Carthage

« When I look down I just miss all the good stuff, when I look up I just trip over things | Main | HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO KIMMIE »

April 09, 2003

Guest Blog

I recently got cc'd on an email from Sean in response to this article wherein he explains why comparing Bush to Hitler is absurd, and I'd like to share it with you folks. (Sean, if you want to use this yourself or something, let me know and I'll take it down.) I really enjoyed hearing such a rational argument in these days of fury and spittle, and hopefully the rest of you will enjoy it as well.

I don't like it when people use certain kinds of arguments to support their cause, regardless of my feelings about the cause itself. Doing things "for the sake of the children," for instance. Comparing a world leader to Hitler almost always falls into that category. I didn't think the Saddam-Hitler comparisons were fair, and I certainly don't think Bush-Hitler comparisons are either.

This piece is dishonest. Not because the analogies it makes and the parallels it draws are wrong, per se, but they're dishonest all the same. The reason the name of Hitler is synonymous with "evil" or "worst person ever" isn't because he lost the popular vote in Germany, or because he exploited a national tragedy to consolidate power, or even because he attacked other countries with only flimsy pretexts. Hitler is a symbol of evil because of his racial programs, because of concentration camps, because of the Holocaust. Unless someone is alleging that what George Bush is doing is even remotely similar to that part of the Hitler story, the comparison is unfair. To paraphrase Samuel L. Jackson, "What Bush and Hitler did ain't in the same ballpark. Ain't even the same fucking sport!"

Bush stole an election using his brother and a questionably ethical Supreme Court; Hitler stole an election using street gangs and assassinations, including that of the Austrian prime minister. (to be fair, Bush would probably try to have Saddam assassinated if it were feasible) Also, Hitler murdered 6 million people and Bush... didn't.

This article is not even especially accurate. For one, the phrase "people of Middle Eastern descent" is used a lot, often without a lot of factual justification. (Yes, it's clever how he uses the phrase to refer to Jews, not Muslims like we readers expect) I'm not a WW2 expert, but I don't think that the firebombing of Reichstag, or issues about terrorists were used as excuses for the Anschluss. The immediate pretext for the takeover came from the banning of the country's Nazi Party. It certainly was motivated by Austria's resources, in the same way the invasion of Czechoslovakia was - Hitler made analogies to the "German automobile" working with the "Austrian chassis" in letters - but I don't agree that anti-terrorism measures were the reasons presented for the action.

Neville Chamberlain's "Peace in our time" quote refers to Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia, not Austria. I've heard this very same quote used to justify why the US needs to stop appeasing Saddam and invade Iraq.

The Bush-Hitler comparison is unduly prejudicial. Regardless, it's never really going to be useful to compare someone to Hitler, or Stalin, just because they're such extreme cases. If you aren't already anti-war/anti-Bush, this article isn't going to change anyone's mind. Even if you are, this kind of rhetoric can provoke a rabid anti-war type like myself to actually defend Bush.

Posted by didofoot at April 9, 2003 08:25 AM

Comments

My co-worker emailed this article to me on 3/24 (it says it was originally published on Common Dreams on 3/16) and I didn't read it because I could tell what they were getting at right away and didn't appreciate the mild attempt at getting readers to think the article was about Dubya and then... surprise, surprise, you were really reading about Hitler! Cheap, if you ask me. I must say that I do agree with Sean, that it isn't really accurate to compare Bush to Hitler, since he really isn't an overtly racist mass murderer.

However, (I'm going to play devil's/author's advocate here) I disagree in part with his discussion of Hitler's status as a symbol of evil. Hitler is more than a symbol of evil, he is the PROTOTYPICAL evil leader/ruler; the prototype for what evil is, how to identify it, label it and talk about it. This may seem to be an insignificant difference, but it really makes it harder to call the article "inaccurate" in at least a couple ways.

First, Hitler the prototype doesn't have much to do with who he acutally was or what he actually did but more with generally evil (inhumane, abusive, corrupt, manipulative) actions. The stripped-down, dehumanized Hitler prototype is used willy-nilly throughout modern discourse not so much to accuse the person/action being likened to Hitler of things that he did or of having Hitler's beliefs, but of being... evil.

Second, since Hitler is a prototype for evil people, a comparison to Hitler is not necessarily a direct attribute mapping, giving the compared person his particular traits, actions or beliefs, but more of a place in the "radial category" of evil, where Hitler is at the center of the category and the compared person is assigned a relative evil ranking depending on how close s/he is to the center, how much s/he is like the Hitler prototype.

In this light, this article makes a good point, not that Bush is like Hitler the man, but that, like the man that our prototype for evil is based on/named after, he's pretty bad and we shouldn't just tolerate what he's doing or what he stands for.

Posted by: Kristina at April 9, 2003 02:14 PM

I see what you're saying, and I agree with your point about Hitler, but I think that actually strengthens Sean's argument, since you yourself said that he's "pretty bad" - not evil. I don't really think Bush can be described as evil...although to be honest I don't know a whole lot about him except that my demographic is supposed to be hostile towards him.

Posted by: didofoot at April 9, 2003 02:24 PM

I don't know if I'd say that Bush is "evil" either, because my (personal) prototype for evil is the "devil"... making the term have some sort of religious/spiritual/superhuman connotation for me,so it's hard for a mortal to qualify. But for most people, having little-to-no consideration for human life or well being, heading a fascist regime and being extremely greedy, narrow-minded and short-sighted is more than enough to qualify them as "evil"... especially when the consequences of such a person's actions have such intense and far-reaching effects.

Posted by: Kristina at April 9, 2003 02:50 PM

Definitely. But is this a fascist regime? I admit that it fits some of the definition, at least according to dictionary.com..."belligerent nationalism," check, "supression of the opposition through censorship," check, but...it also fits some of the definition of democracy ("elected representatives," well, mostly). I don't think what we have fits either definition perfectly, but it seems like both Bush and America tend to not be fascists.

Again, I freely admit to ignorance of domestic and international politics. And when I do find out what my government is doing, I'm often horrified. Sometimes I blog about it, and sometimes I go march in the street and yell about it. What I notice, though, is that when I do those things, although it's true the police do sometimes get carried away and beat people, and the media doesn't always report it fairly, still it doesn't usually happen that hundreds of people suddenly disappear into government torture chambers or executions. Unlike, say, Sri Lankha, and other parts of the world.

Unless they do and I just don't hear about it/pay attention to it. I am willing to be corrected about this.

Posted by: didofoot at April 9, 2003 03:19 PM

doll you do not need to be corrected about this. it is safe to say that our government doesn't execute its citizens. protest is often allowed, the media isn't directly coerced, and there is freedom of speech for the most part.

compared to much of the world this country has an extraordinary degree of political freedom. *

that's what's so extraordinary: that in a country with so much political freedom, the system of mass control be so successful. it's definitely more successful than it was for stalin or hitler, who relied a lot on outright violence. no one beats the editors of the new york times into submission; they just magically 'say the right thing' all the time, of their own accord. this is of course due to the concentration of media outlets and textbook publishers and corporate/state capitalism and garbage education for little people and all the other boring things people mention all the time without ever actually saying anything about.

p.s. you should post the original article since you posted the reply

* i am excluding such things as the suspension of civil liberties after 9-11, illegal detentions of suspected terrorists, etc., because shameful as they are, they are still relatively minor.

Posted by: allen at April 10, 2003 12:08 AM

I linked to the article in the entry, but I didn't post it because it's already been posted on the web, and also because I wasn't interested in the "Bush/Hitler" argument so much as the immensely rational thing Sean wrote. It was the rationality, not the subject matter, that pleased me so much.

I don't think we're operating under a system of "mass control." We do have so many, many alternate sources of information open to us these days, all of which we are free to access without having to sneak around. We do have so many, many rights we can be exercising. If this country permits its government to lead it into war, there can be no doubt that it is *giving* permission. We can no longer claim that the majority of the citizens are being tricked by the media when most homes have internet access which they could be, and maybe are, utilizing to reach alternate media.

It's the implied idea that we are living in a police state that bothers me, in exactly the same way the Bush/Hitler argument bothers me. It's hyperbole designed to inspire people to change a system that isn't working, I understand that, but to compare our lives in any small way with the lives of people living in THAT kind of society is insulting to those people.

I know there are so many people in this country who suffer in a real and horrible way under the system, but I don't believe that is the majority of the people. I don't write them off as political casualties and I don't believe we should stop trying to change things to help them, but I'm not yet willing to condem the system to death, or say that it's something worse than it is.

P.S. I do argue the other side with my dad every other morning though.

Posted by: didofoot at April 10, 2003 11:04 AM

I would second what Kristen said about the implied idea of the police state, but for different reasons. Mainly, when you make an argument that is easily refuted, or looks demonstrably false, that isn't going to be very convincing. One I have heard occasionally is the idea of the war being "racist" (i.e., one, two, three, four, we don't want your racist war). The problem with that argument is it's not convincing - it's very easy for a pro-war person to dismiss it with, "I'm not racist." In fact, since the chant implies that pro-war people are racists, it's mostly just going to make people get defensive.

The same goes with Hitler. I would submit that it's basically impossible to discuss or compare to Hitler in a useful way. Because Bush has very clearly not approached the extremes met by Hitler, it's very easy to reject the comparison. I don't think anyone would be swayed by this article that didn't already have a fairly negative impression of Bush already.

Off the top of my head, I think you could make a George W. Bush/ John Quincy Adams comparison in the same way as the Hitler one. Both men gained the presidency after elections in which neither won the popular vote. After a protracted struggle, both eventually gained the office with the help of political cronies. After the election, members of the opposition party claimed conspiracy. Both men's fathers were president. Both helped shape brash, imperialistic foreign policy decisions that ran counter to prevailing international policies. Both were accused of corruption and cronyism throughout their terms. Both were extremely religious men, who often referenced the Bible to justify their political decisions. Etc. Etc.

One other thing: This article references Bush's failure to win the popular vote, as if he were the only President not to win the popular vote (J.Q. Adams, Benjamin Harrison, Hayes all lost the popular vote), and as if the Electoral College was some trick Bush and the Republican Party had invented to steal the presidency. Constantly harping on the 2000 election, a la Michael Moore, seems counter-productive at this point - it certainly isn't going to be convincing.

Posted by: sean at April 10, 2003 01:19 PM

there's no comparison.

Hitler was elected.

Posted by: Ian at April 10, 2003 03:10 PM

re: style

um kristen i don't want to say how you should run your blog but have you thought
about reducing the size of hitler's mug, just a touch?

sorry to break your girlballs about the link thing. i didn't see it there.

Posted by: allen at April 10, 2003 05:45 PM

re: police state

who said anything about a police state? in fact i said the opposite, that we are
NOT living in a police state. there are no informers, secret police, or street
violence.

but there _is_ a system of mass control. it's not the same thing. because it's
such a free society, there _has_ to be a system of mass control -- otherwise
people wouldn't act like this. and that system is the news, the textbooks, the
school system, and the endless advertising that even 2-year old children are
subjected to.

> We can no longer claim that the majority of the citizens are being tricked by
> the media when most homes have internet access which they could be, and maybe
> are, utilizing to reach alternate media.

but the majority of american households don't have internet. according to
nielsenmedia, who study this thing endlessly, the number of net users in the
u.s. is 79 million.
(http://www.nielsenmedia.com/newsreleases/1998/commnet2.html)

that's under 1/3 of the population. then how many of those actually use it to
visit alternative sites? most people are content with sites like yahoo and
hotmail with their stock tickers, three generic headlines, links to deals at
buy.com and movie showtimes; porn; downloading music; and email.

we are in the midst of a revolution. it's incredibly easy to just type 'iraq'
into the search engine and see what comes up. sadly, the overwhelming majority
of people still haven't taken even that step.

Posted by: allen at April 10, 2003 05:46 PM

re: hitler

here is what i agree with sean about:
1) 'bush is like hitler' and 'this war is racist' will turn people off, make
them defensive, and usually make discussion impossible. the article won't
convince anybody.

2) popular vote stuff: a sad idiosyncracy, not an explicit decision by the
republicans, that was exploited by the democrats. the republicans would have
exploited it too, obviously.

here's what i don't:
1) 'unless bush goes to the extremes hitler does, all comparison is basically
impossible or not useful'. the comparison is not useful in general discussion.
but in an intellectual discussion, it is. two things don't have to be equal in
every way in order for a comparison to be useful. you compare the similar parts
and draw the line at the different parts. why can't we do that here? (other than
that it will turn people off, but that only makes it invalid as a party
conversation, not for intellectual discussion)

2) the quincy adams example. yes, one can make many trivial comparisons of
whatever one likes. bush is like a mouse because their DNA is 99% similar, or
like a fridge because they both stand a few feet off the ground, etc.* but the
question is: to what end are you making a comparison? if someone wants to make a
comparison with quincy adams (or a fridge) to point out that A, B, C, then i'll
listen.

with hitler, the comparison is: no one dreamed in 1933 that he would reach the
depths of depravity that he did. he consolidated power using a number of
measures that are astonishingly similar to what is happening here. the people
were manipulated psychologically, as is happening here, and stripped of their
rights, as is happening here. so the point of the comparison is: this could get
dangerous, let's be careful.

so i agree that mentioning bush and hitler in the same sentence is
counterproductive in general society. but i don't see why you have to dismiss
the entire thing, despite the fact that there is a lot here to at least make one
think, just because bush hasn't gone to the extremes that hitler has.

*next time i promise to make my reductio ad absurdum less reductionist and
absurd.

Posted by: allen at April 10, 2003 05:46 PM

I disagree with:

1) "no one dreamed in 1933 that he would reach the
depths of depravity that he did."

Maybe not, but the first part of "Mein Kampf" was published in 1925.

2) "he consolidated power using a number of measures that are astonishingly similar to what is happening here."

Hitler's rise to power included the use of gangs of street agitators and targeted political murders. Much of the Nazis' rise to power, especially just before the takeover of Austria, gained strength from street violence that authorities could not quell, making citizens lose faith in their governments. One can argue that *some* devices are similar, even disturbing.

But... isn't there a better, more instructive comparison? It seems to me that there are some profound differences. Bush hasn't had the president of Mexico assasinated. Bush hasn't published any books about racial purity. I mean, Napoleon and Bismarck were two leaders who helped consolidate their power by going to war. James K. Polk did that, too, and there were a lot of disenfranchised foreigners after his presidency as well. There's a lot of potential points of comparison that didn't also kill 6 million jews.

I was being facetious with the J.Q. Adams comparison, but seriously, I still think it's more valid than Hitler. The 1824 election theft definitely influenced the trend toward Civil War, formalized two-party systems, beginning of political patronage systems, etc. - significant stuff. Anyway, maybe there's a possible comp that's somewhere between JQ and Adolph.

Posted by: sean at April 10, 2003 07:13 PM

re: "suspension of civil liberties after 9-11, illegal detentions of suspected terrorists"

Minor, my ass! It's those civil liberties and the assurance that members of our society (regardless of ethnicity, nationality, associations or actions) cannot be held against their will for prolonged periods of time without due process that enable our society to have political freedom. Each time that the government violates the people's civil liberties, whether it be in action or by passing unconstitutional laws, and the people let it slide, precedent is set, and precendent is a hard, hard thing to break. We should *never* stand for any form of violation of our rights or the rights of others, not only because it is the right thing to do in the moment, but it is the only way that we can assure that we'll have access to those rights in the years to come.

re: "If this country permits its government to lead it into war, there can be no doubt that it is *giving* permission."

I assume you mean "the people of America" when you say "this country," but the people have not permitted this action. The people of America are not afforded the opportunity to vote on such matters and you can hardly say that "poll results" showing support for the war are proof of permission. One could also argue that since our representatives have supported this action that the people support it, but I don't believe that's true either. Representatives, especially senators, have too many interests and other concerns to accurately represent the opinions of their constituants, but (in my opinion) are chiefly concerned with only taking those actions that will help them win their next election. Feinstein isn't going to speak out against the war no matter how many letters I write her, because she knows that I'm sure not going to vote for her next Republican opponent despite her support for the war. Neither I or anyone I know gave permission for this war; not even people who voted for Bush could have seen this particular scenario coming. If any permission has been given, however, I'd say that it's through pure inaction, apathy and/or acceptance of our *lack of power* in this arena.

re: racist war

I don't think that's a very effective slogan either. I remain silent during that chant, much like the way I don't sing "God Bless America" during the 7th inning stretch.

re: system of mass control

Yes and no. Yes, American history, "mythology," and patriotic rhetoric carry the seeds of fascist moments such as this at all times. I'd call this a "priming effect" (but a media theorist would only use that term for if an individual received a stimulus right before viewing the media in question) because we are primed from a very early age to feel and think a certain way about our country, and thus, react in particular ways to "threats" to various aspects of it. One example would be our constant bragging about how we're the best country in the world, both in our success and in our character. So, when someone steps on our toes, as with 9/11, our immediate reaction is shock that anyone would ever want to do such a thing, let alone pull it off. This threatens the image of America as a virtually invincible nation, but also threatens our self-image as a nation that always does the right thing by everyone. The cognitive dissonance experienced when one realizes that we are vulnerable and we are assholes all over the globe creates a situation where one must either turn one's back on their old ideas about the country or attempt to cling to those ideas despite the facts. This second option is undoubtedly much easier, not just because it is very difficult for human beings to change habitual thought-patterns overnight, but because it only requires one to ignore the new information that is causing the conflict rather than learning new facts that help to further dispell the old ideas and create new ones. It is (generally) this kind of dillema that not only creates a sense of ultra-patriotism and hostility toward dissenting voices in times such as this, but also creates a sense that "everyone", including the media (who are just people, too) is for the status quo. The media is just like a huge, amplified individual in that they aren't really that ready or willing to give up their America-is-#1 rhetoric that they have down pat in exchange for new, inquisitory or revolutionary rhetoric. Not only would this piss off readers who are also taking the no-brain way out and piss off advertisers who don't want to loose audience share but it would also require a lot of work on the part of journalists.

Which leads me to the "No" part (finally). You can't really say it's a system of mass control because that implies some sort of intelligence or conspiracy behind it. I admit that the conservatives have perfected the art of getting tight, cohesive, damned convincing messages out there that leave no need to seek answers elsewhere, but there is no real conspiracy beyond that. The greatest problem with the media is, yes, unprecedented media conglomeration and self-censorship, but also that journalists are lazy and self-interested too. No journalist these days really wants to investigate or research because that won't get them a "scoop" and may jeopordize their access to "legitimate" news sources, such as political and corporate figures and representatives, not to mention the perks and gifts they receive. Furthermore, the fact that the journalist only wants "legit," important or noteworthy sources means that they rarely speak to the woman-on-the-street or extreme left (or right) political groups. Democrats and Republicans are pretty much the only politicians you hear from/about and the president's speeches are quoted exactly and extensively in news articles, not because what he said was good or important, but because the *president* said it and they're just trying to fill their newspace with content as fast and as easily as possible.

My entry is hella long. Sorry about that Kristen.

Posted by: Kristina at April 11, 2003 01:14 AM

as far as "permission" goes... the republicans made gains in the 2002 congressional election, and people who voted for republicans knew they were voting for war. i don't doubt that no one you know gave "permission" for this war, but if you hung around for a while in idaho or texas i'm sure you'd find plenty of enablers.

marginally related constitutional fun fact: nowhere in the constitution is the right to vote for president guaranteed. you just can't exclude certain people and not others. any state at any time can pass a law eliminating the popular vote, leaving the selection of presidential electors to the legislature.

Posted by: holohan at April 11, 2003 09:30 AM

That's hella scary.

Posted by: Kristina at April 11, 2003 09:52 AM

re: sean

> But... isn't there a better, more instructive comparison?

yes! i'm sure there are tons. make one and i will listen with all my being.

> One can argue that *some* devices are similar, even disturbing.

so let's talk about those for a while, learn something from them, and then go on to something else before getting carried away by them and concluding that bush=hitler. but your initial response was more like, Forget the bush/hitler stuff, it's useless/misleading/not worth it.

> I still think the [quincy adams comparison] is more valid than Hitler

it's more valid in that bush is more similar to quincy adams than he is to hitler. but that doesn't mean that that comparison is more worthy of discussion than the other one. the important thing is the conclusions you draw and the implications.

q.a. had an important effect on humanity (i now know). but hitler had a destructive and catastrophic one. so even if bush and q.a. have a greater number of similarities than bush and hitler, i don't think that number is the only thing that matters. because i'm much more scared of things becoming [more] hitler-like than of things becoming [more] q.a. like. so i think we should talk about that a little.

i dreamt about martin van buren last night. damn you sean for your arcane knowledge of antebellum unitedstatesedness.

re: illegal detentions and suspension of civil liberties

to clarify why i called it 'minor'. each of these detentions is a criminal transgression against the rights of human beings. of course i think that's a big deal. i called it minor only because i was talking about how we are not living in a police state, and those detentions are on a relatively small-scale given the freedom the rest of us have. outside of that context, though: certainly not minor.

re: system of mass control

maybe i shouldn't use the world 'control'. you have a point kristina: it implies conscious conspiracy. the advertising wizards who tell you about sparkling teeth and first impressions and hamburgers that are supposed to be messy aren't consciously controlling anybody. nor are the superpatriots who write school textbooks.

but then, the elite business community? the board members of the wto? these are highly class-conscious and ideology-dedicated people who are consciously committed to running the world a certain way. so yeah, i guess i should come up with a new way to communicate all this without just lumping it all under 'mass control'.

re: 'but also that journalists are lazy and self-interested too. No journalist these days really wants to investigate or research because that won't get them a "scoop"'

i don't think that's fair overall. there are tons of journalists who wrote about east timor and death squads in el salvador, and who are currently writing about u.s. destruction in iraq, even though it doesn't make them rich. and despite the fact that most of their stories will never, ever be run on anything other than zmag and extreme/fringe websites.

re: hella scary

it sure is.

Posted by: allen at April 11, 2003 06:03 PM

It occurred to me as I was re-reading this entire discussion that, all of our great historical, political and philosophical points aside, comparing Hitler to Bush is very productive and informative indeed... if only because it fires people like us up enough to have a lengthy, informative, thoughtful conversation such as this. Had it not been for this article, we probably never would have discussed the meaning Hitler has to us or society in general, whether or not Bush is like Hitler, who he really can be accurately compared to and what that really says about his actions and the state of our nation relative to the rest of history. I say kudos to the author of the original article and to Kristen for starting this convo'.

Posted by: Kristina at April 11, 2003 10:23 PM

Look, Hitler was *nothing* like Texas Hold Em, OK?

Posted by: sean at October 28, 2004 06:00 PM

i dunno, sean, i mean don't you think that hitler knew when to hold them, knew when to fold them, and knew when to walk away?

admittedly, probably a lot of incinerated jews would say differently.

unless it's like, hold them in a pen, fold them into an oven, and walk away humming a jaunty megalomaniac tune.

Posted by: michele at October 28, 2004 10:52 PM

*Texas Hold Em spam removed*

Posted by: gene at October 29, 2004 08:24 AM

Post a comment