Do any politicians really need to be compared to Hitler?

[jnhay]

Do people realize how ridiculous they look when they compare a politician to Hitler? Today, I went to the MVA and noticed that two guys had a stand set up right in front that had big pictures of president Obama with a Hitler mustache. I am so disgusted by things like this not only because it shows disrespect towards the president, but a total disrespect to those people who died in the Holocaust. To me, it's almost like if someone ran around with pictures of the twin towers falling down, with a big smiley face in front of them.

You're going to compare a guy whose policies you disagree with, with a guy who lead the extermination of millions of people? I want to know. Do you think it's ever appropriate to compare a guy who isn't killing people to Hitler?

[Predicto]

Oh but he is killing people! FEMA death camps! Freeeeedom!!!!!

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Oh but he is killing people! FEMA death camps! Freeeeedom!!!!!

According to Michelle Bachman, he's also indoctrinating the youth of America.

Creating his own SS. :pfft:

[Drew_Fl]

you could argue for Saddam Hussein possibly. he practiced some genocide i believe and probably would've done more if he had the power Hitler had at his disposal.

but US politicians is just silly.

[Bang]

Are there not other correlations to Hitler that can be drawn without the comparison to genocide?

Propaganda, for example, there's plenty of "news" entities who operate in this country who utilize the same methods as the third reich in their demonization policies and distortions to push agenda.

Does this mean they want gas chambers? Probably not, but there are correlations, to be sure.

If a politician or movement goes and bases his core beliefs on the notion that one group is responsible for all the problems in the country, that is right in goose-step with what Hitler did. And there's plenty of politicians who do that, nd thankfully they almost always lose.

The thing is, hitler isn't Hitler alone. Hitler had an organization that was very good at what it did, and knew where it was going. And because there are many aspects and facets of fascism that make up the whole, there are many facets and aspects for which to be vigilant.

~Bang

[jnhay]

I see your point Bang, and it's a good one. But when people use the comparisons to Hitler, they're taking advantage of all the connotations he has to death and genocide. There is simply no way you can separate the two IMO. Comparing Obama or any average politician to Hitler diminishes the pure evil that he and his organization stood for, and it disregards all the victims of that time. If you want to call him a fascist, call him a fascist. Don't spit in the faces of those who died and compare him to Hitler, who did much more.

[Burgold]

I agree with jnhay wholeheartedly. The Hitler comparisons are relentlessly ill fitting and stupid.

Bang,

You could be right, but generally those making the comparison are not doing so from an academic point of view. They are doing from an intellectually lazy point of view. They're not pointing out the Nazi economic policies, or bureaucratic organization... they are basically just demonizing and summoning the easiest Devil they can.

In doing so, they generally make a poor to impossible analogy while simultaneously diminishing or ignoring what Nazism was really about or about the thirty genocides that have occured since the Holocaust. Remember, that the birth of Nazism is intimately tied to scapegoating, the idea of the Master Race, and eugenics. You can't really have one without the other.

There are ways to scholarly compare aspects of periods of times or leaders strategies. I'd wager 99% of the time the invokation of Hitler has nothing to do with this, but rather a simple expression of disgust or hate. The villain of the day is Hitler.

I say again that George W. Bush, Obama, Daniel Snyder, Marge Schott and most of the others who have been labeled Hitler are not Hitlers in the remotest of fashions.

[Commander PK]

Adolph Hitler was only a "politician" before he was "Hitler"

in his time, before he was directly responsible for murdering a million people, he would have been called a "radical idealist"

[Larry]

I'm with Bang.

There is nothing necessarily wrong, immoral, lazy, or anything else about a comparison to Hitler.

For example, compared to Hitler, I'm taller, and better looking.

Some comparisons to Hitler are closer than others. But then again, the people making the comparisons point out which aspect(s) they're comparing. (At least, if they want to make a logical point, they do.)

[21cents]

Hitler was crazy

But il say one thing he was one helleva leader for people to follow and and do the things they did.

[Burgold]

I'm with Bang.

There is nothing necessarily wrong, immoral, lazy, or anything else about a comparison to Hitler.

For example, compared to Hitler, I'm taller, and better looking.

Some comparisons to Hitler are closer than others. But then again, the people making the comparisons point out which aspect(s) they're comparing. (At least, if they want to make a logical point, they do.)

And the comparisons you've generally heard... is this an apt description of them Larry?

[twa]

Stalin,Mao and the already mentioned Saddam come to mind,along with a few others such as the Jap Emperor Hirohito

I agree with it being used too easily though and certainly not appropriate for O or W (though both killed people)

[Burgold]

Adolph Hitler was only a "politician" before he was "Hitler"

in his time, before he was directly responsible for murdering a million people, he would have been called a "radical idealist"

And this isn't true... if you listen to his speeches, writings, and other... Hitler was Hitler before he assumed power. When he was appointed by the Chancelor after badly losing his election his first actions were to basically send thugs into the streets to beat up and abuse Jews.

See, what we have here is already an effect of how Hitler has been minimized. As we forget, we repeat.

Larry,

You are an idealist and in an abstract, pure intellectual sense your argument holds true. In the slime of reality what you are suggesting is far from reality... at least 90% of the time. The comparisons are for easy villification... that's why for someone anyone who is disliked immediately becomes Hitler. That's why the left Hitlerized Bush and why the right and the left Hitlerized Obama. It's not about policy. It's about propaganda and hate.

[jnhay]

I'm with Bang.

There is nothing necessarily wrong, immoral, lazy, or anything else about a comparison to Hitler.

For example, compared to Hitler, I'm taller, and better looking.

Some comparisons to Hitler are closer than others. But then again, the people making the comparisons point out which aspect(s) they're comparing. (At least, if they want to make a logical point, they do.)

But all the sign had was Obama and a Hitler mustache. That doesn't seem remotely appropriate to me. I'm all for free speech, but I think this is really really dumb free speech.

[Larry]

But all the sign had was Obama and a Hitler mustache. That doesn't seem remotely appropriate to me. I'm all for free speech, but I think this is really really dumb free speech.

The question wasn't whether a picture of Obama with a mustache was intelligent, rational, discourse.

The question was whether is is ever acceptable to use Hitler in any comparisons whatsoever.

[FanboyOf91]

Of course! None can compare to...

[Larry]

And the comparisons you've generally heard... is this an apt description of them Larry?

The comparisons I remember (including, I'll point out, the ones I've made), have, of course, all been well thought out, accurate, comparisons.

No doubt there have been numerous other, less valid, comparisons, made, as well. But I don't pay attention to them.

Heck, if I (or anybody, for that matter), paid attention to even half of the spew that passes for discussion in Tailgate (let alone, the rest of the world, which is worse), I have no doubt it would lead to drain bamage.

[mistertim]

Yes there can be lucid arguments made about portions of policy, etc (even if it is mostly academic in nature). But that is, first of all, rarely the case when a comparison to Hitler is made. And second of all, tends to "imply" or even use slippery slope arguments. A lot of what it boils down to is intellectual dishonesty, simply being spiteful about someone who's policies you disagree with, being easily led by people with loud voices, or some or all of the above. As far as loud voices I generally mean talking heads in the media who seem to love to use the whole implying strategy. They will set a few facts down about the Nazi regime, set a few facts down about whatever the current regime is and then do the "look, I'm not saying <politician of scorn> is Hitler! I'm just saying...look at what I've shown you and come to your own conclusions!" Which is, of course, nonsense, as they have already led the people who listen to them to a conclusion but allowed them to think they actually looked at something and came to a conclusion on their own. Sad, really.

[Larry]

Yes there can be lucid arguments made about portions of policy, etc (even if it is mostly academic in nature). But that is, first of all, rarely the case when a comparison to Hitler is made. And second of all, tends to "imply" or even use slippery slope arguments. A lot of what it boils down to is intellectual dishonesty, simply being spiteful about someone who's policies you disagree with, being easily led by people with loud voices, or some or all of the above. As far as loud voices I generally mean talking heads in the media who seem to love to use the whole implying strategy. They will set a few facts down about the Nazi regime, set a few facts down about whatever the current regime is and then do the "look, I'm not saying <politician of scorn> is Hitler! I'm just saying...look at what I've shown you and come to your own conclusions!" Which is, of course, nonsense, as they have already led the people who listen to them to a conclusion but allowed them to think they actually looked at something and came to a conclusion on their own. Sad, really.

So what you're saying is that people should ignore valid, factual, similarities between (politician X) and Hitler, because of an artificial rule you've made?

See, that's the flip side of "never compare to Hitler". What you're doing is saying that no matter mow much something resembles Hitler, it must never be pointed out.

[mistertim]

So what you're saying is that people should ignore valid, factual, similarities between (politician X) and Hitler, because of an artificial rule you've made?

See, that's the flip side of "never compare to Hitler". What you're doing is saying that no matter mow much something resembles Hitler, it must never be pointed out.

That is not what I was trying to get across. I was not claiming or attempting to make a rule saying "no this should never happen". I was simply pointing out that, for the most part, the Hitler comparisons can be ignored because the large majority of them come from knee jerk reactions, uninformed opinions without factual support, or someone being easily led into believing it because a person they listen to on the radio said or implied it.

Of course there are situations where valid, factual similarities can and should be pointed out and discussed as long as they are well researched and not intentionally over the top or used purely as a device for vilification.

[ACW]

This sums up my feelings:

[NickGiaquinto1]

Yes if the person using the hitler/ Nazi label has no other intelligent response... I call it the angry idiot catch phrase. If you don't like a politician, call him/ her a Nazi... I like it, for me it weeds out the morons in the conversation- you can then ignore all their nonsense and focus on other things.

[Commander PK]

And this isn't true... if you listen to his speeches, writings, and other... Hitler was Hitler before he assumed power. When he was appointed by the Chancelor after badly losing his election his first actions were to basically send thugs into the streets to beat up and abuse Jews.

See, what we have here is already an effect of how Hitler has been minimized. As we forget, we repeat.

Make no mistake Burgold, Hitler was a politician. He won the hearts and minds of the German people by giving them a common enemy and scapegoat, the (Jew), and very nearly defeated Paul Von Hindenburg for President of Germany in 1932. His autobiography "Mein Kampf" was widely distributed and won him and the Nazis many supporters among a people who felt that they had been ****ed over with a reeling economy and a nearly 30% unemployment rate. The Nazis gained political power through elections and at the time of Hitler's appointment had huge numbers in the Reichstag. Hitler was ultimately appointed Chancellor of Germany by Hindenburg who basically had been left with little choice. He knew Hitler ultimately would have staged a coup.

[Burgold]

Partly true. Remember though. Hitler did not ever win a single election. He never even came in second. What he did was have a sizable enough minority that the powers that be decided to co-opt him in order to control him and gain control his constituency. A move that ultimately backfired in the craziest of ways.

So, depending on your definition. Hitler was always a despot and only for the briefest period of time a politician.

[Predicto]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law