Posted on 08/11/2009 4:01:20 PM PDT by SJackson
WASHINGTON – During live television coverage of the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, novelist Gore Vidal famously called William F. Buckley a “crypto-Nazi.”
Buckley later said: “I do not believe that anyone thought me a Nazi because Vidal called me one, but I do believe that everyone who heard him call me one without a sense of shock, without experiencing anger, thinks more tolerantly about Nazism than once he did, than even now he should.”
In recent weeks, left and right have employed the Vidal tactic. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused town-hall protesters of “carrying swastikas,” leaving the impression they were proud Nazis — when, in fact, a few protesters carried signs accusing Barack Obama of having Nazi aims (bad enough).
Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, declared the protesters guilty of “Brown Shirt tactics.” Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., compared America under Obama to Germany in the 1930s. Rush Limbaugh talked of “similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi Party in Germany.”
The accusation is a staple of American T-shirt and bumper-sticker political culture, found too often at liberal anti-war protests and conservative tea parties. Anyone with a black felt pen, and the ability to draw a Hitler moustache on a poster, can make this witty, trenchant political statement. Michael Moore compared the Patriot Act to “Mein Kampf.” Al Gore warned of “digital Brown Shirts.”
This rhetorical strategy is intended to convey intensity of conviction, as in, “I am very, very, very serious, you Nazi jerk.”
Actually, it is a lazy shortcut to secure an emotional response. Worse than that, it is an argument that puts an end to all argument. What discourse is possible with the spawn of Hitler? And when someone is unjustly accused of Nazi tactics or sympathies, what response can we expect other than Buckley’s outrage? Let the head knocking begin.
The Vidal tactic undermines the “special reverence we need to feel for that which is hateful.” Nazism is not a useful symbol for everything that makes us angry. It is a historical movement, unique in the ambitions of its cruelty.
Those who doubt this uniqueness should read Saul Friedlander’s “The Years of Extermination,” which records the Nazi terror with the same meticulousness that the Germans displayed in producing it. Nazism was the “beard game,” in which the beards and sidelocks of Jews were pulled off or set afire before audiences of cheering soldiers. It was the practice of making elderly Jews dance around a fire of burning Torah scrolls. It was whole orphanages deported to death camps, and pits full of corpses, and ancient communities erased from human memory, and death factories issuing a thick smoke of souls, and a mother trading her gold ring for a glass of water to give her dying child.
Many who study these events think silence the only appropriate response. “There is nothing,” says scholar Lawrence Langer, “to be learned from a baby torn in two or a woman buried live.”
But it is our nature to attempt to wrestle meaning from catastrophe. So we draw lessons about the poison of racism, the dangers of blind obedience to authority, the corruption of grand schemes of social purity, the shallowness of civilization in “civilized” nations, and the hatred hiding within ordinary men and women.
These lessons are relevant to politics. But they are trivialized when applied to Obama’s health insurance reform plan or the conduct of disorderly town-hall protesters. The burning of the Reichstag and Kristallnacht are not arguments against a single-payer health plan or against the Patriot Act.
For the survivors of Nazism, memory is a kind of sacred duty. The Vidal tactic desacralizes those memories – shrinking them to the size of our political agendas and robbing them of their power to shock and teach. The history of those times should be approached with fear and trembling, not mocked with metaphor.
The Holacaust is a product of the ideology of the NSDAF, but it was not the only one. Another was the o completion of the state control of the German people that began with the Prussianization of Germany. Once that was achieved, any thing could be done. The Nazi” New Deal” made the German people into the compliant slaves of Adolph Hitler.
“undermines the “special reverence we need to feel for that which is hateful.” Nazism is not a useful symbol for everything that makes us angry. It is a historical movement, unique in the ambitions of its cruelty.”
I commented elsewhere that it is a form of Holocaust denial.
Let me clarify. The result of its misuse and overuse is a collective minimization, a societal immunization to its horrors. It numbs us. We lose the “special reverence.”
Actually, Nazism was also a slickly packaged politician with a, for-the-most-part benign-sounding name (national socialism) and program, lead by a charismatic spokesman. Its following didn’t grow by making old men dance around burning Torah scrolls, but by colorful rallies and stirring speeches, by peaceful boycotts of Jewish stores and by the passage of laws. To claim that Nazism hit the ground running as a blatantly brutal and mendacious campaign of mass murder and all out war is a distortion of the historical record. It is entirely legitimate for Rush Limbaugh to compare Obama’s administration to that of the Nazis, so long as that comparison is factual and uses logic instead of sensationalism. Nazism, after all, started within the framework of a democracy, so it must be identified early while it can still be dealt with by democratic means. Thus, it may be imperative to call the Obamaniacs Nazis, if the facts and reasoning supports the charge.
The cheap Gore Vidal tactic, however, used neither logic nor facts. He was smearing an important intellectual and his ideas, while simultaneously exempting himself from any need to substantiate his charges solely by virtue of having committed that smear. Goebbels would have been proud.
Gore Vidal was repeating the big lie that the Left has been pushing since 1939; that Nazis are conservatives rather than leftists and socialists.
The terms right-wing and Nazi are mutually exclusive. But the leftists have successfully promoted an Orwellian “New Speak” “War is Peace” “Nazis are right-wingers” myth that we haven’t done enough to expose as the lie it is.
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.