In the prize rings of public disputation, I’m not tagged as a "No más," kind of guy. But like Robert Duran, the Panamanian boxer who probably didn’t actually say those words but really did give up during his 1980 championship fight with Sugar Ray Leonard, I think I’ve had enough.
Driving home from work last week, I was behind an S. U. V. sporting a collection of anti-Obama bumper stickers, one of which employed mock bullet holes to suggest "The Worst President Ever!" is a proper target for Pennsylvania riflemen. A day or two later, a newspaper informed me that the conservative idol, Rush Limbaugh, found lurking in the symbol of the Administration’s health care program a dark resemblance to a Nazi icon. Then, on a cable-news program, I watched footage of right-wingers at a town-hall meeting toting pictures of the president defaced with a Hitler mustache. Now I read a Sarah Palin tweet opposing a "death panel" to determine whether old people like me, or Down Syndrome kids like hers, should live.
To suggest the assassination of a president, to encourage people to believe that the subtext of medicine’s ancient caduceus floating above the American flag is like the Reichstag’s eagle clutching a swastika, to identify a democratically elected chief executive of the United States with a madman dictator who murdered millions, or to distort for political purposes so personal a challenge as the birth of one’s own disadvantaged child, strikes me as transgressions on the pale of civil debate. To say nothing of rational discourse.
Fifty-two summers ago, lawyer Joseph Welsh stood up to Saint Joe McCarthy, the fear-mongering senator from Wisconsin, and asked, "Have you no sense of decency . . . At long last, have you left no sense of decency? "
I know that in the marketplace of ideas no citizen of goodwill patronizes the stalls of hyperbole, hate, falsehood, racism, irrationality, or intemperance. And I give up on the notion that the acolytes of AM radio have anything to say to which the rest of us are any longer obliged to listen.
While I will not discount "the economic situation and desperation in their society that allowed a madman to rise to power," I would add that the same history book referred to by the person posting this comment would show that perceived solution to these problems offered by the Nazis and embraced by the masses in Germany was nationalism, racism and genetic purification through elimination. The term so loosely tossed about these days by Obama critics, "socialism," was not part of the formula for curing Germany's ills. From my view, this is what makes the Hitler calling so objectionable and misplaced, historically speaking. Yes, "Nazi" is a dirty word and then some, no more fairly applied to President Obama than it was applied to President George W. Bush. In the context of civic engagement and public discourse, we can do better.
just replace the word 'obama' with 'bush' and i bet you'd giggle at those bumper stickers.
and by the way, there's a whole lot more to this comparison between the obama administration's actions and pre-WWII germany that is valid, and worthy of discussion. don't just cry foul cause you heard the word 'nazi'. nazi is not just a dirty word. it is a political movement. look at history. look at that time period between WWI and WWII. any history book will show you that while Germany was a lot worse off then, than we are now, it was the economic situation and desperation in their society that allowed a madman to rise to power.
well, we're not in great shape economically, and people are nervous that it will get desperate. so, there is nothing wrong with looking back at history, especially to our darkest days, and holding ourselves up against that, and asking "are we there again?"
don't miss the real issue here by getting mad at the name-calling.
Nazi is not just a dirty word?
It must be that because it has four letters that I was misguided.
Nevertheless, the notion that there was in the Nazi movement something meritorious, seems to me obscene.
Though I understand your concern for taking the wrong path towards the future in times of despiration, and the justifiable concern that sweeping changes are probably not the most cautious route towards recovery, the attacks from the right have become much more dangerous than before.
Did people bring guns to debates in the past? Perhaps yes. Were they celebrated in the media? Probably not. Did people interrupt public discussion of sensitive issues by shouting down any new information until debate became futile? Certainly, happens all the time. Were they encouraged to do so nationwide? Of course (Civil Rights and Unionization debates come to mind). Did this ever help us reach a mutual understanding of the situation? Heck no.
In order to overcome our difficulties, we must first face what we fear rather than ratchet up the fear level. Declaring "SO AND SO IS A NAZI" might be cathartic and sum up your beliefs, but to do so OVER and OVER again in the partisan public media is immensely damaging to any resolution. Bullet Holes in the Bumper Sticker? Yes, heads of state have been burnt in effegy, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.
I think Standring’s point is not about the political divide, but about the vehemence of the attacks. I’m a life-long Democrat, but in 1974 I was ashamed at the gleeful celebration of some party members at Richard Nixon’s resignation. He was the President, and however wrong his actions, his position deserved respect. We lack respect today in the media and the political arena.
Mr. Welsh's comment perfectly expresses my feelings about the fear, anger and downright hatred we are hearing from extreme opponents of the president's policies. As Americans, as a nation, we must return to civilized discourse and work together to solve the nearly insurmountable problems facing us today.
Post new comment