Quote: Dave the Wonder Boy said: There was an excellent Face the Nation discussion two Sundays ago that explored partisanship, the rise of Dean by exploiting that partisanship, and a discussion of the www.moveon.org commercial depicting Republicans as Nazis, and the fact that it's a bitter charicature that slanders Bush without a shred of evidence to support the idea that Bush's administration is in any way behaving like Nazis.
I think when people compare Bush to Hitler, they are thinking of the Hitler of 1935, rather than the Hitler of 1945.
Its the potential for where Bush is going that alarms people. Not what he has done.
The reaction to comparisons of Bush and Hitler or the charge that he is a Nazi - or even a fascist - is often as hyperbolic as the metaphor itself is described. Please: is there a single person posting to this board who believes that someone comparing Bush to Hitler means that they think Bush is responsible for the murder of six million Jews - or six million Muslims - or even six million inmates on Texas' death row? That interpretation would be just plain silly - and about as intellectually disciplined as the person who would color anyone s/he dislikes as a "Nazi". To assume that Hitler or Nazism can only be understood in the context of the Final Solution is not only ill-educated and/or lazy, it is dangerous.
Let's not forget that in his homeland (and many other places, the US of A included), Hitler was extremely popular throughout much of his career - and there was a helluva lot more to the National Socialist Party than genocide - which was, in fact, a fairly minor point of their agenda. The demonization of Hitler is an act of political hindsight. Those who see early warning signs of fascism in the Bush regime are attempting to exercise political foresight. I suspect that, if pushed to account for their charge, they would echo Hegel's sentiment that "we learn from history that we don't learn from history".
I have made connections between Bush's agenda and that of historical fascists here on these boards in the past. As this point is specifically about Hitler and the Nazis, I'll spare the board my thoughts on Mussolini's brand of "corporatism" (his term for fascism) and Franco's Spain. Those who would make comparisons between the President and der Feuhrer do so, I believe, because they fear that Bush is attempting to substantially alter our constitution, our government, and our laws. I believe many of those fears are justified. It may be a bit self-defeating to use Hitler as a specific reference, but it is not unjustified. Let's look at some of the more obvious parallels.
First, neither leader was elected by a majority of the people (both were appointed - one by Hindenberg, the other by the Supreme Court), casting doubt on their legitimacy from the outset and requiring major catastrophic events to bolster their national position. In each case, a major public atrocity was used to unite a majority, subdue remaining minority (however substantial), and stifle dissent. Following the Reichstag fire of 1933, a Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State abrogated a number of German constitutional protections, including free expression of opinion, freedom of the press, the right of assembly and association, the right to privacy of postal and electronic communications, protection against unlawful searches and seizures, individual property rights, and states' right of self-government. A supplemental decree created the SA and SS Federal police agencies. Following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon of 2001, the USA Patriot Act abrogated a number of American constitutional protections, including free expression of opinion, freedom of the press, the right of assembly and association, the right to privacy of postal and electronic communications, protection against unlawful searches and seizures, and individual property rights. Subsequent Presidential decrees Presidential decrees have made it possible for military forces to be used to monitor and control the civilian population, in abrogation of posse comitatus.
Both advertised themselves early on as being "uniters, not dividers" (from Hitler's first address a Chancellor: "I pledge to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation" - sound familiar?). Both proved to be heinous liars in this regard.
Both worked toward isolating their countries from the rest of the world. One of Hitler's first actions after assuming power was to withdraw from the League of Nations. It took a little longer for Bush to declare the UN "irrelevant", but he was withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol and international treaties within days of his inaugural; refusal to endorse the ICC was not long in following.
Both are/were fervent Christians who courted the conservative clergy from the start, with the church's first role being to fuel anti-liberalism. Hitler also managed to throw in a lot of Aryan mythology and fringe Christian legend (like the grail mythos and other stuff popularized by Wagnerian operas), - Bush is a Methodist convert from Episcopalianism (with a Catholic brother) who believes in The Rapture. Pat Robertson, leader of the religious right organization "The Christian Coalition" has assured us all of Bush's re-election based on visions from God himself. Bush beleives that God himself placed him in office.
Hitler made public dissent all but impossible at first, and later made it illegal. Whenever groups tried to voice a protest during a public speech, he would have storm troopers clear the dissenters from the hall and made sure that the media did not provide the public with any coverage of public protests. It is now illegal to protest in the presence of George W Bush - demonstrators are not only forbidden within a hall where the President is speaking, they are not even allowed to assemble anywhere within sight of the route of his arriving or departing motorcade - nor anywhere that the press covering his appearances might catch a glimpse of them. This was the case before September 11, 2001, by the way - and has nothing to do with the "security" of the President.
Hitler was very fond of photo ops. He believed they were his best form of PR and pounced on them at every opportunity. The files abound with shots of Hitler with bright-faced Germany families and he especially liked being photographed with school children (though whether he was familiar with "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" or not is a fact which has been lost to history). He also actively promoted "family values" and high moral standards. Does any of this sound familiar?
As a result of the Homeland Security Act, Bush has almost complete dictatorial powers, as Hitler did (initially through the Enabling Act): the ability to make any decision he wishes without judicial or legislative restraint and carry on its meetings in secret, without scrutiny from the press or the people. Homeland security agents can now intrude in any part of a citizen's life. The Cyber Security Enhancement Act slipped into the Homeland Security bill at the last moment allows police to conduct Internet or telephone eavesdropping with no court order required, allows internet surveillance to gather telephone numbers, IP addresses, and URLs or e-mail information, where an "immediate threat to a national security interest" is suspected, permits ISPs to hand users' records over to law enforcement authorities, overturning current legislation that outlaws such behavior. Also, up to 850,000 jobs will be privatized, knocking out union and civil service oversight. Hitler eventually outlawed labor unions altogether. We'll see...
There are many more parallels along these lines which could be drawn, but I am not really intent on defending the comparison. I think it is more important to be aware of what has happened in the past and keep very close watch on what is happening right now, regardless of analogies. For those who are interested in pursuing the Nazi parallel, there's a web site here which has all kinds of Bush-Hitler links.
More important than drawing parallels between the two men, though, is for us to know what fascism is (apart from "a political system established to exterminate six million of something") - and to watch for every sign of its possible emergence in the administration of our country. Sadly, frighteningly, one does not have to watch too closely...
Bush may be "no Hitler" so far, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't want to be.
Quote: Darknight613 said:
Also, just a random thoughts to the anger at MoveOn.org over the ad comparing Bush to Hitler - it was sent in as part of a contest, and people who hold contests can't really be held responsible for the submissions of others. The person who submitted the ad is the one they should be mad at.
THANK YOU!
I was going to make that important point myself. Obviously that ad would be considered too shrill and controversial to actually be considered for actual TV airtime, much less to actually win. Still, it makes good fodder for conservative talk radio. Emotion will always trump reasoned discourse and reasoned and intellecually sound comparisons in that kind of forum (and many many other forums).
"Fascism is more appropriately termed corporatism, for it is the ultimate merger of state and corporate interests," Benito Mussolini
