The Fourth Reich?

I think not
#1
Charles Allen Glenn

Some comparisons between the U.S. and Nazi Germany have been appearing for quite some time within the left-wing lunatic fringe, and even occasionally in the mainstream media, and it?s time to put the comparison to the test ? is Bush another Hitler? Is the U.S. the new Nazi Germany?

When the cogent left (as opposed to the loony one) makes the comparison, they aren?t proposing that the Bush administration is the perfect parallel to the Nazi?s, only that there are some striking similarities. For example, the left doesn?t compare Hitler?s notoriously effective public speaking skills to Bush?s; nor do they claim that Bush has attempted to "nationalize" U.S. industry, ban specific books or films, physically strong-arm political opponents, write any racist tomes about American superiority, ideologically alienate a segment of the population, or call for the extradition or internment of Muslim-Americans.

So what does the left mean when they compare Bush to Hitler? Well, the coherent ones are referring to the conditions that led to the end of the Weimar Republic and the rise of the Nazi Party, when the militant right-wing pundits and activists accused the German left of being "soft," and of promoting a liberal, welfare-state mentality that would strip Germany of its national pride and historically powerful role in international affairs.

The reasoning is that, like 1920?s Germany, the U.S. is becoming increasingly polarized. On the one side are the liberals, who want peace and prosperity for Americans and the rest of the world. On the other are the right-wing warhawks, intent on forcing the U.S. into an imperialist role in world affairs. The rhetoric, say the modern leftists, is very similar ? they cite examples of Bush?s tendency to paint issues in black and white, to divide the world into good and evil, and to prefer the use of military force over diplomacy.

Bush?s use of military force, specifically in Iraq, is central to the modern leftist?s comparison of Bush to Hitler. The idea that we must "take the fight to the enemy," smacks of Hitlerian expansionism to them ? only slightly less blatant than annexing Poland. In their view, Hitler?s reasoning was similar, if not identical ? these "soft" neighboring states posed and ideological and political threat, and in order to protect themselves, Germany had to undertake a thorough political remodeling of Western Europe (and ultimately, the world). Likewise, Bush has called for the remaking of the Middle East in our image, and has tasked our military to carry it out.

The leftist pundits of today claim that the Bush Doctrine is based on the same type of reasoning as Hitler?s. They may disagree with one another over whether Bush is driven by greed, conspiratorial Jewish cabals, racism, or that he?s simply a moron ? the two things they agree on is that the Bush Doctrine is misguided and that it will do more harm than good.

So the comparison boils down to this ? Bush is like Hitler because he uses language that appeals to our militant instincts, paints his liberal political opposition as soft or weak, and makes the enemy out to be utterly evil (and ourselves as utterly good by default); and because he is too eager to use military force against a vaguely-defined, largely hidden enemy.

Unfortunately for the left, this analysis is problematic. Germany, circa 1923, was reeling from the worst military defeat in its history and some of the harshest sanctions ever imposed on a vanquished foe. Despite the sanctions, however, there was no monitoring of Germany ? no occupation that would have given the German populace the realization that they were well and truly defeated. Nazism was born in a breeding ground of unemployment, poverty, besmirched national pride, bitterness and envy. There was a power vacuum in 1920?s Germany, and the Nazi?s rushed in to fill it, promising a salve to all the ills and national glory on the horizon.

The Bush Doctrine, on the other hand, was born in the wake of the tragic events of September 11th, and bears far more similarity to the Democratic Party platform of the 1950?s and 1960?s than it does to fascism. Compare John F. Kennedy?s understanding of the role of the United States in international affairs:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty."

? to Hitler?s reasoning:

"And I can fight only for something that I love, love only what I respect, and respect only what I at least know."

The recession the U.S. suffered through for the past three years was one of the shortest and least severe in our history, and it followed an unprecedented 20-year economic boom. The middle class in the U.S. had grown steadily, as had the nation?s GDP, for more than half a century. The economic conditions of post-WWI Germany and post-9/11 America could hardly have differed more.

Furthermore, what many on the left fail to grasp is that the United States has never and will never tolerate anything resembling fascism for very long. It is antithetical to our psyche, and it is purely a product of Europe ? European history, European culture, and European psychosis. No matter how many movie tickets Michael Moore sells, Americans on the whole are smart enough to tell the difference between a proportional response to the horrific attack on 9/11, and imperialistic land-grabbing.

Finally, Americans also understand the distinction between patriotism and jingoism. Unlike many on the left, they don?t consider the terms synonymous. Americans sent hundreds of thousands of young men to Europe so that they could die protecting it in two consecutive world wars, never questioning the rightness of our cause ? and yet the nation shuddered at the hawkish, post-war remarks of George S. Patton, and promptly demanded his resignation.

The most significant difference between the right and the left today is that, unlike the left (and unlike their allies in Europe), the right has faith and confidence in the judgment of the American people.
 
cool_jedi
#2
Its the whermacht's evil ploy for revenge. The remaining whermacht are very jealous and very hungry for fresh human meat. These desperate fools who are in their 80's and 90's can't live with peace and dispise it. The whermacht hates humans and is very jealous of humans because humans understand love and compassion. whermacht is but a primitative lifeform lower than that of an animal. They are eating people and burning villages as we speak!! The remnant whermacht are most likely shifting our attention to the US as to distract the humans from their evil plans. We must stop the remnants now!!!
The world is unstable and bad luck is happening to us all and it is all because of the remnant whermacht. For example, if I can't get a date, it is the whermacht's fault because they have bad luck. If I trip and fall, it is also the whermacht's fault because the whermacht remnants are bad luck. After the war the surviving whermacht got so hungry for human blood that they consumed and savagely devoured their offspring and even that wasn't enough for them. They still want more.
 
Jay
#3
"The most significant difference between the right and the left today is that, unlike the left (and unlike their allies in Europe), the right has faith and confidence in the judgment of the American people."

I like that line...it's just so true.
 
Reverend Blair
#4
If the right has so much faith in the judgement of the people, why are they putting dissenters in "free speech zones"...little more than cages. Why does Bush continue to lie to the people? Why are they instituting more and more laws that curtail personal rights and freedoms? Why are they so secretive? Why are they so unwilling to accept criticism?

Those aren't the actions of a government that trusts the judgement of the people, those are the actions of a government that is afraid of the people.
 
I think not
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

Those aren't the actions of a government that trusts the judgement of the people, those are the actions of a government that is afraid of the people.

Very good Revy. I agree 100%. And so they should.
 
Jay
#6
I think it is inherent in the philosophy of the right.

This administration seems to leave something to be desired. Agreed.

3 1/2 more years, that's not so bad.

Also the Canadian government has implemented the same personal rights curtailing, and they aren't considered "right".
 
Reverend Blair
#7
Quote:

Also the Canadian government has implemented the same personal rights curtailing, and they aren't considered "right".

Actually, they are considered "right". It was Anne McLellan who said, "There will always be a terrorist threat." It was Jean Chretien who admitted that even peaceful demonstrations could fall under the anti-terrorist act. The Alliance/Conservatives criticized the Liberals for not taking away even more rights and freedoms. It was the NDP, specifically Bill Blaikie, who first stood up to oppose the act.

Quote:

I think it is inherent in the philosophy of the right.

You might think that, but there is no evidence of it within your lifetime or mine. It has consistently been the right that has sought to curtail rights and freedoms while the left has championed more rights and freedoms.
 
Jay
#8
I don't consider high taxes to be a "right".

The right invented these freedoms.

Can you imagine what the American Constitution would look like if the left invented it....
 
Reverend Blair
#9
Quote:

Can you imagine what the American Constitution would look like if the left invented it.

The left did invent it. The founding fathers of the US were considered liberals in their time.



Quote:

The right invented these freedoms.

No they did not. The right wanted a monarchy, either run from Europe or set up in the US with their own king.

Quote:

I don't consider high taxes to be a "right".

Check your taxes since 1982. The Conservatives raised personal income taxes and instituted the GST. This shifted the overall tax base from being about 1/2 corporate and 1/2 personal to being 75% personal and 25% corporate. In other words the Conservatives gave their cash donors a tax break and made you pay the difference.
 
Jay
#10
"No they did not. The right wanted a monarchy, either run from Europe or set up in the US with their own king. "

Ok then...the left and right have done a complete turn around.

The left (today’s left) would never have left us with freedom of speech and the right to bear arms and free enterprise...

'82 was a long, long time ago....

The GST replaced hidden taxes and it brought them up to the front. The consumer pays all taxes in the end....
 
Reverend Blair
#11
Quote:

Ok then...the left and right have done a complete turn around.

Nope. Look at the "leftist" institutions (most are actually politically neutral, but the right hates them because they speak for rights and freedoms and refuse to spin for the restriction of those rights and freedoms) that are villified by the right...the ACLU, PBS, any sort of arts council, CBC, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, unions etc. I can type for hours here...the list is long.
 
Jay
#12
"PBS, any sort of arts council, CBC, unions."

These aren’t rights though....maybe this is where the problem is.
 
Reverend Blair
#13
Those are all institutions that support and encourage rights and freedoms through either their programming (CBC and PBS) including the presentation of alternate viewpoints, or through direct support.
 
Jay
#14
Just because the "right" doesn't support PBS, doesn't mean we don't like freedom of speech.

Because we do believe in freedom of speech, we don't support tax dollars going to institutions like the CBC. We call that government propaganda, and not a fair playing field.
 
Reverend Blair
#15
Just because you call it that doesn't make it so.

I also listed a hell of a lot more than just PBS and CBC, and stating quite clearly that there more than I had listed. What conservative institutions are there that support rights and freedoms, Jay? The NRA? Sorry, the US is the only place on earth where owning an automatic weapon or a saturday night special is considered a right.
 
Jay
#16
It still is a right, one the left wants desperately to take away.

Our institutions are things like freedom of speech, State vs. Federal jurisdictions (and the reasons they exist)
The 1st amendment.....voting....abolishing of slavery. Power to the people...no taxation without representation. We are the reason you don’t see soldiers all over the place, etc, etc.

We don't need things like the CBC to prop up our ideals...they are timeless, and worth dying to protect, unlike the CBC…
 
Reverend Blair
#17
Quote:

It still is a right, one the left wants desperately to take away.

No it is not a right. There is nothing in the Canadian charter that grants a right to bear arms. The reason for it in the US has been so twisted that the original intent there has been lost and it arguably has the opposite effect.

Quote:

Our institutions are things like freedom of speech, State vs. Federal jurisdictions (and the reasons they exist)

Freedom of speech? It is the right that would do away with peaceful protest, ban books and works of art that they do not agree with, tell people who they can marry, and marginalise any group that they do not like.

The right has no ideals left beyond their never-ending search for increased personal wealth for a select few and the imposition of a virtual corporate oligarchy over the betterment of the population as a whole.
 
Jay
#18
Oh well, it's not something were ever going to agree on.

The debate will come up else where I'm sure.

Variety is the spice of life. 2 shakes of Jay, and a dab of Rev, makes the world go round…

(You can throw in an old onion like ITN too)
 
I think not
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

(You can throw in an old onion like ITN too)


 
jimmoyer
#20
Or how about canned corn beef hash ?
That would be me.

Or am I better suited as a vegetable ?

Hmmm...

Ruh row.

Incoming !!!
 

Similar Threads

24
Happy Fourth of July!!!
by gopher | Jul 4th, 2008
11
Living in the Fouth Reich
by mrmom2 | Jun 15th, 2005
70
The Rise Of The Fourth Reich
by moghrabi | Nov 24th, 2004