Posted on 05/29/2003 12:22:42 PM PDT by doing my share
While I find those images on the Internet of a blunt little mustache digitally-scribbled onto President Bush's upper lip feeble and unhelpful, still, there are parts of Bush's character and behavior that strikingly resemble at least one major biographer's interpretation of Hitler. Ian Kershaw's two-volume life of Hitler puts great emphasis on his being a driving high-stakes gambler - with innate, animal-cunning about human psychology, few gifts of statesmanship or strategy, and little systematic learning - attributing most of his success and all of his failure to his compulsive quality.
When, for example, Bush waged his ferocious post-election pursuit of legitimacy through threats and court actions, finally securing appointment to office by America's Supreme Court, it resembled the way Hitler, never actually elected, worked ferociously behind the scenes and on the streets at a time of great political instability to secure appointment as Chancellor by President von Hindenburg.
Several observers have commented that Bush's recent stunt of flying to the deck of an aircraft carrier in order to make a televised speech might well have been copied directly from Hitler's flight to the gigantic Nuremberg rally, his plane dramatically circling in descent towards a million people gathered in barbarian tribute, his purpose being to make a filmed speech. Whether Bush's crowd consciously followed the script set down by Hitler nearly seventy years ago matters less than that the thinking is so similar, with the manipulation of dramatic, militaristic props for propaganda being identical.
Bush never goes anywhere where his stage crew has not first assembled giant flags as background. He always wears a sizeable American-flag pin on his lapel. This kind of totemic, obsessive use of flags was absolutely characteristic of Hitler.
Hitler was a troubled, difficult person, but there is no evidence of any genuine insanity or psychosis (see Dr. Fritz Redlich's excellent study, "Hitler, Diagnosis of a Destructive Prophet"). It is precisely this fact that made him, and makes those like him, all the more dangerous. It is easy to dismiss a genuine lunatic.
Given any circumstances other than those of the unique and troubled period in which he embraced German politics, Hitler would have been an utter failure, likely to be laughed off the stage with his sputtering, eye-bulging speech and fantasy claims. He had never, except for extremely brief and intermittent times, before entering politics in the revolutionary ruin that was post-war Germany, made an honest living.
There is a close parallel here with Bush. Except when friends of his powerful father made attractive, low-risk, undemanding opportunities available to him, young Bush was a failure. He demonstrated no business acumen, no academic application, and he did a lot of aimless drifting, much like Hitler's time in Vienna before the First World War. There are totally unexplained periods in Bush's early adult life, an extraordinary thing for an American national public figure.
Even as governor of Texas, Bush showed no skill other than the kind of animal cunning one associates with some of the nation's shabbiest politics. Many do not realize that the office of governor of Texas, despite sounding important, is a relatively weak office, so the people putting Bush forward at the time took a small risk of his doing any serious damage.
Bush was not a national figure when he was put up for the Republican presidential nomination. Yet, suddenly, he appeared on the national stage, pockets bulging with $77 million in campaign contributions, an amount that could render even Kermit the Frog a formidable opponent in America's phony, advertising- and marketing-drenched politics. Of course, as quickly as these funds were depleted, they were topped up again.
The support of German industrialists was an important part of Hitler's being able to sustain his slow rise to power. Many of these business people thought they would heavily profit from the success of the odd, theatrical little man they bankrolled. The one absolute certainty was that Germany under Hitler would rearm, massively and quickly, with lots of profitable contracts coming available. Bush's measures for defense and security after 9/11, almost instantly swelled to tumor-like masses, offer an unprecedented opportunity for well-positioned people to make new fortunes.
Bush's apparent ability to be charming face-to-face has been publicized by insiders wishing to humanize his public image. Well, that is a characteristic Hitler possessed in abundance: on the one hand, he could intimidate people with fits of horrifying anger, and yet, as many attested, he could be utterly charming. He could order wholesale murder and yet have a gracious, polite tea with his hardworking secretaries.
Of course, the sense of charm assumed you did not have to spend great periods of time with Hitler as did the captive members of his immediate party entourage. For them, Hitler was reduced to a boring, repetitive self-proclaimed expert on everything who insisted on discussing everything, endlessly. One can only imagine the tedious conversations of a Bush comfortable with his cronies over a charred cow down in Crawford. We actually got an unintended glimpse of this private world when the BBC "accidentally" ran some television shots of Bush before a big speech sharing the kind of gestures and comments to smiling flunkies one might expect from a small-town, grade-school basketball coach.
Bush has demonstrated his capacity for vicious anger a number of times, despite his handlers working very hard to hide this from the public. His response to the nomination challenge of John McCain was manic. His response to the rightful and fitting challenges of France or Germany to his Iraqi policies has been ugly, with pathetic factotum, Colin Powell, given the job of announcing various gibes, slights, and threats in the aftermath (Harry Belafonte's description of Powell, I regret to say, has proved devastatingly accurate).
The closest parallel to Hitler's behavior was in Bush's approach to Iraq. It is clear that he was determined - despite all facts contrary to his claims, despite the heroic efforts of weapons inspectors, despite the voice of most of the world's diplomatic community, and despite demonstrations by millions - to invade Iraq. The litany of false and even irrelevant claims made over and over combined with his lack of shame or embarrassment when found out time and again, closely mimics a behavior pattern of Hitler who more or less invented the "big lie" technique.
Even more closely resembling Hitler was Bush's insane rush towards a huge, high-stakes gamble on quick success in Iraq. He displayed not an ounce of statesmanship. It mattered not at all that he put the UN, NATO, and the EU through a crisis and embarrassed longstanding allies to get what he wanted. Had the invasion bogged down into bloody street-fights and large numbers of Americans been killed, Bush could not have survived the political results. This was the purest obsessive, go-for-broke gamble.
What we witnessed leading up to the invasion bore uncanny similarities to the Munich crisis of 1938, but not the ones so many American commentators point to about a weak-willed Chamberlain appeasing a brutal dictator. People seem to forget Bush was making the threats, not Hussein.
Hitler was going to invade the Czechs, and that was that, but he was willing to toy with war-weary Western statesmen, to gain a bit of time or psychological advantage, and to appear open to argument before hurling his divisions over the border. So, too, Bush paused in invading Iraq, allowing Western statesmen to argue their case a bit and make various proposals, but he never listened to them, only hoping he might gain a few more allies, a shred of legitimacy, or a bit of psychological advantage.
This provides a very good example of how we do not learn from history. We are most of us always looking for exactly the same lesson from a vaguely similar historical situation, much as generals are said always prepared to fight the last war. But history, as has been accurately observed, is a flowing river which is not the same when touched a second time. Current events are never quite parallel with those of an earlier time despite superficial similarities. However, human character, patterns of behavior, and human interactions are things that may be profitably studied, being constant enough to make valid comparisons over time.
Here, too, is an example of how history can be manipulated to abuse political opponents. Critics on the left, in opposing the invasion of Iraq, have been accused of supporting a dictator. This is nonsense, of course, but like many bits of propaganda that become lodged into day-to-day understanding through endless repetition on television and in newspapers, it is nevertheless a powerful nonsense.
Too many people do not understand that the preponderance of forces in Germany before the Second World War were for peace. Hitler sometimes spoke of peace eloquently, but, as we now know, he had a rather odd definition of the word. When it looked like Germany was on the brink of war, great waves of despair went through Germany. All the bands and panoply of Nazi propaganda could not cover up people's sullen reaction displayed even under dictatorship.
But when Hitler quickly defeated Poland and then quickly defeated France, the mood in Germany immediately changed. Hitler had achieved a relatively bloodless victory of stunning proportions. He became a hero, a national savior. And so with Bush's massive, high-tech assault on pathetic little Iraq. Anti-war feelings and demonstrations did not rise so suddenly at the start of the much greater conflict in Vietnam, but with a quick, safe victory (safe for Americans, that is), Bush has become something of a shining figure. So much so, that at a recent dinner, a single dinner, Bush raised $18 million in campaign funds.
Hitler's manipulation of the idea of peace is paralleled in Bush's manipulation of the idea of justice. Both are complete distortions. Bush's genuine feeling for justice was perhaps best captured during the election campaign with his smug, joking response to a question about a soul on death row in Texas. For those with acute perceptions, still not dulled on a steady diet of synthetic emotions and cardboard ideas from television and Hollywood, there could be no surer sign of how potentially dangerous this man is.
I must admit, I am enjoying the "freelance" zotters.
Yep. almost therapeutic, aint it?
"Mmmmmmm... ZOT!"
Fixed it for you. Now it's COMPLETELY accurate. The Rats can never give President Reagan credit where credit was due. Not only did they spend the entire 8 years of his presidency denying him credit for his achievements...they might be forced to concede that Clinton skated along on the effects of Reagan's economic policies. They would never allow that to happen.
Economically speaking, though the circumstances are quite different, President Bush faces a similar challenge in cleaning up the mess Clinton left behind as Reagan faced in the aftermath of the Carter fiasco. Menaing during Bush's second term, we should all be doing much better economically.
Economic Policies that were, in fact, so good, that the country still prospered economically for 7 years or so, even after the biggest tax hike in history in '93.
Of course, the tech boom helped the economy along, too, just as it sunk it the economy in '00 and '01.
We're just taking a break. I admit, I never read past the first, empty-rhetoric-filled sentence. Soon we'll be ready to re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-respond to these same tired allegations again.
Thank you for reminding us not to become complacent.
Yep. But then, many of Reagan's own policies were still in effect then. The first four years of Reagan's presidency weren't that great for many of us. We were coming out of a full-blown depression (thanks Jimmah) and many of Jimmy's failed policies were still in effect. During his second term, it was all Reagan policies in effect, and most of us (including me) did quite well.
Likewise, during Clinton's first term, most Reaganomic policies were still in effect and the economy was still enjoying the benefits. Clinton took credit for that. During Clinton's second term, Clintonomic polcies were in effect. The artificial tech bubble masked that but only for about two years. By 1998, some of us could see the signs of economic downturn and were flamed as gloom-and-doomers. By 2000, MANY people could see the downturn. In effect, Clintonomics failed almost as soon as it was implimented.
Clinton's policies were still in effect when GW took office. We're just beginning to get into the economic effects of Bush's policies. I'd like to see him get another term, because he is a strong adherant to Reagonomics (supply-side)
Final comment, liberals and liberal causes. This board was established for discussions by conservatives of events and concepts that are important to us. The media is dominated by liberals. The government is infested by liberals. Our educational institutions are overrun by liberals. The liberal viewpoint and liberal "debate" is forced upon us every day from every news broadcast, TV program, newspaper, school room, congressional debate, and on and on, ad infinitum. We are not suffering for a lack of liberal input. We do not need liberals coming in here to "inform" us or to "debate" with us on the need for so-called gay rights, abortion rights, gun-free rights, or to expand our minds to any other mushy liberal feel good concepts. There are no such rights in natural law, common law or the Constitution. We are well aware of your immoral and perverted desires, believe me. We do not need to hear it again. Your vanity posts on such subjects will likely get deleted, and you will likely get booted if you are a liberal and come in here thinking that we owe you a soapbox. This is not a government funded or approved project and we do not need to offer you equal time. If you are a liberal and want to post on FR (and several long-time posters are), you'd best watch your step and take care not to offend anyone, especially me. I have a very short fuse when it comes to tolerating anyone who wants to deprive me of my Constitutional rights, my God, my livelihood, the fruits of my labor, my children, my unborn grandchildren, my American Heritage, my freedom of association, my freedom or my Liberty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.