The Boston Globe has an editorial entitled “Loose Lips Sink History.” They criticized Donald Rumsfeld for comparing opponents to the war in Iraq to Hitler’s appeasers and criticized anti-war activists for comparing Bush to Hitler.
These days, the term fascism is loosely applied to anything antidemocratic. But it has a specific meaning in the context of World War II, and Rumsfeld’s application robs the word of its power.
Similarly, there is plenty of fodder for a sharp critique of the Bush administration without opponents resorting to hyperbole about Hitler.
These cliched allusions — whether from anti war activists or from official Washington — only cheapen the memory of the Holocaust and hasten the degradation of political discourse. The history of European fascism ought not be hijacked for cheap political effect .
Basically, Godwin’s Law has made its way to meatspace.
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
The tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums is that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost.
Update: Thanks to Jim for posting a relevant link to a Keith Olbermann blog entry. In it, Olbermann includes an equally relevant quote from Edward R. Murrow:
“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,†he said, in 1954. “We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.
“We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.â€
Leo Strauss made the point far earlier than Goodwin when he termed this form of argument “reductio ad Hitlerum”.
Heh, I like that phrase.
DOH!
However, if we were really using Godwin to declare a “winner”, the opponets of Bush lost shortly after Gore. I remember seeing posters of Bush with an Adolf mustache in 2001.
Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s Countdown had an excellent commentary last night:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12131617/
Enough!
As Jason has pointed out, the the fact that anyone has ever used Hitler comparisons against the Bush administration neatly immunizes Donald Rumsfeld’s arguments from critical analysis.
Say what?
On reading the Boston Globe editorial I actually thought that Rumsfeld had half a point. There were actually historical linkages between the German Nazi movement and certain Islamic organizations. During WWII Germany took an interest in these organizations as a way of undermining the Soviet Union (which had large Muslim territories, e.g. Kazakhstan) and British power in the middle east (which is where much of its oil came from). There were, I think, other logical problems with his case though. I don’t have time today to go into all of them, but one I did think to drop was the whole notion of “appeasement” as in was Chamberlain wrong to “appease” Hitler over Czechoslovakia, and then to take Britain into war a year later over Poland?
The Luftwaffe introduced the Messerschmidt Bf-109 in 1937. The RAF was just introducing the Spitfire in 1938. Maybe “appeasement” was necessary because the RAF just wasn’t ready for war.
Addendum- The Munich conference was about six months before the invasion of Poland, not a year. The RAF may still have been lagging in deployment of its new fighter though.
It is too ridiculous to elevate the terrorist threat to the level that Hitler posed. Is Rumsfeld unaware that within a few short years of Hitler’s “appeasement”, tens of millions of people were dead? Yet, in the case of the terrorists, they have only managed to kill roughly 3,000 people here in about 13 years of trying (dating back to the first WTC bombing). The two aren’t even comparable. If Hitler’s Germany was the New York Yankees of global threats, this global jihadist threat is more like the rookie leagues, if not Little League. Mostly they just kill their own damn neighbors. And yet the best damn comparison these people can find to the jihadist threat is Hitler? And against this backdrop, Rumsfeld wants to issue grave warnings to those critics who think it’s stupid to attack unrelated Country B for Country A’s misdeeds? My how this “say stupid stuff in a threatening manner” act is wearing thin.
My how this “say stupid stuff in a threatening manner†act is wearing thin.
However, calling our President “Hitler” is still quite cool to many.
How many people has Bush killed? 100,000? Let’s just cover it and say it was 500,000.
Comeparing that to Hitler is beyond crazy. As T said, within a few short years tens of millions were dead. Hitler’s goal was to exterminate an entire ethic group. The two worst things I have heard Bush accused of is greed and control over a large group of people.
If Bush is out to change the American way of life and to change Islamic countries to operate in his vision, that is wrong. However, it is common to history for some leader to try to “rule the world”.
Hitler earned a unique level of sick bastard, and no one has even got close to that yet. Although, I think this guy called Kim in North Korea is trying.
To actually see what Rumsfeld said, contrasted with the AP coverage of the event, look here.
The analysis by AP and the Boston Globe seemed to be done, to some extent, to the sound of axes grinding…
I haven’t heard much comparing Bush to Hitler for a few years now. Of course that was the fringe calling him that. In this case, a high member of our government is calling me essentially a Hitlerwannabe-enabling appeaser. Note to Rummy: Do your f’ing job and otherwise shut up. If at some point you’ve adequately accomplished ANY of your goals, spend some of your spare time running your mouth.
T –
My take is that he did not call you that.
I think you’ll be less offended by what he actually said, as opposed to the interpretation of it offered up by various parties.
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=4496
“The wicked flee when no man pursueth…”
(and no, I don’t mean to call you wicked!)