I’ve been waiting for Katherine to blog this (she’s the one of our triumvirate who found it first, after all), but I guess that she isn’t and I’m already starting to see grumblings that the Right isn’t jumping on this one en masse, so we might as well get going: Godwinization is Godwinization, folks. Ralph Peters to the contrary, Howard Dean is not Hitler, either, and trying to tag him with that smear is not acceptable discourse. Calling him a Communist is not acceptable discourse, either. I don’t know what Peters’ problem is – I suspect that there’s a personal issue going on there – but he did my side of the spectrum no favors this day with this article, which is both incorrect and offensive. Damn near libelous, in fact (sayeth the nonattorney with two lawyer coblogger-types).
Moe
Don’t know libel law except from People v. Larry Flynt, but if it’s a public figure there’s a higher standard and there has to be a real possibility that people will believev you. So not so much.
I knew you wouldn’t approve, of course (unless it’s satire–in which case it’s still very clumsy and not so funny). I prefer not to be asked for an individualized denunciation every time someone on my side says something stupid, so I don’t ask others. Anyway, your party leaders give me plenty of fodder for things to denounce.
Bush/Hitler comparisons?
Over at Tacitus and Drudge much foaming at the mouth is occurring over ads submitted to the Bush in 30 Seconds contest. I noticed that of all the conservatives I read, only Dan Drezner has so far had the integrity…
“I prefer not to be asked for an individualized denunciation every time someone on my side says something stupid, so I don’t ask others.”
Same here – and I’m no more likely to make a future habit out of it than you are – but given the moveon.org story it’s not so unreasonable that at least one contemporary (and particularly obnoxious) Republican Godwinization should be singled out for criticism, also. For my own pride, you understand. 🙂
As the person posting the linked grumblings in question, I feel I should clarify.
I don’t think any of us in West Blogistan expect individual, autographed denunciations of every stupid thing the far right says, just as I don’t feel the need to regularly apologize for the likes of Michael Moore and ANSWER.
I think what yanked my chain hard, in this case, was the juxtaposition of the RNC and every major right-wing mouthpiece shrieking at the top of their lungs and devoting so much virtual ink to what amounted to two entries out of 1,500–entries which had already been voted down into oblivion on the MoveOn site–and then the same day, reading this equally Godwinistic hit job from a /different/ right-wing mouthpiece.
Or to put it in perspective, it’s like Dean supporters (of which I am one) yowling about the nasty attacks by other candidates and then turning around and saying the same shite about Kerry and Gephardt.
Godwinizing Dean
MoveOn.org’s Bushitler is sick rhetoric, but Ralph Peters’ anti-Dean tirade in Monday’s New York Post isn’t much better. I’m not a great admirer of the Dean campaign, but casually tossing around words like “Gestapo,” “Brownshirts,” “Goebbels,” “Lenin,”…
2 out of 1500–wow. Were there other entries that were filtered out before posting? Did they review entries individually before posting? If the answers are “no and no”, the NY Post is way more responsible than MoveOn is.
The Nazi comparisons are over the top, and only kill the buzz, to use less inflamatory violent-speak. On the other hand, people tempt others toward dramatic analogy. I’ve commented all over blogosphere that “power” is a recurring emphasis that Howard Dean makes; that he is peddling power to the Deaniacs. I suggest this is what makes them so intense in their following. He was at it again in Iowa with his closing remarks at the debate. It reminds me of something, but I just can’t quite put my finger on it.
Katherine–You mean “responsible” as in “to blame,” right? Not “responsible” as in “acting responsibly.”
If Ralph Peters didn’t exist, we’d have to invent him, if only to afford us the opportunity to counter the maroons who lob the Hitler tag from the Left. Or maybe we’re better off ignoring both.
Yes, responsible as in to blame. While I am annoyed by the RNC’s effectiveness in playing the victim when they control all branches of government–ads are not comments sections & should be monitored before being posted.
But like Harley said. I think liberals and conservatives ought to expect more of each other than to say that “yessiree, it is stupid to compare politician X to Adolf Hitler”–and if blogs are to be at all useful or interesting, we should probably devote less attention to the “random stupid people act stupid!” stories.
Peters and moveon.org deserve equal shares of criticism. Over in Tac’s comment threads, not one conservative agreed with Peters’ comments. Yet, there were several from the Left who thought the comparisons of Bush and Hitler were apt. Why?
Probably because there are /valid/ comparisons that can be drawn, particularly between the mood of contemporary American and Germany in the 1930s, and on the Bush family’s early connections to Nazi Germany.
Unfortunately, because Hitler and the Nazis are such an extreme and polarizing subject, and because the atrocities committed in the Holocaust are so vastly beyond the scope of being compared to anything contemporary, it limits the utility of drawing any otherwise valid comparisons. Through direct application of Godwin’s Law, it renders ineffective and absurd any point one might’ve been trying to make.
People who are attempting to make these comparisons do not seem to realize that the points they are trying to make are far better served by avoiding Hitler analogies altogether and spending a good bit of time reading Dave Neiwert’s Rush, Newspeak and Fascism essay. Neiwert himself courts Godwin with his Bush, the Nazis and America, but does so with a serious treatment of the issue that avoids facetious and ad hominem allegations, debunking quite a few of the common ones, and examines things in a light that I feel more people should.
Maybe they ate some bad oysters. Maybe because the preferred cheap and stupid attacks on liberals are still “Communist!” and “Saddamite!” while the preferred cheap and stupid attacks on conservatives are “Fascist!” and “Nazi!”. Maybe you’re not characterizing what people said with perfect accuracy. Maybe you guys are smarter and fairer. Maybe because rightish posters responded after condemning the MoveOn ad, so you’d look stupid AND hypocritical, as opposed to just stupid, by defending beters.
But my real answer is: I don’t know why, nor do I care very much. If you think it’s symptomatic of broad trends on The Right and The Left, you need to look further than one blog comment threads, because we could play that game till 2010 and it would accomplish nothing.
“beters” should be “Peters”.
Catsy, way to repudiate the MoveOn contest ads with faint praise — it totally undermines your authority to complain about Peters. As for citing Neiwert, his exposure to the dregs of society while covering right-wing domestic terrorism (think skinheads, neo-Nazis, separatists, and the Klan) has left him paranoid and conspiracy-mongering about the secret eliminationist impulses that lurk in the heart of all right-wingers. He doesn’t prove your point, unless your point is that there are some liberals who blindly hate Republicans.
Catsy, way to repudiate the MoveOn contest ads with faint praise — it totally undermines your authority to complain about Peters.
Hardly. Peters penned an entire column filled with nothing but ad hominem attacks on Howard Dean based on spurious, baseless, and obviously rhetorical comparisons between Dean and Hitler. The one MoveOn ads I saw attempted to make equally spurious and over-the-top comparisons between Bush and Hitler.
The difference here–and there /is/ a difference, contrary to what you’d like to think–is that valid Nazi and fascist parallels /can/ be drawn against much of the right’s rhetoric towards dissenters against the war, the steady encroachment upon our civil liberties, and some of the more egregious tactics that the GOP uses to consolidate its base of power.
Discussing the facts that underly these arguments is not, and should not, be beyond the pale. Where the two MoveOn ads erred was not in the points they chose to make, but in the over-the-top and extremely offensive imagery they chose to do so–imagery which tried to make the false equation that Bush /is/ Hitler, or that our foreign policy is just like that of the Nazis.
These equivalencies are outrageous nonsense, and they should be repudiated by anyone on the left with any sense. What they should not do in process, however, is let Godwin’s Law and common courtesy prevent them from raising /valid/ criticism, properly researched and put in the correct context.
If you read what I wrote as “faint praise” for the MoveOn ads, I suggest you go back and re-read it.
As for citing Neiwert, his exposure to the dregs of society while covering right-wing domestic terrorism (think skinheads, neo-Nazis, separatists, and the Klan) has left him paranoid and conspiracy-mongering about the secret eliminationist impulses that lurk in the heart of all right-wingers.
Standard Operating Procedure: when you can’t attack the arguments, attack the messenger. Instead of considering that the breadth of Neiwert’s experience on the matter might mean he knows what he’s talking about, you assume it has jaded him beyond the ability to be taken seriously.
The fact is, both the articles in question are exhaustively researched and well-founded in their conclusions. From your response, I somehow doubt you’ve read either.
“From your response, I somehow doubt you’ve read either.”
I have read both, and I am in full agreement with Matthew’s stated opinion about Neiwert and his fears. I’m sure that he spent a good deal of time on his essay, but it exists to reaffirm Neiwert’s assumptions, not prove them. Or so my own take on the thing indicated.
Moe
PS: While we are on the subject, blanket attacks against the Right are treated in much the same way that blanket attacks against the Left are: that is to say, as being impolite and unwelcome. I recognize that this may not have been explicitly stated in the past, so I will simply indicate that you should show a bit more precision in your future criticisms, please.
And no, this is not a subject for further discussion.
While we are on the subject, blanket attacks against the Right are treated in much the same way that blanket attacks against the Left are: that is to say, as being impolite and unwelcome. I recognize that this may not have been explicitly stated in the past, so I will simply indicate that you should show a bit more precision in your future criticisms, please.
That sounded like a warning. I invite you to explain to me what, in all of the above that I wrote, was a “blanket attack on the right”. If you are laying down a policy stance and taking the usual moderator’s position of not discussing policy in public, you are welcome to email me instead: sdle {at} ayashi [dot] net.
Catsy, I’ve read Neiwert’s pieces, I’ve debated him on his pieces, and he’s a conspiracy-monger who happens to write really well and project his fearseven better. We had those on my side of the aisle back under Clinton — you know, the fellas who said Clinton was programmed by USSR back when he visited the Soviet Union and that national health care was Clinton’s first step towards Communist dictatorship. They were nuts, Neiwert’s nuts. End of story.
Whereas I think Neiwert raises a number of very valid points. I don’t agree with all of his conclusions, but I think many of them are very well-researched and grounded in fact. I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree.
“I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree.”
Fair enough.