On the Absurdity of Godwin’s Law – Or How it Is Interpreted by Some

[Time for change]

Godwin’s Law seems to be interpreted differently by different people. It’s original meaning is different than how I usually see it interpreted. In its original form it says:

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Note that its original meaning makes no value judgment as to the appropriateness of the comparison with Nazis – only that such a comparison becomes highly likely as the thread grows longer. Whether the likelihood actually approaches one or not is debatable, but it isn’t important. The “law” was originally just meant as a kind of humorous quip.

Anyhow, the definition at the above link continues:

There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress… More precisely, the subsequent value of the thread is zero.

That is the definition that I have most often seen thrown around – in a serious manner, as if such a law was actually an immutable fact of nature. People have occasionally thrown it at me when I’ve pointed to analogies with Nazis, claiming immediate victory in their argument with me. That is the definition that I want to address here.


The Holocaust as a teachable event

The Nazi perpetrated Holocaust was a seminal event in the history of the 20th Century – in fact it was a seminal event in world history, period. Many have said that it was the most catastrophic and evil human-caused event in world history. Depending on how “event” is defined, and depending upon how deaths are interpreted as being Holocaust related (Are all deaths occurring from World War II to be considered as Holocaust related?), it very well may be the most catastrophic human-caused event in world history. Whether or not it was the most evil event in human history is more debatable, given the difficulties in defining and measuring “evil”. Suffice it to say that it certainly ranks among the most terrible human-caused events in the history of the world.

Because my parents were Jews and had relatives who were Holocaust victims, it was an issue that I heard a lot about from a very young age. As such, from a very early age I’ve had a strong desire to understand it at a deep level. How could people be so callous? How could so many people do such terrible things? How can we prevent future similar recurrences? I’ve always felt that if any single event offers important lessens that we humans need to learn, the Holocaust is it. As such I’ve read at least twenty some books on the subject – many of them with very different interpretations and lessons to learn.

I believe that the most important lesson the Holocaust can teach us is how to recognize situations that may evolve in that direction before they do so – in time for preventive interventions to be implemented to prevent the catastrophes that might otherwise occur. Obviously that would involve the use of comparisons and analogies.


On the absurdity of Godwin’s law (or of its common interpretation)

It has often been said that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it (especially its worst aspects). I most certainly agree with that. If learning history has any value it is to learn to avoid the catastrophes of the past. There is no way that we can learn to avoid repeating mistakes unless and until we learn what the mistakes are and understand their causes, as a first step. As one of history’s most important and seminal events, that statement applies especially to the Holocaust.

To claim that an argument is automatically lost just because a person introduces a particular analogy makes no sense. Before deciding that the argument is lost one must first evaluate the analogy on its merits, i.e. evaluate the validity of the analogy. History moves on, and we are continually confronted with evidence of man’s inhumanity to man. To say that no future events could even be validly compared to the holocaust is to say that we know a priori that no such events will ever occur in the future. How can anyone say that and expect to be taken seriously? It occurred once. How can anyone be sure that something very similar won’t happen again?

Furthermore, on what basis does anyone say that no past or current events can validly be even compared to the Holocaust? To say that two events are analogous is not to say that they are equivalent. All it means to say that two events are analogous is that the one event holds lessons that are likely applicable to the other. It doesn’t mean that they are of equivalent magnitude. The Holocaust didn’t materialize suddenly. It built up over several years. It was initially of much lower severity than it eventually became. When too few people struggled against it at the beginning, the bullies and thugs behind the Holocaust noted the lack of resistance and they proceeded to escalate their evil plans. If understanding the Holocaust holds any value – and I strongly believe it does – that value lies mainly in identifying analogous situations long before they reach the magnitude and severity of what the Holocaust eventually became.


Arguments against comparing other events to the Holocaust

“Comparing other events to the Holocaust ‘trivializes’ the importance of the Holocaust”
One of the most common arguments against comparing other events to the Holocaust is that the Holocaust was such a monumental catastrophe that comparing other events to it trivializes its importance and shows disrespect for its victims.

I say that just the opposite is true. As noted above, the value of understanding the Holocaust is in identifying situations that hold the potential of escalating to catastrophe, in time so that appropriate intervention is likely to prevent that escalation and nip the problem in the bud. By automatically taking comparison of other events to the Holocaust off the table, the possibility of using the Holocaust to teach lessons that may prevent future similar occurrences is lost. There is no surer way to tell its victims that their suffering and deaths were in vain, and therefore trivialize the importance of the Holocaust.

“It is a ‘conversation stopper’”
The argument that comparisons with the Holocaust are a “conversation stopper” relates to the purpose of Godwin’s law as interpreted by those who claim that the mere introduction of any comparison is tantamount to losing the argument. It is most certainly true that inappropriate comparisons with the Holocaust can be counter productive and should be avoided. But that is very different than saying that any comparison with the Holocaust is inappropriate and automatically results in the loss of the argument, before even being considered.

This argument is reminiscent of Jon Stewart’s recent interview with Rachel Maddow, in which Stewart said that referring to George W. Bush as a war criminal is a conversation stopper. Stewart even acknowledged that “technically” it is correct to say that Bush is a war criminal.

Now, I have had a lot of respect for Jon Stewart, and I still do. I believe that he has indeed restored some sanity to our country. But I have to say that he was way off base on this one. I believe that he would agree with me after having time to reflect on this. On the day of the interview he was very sick, so perhaps that enabled his less thoughtful self to take over.

The fact that calling George W. Bush a war criminal will stop conversations is not sufficient reason to routinely avoid doing so. Unpleasant truths have the capacity to make people feel uncomfortable, and often do inhibit conversations. But sometimes it is necessary to face unpleasant truths, because to fail to do so is to let them fester and avoid doing anything about them.

When Stewart said that it is “technically” true that Bush is a war criminal, what could he have meant by the term “technically”? Presumably he meant that Bush violated the letter of legislation defining war crimes but not the spirit. So, is there reason to disregard Bush’s “technical” violations on the grounds that his actions didn’t violate the spirit of the law? I’ll echo Scott Creighton on that question:

I would like to toss out 1. lying 935 times to justify an illegal war which has killed over a million Iraqi people and dislocated about 4 million others, 2. creating false documents (Niger Yellow Cake) like the neocons at the Office of Special Plans did to justify an illegal war, 3. torture, 4. rendition, 5. secret prisons, 6. CIA backed mercenary death squads 7. depleted uranium spread across Iraq … I mean, if these actions don’t merit calling George W. Bush a war criminal, what does?

Stuart said that when he thinks of war crimes he thinks of Pol Pot or the Nuremberg Trials. Let’s see. The death count resulting from the genocide perpetrated by Pol Pot was estimated to be between 1.2 and 1.7 million. And it is estimated that Iraqi War dead as a result of George W. Bush’s invasion and occupation is just over a million as of the end of 2007. Is that the difference? Or is it simply that in the United States, thinking of our own leaders as war criminals is unthinkable?


Unmentionable things in the United States

There are numerous things that absolutely cannot be mentioned by American politicians –or any high profile U.S. citizen because they are …. well, “embarrassing to our country”. Mere mention of these things brings down the wrath of conservative pundits and moderates as well, and even some who consider themselves to be liberal or progressive. The wrath is likely to be so intense that few U.S. politicians or other high profile Americans dare mention these things because of the risk of losing their job – or worse. Three such things are: 1. the stealing of a U.S. presidential election; 2. referring to American military or covert actions as immoral, rather than merely as “misguided”; and, 3. imputing bad intentions, rather than mere incompetence, onto a U.S. president.

I’ve thought a great deal about this. What is the reason for so many unmentionable things? It seems clear to me that the reason for all these unmentionable things is the need to create an alternate reality that must be believed by a critical mass of the American people in order for a reasonable acceptance of the status quo to be maintained.

The popular interpretation of Godwin’s law seems to be a manifestation of this. If it was considered acceptable to even think about comparing American leaders to Nazis, the finely tuned myth of the American character could be thrown into question. To take one step further back, if it was considered acceptable to think about comparing any American to a Nazi, the universe of acceptable discourse could expand, and who knows where that would lead?

A very similar issue is behind the hysterical refusal of the United States to join the International Criminal Court (ICC). George W. Bush, while president, claimed that the Court’s jurisdiction cannot extend to Americans because that would undermine “the independence and flexibility that America needs to defend our national interests around the world”. The flexibility to do what? Commit war crimes? No, that couldn’t be it, because no American would ever do that. But there are lots of non-Americans sitting on the ICC – non-Americans who aren’t subject to the same strictures with respect to considering or talking about the possibility that an American may have committed a war crime. Who knows where it would lead if that kind of thing was allowed?

[Fumesucker]

1. Your Unmentionable thing #3 only applies to Republican presidents..

Democratic presidents are routinely depicted as having bad intentions..

[Time for change]

2. That's true...

unless it has to do with starting a war, or a war's escalation.

[Fumesucker]

8. Wag The Dog..

Clinton was often depicted as engaging in military adventures to distract from the Lewinski scandal..

[Time for change]

14. Well....

I guess they felt that it was worth making an exception in a situation where they had the opportunity to impeach a Democratic president for a sex scandal.

I think it’s quite telling though, that despite all the vicious absurd criticisms of Obama from the right, they don’t criticize is militarism in Afghanistan.

[nashville_brook]

3. in 50 years it will be called Godwin's Fallacy. after this whole mess goes to hell in a handbasket..

and hindsight shows that the "green sprouts" of totalitarianism were littered throughout our culture, and but for the Fallacy of Godwin, we would have been able to talk about it and do something.

Greeting a guest at a dinner party by saying, "I have that same dress -- half of half off at Macys!" That's a conversation stopper. That Bush is a War Criminal, that is a conversation we MUST have because it's too large and too important not to "re-litigate." You don't re-litigate that the neighbor kid egged your mailbox. You DO make an attempt to put the world back together after Bush broke it.

[readmoreoften]

13. +1

The idea that it is absurd to relate anything to Nazism is bizarre. It may be a "rhetorical" law, but it certainly isn't a rule of logic.

[Time for change]

38. Godwin’s fallacy!

I like that – although it’s not fair to blame Godwin for it, since the absurd version of Godwin’s law is a perversion of his original law.

[tblue37]

4. IOKIYAR

"3. imputing bad intentions, rather than mere incompetence, onto a U.S. president."

Rightwingerts are not afraid to violate #3, do so routinely, and never, ever suffer any harm from doing so.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

5. A corrollary to your argument

Even outside the realm of Hitler and Nazis, the one thing that cannot be talked about in this country is fascism. Regardless of how many things happen in this country that are without doubt reminiscent of fascism, we can't call it that. It is impossible to have the word taken seriously, though it remains a valid descriptor.

It would appear that the American people consider fascism to be a past-tense topic. One may only talk about fascists if one is talking about goose-stepping armies that wore spiffy looking uniforms.

This is dangerous, especially in light of the fascist tendencies our country, and particularly the TeaBaggers and GOP display.

[nashville_brook]

6. do you sense a qualitative difference btwn the terms "fascism" and "totalitarianism"

just wondering if "totalitarianism" isn't a better word -- to me it connotes a faceless state of authority rather than a mustache-twisting evil genius sort of state. like, maybe by switching terms there'd be less of the irrational dismissal of Nazism.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

7. Mussolini said . . .

. . . the real term should be "corporatism." The problem with both "corporatism" and "totalitarianism" is that both words are FAR too long. Not for me, not for you, but for the folks who watch Dancing With The Stars? Too long by about three syllables.

What it points out in a larger sense is, once again, the far greater commitment to messaging that the Right Wing has, as opposed to our side. They didn't have ANY problem talking about, and getting the knuckle-walkers to talk about fascism when it suited their purposes, i.e. "He's an IslamoFascist Communist Hawaiian Kenyan Muslin Without A Birth Certificate Who Wants To Take Away Your Guns And Send You To A Re-education Camp and Has an Anti-colonial Bias."

For my part, I believe in using the word that best describes the conduct and, for me, that's "Fascism."

[DemReadingDU]

10. corporatism

People do seem to understand corporatism when I discuss it as when the banksters, big business, and lobbyists write the rules and regulations, then get the politicians to pass the legislation to keep the status quo of the wealthy.

[rtassi]

22. +1

[nashville_brook]

27. i agree -- as you point out, any term that we use is going to be met with $ millions in

PR efforts from the other side that their astroturf minions will recite regardless of truth value. we might as well call it what it is, and corporatism/fascism is the most concise way to say it.

[Hannah Bell]

17. i don't think so. some monarchies could be called totalitarian - but not fascist.

Definitions of totalitarianism on the Web:

•dictatorship: a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)
•absolutism: the principle of complete and unrestricted power in government
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I think fascism is specific to capitalist democracies.

I think it's specifically the reaction of the ruling classes in capitalist democracies in economic crisis.

It's designed to prevent either "capitalism" (by its popular definition, whereby failed businesses die & their owners lose) or democracy from operating at they're supposed to, & to forestall a challenge from the left.

It's a kind of state socialism from the right, imo. Protects large interests v. small ones/the population, protects state interests v. other states.

Features = right wing populism/nationalism, merger of large industries & the state in a kind of pseudo-nationalization, use of scapegoats to deflect popular anger, attempt to organize the populace into right-wing nationalist or religious formations (e.g. hitler youth, right-wing churches, etc), & general creeping clawback of democratic "rights" in multiple arenas.

I think it's the democratic illusion that gives fascism its unique features. In a state where the people are under no illusions that they are "free" or have democratic rights, including capitalist economic rights -- repression from the rulers & owners can be much more immediate and sudden.

In a democracy, immediate sudden repression also immediately destroys the illusions of capitalism and democracy and thereby also destroys the rationale that gives the rulers standing to rule.

by that definition, we're well into fascist territory.

[nashville_brook]

26. thanks for the reply -- i think you're absolutely right. and I also agree with GCM above

it's frustrating that the use of this term has been (mis)appropriated by the right, such that Soros is a fascist b/c he wants to empower downward rather than upward -- as if the Nazis were hippies seeking to empower the disenfranchised.

b/c i think it's a rhetorical weakness, i try to avoid the mustache-twisting evil genius idea that there's someone somewhere thinking up all the ways to empower the rich...but that's exactly what's happening. obviously, they have the money to pay giant PR firms to do this work -- so that "making government smaller" becomes the happy face put on the coporatization of public services...er, stealing outright from the treasury. whenever they say "smaller government" they mean switch from buying wholesale from the government to buying retail from some good old boy's company that can skim off all the money and provide shitty or no services/goods. That's stealing and it very much is a mustache-twisting, fascist motivation.

[14thColony]

37. In political science terms they are quite different

Totalitarianism can be the final form of extreme right or extreme left ideologies that ignore the rights of the people in favor of the rights of the state. Stalinist Communism was a totalitarian manifestation of Marxism, and Nazism was a totalitarian manifestation of garden-variety fascism. But one would be hard-pressed to describe other fascist states such as Italy or Spain as totalitarian. Authoritarian certainly, but not totalitarian.

The relationship can be stated as "Authoritarianism (left or right) + extremist ideology (can) = Totalitarianism.

[nashville_brook]

50. fits perfectly if instead of "state" you insert the word "corporation" or "profit"

ergo -- Totalitarianism can be the final form of extreme right or extreme left ideologies that ignore the rights of the people in favor of the rights of the corporation.

We need a new word.

[felix_numinous]

9. The memory hole

is alive and well on the internet, for now. Never forget, indeed. (And always back up your data!)

I find it interesting that the misuse of references to Nazis by teabaggers goes on while the RW/MIC complex support of gulags, torture and disdain for civil rights does not inspire any references. It is a 'slight of mind' trick to accuse someone else of exactly what you are doing, it has a sort of annihilation effect on the psyche.. Accusing this administration of every crime done by the last one is another example. Plus if you mock people, they will become infuriated and make mistakes, it is an effective psychological weapon. Not that every single media talking point is calculated, but many of them are.

How frustrating is it to observe all of these injustices, and have the perpetrators mock you using armed brainwashed teabaggers accusing your party of exactly what they are guilty of? How twisted is that?

I saw a very creepy book at someone's house recently, in it I recognized this technique. The 48 Laws of Power, by Robert Greene. " Law #44: Disarm and infuriate with the mirror effect. The mirror reflects reality but is also the perfect tool for deception. When you mirror your enemies, doing exactly as they do, they cannot figure out your strategy." Just the cursory scan through this book made me wonder if this is one of Rove's manuals.

[rtassi]

24. its definitely twisted .. but also laughable to the extent

time after time we fall for it and empower it ...

[Time for change]

34. Psychologists call it "projection"

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-psychological-projection.htm

But that assumes that they really believe it.

It's unclear to me whether the teabaggers really believe any of the crap they spew out. A lot of them are just plain sociopaths IMO.

Anyhow, that's a great point you bring up, calling other people Nazis while supporting Nazi-like policies to the extent they do. Whether or not they believe what they say, many of them are very creepy and dangerous people.

It is also important to note that the main reason they’re able to get away with this crap is that the corporate media stands behind them with their vast propaganda capabilities.

[bhikkhu]

11. Well put, and the list of unmentionable things could be very long indeed

Along the lines of what is needed to be discussed to form a plan addressing our real circumstances in the world, there seems to be no end to things that cannot be spoken of. Perhaps that's why China is well on the way to establishing itself as a dominant force globally, while here we are positioning ourselves to look like infants squalling in a playpen.

The three big issues are population, the decline of fossil fuels, and climate change. In the first case we should consider what would be a reasonable plan to reduce the growth rate of our population, so that it might be a better fit for our resources; in other words, what we have is finite, so how much any of us have is to some extent determined by how many of us there are. "What we have" is certainly affected by energy availability, and the decline of fossil fuels as an energy source (with a brief respite for NG, however) is hardly in doubt anymore, and becomes more obvious yearly...suggesting more strongly that a smaller population in the future would be a healthier population, given shrinking resources. Climate change only adds uncertainty and urgency to the whole issue - things are likely to be worse than predicted, though of course planning for the future is a political tabboo, apparently, so predictions are best left unread and undiscussed (see no evil, hear no evil, and so forth).

[Time for change]

35. Climate change is already causing islands to sink beneath the ocean

and large areas of the earth to be covered by drought. There are going to be many wars fought over the dwindling resources (food and water especially) associated with climate change. It is unconscionable that wealthy corporations put their money into propagandizing against the truth of climate change, while continuing to destroy our planet for their short-term profits.

[krispos42]

12. Oops, you lost by the 4th sentence

:P

[Overseas]

15. K&R ! //nt

[BlueMTexpat]

16. My son's wedding was scheduled to be held in DC in

Sept 2001, in the week following 9-11. For a few days, there was talk of rescheduling, especially considering that DC National (I refuse EVER to call that airport after Raygun) was closed and several in the wedding party had been booked to fly into DC National. We weren't even sure whether we would be able to make it to the wedding ourselves as we were in Europe and so many flights from here to the US - DC and NYC especially - had been cancelled altogether - often at the last minute. But the "kids" decided to go ahead and not to allow their lives to be dominated by "Terra, Terra, Terra."

As it happened, our carrier began servicing the Dulles route again just in time for us to arrive two days before the wedding. Almost miraculously, everyone in the wedding party was also able to rebook flights either into Dulles or BWI. While in DC, several of us decided to visit DC museums, among them the US Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM). Every single one of us was struck by the rabid anti-Jewish rhetoric used by the Nazis in the opening exhibitions of the USHMM and how it was eerily similar to what we were hearing from the news media every time we turned on the TV in the days after 9-11. It sent chills down our spines then. In some ways, it's gotten worse since.

The major difference was that this time it was not the Jews who were being targeted.

So yes, on point comparisons to BushCo and the Nazi era are most certainly warranted. If there are those who believe that means that I fail to make a point merely because I mention the word "Nazi," then they can certainly continue to believe that. But that belief will not change the facts.

[Time for change]

40. That's one of the scariest things about what's happening now

They're trying to scapegoat minorities and make it acceptable to do so.

[Enthusiast]

18. This is a great OP! K&R

The ones shouting "Godwin’s law!" are doing it for a reason-they are fascists.

[rasputin1952]

19. History is indeed a wonderful thing to look at to see where we may go...

but the denigration and oppression of Jews goes far further back in world history than the rise of National Socialism in Germany. Europe and the Middle East have a long and sordid past when it comes to all kinds of oppression, not just against Jews, but also against virtually anyone who was not a part of the ruling class of the time, whether that be sultans, czars, emperors kings, queens or popes. Taking things back 20 years before the rise of National Socialism, Jews were blamed for the defeat of the German-Austrian Empire. When it became inconvenient to blame Jews, there were plenty of other scapegoats, Gypsies, Muslims, Catholics, Communists, the list goes on and people can easily find ways to blame entire sections of humanity for perceived wrongs.

There will always be "witch hunts" for those that need an excuse to push their agendas forward. Today's neo-con movement is built on the idea that being a Liberal or Progressive is somehow something "evil". Just as with the Jews being scapegoats for the Germany/Europe ills after 1918, (before that actually in many cases), the National Socialists tapped into a deep underlying current of ignorance and bigotry to find the "cause of Europe's ills. What sets them apart in a horrific way is that their actions were so systematic, so cold that it is difficult to see any humanity at all. But humanity was apparent in several notable cases. In one instance a German Major refused to execute Jews just because they were Jews and got a few hundred out of harms way. In other cases, entire companies and battalions refused to execute the orders of the SS and there were no repercussions against them. The point being, that some people even during a war, remained true to the notion that wholesale slaughter of innocents was remarkably immoral and they would have no part of it. Indeed, these were rare, but it shows us that it is possible to confront evil and in some cases defeat it.

Stalin was no better. The purges and then the wholesale slaughter of his own people, often on racial/religious grounds as well as political added to the toll of those murdered for the sake of murdering them. When one adds other groups to the slaughter, it is difficult to comprehend how almost anyone survived. Between the nazi's and Stalin; homosexuals, intellectuals, teachers, scientists, labor leaders and unionists were murdered in purges of both societies, we can see many more millions put to death. It has been estimated that between 14-16 million non-combatant deaths can be placed at the feet of Germany, the Soviet Union and Japan. Without the actions by these three countries, many civilian lives would have been saved in Dresden, Tokyo and other places that were bombed into oblivion.

But I digress, the absolute horror of the Holocaust, as I stated above, was the system that grew up to murder Jews and others. It was never efficient, so there was a constant push to find efficiency in mass murder. I had to think twice about writing that, as there is something extraordinarily chilling about writing, "find efficiency in mass murder." What a concept that is, mass murder is despicable in its own right, but to seek efficiency in the practice is something extremely hard for me to fathom.

On a parallel to today, Germany is much more aware of what happened and determined to avoid such situations in the future, whereas the US is coming closer to what this country fought against 65+ years ago. The rift between the Right and the Left has been widened, both sides blaming the other for what ails us, (FWIW, the RW gets to take the lion's share of the blame, but the LW is not blame free). We are descending into a dark and angry future. If we do not learn from history just how we are affected by our own and past and the lessons included therein, we will tumble into a place that will truly look like hell on earth. One of the reasons I am a Liberal/Progressive is to try to ensure that history does not repeat itself. It is a daunting task, the RW has most of the media outlets covered, and the nightmare of a society dominated by the extremely wealthy and corporations is just a few steps away, but we can defeat this. The question is, do we have the fortitude to stand up against the onslaught?

[tomp]

20. brilliant piece, extremely well thought out and explained.

i believe this "law" is a purposeful meme to oppose the left. i assume it came into being as a recognition that capitalism/imperialism ALWAYS ultimately moves in a fascistic direction and that media preemptives were desperately needed to obscure these moves, or more accurately, to allow them to be conducted in broad daylight, e.g., bush's open confessions of illegal wiretapping and ordering torture ("because the lawyers said it was legal"). this, of course, presumes the existence of a right wing media conspiracy, of which fox news is only the most obvious evidence.

the meme is devoid of logic which you have effectively demonstrated.

i've had it with jon stewart. his extension of godwin to include bush/cheney specifically cannot be an accident when taken in conjunction with his "sanity rally" dictum that the left and the right are equally responsible for the problems in current american media discourse, which i took as a profoundly offensive defense of corporate (FASCIST!) political manipulation, which has reached, and i would suggest, surpassed the methods of Goebbels.

the failure to prosecute bush/cheney is itself an illegal act, which makes obama, by extension, a war criminal. try getting that meme to float and you will have an idea of how effective the manipulation of the collective mind has been, and that du's supposed intelligentsia is not immune to that manipulation.

i think you hit the nail on the head with the idea that it is all about preserving the status quo, but particularly within the very thought process of americans. this meme, along with all the other nonsensical memes put forward by the media, is brainwashing, pure and simple. it has been extremely effective, and the democrats are as complicit as the republicans.

[Time for change]

41. Very well said

I agree wholeheartedly with all of that.

[hay rick]

21. Guilt tripper!

Sorry, I couldn't resist resurrecting a phrase from the 60s-70s, but I'm putting it out there as the short answer to the question "why are there so many 'unmentionable things' in our democracy and why are they conversation stoppers instead of conversation starters."

In most circles, the assertion that Bush is a war criminal has the undesired effect of opening a door to the sub-basement of our collective psyche- the place where we store the crimes of our leaders, our guilt for putting them in a position to abuse authority and, worst of all, our tolerance for those crimes after they come to light. We live in a "democracy." We can replace bad leaders with much better leaders. We can prosecute and punish criminal behavior. The problem is, collectively we haven't done those things. If we are aware of a crime and do nothing about it, then we are accessories to that crime. Not our preferred self-image. It is therefore much easier to deny that a problem exists than to haul it out into the light of day. Americans have already tumbled pretty far down the "accessory" slope. This is a self-reinforcing process as the magnitude of our accumulated and growing guilt only makes it more difficult to confront later.

How did we get to this unthinkable spot? With a lot of help, particularly from our friends in the media. They systematically deny coverage to some stories (Iraqi casualties, peace rallies, black incarceration rates) and focus relentlessly on others (tea parties anyone?) that suit their owner's agendas. They lead by example. They frame the issues, and determine what is suitable for polite discussion among Good Do-Bees and what is not. In the case of GWB, I think the range of acceptable options looks something like this:

Conservative view- he's a hero. Best president ever.
Moderate view- he's well-intentioned.
Liberal view- he's misguided or maybe even a little bit foolish.
Wacko view- he's one of the evil-doers. His activities were criminal. The latter views are seldom aired, and when they are, they are likely to be associated with a pre-villainized or marginalized liberal- Rosie O'Donnell, Al Sharpton, or Michael Moore, for example...

[JDPriestly]

46. Ironically, the media will suffer first and most if an authoritarian

similar to the NAZIs or Communists of the Soviet Union come to power.

[Fritz67]

23. The conservative vapors...

...about comparisons with Bush's war crimes and Nazi war crimes is sickening, especially as one of their icons comes on the TV five nights a week and tries to tar every Progressive on the planet as a Nazi.

But it's the old double standard at work: Invoking Nazism when talking about warrentless wiretapping, torture, secret death squads, and starting unprovoked wars is a sign that the speaker is a shrill, paranoid whackjob. Invoking Nazism when talking about providing health care for all is a valid and appropriate comparison.

[lunatica]

25. Great thread!

[Richard Steele]

28. K&R

[hobbit709]

29. To those people that try to invoke Godwin

my response is that if it waddles like a duck, swims like a duck, has feathers like a duck and quacks like a duck; it's either a duck or a closely related waterfowl.

[rtassi]

30. Truth: or the "finely tuned MYTH of American Character"

Now were putting our toes on the line ... But America is not alone in this lack of truth or character, nor is it an exclusive feature of the 'right" IMO. The Holocaust or the Nazi's, as a subject, or a comparison, remains a show stopper not solely because of the collective conscious compassion directed at the event, as those who pretend offense so often proclaim, but also because of the enormous self interest manifested in countless ways intended to keep it front and center as the most egregious historic event of all time. You and I were both alive and aware of the events of 1962, and we both know how close we came to annihilating 70+ million people, and I'm personally pretty uncomfortable with our record of war just in my life time! Goodwin's law is just another obfuscation of truth ... Bush is a war criminal, of that there can be no valid discussion imo, as so many of our Presidents have been, and will continue to be ... as are we ... another GREAT Post TFC!
rtassi

[Time for change]

42. Thank you RT -- I think that anyone who isn't uncomfortable with our record of war --

and there are plenty of them -- either has misplaced priorities or just doesn't know what's going on.

[Joe Chi Minh]

31. TfC, I've said a few times now on the Guardian Comment board that Godwin's

Law is farcically misinterpreted, since the reality is that, if the accusation is false, those who are, in fact, the true losers of the argument, will be only too keen to refute it.

Instead, they fold... and here's the funny bit.... because of some light-hearted, anecdotal saw, which they co-opt as their own, definitive 'clincher' of the argument. You couldn't make it up.

[azul]

32. Another thanks for you insights.

The public is being played by special interests and government in a reckless game of power and manipulation.

People actually have the power, but are being confused and misled into abdicating it for bargains. And this OP is about buyer's remorse in denial.

This bargaining process is all about creating and satisfying that which is wanted. Do you know exactly what you want and know how to go about getting it, or are you open to suggestion?

That seems to be a major problem with the society 2010, too many people are confused about or don't know what they want. And so can be tricked.

[Hydra]

33. Godwin's law is a fail for 1 simple reason

What the Nazis did was not in any way extraordinary. It was particularly banal, in fact.

They subverted a Government and a people, took a people to war, and killed a large number of people.

Done a million times before, will be done a million times in the future.

By setting it on a sort of pedestal, it makes the event untouchable. It makes what's going on in our world on a daily basis unseeable.

Genocide didn't start with the Nazis, and it didn't end when we "won" the war. Genocide, tyranny, myths and lies live with us on a daily basis.

We'd rather just say it's not happening.

[Quantess]

44. No, the Nazis were not "banal".

I hear what you are saying, and I agree that so much of what the Nazis did (fascism, genocide, tyranny, propaganda, etc) is time tested and has been repeated over human history, and across civilizations many times. But, they were unique in many ways, and had their own bloody fingerprint of historical horror.

That's like saying Jeffrey Dahmer is banal, because he is just another serial killer. Now, I'm not saying Jeffrey Dahmer was necessarily worse than any other serial killer, but he was unique enough to not be a garden variety serial killer.

(Not to mention the obvious fact that the Nazi comparison is really, really trite. The bandying about of "Nazi" was overdone years ago, and has lost all meaning.)

[Hydra]

48. We can exotify it if we really want to

But frankly, the biggest difference between what the Nazis did in terms of genocide vs. what others have done is that most people care about the Jewish population. We tend to gloss over the gypsies, homosexuals, disabled people, etc. that died there too. Had it just been the others, I doubt it would get more than a footnote in history.

That fact alone horrifies me- do we really not care when people kill brown people or socially unacceptables to the point that things going on in Congo or Iraq aren't considered in the same league?

[nashville_brook]

51. +1 -- i think the whole idea of the banality of evil went past the poster. i get what you're saying

and totally agree.

[Swamp Rat]

36. Godwin is a Nazi

:)

[Ikonoklast]

39. Nice post, Hitler.

[Greyhound]

43. Aww. I missed the rec window. You and your paying attention and looking stuff up thing...

you're such a troublemaker!
:applause:
:kick:

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. When people use Nazi-like language

See newt, we will eliminate liberals by 2020....

When they used antisemitic language worthy of Der Sturmer, Glenny Beck and his puppeteer analogies...

Goodwin's law is no longer in effect.

This is a very dangerous moment in US (and word) history. What is old is new again.

Good post by the way.

[JDPriestly]

47. Thanks for posting this, Time for a Change

My husband lived in NAZI Austria as a child (although half Jewish). We both lived in Germany and Austria. My husband has considerable knowledge and expertise about German culture and, of course, the NAZI era. I know a great deal about it.

I have known ex-NAZIs (real ones) as well as people who still hang onto their NAZI ideas.

When I compare the Bush administration to the NAZIs, I am not talking so much about just the Holocaust but more the systematic use of propaganda (remember Bush's propagandists paid to appear on behalf of his administration on TV -- without admitting that they were administration representatives?), bypassing constitutional restraints on executive power, basically suspending the Bill of Rights and the Geneva Conventions (thus returning to the period prior to the Geneva Convention's adoption), demonizing enemies in a way that was dehumanizing and meant to justify acts of incredible cruelty, violating the privacy rights of masses of law-abiding Americans without apology or full disclosure of the violations and numerous other acts and policies on the part of the Bush administration. The NAZIs and Soviet Communists used similar policies to intimidate the people they governed. The Holocaust was only possible after the NAZIs had seized power, captured the imaginations of their frustrated followers and silenced most of their opposition.

When I compare the Bush administration to the NAZIs, I really know what I am talking about. I am not just generalizing or slurring. The similarities were very real. I wish Obama were doing more to end some of the terrible practices of the Bush administration. He has improved some things, but not nearly enough. Above all, he has not made it clear that the Bush administration choices on things like torture were not just policy choices. They were crimes.

[Ginto]

49. The OP's assertions are exactly like that of Hitler's and the nazi's. :)

Could not resist the temptation.