Hitler Democrats?

Hitler Democrats?
United Press International ^ | January 13 2004 | Peter Roff

Posted on 01/16/2004 6:40:05 PM PST by D.C. Media Hor

The Peter Principles: Hitler Democrats?

By PETER ROFF, UPI Senior Political Analyst

WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 (UPI) -- Almost every recent national campaign has included discussions of a targeted voter bloc that allegedly represented the key to victory.

One year it was soccer moms -- middle- to upper-income suburban women concerned about values issues such as education and abortion rather than pocketbook matters. In another election it was waitress moms -- single, working mothers living from paycheck to paycheck.

It was the so-called "angry white males" in 1994. These voters, lately renamed "NASCAR Dads," are auto-race loving, beer-guzzling, cigarette-smoking Midwestern and Southern family men who are increasingly alienated from the national Democrat Party on issues ranging from God to gays to guns.

None of these blocs represent party activists as much as they symbolize voters largely outside the traditional party structure whose participation in the election may play a key role in its outcome. In the current election there is a bloc, as yet unnamed, that has yet to receive the scrutiny it deserves, in part because its impact is hard to predict and in part because it is, by its nature, inflammatory. Call them "Hitler Democrats."

They exist mostly in cyberspace, a place that Howard Dean has shown to be increasingly important in modern campaigning.

They use the phrase BFEE -- for "Bush Family Evil Empire" -- in regular communication. They delve energetically into the allegations that the Bush family financed Hitler's rise to power. And, almost casually, as though it were the most natural thing in the world, they identify the similarities they see between George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler. For them, Bush's presidency represents the second coming of "the Third Reich."

National Review's Byron York is one of few journalists to look at the phenomena, investigating it for a September 2003 cover story that labeled them "the cutting edge of Bush-hating."

York looked at their Web sites and identified several of the more prominent members of their clique including actress-comedienne Janeane Garofalo, who once referred to the Bush administration as "the 43rd Reich."

In addition to what York found, there are sites like Buzzflash.com, considered by many to be the liberal alternative to the Drudge Report, which posted "a reader commentary" entitled "Bush and Hitler, Publicity Freaks" that opened with the line, "When our professional press (aka mainstream media) notes some eerie similarities, maybe its time to worry?"

Another Web site, Truthout.org, asked in one commentary, "So why, now, when I hear GWB's speeches do I think of Hitler?"

"I've seen nothing to eliminate the possibility that Bush is on the same course as Hitler," it continues. "The propaganda. The lies. The rhetoric. The nationalism ... (A)nyone who compares the history of Hitler's rise to power and the progression of recent events in the U.S. cannot avoid the parallels. It's incontrovertible."

While Web sites like these and others like them can be ascribed to the paranoid fringe of American politics, there are others that cannot because of the place they have claimed for themselves. MoveOn.org, a cyberspace group with a fat bankroll and agenda of driving Bush from office, recently sponsored a contest in which Americans were urged to produce and submit anti-Bush advertisements, with the winning spots to air on television the week of Bush's State of the Union address.

Two of the contest entries hit the "Bush-as-modern-Hitler" theme rather hard. In one, Bush was shown taking the oath of office, chants of "Sieg Heil!" in the background, with accompanying graphics reading, "What were war crimes in 1945 is foreign policy in 2003."

The ads were condemned by the Republican National Committee, which called on the nine Democrats running for president to condemn them. None did. But Jack Rosen, president of the American Jewish Congress -- hardly a group in the GOP's hip pocket -- did, calling them "inexcusable" and saying, "Comparing the commander in chief of a democratic nation to the murderous tyrant Hitler is not only historically specious, it is morally outrageous."

MoveOn.org tried to deflect responsibility for the spots, claiming the contest was a mechanism for public and that they were not responsible for the content. Besides, they pointed out, the ads in question did not win the contest.

That is all beside the point. MoveOn.org now occupies a position of influence on the left rivaling the influence the once-mighty Christian Coalition had on the right. The bar is now lower because MoveOn.org can no longer be considered a fringe group -- they have too much money and too much influence -- even if they continue to exist outside the formal party structure.

The silence of party leaders is quite possible a reflection of MoveOn.org's newfound political power. Billionaire George Soros, who has contributed several million to the group's efforts and may turn over millions more before November, did condemn the ads in a speech Monday, saying he would never make such a comparison because "I lived under Nazism and I know the difference."

But Soros too bears the burden of responsibility for the climate he has played a role in creating. In November, the Washington Post quoted Soros himself making a Bush-Nazi analogy: "'When I hear Bush say, You're either with us or against us, it reminds me of the Germans.' It conjures up memories, he said, of Nazi slogans on the walls."

The deafening silence is a reflection of MoveOn.org's newfound political power and, in a larger sense, of the power of the Internet users who flaunt the Bush-Hitler comparison. With millions of dollars, thousands of man-hours and an abundance of secrecy available to them, individually and collectively, these folks who are committed to Bush's defeat in 2004 by whatever rhetorical means necessary represent a new power in U.S. politics. It would be foolish for the established structure to antagonize them.

Nevertheless, the comparisons and the proliferation of those making the comparisons are disturbing. Responsible leaders should make a point of denouncing it as a matter of principle -- over politics.

(The Peter Principles explores issues in national and local politics, the American culture and the media. It is written by Peter Roff, UPI political analyst and 20-year veteran of the Washington scene.)