Who is more like the Nazi Party?

 

Nazi Propaganda Poster

Nazi Propaganda Poster

Godwin’s law states (paraphrased) that the longer an argument ensues, the probability of one side accusing the other of behaving like Nazis reaches 1 (a perfect probability). Despite its humorous pretenses, this law has certainly been proven in the recent debate over health care reform. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) accused protestors of carrying swastikas; Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) compared their actions to “Brown Shirt tactics.” Prominent conservative radio host, Rush Limbaugh, in turn made similarities between Obama’s health care logo and Nazi propaganda, and even made comparisons between the Nazi party and the Democratic party.

 

 

What makes the argument confusing is when most of us learned about the political spectrum in a publicly funded educational institution, we were taught that Communists are on the far left of the spectrum and Fascists/Nazis are on the far right. This is not accurate by any means if one accepts a more modern definition of the spectrum that puts increased government involvement on the left and less government involvement on the right. In other words, Communists would still be on the far left, but Anarchists would be on the extreme right.

 

 

But which party is more like the Nazis? Is it the left-wing Democrats or the right-wing Republicans. Where does fascism really lie? To shed light on this argument, I have listed the 25 point program adopted by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers’ (Nazi) Party, and compared them with modern-day viewpoints from mainstream political affiliations. Scores are tabulated at the end of each point.

 

 

 

1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.

 

            Principles of self-determination is a very right-wing mindset, as is American Exceptionalism. However, the word “demand” (fordern in German) is a very authoritarian verb and would require a large-scale government to enforce, which is typically a left-wing idea. Nevertheless, the principle is right-wing. RW-1, LW-0

 

2. We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.

            This assertion is politically benign, as it is only demanding the basic rights of a state. Its demand that the treaties of Versaille and St.Germain-en-laye be rescinded was an attempt to regain its standing as a legitimate country. Those treaties broke up the German Empire—which is important in the next point—and redrew the map of Europe; they forced Germany to accept guilt in starting World War I, a highly debatable attestation at best; they also limited the size of the army Germany was allowed to maintain. Point number two does not reflect any specific view on the political spectrum; it only wished to remove the implication of international subservience that Germany was currently under. RW-1, LW-0

 

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.

            This appears to be a right-wing attitude, as that spectrum recently has been viewed as imperial and expansionist. However, this demand was an extension of the previous point. Germany wanted its land that was hers prior to World War I in order to feed (Ger. Ernährung) its outlying loyalists. Be that as it may, its smack of neo-conservatism forces a score. RW-2, LW-0

 

4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.

            Irrelevant in American politics. Some would argue that racism and anti-Semitism is a right-wing characteristic, but they do so on the assumption that Nazism and fascism are right-wing philosophies. Stalin’s Soviet Union killed more Jews than Hitler did, but that does not mean a left-wing Communist philosophy is racist. Despite common portrayals in mainstream media, no American political party can claim they have conquered racism nor accuse the other of harboring it. RW-2, LW-0

5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.

 

           Allowing non-citizens to live within the political boundaries of a state is generally a left-wing position, as the seemingly popular opinion among the right is to deport all those who are in the country illegally. In regards to aliens with visas, neither spectrum in America holds any prominent posits on a different rule of law to which they must subject themselves. RW-2, LW-1

(more…)

Wanted: A Republican Leader

“The conspiring of many wills to the same end doth not suffice to preserve peace, and to make a lasting defense, it is requisite that in those necessary matters which concern peace and self-defense, there be but one will of all men.” -Thomas Hobbes, De Cive

 

“In a multitude not yet reduced into one person, there remains that same state of nature in which all things belong to all men [i.e., war].” -Thomas Hobbes, De Cive

 

What Hobbes is saying in this context is that, while it is a good start to have many people desiring the same result, there must be a definitive leader. If there is not, that entity, whether it is a nation or a political party, is vulnerable to attack, from within and without, or retreat.

 

There has been so much publicized debate and conflict over the leadership of the Republican Party recently. Most of this is perpetuated by the left wing attack teams (read Rahm Emanuel) and the media. We should not be angry over this, however; we should expect it. Of course the opposition is going to exploit what it sees as an opening–it is beneficial to their agenda. The media (while some would argue are the same as a left-wing attack team) helps to perpetuate it because conflict breeds profit.

 

(more…)

Tagged with:
 

A Crisis Too Good to Waste

It is rude to say “I told you so.” No one wants to hear it, and most of the time it does no good. It also reinforces one’s own selfishness, their need to feel like they should be heard. However, just two days ago, I stated my beliefs about President-elect Obama’s agenda concerning global warming. Apparently, the Wall Street Journal has shown my opining was justified.

 

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” is what Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff, has said concerning the global economic flu. Now the Obama administration plans to use this opportunity to strengthen government involvement in the private sector with the ultimate goal of climate change, the Wall Street Journal reported.

 

Some other quotes from the article:

 

“We are in the midst of a massive reorganization right now in autos but also other areas as well — finance, information technology. All of this flows into…the new green energy economy we are living in, albeit in an embryonic stage.” -Rep. David Bonier, Obama Economic Advisor

 

“We’re backing into industrial policy in an emergency to correct massive market failures,” -Jared Bernstein, Obama Economic Team

 

The bottom line is that Obama will move toward regulating every aspect of the free market, all in the name of a “green” economy, viz., global unity. The massive market failures that Mr. Bernstein refers to were caused by government intervention in the first place, so why would Obama think that more intervention will solve it? Apparently, investors are skeptical of this as well, as the Dow has dropped over 21% since his election, the largest two-week drop in post-election history.

 

Why has America moved so far away from the founding fathers’ intent of our democratic-Republic? Why have we allowed the government on its regulatory pedestal, when the delegates at the Constitutional Convention (at least the ones whose arguments won) clearly wanted the people to regulate the government, not the other way around? Why have we allowed frivolous legislation that is clearly intended to do nothing but establish more power in the federal government?

 

Obama and his idealistic supporters want more government involvement due to their ultimate idealistic goal of Global Unity. The politicized international economic situation and alleged warming-globe crisis have given them a crisis too good to waste.

Obama’s COS: Rahm Emanuel

As anticipated, President-elect Obama wasted no time in choosing his Chief of Staff. The lucky recipient? Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL). 

What does this mean for the rest of the country? As a member of the New Democrat Coalition, Emanuel advocates moderate positions and a pro-business stance. Can we believe this from someone who once said that “Republicans can go f*** themselves?” It is possible in the rigors of political life that this quote was spoken in well-deserved anger based on his positions, so it may be moot.

He also represents a very powerful advocate for the state of Israel, which is sure to reassure voters who doubted Obama’s Israeli commitment. Predictably, he is also not opposed to war. He supported President Bush’s position on the war in Iraq in 2002. 

In many respects, he could balance out certain far-left tendencies of our President-elect. His habit of bluntly speaking his mind is also a desirable quality in a Chief of Staff, assuming Obama will listen.

Tagged with: