Take Hitler And Put Him In the Funny Pages!

New at Reason: Cathy Young skirts Godwin's Law.

Comments

[MB]

Jesus, Cathy, what about David Brooks implying that everyone who uses the word "neoconservative" is a closet Ku Kluxer or worse? That doesn't offend your sensitive little ears?

[dhex]

it's even more ripe to retire the notion that there's only been one horrible, evil, unspeakable regime in human history. there's plenty of fucking evil governments and religions to go around.

bush is a fratboy, not a nazi. fratboys are pussies and never would have made the cut.

[Dan]

I think Nazi parallels are just the result of the gradual dumbing-down of political dialogue. When cuts to Medicare can be credibly called "mass murder" in a public forum without the press and the public laughing the speaker off the stage, or when illegal immigrants can be called "invading armies" without the universal mocking of the person making the claim...

What do you call ACTUAL mass murderers and invading armies? Well, one tactic is to compare them to people universally acknowledged to be mass-murdering invaders.

[W04]

I have read the last few posts, and am worried that the fact that I have succesfuly completed the third grade makes me over-qualified to post here. Is this true?

[Ron Hardin]

What's stupid about Hitler comparisons is that it always claims it's easy to distinguish good from evil (``evil, like Hitler'' is the idea). To quote Levinas, writing on Heidegger's Nazism:

``The diabolical is not limited to the wickedness popular wisdom ascribes to it and
whose malice, based on guile, is familiar and predictable in
an adult culture. The diabolical is endowed with intelligence
and enters where it will. To reject it, it is first necessary
to refute it. Intellectual effort is needed to recognize it.
Who can boast of having done so? Say what you will, the diabolical
gives food for thought.''

The point of a Hitler comparison is to avoid that step. Young is in a way doing the same thing.

Even with Hitler... If you can find any, look at a German photo annual from the 30s, any edition of _Das Deutsche Lichtbild_ for the time. Spot the evil, if you can. It's not hard retrospectively, but at the time I don't think so. They're magnificent books.

[Andrew]

Cathy Young's article was at pains to maintain the customary "even-handedness" in this discussion-- calling on all sides to desist...but that's silly, and we all know it.
For at least a full generation now, this sort of vile demogoguery (and attendant mob violence and vandalism on university campuses) has been nearly entirely a product of the radical Left...serenely ignored, if not commended, by the establishment Left.

To call on all sides to desist from a behavior that is, in fact, systematic and characteristic of only one side is akin to UN Peace-Keepers rewarding and covering for bullies. The Left won't have a real incentive to refrain from this way of conducting the public debate until approbation for it falls squarely on them.

[Swamp Justice]

Andrew, the radical Left might like calling Bush a "Nazi", but the radical (?) Right spends plenty of time reminding us that the Left "hates America." That argument seems equally vapid.

[Warren]

Am I alone as a libertarian in thinking that, Bush the Younger actually IS enough of a fascist to scare the shit out of me? Actually, like Hitler it's not the man himself that's scary, it's his popularity.

[Xmas]

*sigh*
I've given up on listening to any political commentary.
Each side has the same exact argument, and here it is in a nutshell....

"Hey Americans, are you too stupid to realize how evil this person is?!?"

I've got a new way of looking at things, though. The first group to start using ad hominem attacks or dire warnings, looses.

[thoreau]

When somebody from your preferred side of the left-right battle makes outrageous statements, it's easy to dismiss him or her as just a wacko. Just one of those Ann Coulters or Noam Chomskys who aren't really representative of your respective side of the fence. After all, you're a reasonable person, so Ann Coulter or Noam Chomsky can't possibly reflect on you. He or she just reflects on the loony fringe of your side.

When somebody from the other side of the fence makes a loony statement, it's easy to tar that person as representing the entire other side, or at least tar the others on that side for not being sufficiently harsh on him or her.

I like Cathy Young's columns because she always stays even-handed in pointing out that there are enough embarassing nuts on both sides of the fence, so maybe it's time to stop screaming about the other side's embarassing nuts and start focusing on issues. (Not that such a mature dialogue will ever happen.)

[Jesse Walker]

To call on all sides to desist from a behavior that is, in fact, systematic and characteristic of only one side is akin to UN Peace-Keepers rewarding and covering for bullies. The Left won't have a real incentive to refrain from this way of conducting the public debate until approbation for it falls squarely on them.

If anything, Andrew, Cathy is tilting too far the other way: Peters is much more responsible for his rhetoric than MoveOn is responsible for the rhetoric of those ads. Furthermore, it's just not true that only the Left habitually engages in this sort of comparison: libertarians and conservatives are always abuzz about "health Nazis," "safety Nazis," and so on. If that seems less offensive (I hope it is, since I do it myself) then recall that in the '90s many on the right relished making Clinton-Hitler comparisons.

I say this as someone who thinks outrage over Hitler comparisons is at least as tiresome as the Hitler comparisons themselves. Especially given the hypocrisy that's frequently involved. (Some of the same people who got offended when protestors were comparing Sharon to Hitler a while back were themselves comparing Arafat to Hitler just a few months earlier.)

Aside from a few dead totalitarian tyrants, it's ridiculously overblown to compare anyone to Hitler; but it's pointless to get bent out of shape about it too. It's become part of the standard lexicon of abuse, and we might as well learn to live with it.

[Ron Hardin]

Hey, Ann Coulter is great! She takes up where R. Emmett Tyrell left off when he turned into an old woman. Tyrell in turn having taken over from H. L. Mencken, a dead person no longer producing anything but collections. Mencken wrote nothing on Jimmy Carter, for instance, leaving a large gap. So now Coulter inherited the gap, and done it better. Where Tyrell only referred to Jimmy Carter's hoofprints evident in this or that decision, Coulter writes: ``Carter is so often maligned for his stupidity, it tends to be forgotten that he is also self-righteous, vengeful, sneaky, and backstabbing.'' Nobody with a sense of humor is an extremist. I propose that as a natural law.

[Sir Real]

...you know, HITLER had a sense of humor too!

I'm just saying...

[Russ]

Even-handedness in journalism is really about establishing crediblity by demonstrating impartiality.

Unfortunately, criticism of the actions or policies of one side of the political spectrum will invariably be dismissed as partisan rhetoric, unless the writer can maintain a distinct position from the partisan crowd. This is most effectively accomplished by directing some criticism squarely at the other side, thereby trumping allegations of political bias.

Maybe that's why I like the libertarian camp. We get to stand in the middle and sling criticism at both the Left and the Right, while ducking under the crossfire that the two sides aim at each other, ultimately walking away unscathed and looking pretty damn smart.

[Steve]

Can't we just invoke Godwin's Law, even though it's not Usenet?

[Jack Handey]

Maybe, just maybe, deep down, we are all a little bit of "Hitler," a little bit of a "saddam lover," a little bit of a "liberal traitor" or "right wing racist," mixed into a hell of a lot of good intentions. But more importantly, the one thing that we are; is a population with a freedom to speak. Use this freedom liberally, but be sure to use it intelligently as well, since it ultimately reflects on you!

[Dilly]

Even Hitler had a girlfriend.

[Rick Barton]

One of the possible objectionable things about comparisons of American pols to mass murders like Hitler is that it might tend to devalue, in a relative way, the mass murders' crimes. (like those times when neocons or supporters of the Israeli government too easily call detractors: anti-Semites; it may serve to lessen the hostility to anti-Jewish bigotry.)

However, the ads may also nudge people into seeing the similarities of some policies or advocacies between dictators and politicians, which can be beneficial.

Also, what about the ad: "The Experts Agree Gun Control Works", with Hitler, Castro, Stalin and Kadafi. It seems a good invocation of those creeps:
http://images.google.com/images?q=experts+agree+gun+control+works&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search

Please note: Kathy is not calling for these comparison ads to be made illegal and she would probably fight valiantly to defend the rights of those who want to produce them. Hopefully, most of us would join her.

[Erik]

Bush isn't like Hitler; everyone knows that the leaders of the free world are really controlled by a council of seven Jewish bankers in a bunker under a mountain in Switzerland.

[Dan]

but the radical (?) Right spends plenty of time reminding us that the Left "hates America."

Well, surely you must concede the fact that there are an awful lot of big-name lefties -- such as Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky -- who vehemently hate the United States, and have had extremely successful careers peddling hate literature. Somebody's buying it.

I suspect you're a lot more likely to find "Stupid White Men" or "Manufacturing Consent" on a "Left-winger"'s bookshelf than you are to find "Mein Kampf" or "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" on a "Right-winger"'s bookshelf.

[bardp]

Tim,

Love the "His Girl Friday" reference.

[Kevin Carson]

Dan,

There's a big difference between hating America and hating the general policy orientation of its government over the last sixty years.

I think it's a pretty safe bet, if you could go back to those guys at Lexington Green in 1775, and show them the 20th century foreign policy of the U.S., or the growth of the corporatist economy and the national security state, they'd absolutely LOATHE the U.S. government.

[Dan]

Hit 'post' too soon...

i don't think people are capable of hating america any more than they are of loving it.

There are quite a lot of people who love America, me among them.

[Dan]

There's a big difference between hating America and hating the general policy orientation of its government over the last sixty years

I don't think that theory meshes well with the Left's enthusiastic support for Communism during the Cold War, or for radical Islam today. Or if the language and accusations used in expressing that hate had changed significantly during the last hundred years. Besides, if it was the government, and not the country, that was the "problem", the attacks would be directed against the government, rather than against "America" and "Americans". This is not typically the case.

That aside -- are you actually making a claim that the average "left-winger" thinks the pre-1944 US government was preferable to this one?

During the 168 year period from 1776 to 1944:
- Slavery was legal for 89 years.
- Women were forbidden to vote for 144 years.
- Minorities had few rights.
- Women had few rights.
- Police torture was legal.
- Homosexuality was illegal.
- The Native Americans were massacred.
- The United States launched the only ACTUALLY imperialistic wars we've ever launched, against Mexico, Spain, Hawaii, the Phillipines, etc, acquiring the "imperial" territory we hold today.

... and you're saying that during this time the government -- which was directly responsible for ALL of the above -- was LESS worthy of condemnation than it is today, when it commits heinous "crimes" like toppling totalitarian governments?

Besides, this is a democratic republic. If you absolutely hate the government for sixty years in a row -- sixty years of radically different government agendas -- isn't that a pretty good sign that you don't like the people much, either?

[joe]

"Manufacturing Consent" contains numerous quantitative and qualitative analyses of news reports to support its central thesis - that the mainstream news writes stories about foreign policy he way the Reagan adminstration wanted them written. I don't recall reading that section of "Mein Kampf."

[Dan]

"Manufacturing Consent" contains numerous quantitative and qualitative analyses of news reports to support its central thesis

"Manufacturing Consent" contained only that information which "supported" Chomsky's theory, while scrupulously ignoring the overwhelming majority of evidence which refuted it. It's cargo cult science, like Creationism; the only difference between that and spurious accusations is that you fool a higher class of idiot.

[Oh, Snap!]

And plenty of people hate America.

Do you know who ELSE hated America?!?

THAT'S RIGHT

[dhex]

about the hating or loving america thing - countries are amorphous groupings of huge numbers of people, and are neither merely geographical locations nor sets of laws (as the changing interpretation of the constitution, etc, shows). abstract concepts are not what people love or hate - they love or hate those who agree or disagree with them. mistaking the menu for the meal - or rather, the menu for the chef, waiter, hostess, etc.

[Kevin Carson]

Dan,

The American people post-1944 (or post-1890) have been educated in a system of government schools, designed to render them docile servants of the corporate state. The ideology of public educationism was designed to systematically break down the anti-authoritarianism of the American people, and everything else uniquely American in their character. They've grown up thinking a perpetual war economy, corporatism, and a national security state are *normal*. Again, I doubt the militiamen at Lexington and Concord would like the modern-day American Sheeple very much, either.

But the American people are still pretty good at being Americans (i.e., saying "Hell, no"), so long as the "Commander-in-Chief" isn't wrapping himself up in the flag and squealing about "national security." That's why they've got to have perpetual wars to turn good Americans into good Germans.

A "democratic republic," BTW, cannot be democratic in any genuine sense. Once you introduce the representative principle, no matter how formally democratic and representative the government machinery is, the government will reflect the interests of those who control its daily functioning. The insiders who make policy will always have an advantage in interest, attention, access to information, and agenda control, over those they ostensibly represent.

The only way to have real democracy is to organize society from the bottom up, with direct democracy and federation--what those guys at Lexington thought they were fighting for, in other words, and what Hamilton and the Federalists did their best to destroy.

[Andrew]

I like the discussion here...in part, because I haven't seen one "Bushitler" post (no doubt, some anonymous snarker will promptly oblige), and I haven't seen anything more than the most half-hearted defense of common-place left-wing practice: you say "boo" to a ghost, and he runs!

This is my point-- we should all engage the coarsening of our political discourse, for the same reason we should all tip service people...it improves the quality of our lives.

I disagree with anyone who contends that the reign of political correctness on campus is harmless-- and the on-again/off-again "leakage" of that kind of rhetoric into the media of the Establishment Left is genuinely disturbing...both because it spreads the damage into the wider culture, and reinforces it in its campus fever-swamp.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater was genuinely damaged by both the company he chose to keep, and the rhetorical tone he occasionally adopted-- his critics were self-interested...but they were also right: McCarthyism NEEDED to be deplored.

[joe]

Yo Dan, whether "MC" is Nobel material or crappolla from an academic standpoint, it is still a researched piece of work meant to prove a falsafiable thesis. Quite a bit different from the self-drawn map of the inside of Hitler's head.

And for those of you tempted to read "Mein Kampf," don't bother. Boring, longwinded pablum, not even interesting for the author's insanity.

[Andrew]

"The Left won't have a real incentive to refrain from this way of conducting the public debate until approbation for it falls squarely on them."

No one has focussed on that last sentence in my post. Think about it.

During the hay-day of McCarthyism, Communists and others on the radical Left routinely called their opponents "fascists" (including some fairly mainstream unionists), and even more responsible sources were disturbed enough about McCarthy and the climate of the times to liken it to Nazism.

And of course, the anti-communists of the period were demonstrably reckless in making charges that besmirched reputations and cheapened the public debate.

Wrong on both sides, perhaps?

NO! NOT REALLY!

The splutterings of the Reds were effectively harmless, and the cliched comparisons between McCarthyites and Nazis (certainly over-stated) at least identified the bad guys.

The McCarthyites were the bullies. "Even-handedness" did NOT prevail-- the bullies were shamed into silence. Public disapproval fell on those causing the problem. Since then, that kind of discourse has all but disappeared from mainstream politics, and has been replaced by a taboo that mainstream politicians defy at their peril.

For thirty years or more, it has been impossible for conservatives, or members of a controversial Administration, to address audiences on any mainstream campus in the absence of (at least) considerable and effective harassment-- and the public debate is rife with calumny.

Who is causing the problem is obvious. They should start to pay a price, for so harming our republic.

[dhex]

i gotta disagree with joe. read MK - though it is TERRIBLY BORING - then consider what made it's author attractive enough to allow what happened next.

certain books are worth reading for their effect, not their content.

[Will Spencer]

These people will stop using this deplorable tactic -- when it stops working.

Until then, we will have to put up with this tripe.

What can we do to hasten the arrival of that day? We can stop listening to these unethical SOB's as if they were actual analysts.

We can explain to them how stupid they sound and how they will need to come up wth better arguments to impress us.

In short, if we stop buying bullshit, they will eventually stop manufacturing it.

[Don]

"rst's silly assertion that an ideology based on heirarchy, racism, warrior culture, sexism, and loyalty to the state is "leftist" notwithstanding, . . ."

So the Soviet Union wasn't "leftist"?

[Evil Bush Clone]

Warren is correct. Bush is Hitler. The neocons must have presevered Hitler's brain and transported it a la telepathy into evil Bush the evil Younger. THE BASTARDS!

[ed]

It helps in any discussion to define your terms.

Fascism is "...a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition." (Webster's)

A fascist isn't someone you happen to disagree with politically, as anarchists, lefties and idiots so often use the term.

[Soup Nazi]

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

[joe]

Andrew, it's reasonable to say that the radical left may the most egregious offender, but radicals are a small, unimportant segment of the body politic. What's more dangerous is that the Hitler comparisons are coming from the much larger, more mainstream left and right, from elected officials and nationally syndicated columnists. And among mainstream political commentators, the Hitler comparison is at least as common among the right as among the left.

And Dan, you have to be out of your mind to compare "Stupid White Men" to "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

[joe]

rst's silly assertion that an ideology based on heirarchy, racism, warrior culture, sexism, and loyalty to the state is "leftist" notwithstanding, he makes a good point when he identifies mass murder as the defining characteristic of the Nazis. This is why even legitimate comparisons are worthless in political debate, because the listener will either not get past that connotation, or pretend not to so as to more easily accuse the person making the comparison of making unfair accusations.

If I write, "Likud ideologues' refusal to abandon settlements and defend a defensible border is like the Germans' 'not one step back' strategy in Russia," 9 out of ten readers will accuse me of comparing Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to the Holocaust. So it's not worth even bringing into the discussion.

And rst, the Holocaust is only the defining characteristic of Naziism to the left?

[rst]

an ideology based on heirarchy, racism, warrior culture, sexism, and loyalty to the state is "leftist"

Absolutely true. You think leftist philosophy is purely virtuous and populist? China's philosophy is solidly heirarchical, racist, sexist (don't be a newborn baby girl in mainland China), and nationalist. Right or left? I suppose the "warrior culture" makes Nazism rightist where Chinese communism is not?

[joe]

The Chinese philosophy you describe is a melange of Communist, Nationalist, Confucian, Capitalist, and about a dozen other philosophical antecedents.

And as you've surely noticed, the use of certain language by politicians does not necessarily mean their actions in office are guided by the philosophy that that language refers to. Stalin, for example, was called by the egalitarian "comrade."

And by "warrior culture," I'm referring not to a tendency to get into scrapes, but the cultish elevation of military virtues seen in Nazi Germany, Medieval Japan, Sparta, and others.

[AJMB]

Bush is no Nazi. I have my father's recollections of growing up in Holland during WW2 (he was born in '29) to let me have a small peak at Naziism. People who throw this particular 'N'-word around are no longer worth the effort of conversation because they, for the most part, know not of what they speak.

[joe]

Don, the Soviet Union was a failed leftist experiment rife with hypocricy. The Soviet Constitution - that was leftist. But we all know how relevant to the operations of the Soviet state that was. And I don't see how the Soviets embody warrior culture or sexism, with "soldier" being merely on variation of "worker," and women playing the same miserable role in the public sphere (including working and fighting) as men.

[boys pissing]

free piss free pissing movies gay men pissing pissing boys pissing lesbians pee wee crayton foto sex pissing fisting teens gratis free peeing pics japanese pee free pissing pictures piss fun piss mops pissing pussy female peeing peeing stories pissing pics piss mops pissing sex pee movies piss and shit peeing pictures boys pissing free pissing stories free pee free pissing thumbnails pissing panties pee wee reese public pissing pee pissing girl pee piss test women pissing piss test pee pee patches peeing stories gay watersports free pissing pictures pee pee peeing girls pee standing up boys pissing pee free girls pee girls pee standing up peeing women gay men pissing boys peeing pee drink peeing outside calvin pissing piss pee panty piss drinkers panty pissing pissing movies teens peeing piss off men peeing pee pants