The following is a chapter from the book
Phalluses of Logic: How to Know When Republicans Lie
Phalluses of Logic: How to Know When Republicans Lie
Hitler fallacy
Comparing an opponent or their ideas to Hitler or the Nazis.
AKA: Reductio ad Hitlerum, Argumentum ad Hitlerum, or
playing the Nazi card
The following scene is from the 1999 comedy film Office Space. Disgruntled employee Peter
(Ron Livingston) talks to Joanna (Jennifer Aniston) about her employer making
her wear decorative buttons called flair
as part of her uniform.
PETER: Doesn't it bother you that
you have to get up in the morning and you have to put on a bunch of pieces of
flair?
JOANNA: Yeah, but I'm not about to
go in and start taking money from the register.
PETER: Well, maybe you should. You
know, the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear.
JOANNA: What?
Do you enjoy reading books? Well so
did Hitler you fucking Nazi piece of shit. Hitler was also a vegetarian,
enjoyed painting, and hated cats. But sharing any of these traits does not mean
you're the reincarnation of Der Führer any more than a wheelchair makes you
Franklin D. Roosevelt or a Havana cigar makes you Winston Churchill.
Like the banana fallacy, this is
another specific version of false comparison that has taken on a life of its
own. In the Hitler fallacy, as you may have guessed, a person or their argument
is compared to Hitler or the Nazi party in an attempt to discredit them.
This fallacy was first described in
a 1951 article by philosopher and University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss.
It was popularized in 1953 after he wrote the book Natural Right and History.
Strauss writes, “A view is not refuted by the fact that it happens to have been
shared by Hitler.” For any audience, this one really can be difficult to accept
as a true fallacy. We see Nazis as a pure representation of evil. They’re even
the bad guys in every good Indiana Jones
movie (Remember in the movie when Hitler signed Indiana Jone’s dad’s journal? That was the best.)
However, comparisons to Hitler are
often a bit of a stretch. If you call someone a Nazi because they were a little
mean or strict, that doesn’t really compare to the realities of Nazi Germany.
For an example of a Nazi comparison that has little to no basis in reality,
we’ll go to someone who rarely concerns himself with reality anyway.
For Glenn Beck, making Nazi
comparisons is a favorite pastime. If you disagree with Beck, it’s probably
because you are in fact a filthy Nazi. Beck's list of Nazis-in-disguise include
President Obama, Al Gore, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, The Peace Corps,
ACORN, and a flight attendant who was once disrespectful to him.
To be perfectly clear, that last
one is not a joke. This isn’t the cliché comedy list that ends with a fake
example. In 2012, Beck complained that he was not given “courteous service” by
an American Airlines flight attendant who had previously been an Israeli
soldier. As for why he would be treated this way, Beck said “I don’t know why.”
Really? Not even a hunch? After making a living demonizing huge swaths of the
population, Beck can’t fathom any reason that someone might treat him unkindly.
Putting that enigma aside, here’s something else Beck had to say about the encounter.
He wondered if this flight attendant’s family ever had a similar experience “in
the dark years of Europe.”
Hmm. How does even the worst
inflight service warrant an allusion to Nazi Germany? We’ve all had bad flying
experiences, but rarely do we leave a plane thinking “So that’s what the Jews
went through. Now I understand.”
While Beck may think the true evil
of the Nazis was their poor customer service, not every comparison to Hitler is
so absurd and far-fetched. If someone is arguing in favor of something that
Hitler was well known for, and is one of the reasons he is so despised, then
the comparison seems more legitimate. If your opponent supports genocide, anti-Semitism,
and getting punched in the face by Captain America on the cover of a comic book,
then the comparison makes more sense. Not many American politicians can check
off all of those boxes, but what about these: anti-communist, xenophobia,
holding large rallies, releasing an autobiography for political and financial
gain, craving more power and less oversight, and appealing to the younger
generation. Many American politicians would fall into some or all of those
categories. Still, showing that someone has something in common with Hitler
does not mean they are necessarily bad or wrong. It certainly doesn’t mean they
are all together as bad or wrong as Hitler.
Before moving on, you’re probably
thinking some of these examples are silly to list. Who would ever compare
someone to Hitler just because they draw large crowds? For one example, we can
look at conservative economist and author Thomas Sowell, the man Sarah Palin
referred to to support her belief that Obamacare would lead to “death panels.”
Here’s Sowell writing about Obama:
To
find anything comparable to crowds' euphoric reactions to Obama, you would have
to go back to old newsreels of German crowds in the 1930s, with their adulation
of their fuehrer, Adolf Hitler. With hindsight, we can look back on those
people with pity, knowing now how many of them would be led to their deaths by
the man they idolized.
Huh? Anyway, even if a person truly
is wrong or evil at a Hitleresque level, the comparison shouldn't be necessary.
When Putin annexed Crimea in March of 2014, it wasn’t wrong because Hitler used
to do that sort of stuff. It was wrong on its own merits. If the reason
something is bad cannot be explained other than to say the Nazis did it too,
then there's no reason to assume it really is bad. If you can explain it
without mentioning Nazis, well, do that.
As a helpful exercise, consider how
anyone ever decided Hitler was evil in the first place. No one at the time
could say “hey, this guy’s as bad as Hitler.” Genocide isn’t wrong because
Hitler did it. It’s wrong, among other reasons, because murder is wrong and
genocide is a whole lot of murder, and because it usually targets people by
ethnicity. The same goes for any other act of evil committed by Hitler and the
Nazis; it wasn’t bad because they were the ones doing it.
So sharing a trait with Hitler does
not make your argument wrong, and comparing someone to Hitler is not enough to
disprove their argument. This concept may seem simple enough, but the allure of
the Hitler card can be downright irresistible. The Nazis are so universally
despised, it’s tempting to point out anything connecting them to your opponent.
What's that? You hate Atlas Shrugged
and think every copy should be burned? Gee, that reminds me of someone . . . can't
quite put my finger on it . . . the name is right on the tip of my . . . oh
yeah it's Hitler. You're acting like Hitler, you big giant Hitler. It sounds
passionate, but the argument gives no reasons why books shouldn’t be burned.
Online commenters seem particularly
inclined towards playing the Hitler card. (Especially the n00bz . . . lolz!)
Doing so became so commonplace that in 1990, author and attorney Mike Godwin
surmised that any threaded internet discussion would include “a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler” if allowed to go on long enough. This was dubbed Godwin’s Law, or Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies. Some online communities would use Godwin’s Law to determine that it was
finally time to end the discussion if they’re reached the point of Nazi
accusations. Godwin’s Law was added
to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2012.
Of course, one need not peer into
the dark abyss of online forums to find Reductio Ad Hitlerum. Our politicians
offer plenty of their own. For a legit clusterfuck of examples, consider this
mysterious case from 2005. Senate Democrats were filibustering Republican
judicial nominees. Republicans threatened to take away their ability to
filibuster, the so-called nuclear option.
But as events unfolded it came to light that the persons involved were not
actually U.S. senators as was first believed. They were all, in fact, Adolf
Hitler.
The first revelation was made by
Sen. Robert Byrd. This West Virginia Democrat with a political career spanning
nearly six decades is notable for speaking on the Senate floor against the U.S.
invasion of Iraq, and against the cancellation of the TV show Gunsmoke. He managed to prevent only one
of those catastrophes.
In March of 2005, Byrd compared the
way Republicans wanted to change Senate rules to the way Hitler brought fascist
legislation to Germany. Byrd drove the point home by saying under such new
rules, the rights of senators would be “incinerated.” (Get it? Like what the
Nazis did to all those people?)
Contestant number two is Republican
Sen. Rick Santorum. Appalled by the Hitler comparison, Santorum called on Byrd
to retract his statements, saying they “lessen the credibility of the senator
and the decorum of the Senate.” Two months later, Santorum takes to the Senate
floor calling the Senate Democrat’s actions “the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in
1942.” In Santorum’s defense, two months is a long time for him to be expected
to remember what his own convictions are.
Ira N. Forman, Executive Director
of the National Jewish Democratic Council, responded to Santorum’s anger
towards, and use of, the Hitler fallacy by saying: “Did Senator Santorum think
the Jewish community wouldn't notice his comparing Democrats to Hitler? In this
case, 'hypocrisy' is not a strong enough word—but it'll have to do”
Next up to
bat is Chuck Pennacchio, a Pennsylvania history professor. He had an eye on
Santorum's job and wasn’t about to pass up an opportunity to point out
Santorum’s use of the Nazi card.
As
an historian of Holocaust-era Germany, I find Rick Santorum's comment to be
offensive, divisive, and destructive. Rick Santorum should immediately issue a
public apology, and then retreat with conscience to consider the lasting damage
he has done to the United States Senate and to the memory of 12 million
Holocaust victims.
That was well said. Pennacchio continued:
How
ironic is it that he would make such an extremist comment comparing Senate
Democrats to Adolph Hitler while his own political party seeks to consolidate
all governmental power in its own hands?
Oy vey. Last to the party comes
Democratic Senator Harry Reid, although not really. Reid uses a Nazi card
loophole by comparing Republican judicial nominees to a Hitler stand-in:
"When Americans think of a
scary person in a black robe, they should be thinking of Darth Vader, not
Republicans' choices for judges."
Ahh, space-Hitler.
Looking back, it’s no wonder this
debate escalated to the point of Nazi comparisons. The filibuster is a touchy
subject. Even though it has been overused and abused, it still provides a
strong voice for the minority and acts as a sort of checks-and-balances between
political parties. It’s no surprise the Democrats responded so passionately
when Republicans wanted to do away with it. If you’re wondering how this story
ends, the Senate filibuster remained intact. That is until 2013 when Democrats
decided to get rid of it themselves. (Only for executive branch and non-Supreme
Court judicial nominees though, which is why you still hear about filibusters
today.) In Democratic Senator Robert Byrd’s defense, he had already died by
then.
Not in
Byrd’s defense by the way, he spent his 20s and 30s as an active member of the
Ku Klux Klan. Byrd gathered 150 people to start a local chapter. He once held
the title of Exalted Cyclops, which you do have to admit is a pretty cool name.
In 1946, Byrd wrote the following letter to a segregationist Senator, which you
have to admit is pretty uncool:
I
shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side . . . Rather I
should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to
rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race
mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.
Holy shit. Of course, someone will
argue that with historical context, writing a letter like this in the 40’s is
not quite the same as writing it today. That person can take their historical
context and shove it up their ass.
On the other hand, people can
change. Make your own judgment, but Byrd redeemed himself in the eyes of many
constituents throughout his career. In a book about logic, it’s wrong to assume
Byrd's positions must be wrong because he was once a KKK member. If we do,
we’re guilty of the ad hominem fallacy: discrediting an argument by attacking
the speaker and not the actual argument. Still, for all of the recovering Klan
members out there, try to steer away from comparing others to racist extremists
like Hitler. It’s not a good look for you.
Now it’s time to revisit a couple of old
friends. We’ll start with the ultimate fountain of humor, Sarah Palin’s twitter
account. In June of 2010, she tweeted out the following super serious warning:
GOP:
Don't let the lamestream media suck you into "they're defending BP over
Gulf spill victims" bs . . .This is about the rule of law vs. an
unconstitutional power grab. Read Thomas Sowell's article.
Yes, the same Sowell who accused
Obama of being like Hitler because they both had large amounts of energized
fans. The tweet linked to Sowell’s June 21 Op-Ed, Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny? The article criticizes
the White House's response to the BP company’s 2010 Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion and oil spill. The
incident resulted in eleven deaths, an estimated 210 million gallons of oil
flowing into the Gulf of Mexico over eighty-seven days, and substantial damage
to the local tourism and fishing industries as well as wildlife habitats. (Not
to be confused with BP’s other major oil spill from 2006.) The Obama
administration met with BP representatives to work out an agreement that ensures
victims would be compensated. They agreed on a $20 billion dollar escrow
account, but Sowell believes the Obama administration violated the Constitution
in doing so. The article explains why he believes the White House overreached
on this one.
Good. He’s a small government kind
of guy and he should offer that counterview to the White House’s hands-on
approach. What’s not so good is that the second and third words of Sowell’s
article are “Adolf” and “Hitler.” (The first is “when.” That’s not important, but
not knowing would have bugged you all day.) With an impressive display of
restraint, Sowell doesn’t use the word “Nazi” at all until the article’s eighth
word.
Now, there are reasons to argue
that the White House should not have taken such action, but none of those
reasons involve Nazi Germany. Or perhaps the Obama/Hitler comparison makes
perfect sense, as everyone knows Hitler’s most egregious crime was arriving at
a mutual agreement with a large corporation in order to ensure proper
compensation for victims of a tragic disaster.
Sowell’s argument looks something
like this:
X and Y are both a.
[Hitler and Obama both tried to
assert their power in some way]
X is also b.
[Hitler did crazy bad shit with his
power]
Therefore, Y is b.
[Therefore, Obama will do crazy bad
Hitler shit if granted more power]
In the article, Sowell writes:
.
. . during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law “for
the relief of the German people.” That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that
were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people—indeed,
powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people
and on others.
If Harry Reid is reading this, just
think of Star Wars Episode II: Attack of
the Clones, when Chancellor Palpatine is granted emergency powers. What was
the Galactic Senate thinking?
Sowell attempts to show that Obama
making a deal with BP sets a precedent that could be dangerous in the future,
the same way Hitler consolidated power and used it for evil. If that doesn’t
make sense to you, it’s only because it doesn’t make sense. The precise amount
of power held by the president, as well as other politicians, is almost
constantly being discussed, challenged, and altered. It rarely leads to concentration
camps. Rarely enough that we need to quit assuming it will every single time.
A number of politicians have also
invoked Hitler’s name to help us understand the true evils of the Affordable Care Act. Here’s a few
choice examples:
●
North Idaho Sen. Sheryl Nuxoll compared insurance
companies working with Obamacare to “the Jews boarding the trains to
concentration camps.”
●
Maine Gov. Paul LePage: "We the people have been
told there is no choice. You must buy health insurance or pay the new Gestapo —
the IRS." After this lead to criticism and outrage, the chairman of the
Maine Republican Party Charlie Webster defended LePage’s remarks by saying, “I
know what he meant. Most regular people know what he meant.” That’s nice. Jews
and other minorities may have been offended, but regular people understood.
●
Tennessee Republican state Sen. Stacey Campfield:
"Democrats bragging about the number of mandatory sign ups for Obamacare
is like Germans bragging about the number of manditory [sic] sign ups for
'train rides' for Jews in the 40s."
●
Arizona state Rep. Brenda Barton: “You better read your
history. Germany started with national health care and gun control before [the
Holocaust] happened. And Hitler was elected by a majority of people.”
●
North Carolina State Sen. Bob Rucho: “Obamacare has
done more damage to the USA then [sic] the swords of the Nazis, Soviets &
terrorists combined.”
Why. Why Nazi Germany? If you want to compare
the Affordable Care Act to something, wouldn’t a better comparison be with a
similar health care system from a modern developed country? Although that would
probably backfire for conservatives, since those programs are generally
successful, popular, and result in very few concentration camps.
The
non-stop criticism from conservatives is meant to convince Americans that Obama
as the worst and most dangerous President we’ve ever seen. The Hitler
comparisons are a part of that attack. But is Obama really the most Hitleresque
President we’ve ever had? Ya know, if you had to choose one, would Obama be it?
Let’s see . . . with President
Truman at the helm, the U.S. experimented on Guatemalan citizens by infecting
them with syphilis and other STDs without their knowledge. A similar study, the
Tuskegee syphilis experiment, victimized rural African Americans and lasted
from 1932 to 1972. That means Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy,
Johnson, and Nixon can all share the blame for that one.
FDR rounded up Japanese Americans
and placed them in internment camps. But don’t forget about Obama, who worked
with BP to protect victims of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and also signed a
health care bill.
Let’s keep stretching it here. When
Roosevelt’s New Deal programs began
in 1933, it included assigning every American citizen a Social Security number,
just as Hitler was also assigning numbers to Jews in concentration camps. And
have you ever seen Hitler and FDR together in the same room? Makes you think.
That last example is preposterous,
but that’s sort of the point. Were the Japanese internment camps as bad as Nazi
concentration camps? Were the STD experiments as bad as all of the experiments
performed by Nazi scientists? No, they really were not as bad. And that’s another reason why comparing anything to Hitler
is just a waste of time. Stuff can be bad without being Hitler-bad. Something
can be extremely wrong, horrible, and downright evil (like the Japanese
internment camps), even if it doesn’t rate a perfect score on the Hitlermeter
(suggested pronunciation: Hit•Lermeter.)
Invoking
Hitler and Nazi Germany will never strengthen your argument. It shows that you
are more interested in garnering an emotional response than logically proving a
point. It even suggests that you might be unable to make a convincing argument
since you are resorting to such extremes. And if that’s how you argue, if you
ignore facts and logic and simply try to stir up the masses, well, you’re no
better than . . . wait . . . never mind.
Now in
2016, the Hitler fallacy has a new target: Donald Trump. So much of his rhetoric
seems to activate our Hitler glands. He suggested special IDs for Muslim
Americans. He blames our problems on immigrants and favors mass deportation. So
many of his remarks seem to involve scapegoating and the darker side of
nationalism. Nonetheless, all of Trump’s offensive ideas are offensive in their
own right. You don’t need to carry around a sign with Trump sporting a Nazi
uniform or a Hitler mustache. He isn’t terrible because he’s like Hitler. He’s
terrible because he’s Trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment