We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Saturday, January 25. 2014
File this under "Bad analogies can undermine your basic point, no matter how much I agree with your premise."
Progressive Kristallnacht Coming?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I's good Perkins did not call them liberals. They are anything but. Calling them 'Progressives' is still a nicer word for what then are than they deserve. They are not LIKE fascists or Nazis, they ARE fascists and Nazis (though I am sure those aren't the labels they prefer).
The Nazis were socialists - not in the vein of government actually owning the means of production but in the vein of the government controlling the means of production - by high taxes and regulations - for their own ends. They believed in eugenics - just like Margaret Sanger. They enforced strict speech codes. They spied on the citizens and encouraged people to spy on their neighbors. As evidence for how close the Nazis were to US Progressives - many high profile progressives agreed with what Hitler was doing. John Kennedy (JFK's father) was ambassador to Great Britain but Roosevelt recalled him because he still supported Hitler as he was invading France. Henry Ford and Charles Linbergh were also on board to varying degrees.
If our schools bothered to teach history, there would be more people who would be able to understand that our progressives didn't make up their ideas out of thin air. They got them from progressives in the past. The current crop is really no different from those who went before - it's just that some of them don't know it yet.
This seems to me a slight exaggeration. The Nazis marketed themselves (when running for election) as a socialist workers' party, but that's not the same as being one; once in power they immediately outlawed all labor unions as well as all other parties. (Then again, so did the Bolsheviks, so if you had said the Nazis were communists I'd have to agree.)
I'm with Bulldog on thinking that the Nazi comparison was ill advised despite containing some truth. A better parallel to our so-called progressives is the kind of leftist parties found in Latin America, especially the kind who brought the economies of Argentina and Chile to total collapse. Like the people there at the time, I too would consider that situation so bad that I would support putting a tyrant in place to get back out of it.
The biggest thing we have in common with those countries is near-unanimous denial that any danger of collapse exists right up until it's too late.
The Nazis didn't outlaw all labor unions, they outlawed all non-Nazi labor unions.
The main difference between fascists and the current administration is the lack of nationalism and militarism. Apart from that, Liberals are some of the most ignorant and bigoted people out there and I can easily see them slipping into violence at some point in the future. Leftwing violence against the enemies of the people is considered holy madness on the left and greatly admired.
indeed, there is very little difference between nazism, communism, and modern liberalism.
- nazism is nationalist
- communism is internationalist
- modern liberalism is internationalist
- nazism is overtly militaristic
- communism is overtly militaristic
- modern liberalism is not on the face of it overtly militaristic (but behold, the moment they get strong enough no doubt the pacifist mantle is shed and they become highly militaristic and aggressive towards any remaining outside powers).
All are about total central control over everyday life, but:
- nazism is about control in detail
- communism is about control in general
- modern liberalism is about control in detail
you can thus conclude that modern liberalism takes the most blatant violations of basic freedom and decency from both nazism and communism and combines them into a noxious blend.
With regards to militarism, I find it interesting that we are now hearing of all the military hardware the police are buying. Swat teams (using military tactics) are used in the most innocuous cases against people who pose no danger to anybody. The BATF is apparently engaging in all sorts of dirty tricks that seem to crafted to turn the public against gun ownership (Fast and Furious was only the beginning. Eric Holder has already suggested that.) I don't know if it's true, but there is a rumor that some high ranking military officers were asked if they would command their troops to fire on US civilians (seems far fetched, but I wouldn't put it past this crew.
Is that militarism? Seems like the next best thing to me.
Roosevelt was in bed with Hitler as well, until it became politically suicide to be seen to be so, at which points he quickly changed sides (at least in public).
Hence keeping Kenndey in London for so long, despite the guy openly rooting for the very man the country he was ambassador to was at war with...
Joint Army-Navy Munitions Board from mid-30s on
Industrial Mobilization Plan, revised '36 and 39
War Plan Rainbow 1 - 5, 1938
War Resources Board, 1939
Selective Service Act, 1940
Lendlease/"Arsenal of Democracy", late 1940-early 1941
undeclared naval war against Germany, mid-1941
when was FDR "in bed" with Hitler?
Kennedy resigned, he wasn't recalled. He was more of a defeatist and pacifist than a supporter of national socialism and didn't want the US to be involved in the European war. His son JPK, Jr. was KIA, JFK was injured in WW2, later murdered along with his other son RFK.
Apologies - I meant Joseph Kennedy. I have seen several articles that corroborate the view that he was a defeatist, I know I read or heard that he had pro-Hitler views but am unable to find attribution right away. He did resign as you say, but it was under pressure. In any event, he wasn't recalled as I said. It appears that I was misinformed about Joseph. I do know there were many prominent progressives who did support Hitler (at least partially) till we got in the war.
You make me nervous Bulldog.
Your brand of nuances faux sophistication will get us all killed...
It's happened before ...
Fanatics carry the day ... It's happened before ...
I have no doubts that what once was can be again. That's not the point.
If this guy wanted to make his point more effectively - and it's a point I happen to agree with - he should have left the references to the Holocaust/Kristallnacht out of his little diatribe.
When my wife and I read this, we both had the same initial reaction, though I had to take the added step to point out to her that his point is accurate.
She agreed, but said that most people don't understand this, and what they will take (and have taken) from this, is that the wealthy will view themselves as victims.
Certainly, this is where we're headed with the liberal/progressive alliance for the 'good of mankind'. They will, at some point, begin confiscating goods and capital 'in the name of the people'. Then, when some legitimately resist, they will kill those people and say it's 'for the good of the people'.
Yet, even today, I know people who say this can't happen. Smart people. Intelligent and well-educated people. They believe we live in a democracy (we sort've do, I guess) and as a result there are protections (there were, not anymore) against this kind of thing.
Cuomo and de Blasio are just the first few to admit openly they are intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them and would be happy to expel those who disagree.
In addition, I have very well educated people who have said to me they are pleased the NSA is bugging their phone calls. They 'have nothing to hide'.
Making the point to them that having nothing to hide doesn't prevent somebody in a position of power from using information to invoke a vendetta drew derisive laughter. Yet the very next day, information was released that the NSA is helping small nations keep the populace under control by sharing the information they have illegally collected.
Perhaps the fact that I believe we can make our points rationally and without alienating people who sit on the fence scares you. But by making analogies like this guy did, the fence sitters (who are not well educated, usually) become confused. After all, in their minds, how can the wealthy be 'victims'? The rich and powerful 'have it all', including the power. But we know this isn't true, they don't.
All they think is that if the nation faces difficult financial times, the best way to get it is to take it from 'the wealthy'. By comparing the inevitable outcome this man has laid out to the Holocaust, all he does is cause the fence-sitters to roll their eyes. When the eventual day does, in fact, arrive, those fence-sitters will say 'they deserved it because they thought they were victims - and now they are'.
Recently, a former Wall Streeter wrote a piece about his 'addiction to money'. A friend sent it to me, insinuating that we needed laws to prevent people like this from being rapacious and greedy and destroying our nation. I replied simply "I have friends with real addictions like drug and alcohol. None of them, even in recovery, would suggest better laws would have prevented them from becoming addicts. None of them, even in recovery, have suggested that making alcohol illegal would help them today."
He silently agreed.
We can make our points and our views known by being rational and objective. The piece I linked to was rational, but not objective at all.
The other side's figured it out. They don't hesitate, they bulldoze.
It works. That's how we have the current clique in charge of the executive. Denigrate, demonize and, it is all George's Bushes fault.
Bush never fought back in the demonization war.
Rule 11 rules!
Dr. Zhivago, Yuri comes home. That cretinous conversation with his half brother... Yuri so capable of carrying both side of the issues in his own mind.
Sorry Bulldog. We are in these times again. Only a sledgehammer will do.
All this would not be necessary if the RINOs were to put more of a fight. Thus, it was GWB's fault after all ...
We're not there yet. We're approaching those times.
Rational thought can still win out, but it has to be applied properly. Yuri could have buried his brother, intellectually. But he knew it was not the best way to handle the situation. His problem was that he chose to go it alone, and run.
Not being a particularly big fan of W, I'd have to agree with you about his inability to parry the press' misrepresentations. I can honestly say I saw the same thing happen today on Face The Nation, with Bob Schieffer being a complete tool toward Ted Cruz - but Cruz acquitted himself well using a rational and objective response to every question. I'm sure he won many people over, though Schieffer used emotion to parry his responses, and then allowed that dirtball Schumer on to sell his snake oil.
Still, I don't believe the Progressives are 'winning' by any stretch. They have pockets of support, but those pockets are few and far between.
Even today, I was shocked to get emails from 2 rather liberal friends of mine stating their dissatisfaction with the current regime. They are beginning to realize (mainly because of idiots like de Blasio) that the Progressive movement has failed miserably.
The poor are still with us 50 years after the War on Poverty began, Obamacare is a hash, and wealth inequality (which is a statistic I don't care about, but they do) has increased under Obama despite his taking action to reduce it (the logic of which is only beginning to hit home with some people).
No, I'd say the Right is slowly winning, but we can't afford to squander our victories - the GOP has a very bad habit of doing this.
It is called feeding the bears.
They were fed. Now they're voting themselves benefits and, counting the votes, fanatically.
Your "Liberal friends" in the end will tow the line. They're not your
friends, they tolerate you kinda.
Motto is: we're ok, you're not.
Their world is that of religion masquerading as an ideology.
Normalcy bias will get you every time bulldog. Situational awareness is of the essence.
It's happened before.
Radegunda Pat Bartlett • 4 days ago
Some who do care are undoubtedly afraid of being the next on the hit list. They keep their heads low in order to protect themselves and their families, and they suspect that they might get little if any help when the weight of the government falls on them.
Totalitarian regimes develop in much the same way that Islam spreads its evil power: they don't need to hurt a lot of people at once, but hurt a few people enough that everyone else starts worrying -- except the people who (so far) think they're benefiting from the regime and are willing to act as enforcers. For example, the mass media here.
16 •Reply•Share ›
Rose1376 Radegunda • 4 days ago
Your answer is perfect. The people that might help are scared. The laws were written to catch their adversaries and they have begun to use them.
From Atlas Shrugged---“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”
-------It is too late for nuances and subtlety ...
I agree that making huge leaps (even logical ones) can scare away potential supporters. It probably isn't a good strategy, but I don't think we should throw out the analogy all together. If we draw more "discreet" parallels in history (a line of progression in the recent US past with a progression in Rome, Germany, Italy without making the generalization of all of Nazism, it would probably be more effective. If we show how the students at Berkley rallied for "Free Speech Park" and then compare that with all the limitations on free speech they now espouse and require, that might be more effective.
On the other hand, the left didn't get here by drawing discreet parallels or calmly debating their side. They got there in part by being loud, obnoxious, and breaking some windows (it was not my intention to "swerve" into a Kristallnacht analogy - it just came naturally).
I don't condone violence against people or property and I can't say I know how to proceed. I do know that what we have been doing isn't working and we are supposed to be the majority (corroborated by circumstantial evidence of the popularity of conservative talk radio and news outlets and the relative unpopularity of the left equivalents to name one example). I think we need a more vigorous defense and a more aggressive offense against the erosion of our liberties. I think we are beginning to see some of that with Tea Party groups but we need much more and more aggression.
Didn't realize Dinesh D’Souza had been arrested.
It's happened before ....
I was aware of this. It was for donating money ($20,000, I believe) to a political candidate. The problem, of course, was that there are limits to what you can donate, and he exceeded them.
In addition, he was involved in a complicated means of reimbursing people for their donations to the failed campaign.
It was a legitimate arrest, since the law is pretty clear and he obviously exceeded the amount.
What bothers me isn't the arrest, but bail being set at $500k. For a $20,000 donation?
Yes, the 'crime' is punishable with 2 years in prison, but is rarely implemented.
Legit arrest, I have no issues with it. He did something monumentally stupid.
Whether the law is legit, now that's an entirely different question. I think the law itself is absurd.
"After all, in their minds, how can the wealthy be 'victims'? "
In exactly the same fashion as Mr. Perkins lays out.
The Broken Glass Night analogy holds far too well, as it was a focus on what was the then urban 1% - professionals, businessmen, tradesmen - not "everyday" folk or "middle class".
As an aside, many were the same who approved of expanding the state.
If the use of the terms bothers, well...
I'm not disagreeing with you.
I made that comment because, realistically, those who are currently 'without' do not view things this way.
Anybody can be a victim. But if the victim is somebody who is wealthy being demonized and having wealth appropriated, in the minds of many this is not a victim but someone getting his/her just reward for being a greedy, evil capitalist thief.
Whether this view is justified isn't the point. In the minds of the many who have little, it is justified.
You can't diminish this point of view just because you and I don't agree with it. Is it correct? Absolutely and positively not.
But that will matter little when some greedy politician decides to tell them confiscating things is a good idea.
Some time ago, I posted a video from "Dr. Zhivago". It was his return from the front of the Winter War, when he finds his old home appropriated. He is clearly put out, but just nods and says something to the effect of "yes, this is much better." Mainly because there's not much he can do, and doing anything would lead to his being killed.
As I said, I'm fully aware that what happened before can happen here. I have a very wealthy friend who regularly tells me he should be taxed more, and that he's willing to "do his part if the government asks." I always respond "why are you waiting for them to force you to do something? Isn't it better to do it voluntarily?" At that point, some nonsense spews forth and I usually stop paying attention. Typically, it's something along the lines of "why should I do something if nobody else is?"
Well, simply because that's the right thing to do.
Those "without" were not the instigators of that night, either.
I understand that there is tremendous baggage over any and all references to anything that took place in Germany during the latter half of the 30s, but the fact remains that Mr. Perkins is more correct than not.
What I find interesting is the reaction against comparisons of the early days of the National Socialists.
I wonder, would there have been such kickback had he used the burning of the West Houghton mill...
I think you're confusing a few things here, most importantly the power of the "Big Lie", which Goebbels did such amazing work with and has been expanded upon in modern media.
Whether what he wrote is correct or not is immaterial anymore. It's how it is said and how it is done, and he did it poorly.
Already, the media has attacked this piece, with some very limited justification. While it's likely most of us here at Maggie's agree (to whatever degree) with the premise, most people will not. Particularly those who went through the Holocaust.
Banging a drum and saying "But look - historically his view is 100% correct" will not get you many sympathizers. Mainly because modern media runs on emotion. Emotions on a topic like the Holocaust run high, in many different directions, and lead people to make outrageous and often incorrect (but emotionally acceptable) statements.
This is why it's best to avoid comparing most things, particularly items relating to wealth and inequality, to the Holocaust.
If you ask a person if the Holocaust could happen today in the US, they'd say no. If you asked them the day they started rounding up the Japanese and putting them in internment camps, they'd rationalize it somehow.
Democracy is good for many things, but one thing it excels at is using the media to spew emotionally driven points of view that avoid rational thought and skew facts in order to promote a rationalized definition of 'equality' and 'fairness'. Nevermind that both are defined poorly. The definition tugs at heartstrings, and that's all that matters.
why would you have a problem with the US interning Japanese during wartime?
Non-naturalized Japanese could (and should) have been expelled. Citizens, on the other hand, being interned would mean you are OK with limiting their Constitutional rights. And that is exactly what happened.
definitely a black stain on America.
but an argument that implies Manzanar was comparable to a Holocaust death camp is fallacious and counterproductive.
I was not making that comparison.
I was merely pointing out that the idea that denying Constitutional rights to anyone in the US is 'something that couldn't happen here' is clearly wrong. Rounding up people and putting them in camps, denying them basic human rights, is inhumane in its own right.
Yet it's merely the first step on a very short road to becoming a death camp situation, and ignoring this puts everyone in great peril when the time comes.
every time a successful fourth amendment challenge to a police search and seizure is made is proof that rights were violated. seriously, who actually argues that constitutional rights can't be violated?
its a strawman to posit that there's any belief that constitutional rights can't be easily invaded, violated, ignored. what separates the USofA from nazi germany and why the hitler analogies are rightfully laughed at is (1) the scale of the rights abuses differs by magnitudes and (2) the US has an effective means of aggressively vindicating rights abuses.
are you really saying that there's a short step from Manzanar to Treblinka?
so little barry issues the dreaded executive order to round up gun owners/ true american patriots/ the usual suspects and almost 70 years after Korematzu/Endo, 442 RCT, 70 years of civil rights legislation, congressional inquiries and condemnations, reparations paid, apologies made (including by Reagan) that american policemen, army and national guardsmen -- these are basically your neighbors -- are going to obey an order that egregiously idiotic and unconstitutional? not even the Marines would do that. or that courts starting with the lowest justice court all the way to the USSC would not block it? in what deranged fantasy dystopia amerika does anyone think mass internment of US citizens is still a grand idea and could actually be done?
First of all, Germans and Italians who were interned never got any press, any apologies or any reparations. It was only the racial motivation, and substantially larger numbers of Japanese that led to any apologies.
Secondly, when neighbors start getting rounded up, it will not start openly. It will be slow and insidious. Hitler didn't start all that openly with his programs. Remember, it was the dim-witted and outcasts who were rounded up first. Few were going to argue with that. Meanwhile the campaign of hatred was begun against the other classes of people he sought to send away, allowing him to eventually create the 'reasons' he needed. When enough people decide 'the wealthy' are a problem, nobody will say anything.
Finally, it is a very short path from Manzanar to Treblinka. You may say the difference in magnitude makes it OK for cops to search a person on the street who merely LOOKS like a problem, insuring 'public safety'. I say how long before someone says "take that person downtown and lock him up for a while"? Because, you know, that's even safer and spending a few hours in lockup is no harm, no foul. It doesn't take much to move the boundary from something that seems 'tolerable' toward something that is intolerable. Mainly because what is 'tolerable' for 'public safety' is only tolerable for those who aren't impacted by it. For everyone else - innocent of any suspicion or not - it's intolerable. But hey, it's not as bad as being gassed, so get over it.
Sorry, I don't buy the order of magnitude argument. I prefer the imperfection of emergent order to the presumed (yet non-existent) order enforced by an all-knowing state which claims to derive its power from 'the people' and operates 'for their safety and best interests'.
While I am a supporter of the police and count some among my circle of friends, there are many who are just on a power trip and willing to just do as they are told.
your scenario requires a suspension of belief regarding how the system actually works and the actual people who are involved that I find too much of a stretch. there are many bad novels about this, e.g., turner diaries, etc.
if I remember correctly the NYPD has already backed down from trying to extend legitimate Terry stops (the last time this issue was prominent), it was another embarrassment, the system corrected itself. so this is what you consider a first step to Treblinka? the difference between stop and frisk and a brief street detention? this fight has been going on for over 50 years and the cops have less power in 2014 than they did in 1955 to make casual stops. further, then police responded to voting rights demonstrations with fire hoses, batons and dogs, something that is vanishingly rare today.
the fed can't even enforce immigration holds on illegals who are wanted for federal felonies if states want to let them go, prosecutors don't want law enforcement to beat confessions out of suspects because that screws up the prosecution and nobody has the time, inclination or space to "round up" average citizens because of political belief.
I understand why there's this psychological need to believe that its about to happen because victimization, real or imaginary, is a known way of building cohesion among groups.
putting in bluntly, the Kristallnacht analogy is stupid and counterproductive. as conservative Americans, we can do much better than this kind of asshatted fear mongering.
These changes exist only because, at this point in time, there is a need for certain people to continue to win votes.
de Blasio, for example, would be unlikely to deploy anything which is even mildly counterproductive, image-wise, at this point in time. I'm hard pressed to believe, if he could, that he wouldn't. I firmly believe he would expel each and every person who disagrees with him.
That is not a situation which can, necessarily, last forever. It may not even last much longer. The current neutering of the police works in favor of guys like de Blasio today - but when he wants them to engage more violently, for his causes, I'm sure that won't bother him one bit.
I agree with you that the comparison to Kristallnacht is counterproductive - that was why I posted. On this point you and I agree.
I am not so naive to believe the NSA is just collecting data for fun and games, however. You collect data for a reason, and when politicians decide to implement those reasons, we all lose.
As long as it's the 'correct' political party asking for implementation of violent measures against the 'wrong type' of people, you can be sure the press will go along like panting dogs.
As a side note, I wasn't implying this author was utilizing the "Big Lie", but rather it would be, and is, being employed against him.
As for the Westhoughton Mill, I have no doubt there would be few people upset if he used this as the basis of his analogy. In reality, it's a better analogy. More importantly, I hardly think journalists know, or would take the time to find out, what it represented.
At the time, Herman Goring was head of the humane society.
Sort of like Eric Holder.
Perhaps it is a bad analogy, but would it have drawn the same attention had a different description/analogy been used?
If you believe, in the world of ideas, Barnum's statement "there is no bad publicity" is true, then probably not.
However, it's my view that when presenting an idea, there is such a thing as bad publicity.
Just having people talk about this isn't what's important. How they discuss it is vitally important.
By making a bad analogy, all he reinforces are the ideas that "this can't happen here".
They're working that angle now, along with Vets and PTSD...
No good Commie\Socialist can rest upon their laurels until everyone toes the line and feels the heel of the boot...
Seems Insty is not quite as skeptical about the left's tendency towards fascism and violence...
I never said I was skeptical of it - in fact, I expect it at some point, because it's the natural next step if it's not nipped in the bud.
I just don't think bad analogies based on misguided emotional appeals will work in the favor of the right.
There is an emotional appeal to be made - based on reason and basic human rights. The left claims to care about these things, and if they do, then it has an impact.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. George Orwell
Ci vis pacem parabellum ... etc.
Thus, do not be an enabler.
It's happened before, etc.