Battles over language and sensitivity rage on, but one thing remains clear to me. Those refusing to discuss history are doomed to repeat it.
Mother Teresa is like Hitler. In fact, the other 1.038 Billion Catholics in the world are like Hitler. If you were to examine every human being that has ever lived, they are all in some way like Hitler. And reading the news it seems like more and more people are becoming like Hitler every day. These are all irrefutably true statements. But are they necessary?
Recently there have been a number of fairly high profile items in the news about people being compared to Adolph Hitler for one reason or another. The favorite target of late has been George W. Bush (and here and here and here (Pravda!) and here etc.), although John Kerry, Ariel Sharon, Yasser Arafat, Zionism, Christianity, Ivan Stang (earthly leader of the Church of the Subgenius), Bill Clinton, and The Estate Tax have all become recent targets.
All this comes at a time not too far removed from another recent attack of righteous outrage on both sides when a Bush Campaign ad displayed images of Hitler counterposed with prominent Democrats. The images came from short ads that had been displayed on MoveOn.org, and so the Bush Campaign claimed that the images of Hitler were just stand-ins for MoveOn.org and not a comparison. While I'm no fan of MoveOn and its tactics, the ads appearing on its site were not created by MoveOn.org, but by outsiders partipating in the "Bush in 30 Seconds" contest MoveOn sponsored. They appeared on the site along with 1100 other ads, and as soon as MoveOn was made aware of the ads they were removed from the site and denounced by MoveOn. So I think referring to them as "Ad Sponsored by MoveOn.org" is a bit of a stretch.
In any case, in the swirl of all this Nazification and counter-condemnation, it seems worth asking, What is an appropriate use of these comparisons? My argument is that for purposes of personal and partial comparisons, Nazifying is never appropriate. It is true that George W. Bush has encouraged legislation that has eroded civil liberties, and this is something that Hitler also did. So What? It is also true that Hitler was raised Catholic, just like Mother Teresa. How does dissecting one small portion of a person's life or work justify a comparison between the people? Isn't saying that he has eroded civil liberties enough justification without needing to point to the greatest political bogeyman in history? People who make these lame arguments that "I'm only referrring to his record on fiscal policy, not the Holocaust" are being intentionally misleading. There are Billions of people in history, many of whom are famous and well-known. The only reason someone makes a comparison to Adolph Hitler, the Nazi's or the Holocaust is to inflame passions irrationally. Is there anyone anywhere that isn't aware of how emotionally charged Hitler and Nazism are as a symbol?
I'll say it again: There's no good reason to compare someone to Hitler, unless that person happens to be a short Austrian who attempted to seize power from a country but failed and was imprisoned and then wrote a book while in prison about his political philosophy and got out and gained power through national elections on a campaign of fear and xenophobia, then engaged in a land-grab attacking his neighbors, all while engaging in a secret plot to commit genocide on a very large segment of the population and enact a police state to silence all opposition and then start a war involving most of the countries on several continents finally commencing in defeat and suicide. With a mustache. Any partial comparison carries the entire emotional weight of Hitler's legacy, and is unfair both to the subject and to the very real evil that Nazism represented.
However, I would argue that it is very important to look at parallels in history. It is important that we understand the ways in which Nazism and the Holocaust happened, or ignore them at our own peril. So I think it is entirely appropriate to examine ways in which the policies of countries, and their treatment of issues of immigration, policing, civil rights, and military struggles compare to Germany from 1933-1945. Refusing to do so is a dangerous oversight. Let's just skip the next step of saying that any country who is on any part of this dangerous path is being led by the New Hitler.
-------------------
Producer fired examining parallels between American and German Culture in 1938
Godwin's Law (Usenet law of Hitler comparisons)
Comparisons between Bush and Hitler amount to Holocaust Denial?
Grover Norquist on The Estate Tax (Fresh Air Audio)
View the "Bush in 30 Seconds" Hitler Ads
Boondocks strip (hosted for a limited time to get the point across, after which you should sign up or buy a book.)
(I'm a big fan of Boondocks and McGruder, but consider this to be guilty of the attitudes I decry in this article)
[Taken down, go to the site]
Note: Some modifications were made to this article on 15JUL to make the argument clearer.
Posted by ktismael at July 14, 2004 7:27 PM