Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." (Source: Wikipedia)
 |
| Kind of a bad idea. . . |
But how do you heed supposed warnings, if any comment referencing similarities to Nazi Germany are immediately deemed to be a shut down of serious discussion? No analogy is ever perfect, but there are sometimes similarities between events, even extreme events. This doesn't mean that I support anti-Obama tea baggers who paint--with no foundation--President Obama as a Nazi. With any analogy, there must be some sort of underlying similarity, and none exists there. It seems to have come in response to Bush and Cheney being similarly portrayed. But at least there was some foundation to build upon there, and many more years in office before those sorts of analogies started to be drawn. Anyway. . .
On a tangent, this subject for some reason directs my brain to a different one. That of recognizing and commenting on veiled racism. If for example one were to posit that there are racist elements in the Tea Party movement, one would be immediately slammed for playing "the race card." Now, put aside for a moment whether you believe or disbelieve my premise. Just notice how alleging racism is now equivalent to being racist. If you "play the race card," you've done pretty much the same thing--in today's politics--as making a Nazi analogy. You've effectively ended all serious discussion. Not that pictures like the above merit serious discussions of either subject. I think we can all agree that it is just a bad idea.
Well, when a liberal calls a conservativea Nazi or racist without foundation, do you have the same objections?
ReplyDeleteI've only called two people racists on my blog and I can prove it and no one a Nazi. But people have accussed me of being a racist (yeah, tell that to my students who are black and Hispanic)
When I started writing this, I wasn't even coming from the "don't call Obama a Nazi" viewpoint. I was only musing about, is it EVER OK? Can the analogy be apt? In the case of Obama, I simply see no similarity whatsoever. Given that these sorts of slurs were being thrown from almost the very beginning, it was a clear case of overstatement.
ReplyDeleteI mentioned Bush and Cheney being called Nazis, and YES, I think that was a bad message too. It won no converts. But, at least there, there was a longer track record. I don't believe those sorts of slurs happened in their first term. The really nasty anti-Bush rhetoric came much later. With Obama, they started piling on before he was hardly out of the gate. There is a reason the "Tea Party" is almost the same age as the administration.
As you mentioned, conservatives are not going to take losing laying down, and that is true. Neither did the Dem's, when they were voted out in 2000 or so. I didn't think the Dem's should have laid down then and I don't think the GOP should lay down now. I think you are giving too much credit to the Tea Party. They are influential but they are not the majority of the GOP or even conservatives. They are a force, though.
ReplyDeleteI am not a tea partier, I consider myself a common sense conservative who is willing to listen to both sides, but generally side with the conservatives. Some of the Tea Party members are to extreme for me, but I trust them more that I would with a Harry Reid, who is a liar and would sell out his own mother and certainly his son.
The difference as I see it, Dan is this. When Democrats were down and out (boy, were we ever), there was a groundswell of support and a whole movement was born around Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. While there were squabbles between the camps, and surely a big dollop of "cult of personality", both candidates laid out what they would DO if they won.
ReplyDeleteClinton and Obama had very similar positions, and Obama has at least tried to deliver on his promises for the most part. Now, look at the tea party, the tea party candidates and the establishment GOP. They're angry and frothy. They "want their country back", though they've been saying that since almost the moment it was "taken." They want to repeal and replace health care, and every other thing Democrats have enacted.
But other than saying they'll hit a reset button, they've offered no plan whatsoever as to what they would do to FIX things. Bush tax cuts? Already got 'em in place, they've been at work for 10 years. Why do we think KEEPING them would make things better? No health care reform? That was working so well! Less regulation on Wall Street? Well looky how good it was in 2008!
In 2007-2008, we were on a bobsled race off a cliff. The conservatives want to put us BACK ON COURSE. I have no special love for Democrats. But I really believe that most of them start out with the goal of helping people and making a difference. Ultimately many if not most become more concerned with keeping their job than doing their job. But that is true of all politicians.
Conservatives just want power back at any cost, with any candidates, under any circumstances. THAT is the difference as I see it.
"2007-2008, we were on a bobsled race off a cliff."
ReplyDeleteThanks to Pelosi and Reid. Now we're off the cliff and the rocks are approaching.
***
Consider:
A)Nationalising industries.
B)Using the law to take away historic liberties, and to target enemies.
Who did that in Germany in the 1930's?
(hint: the poster is a clue)