by the constant state of "war" against terrorism.

And now, and unelected member of the Bush Administration is discussing suspending elections.

Please be clear: I am not calling President Bush or his administration Nazis, nor am I equating republican or neo-conservative policies to Nazi policies.

I'm drawing parallels to post World War I Germany to suggest that certain responses to national problems can lead to unintended circumstances. To show that playing to prejudice and fear and cultivating a constant state of war is no way to lead a nation. To show that openness and dialogue with the world is a far better response to crisis than bellicose wagon circling. And, above all, to suggest that absolute power corrupts.

Some decisions only look disastrous in hindsight. Please consider using the mirror of history to shed light on the United States' current situation.