“You know who else liked dogs? Adolph Hitler, that’s who!”
As
the wheels of politics grind steadily forward, and the 2016 presidential
campaign begins to warm
|
Hitler Cat looks like Hitler, and must therefore be stopped! |
up, it’s clear we’re going to start seeing the old
memes with a fresh veneer. Chief among
them, an oldie but a moldy, the Hitler/Nazi parallel argument. It’s so old that we can trace it back to the
pre-Mad Men times of 1951 when
philosopher Leo Strauss (a conservative, by the way) coined the term “Reductioad Hitlerum”. The dog Latin reflects the fallacious
reasoning that occurs when a position, any position (seriously, any position),
is compared to that held by Hitler or the Nazi Party, and therefore is wrong,
bad and/or evil.
The
argument is so tiresome that it received a second summarization in 1990 by Mike
Godwin who coined Godwin’s Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the
probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
The
fallacy is not only ludicrous, it’s also ludicrously dangerous. It does nothing to advance a discussion, it
does everything to shut down an exchange of ideas, and it belittles the horrors
suffered during the Holocaust/Shoah. This
isn’t a matter of simple semantics, but of the specifics of the parallel being
drawn to Hitler and the Nazi party. Not
every time, mind you, but about 99.44% the “argument” is an overly simplistic
parallel, generally based on a loose link that immediately creates a false
dichotomy of arguments: Us (good guys) vs. Them (bad guys).
|
Hitler Dog is cure, therefore your argument is invalid. |
It’s
so simplistic that we can apply it to just about anyone. For example, the Nazi Party’s 25-Point
Program, which helped usher them into power, stood on various planks held in
common with the current Republican Party (hold those hate mails, conservatives,
the liberals have theirs coming). This
includes point #11 “Abolition of unearned incomes.” Essentially, what Republicans define as
“entitlements”. From the 2012 Republican
Party Platform we can read about the evils of “entitlements” no less than nine
times, where they also call for their abolition.
In
addition, there are these lovely gems:
Point #16, “We
demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation . . .”
Point # 7 “We
demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a
livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible. . . . then
the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the
Reich.”
Point #23 “We
demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press.”
Point # 24 “We
demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so
long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the
Germanic race.”
From
all of this, we could make the overly simplistic statement that Republicans are
Nazis because they hold these five planks (at least) in common with our
jack-booted friends. But let’s not stop there.
There are twenty-five of these planks too choose from, and my mother
always taught me waste not, want not. So,
for my good friends in the Democratic Party, don’t start throwing those
swastikas ninja stars at your political enemies just yet. Remember your own Nazi Party parallels:
Point #9 “All
citizens must have equal rights and obligations.”
Point #14 “We
demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.”
Point #15 “We
demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.”
Point #20 “The
state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole
national education program . . .”
Point #21 “The
State is to care for the elevating national health . . .”
Gasp! That’s five planks that align perfectly with
the Democrats. Now should we go forward
and draw the conclusion that anyone affiliated with the donkey is a Nazi? What do we do about those big elephant
Republicans and their evil plots to take over the tri-county area!?
|
Fact: 6 million Jews were murdered
Fact: 5 million other "undesirables" were also murdered |
This
is exactly why the Hitler/Nazi parallel argument is both foolish and
detrimental to say the least. However
misguided Republicans and Democrats are (or seem to be) there are two problems
with drawing an immediate parallel with the Nazis and Hitler that falls flat
under even the most rudimentary of observations. Republican/Democratic political agenda and
social philosophy has nothing to do with those that drove Hitler and the Nazi
Party. Absolutely nothing. Hitler’s regime was one based on fear and
hatred. It delved deep into the human
psyche, dredged up naked filth, and weaponized it to seize power. Hitler and the Nazis pointed the finger at
ethnic and religious groups, claimed those groups were the root cause of all
the country’s ills, and then actually went forward and acted on that concept,
killing millions.
So
yes, folks, if you’ve used, endorsed, or shared a Hitler/Nazi parallel, most
likely you have oversimplified the matter, which has nothing to do with you
being a simple man with simple thoughts and writing simple words. This is exactly why, 99.44% of the time, any
link between Hitler or the Nazis is completely irrelevant to an honest
discussion on politics and society (or dogs).
The true issues are only being linked by seeming parallels, usually a
similar quote or a chance similarity in images, and not by any kind of review
of historical underpinnings based on stated political agenda and the driving
social philosophy.
|
Don't even bother arguing with these children. Don't. |
Those
things, of course, require effort.
There
are still times when a “that’s rather Nazi of you” might actually be
appropriate, so here are some rules to follow when getting ready to play the
Hitler card (any 3 out of 5 will do) in order to end the conversation, win the
discussion, and prove your intellectual superiority:
1. Are the
followers/leaders of the group admirers of Nazi principles, Fascist principles
and/or Adolph Hitler?
2. Has one (or
more) of the group’s leaders adopted the nickname “Hitler” as Chenjerai
“Hitler” Hunzvi did?
3. Does the
group promote the reading of “Mein Kampf” as a “good basis” for understanding
their agenda, rather than the cautionary writings of a dark and dangerous mind?
4. Has the group
attempted to diminish, deny or disregard the Holocaust/Shoah, or defend a
policy of genocide? (Fact: Six million-plus Jews died.)
5. Is there a
stated belief in strong, autocratic rule, while at the same time decrying a
specific ethnic population (Jews, Muslims, gays, hippies, Twihards, etc.) and
urging their expulsion or extinction?
Bonus
points if you can get all five!
It’s
not enough for an individual, group or even political party to simply want
increased gun control (or gun elimination) to render them “Nazis”. They can’t just support/criticize unions,
birth control, or Rockstar Energy drinks to earn the mantle of the next Adolph
Hitler. In order for us to draw a true
comparison between the historic regime of darkest, 100%, pure, unadulterated
and uncut, lab-purified evil and a modern equivalent, there has to be more than
just a disagreement of opposing opinions.
If you can’t say “yes” to the questions above, if it’s not a joke
amongst friends, then just say “no” to the “Reductio ad Hitlerum”.