Isn’t it about time someone invoked Godwin’s Law on this kind of crap?
While it does seem, in Nuremberg terms, that Bush could be called a war criminal (invading other countries on the flimsiest of pretexts), he has not engaged in genocide. Nor, unlike Volkswagen supporter Hitler, does he promote the production of small, cheap cars.
True, both came to power constitutionally (although under dubious circumstances and with the support of only a minority of voters). True, both masterfully used traumatic events at home (the 1933 Reichstag fire for Hitler; 9/11 for Bush) to make a frightened and resentful populace accept restrictions on civil liberties.
True, also, that the U.S. leader shares Hitler’s taste for military costumes — although to be fair to the German dictator, he did serve on active duty in wartime.
[…] Like central European nations of the 1930s, Canada finds itself next door to a powerful nation led by an unusually aggressive and perhaps slightly unhinged man. What to do? It’s generally forgotten now, but in the mid-’30s Hitler was not universally condemned as evil personified. Indeed, he had many admirers in Europe and North America — people who lauded his “leadership,” who lionized his moral certainty (no namby-pamby moral relativism there) and who either forgave, or actively applauded, what was then called anti-Semitism and today would be labelled racial profiling.
World leaders were wary and respectful. Canada’s then-prime minister, Mackenzie King, confided in his diary after meeting Hitler in 1937 that the dictator was “one who truly loves his fellow men and his country and would make any sacrifice for their good … a man of deep sincerity and a genuine patriot … a teetotaller.”
I mean, it’s kind of disheartening when real-world poltiical discourse turns out to be nastier and less ruly than the frelling Usenet.
(via Daimnation)
From the definition of Godwin’s Law: “There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. “
The same works in real life. Whoever invokes Hitler and the Nazis accrues more damage than the accused. See the back-pedaling moveon.org has been doing since the RNC exposed their Nazi political ads.
My irk is not over whether folks are discrediting themselves with such inane comparisons (well, not over their discreditnig, though maybe a bit over their inanity), but whether, in the long run, such comparisons water down the perception of the evil of the Third Reich. If George Bush “is” Hitler, then, really, I guess that Hitler fellow must not have been so bad after all. If racial profiling is the equivalent of the German regime’s anti-Semitic policies, then, gosh, guess those must not have been all that horrible, either.
Considering the RNC’s smearing of Max Cleland as an Osama sympathizer in the 2002 elections, what’s so different? They used images of bin Forgotten in their campaign to throw a war hero out of office.
Both sides are using it, and it sucks. However, and here’s where the boos come from folks like Seki — I do believe we’re closer to a fascist state since the Shrub stole office than ever before.
The ad in question said (with pics of Osama and Saddam): “America faces terrorists and extremist dictators. Since July, Max Cleland has voted against the president’s vital Homeland Security efforts 11 times. Max Cleland says he has the courage to lead. But the record proves Max Cleland is just misleading.” Hardball politics to be sure, though by no means the worst of it — but different, I think, from directly comparing Bush to Hitler.
I might concede we are closer to a Fascist state than we were in 2000, but that’s like saying we were closer to being a Communist state before that; we are and were nowhere near either.
As for the old “Shrug stole office” thang — well, you go right on believing that, since there’s certanily nothing I can say that would convnice you otherwise.
Dennis Miller agrees with you:
“People say I’ve slid to the right,” Mr. Miller said in his office at the NBC Studios in Burbank, speaking in his rat-a-tat-tat style. “Well, can you blame me? One of the biggest malfeasances of the left right now is the mislabeling of Hitler. Quit saying this guy is Hitler,” he said, referring to Mr. Bush. “Hitler is Hitler. That’s the quintessential evil in the history of the universe, and we’re throwing it around on MoveOn.org to win a contest. That’s grotesque to me.”
The Dennis Miller quote can be found here.
A couple of other good quotes there (which I agree with):
Mr. Miller is also not a traditional conservative. “I’ve always been a pragmatist,” he said. “If two gay guys want to get married, it’s none of my business. I could care less. More power to them. I’m happy when people fall in love. But if some idiot foreign terrorist wants to blow up their wedding to make a political statement, I would rather kill him before he can do it, or have my country kill him before he can do it, instead of having him do it and punishing him after the fact. If that makes me a right-wing fanatic, I will bask in that assignation.”
Mr. Miller said he remained socially liberal. “I think abortion’s wrong, but it’s none of my business to tell somebody what’s wrong,” he said. “So I’m pro-choice. I want to keep my nose out of other people’s personal business. I guess I fall into conservative when it comes to protecting the United States in a world where a lot of people hate the United States.”
And Dennis disagrees with you here…
Indeed, Miller was especially merciless in bashing Gingrich. Many of his anti-Newt quips compared the House Speaker to Adolf Hitler — and, by extension, portrayed the GOP Congress as a sinister collection of would-be brownshirts. For example, in his opening monologue on December 23, 1994, Miller joked that Gingrich’s forthcoming book would “be available through the Mein Kampf of the Month Club.” A few weeks later, he announced the post-election transfer of power on Capitol Hill as follows: “Gingrich and the Republicans took over Congress this week. This is actually Gingrich’s second attempt to seize power, the first, of course, being the ill-fated Beer Hall Putsch.”
Heh. Interesting. Shame on Dennis, then.
He has made it clear that 9/11 was a major turning point in his thinking, and he may be taking such comparisons a bit more seriously now. Still, shame on him.
(The article you’re quoting is here.)
On the other hand, Miller was also making a joke. It was political humor. Bad taste humor, in this case, but humor nonetheless. When folks are seriously making the comparison between Bush and Hitler, that’s also a bit different.
Still, good spot, Stan.
Of course I’d forgotten that only the Left can be compared to http://www.damianpenny.com/archives/000578.html “target=”new”>Hitler
I wish I could read more of the article. It’s an interesting thesis, and even perhaps defendable under Godwin’s law because it doesn’t trivialize Hitler’s evil actions, just armchair analyzes his motivations …
… but, yeah, I’m of tired of folks using the Hitler card. On whatever side they are.
The Hitler thing is generally avoided by the right. Where the right is watering down the language is on the topic of treason and sedition. Bush is not Hitler for going to war with Iraq and the people who opposed him are not traitors. Like Dave has stated previously, it is not that the treason-mongers merely look stupid but they also deflect the wrath of the American people from true traitors and/or terrorists.