© Copyright 2009 B22 Media, LLC
COMMENTS
LINKS
Monday, August 17, 2009
He’s a Nazi, She’s a Nazi, Wouldn’t You Like to be a Nazi Too?
FRESH
CONSERVATIVE
®
Submitted by Bart Willruth © Copyright 2009 B22 Media
In the heat of the political strife of the past few weeks, accusations of being Nazi-like have been used freely by partisans on all sides of the issues, followed by the expected offense at the use of the appellation as well as the suggestion that even to use the term is to diminish the monstrous crimes of the Nazi state.
In a recent post at American Thinker, I made use of the Nazi analogy myself, pointing out that the term itself stands for National Socialism (See “Citizen Informants” Aug 5, 2009) and I referred specifically to the danger of the highest office in the nation using tactics reminiscent of the Nazi’s in its requests for citizens to forward emails and the content of conversational rumors considered by the administration to counter their health care agenda. The collection of this sort of data by the executive branch is a violation of federal law.
Perhaps it is time to step back for a moment though and ask how, if ever, it is appropriate to compare National Socialism to events in the United States. It must be first acknowledged that National Socialism will be forever connected to the holocaust of 6,000,000 Jews and about as many others deemed to be corruptive to the German society. To this genocidal crime, there is no proper analogy to be made in contemporary America. To call an opponent a Nazi without some principled contextual explanation is not useful. It both diminishes the historical crime and becomes a meaningless insult, since no one of any stature is promoting a Nazi-like modern genocide.
As an illustration of the difficulties of separating matters of principal from historical connections, allow a brief digression into the issue of state’s rights. In the current fight for the form and type of government which will characterize America’s future, none perhaps is more important than the struggle between the tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the usurpation of constitutional powers by the federal government. Specifically, the constitution enumerates clearly defined powers which may be exercised by the various branches of the federal government. The underlying principal is that those powers not specifically granted are out of bounds. Any branch of the government which attempts to exercise authority in any area not granted is acting unconstitutionally and must be opposed. Every elected official in the United States government takes an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, an oath which clearly implies the duty to oppose any non-enumerated taking of power by any federal office holder. The system of checks and balances was intended to stop any such unconstitutional usurpation. The tenth amendment to the constitution states the principal clearly,
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
This issue of state’s rights will be a battleground for years to come. The problem arises, however, when the principle of “state’s rights” is held in historical memory in connection with slavery and segregation. The legacy of these events will be forever tied to the arguments for state’s rights, even though the evil which was defended through that principle is not intrinsic to it. That is, a fundamentally indispensable principle was used historically to perpetrate improper acts. Yet that important principle which was intended to perpetuate a bottom-up system of government wherein sovereignty begins with the individual, moves higher to the state level, and finally to the federal level which has the most constitutional restrictions placed upon it, is so easily dismissed by charges of racism being applied to those who seek to apply it to contemporary issues.
So the constitutional principles of the sovereignty of the individual and the inviolable rights of the states to hold authority in all areas not specifically given to the federal government are easily dismissed because of historical acts not intrinsic to the principles themselves.
The same problem adheres to the use of applying analogies to National Socialism at the level of principle. Historical crimes interfere with reasoned discussion.
There are, however, proper analogical applications which can be made between National Socialism and contemporary American discourse. These are on the levels of philosophical premises, practical policy application, and tactics.
For a moment, think the unthinkable. What if no Jews had lived in National Socialist Germany? What if no holocaust had occurred? Could there have been National Socialism apart from anti-Semitism? Are there premises which drove National Socialism that could define it apart from genocide? It is a difficult subject to broach, yet it is very important. National Socialism has been so much identified with its crimes in documentaries of the period, histories, novels, movies, and common discourse, that the underlying principles of the movement can easily be lost. Nevertheless, it existed as a political system for years prior to the war and the holocaust.
National Socialism, along with its cousins Fascism, Communism, and Progressivism while different at some levels, all share the same underlying premises which must be identified in order to reach a proper understanding:
1.Rights ultimately adhere to society, not to individuals.
2.The collective is sovereign.
3.The state is the proper mechanism for the administration of the collective wishes.
4.The Leadership is the voice of the collective for the enforcement of state power.
These premises are intrinsic to all forms of statist/collectivism named above, whether openly acknowledged or not. They are the polar opposite of the American system wherein rights adhere only to individuals who delegate limited powers to a government whose sole duties revolve around protecting the life, liberty, and property of individuals from enemies foreign and domestic.
National Socialism found its justification for eliminating Jews by defining the proper collective for Germany. The wish of its leaders to destroy Jews and others it deemed to be unwelcome participants in the collective society was the application of the principle that the “rights” of the collective were sovereign. Unwelcome individuals had no rights. They, as well as even those who were valued, were the literal property of the collective to be used or disposed of as seen fit by the Leadership of the state apparatus of power. Or in the words of Adolf Hitler, “The good of the community takes priority over that of the individual.” Thus, when the absolute rights of the individual were abrogated, the door was opened for genocide.
All forms of socialism are infused with the language of sacrifice, even the “heroism” of sacrifice, by individuals doing the right thing for the collective. The outlook of the socialist mindset is utopian, the attempt by leadership elites to force individuals into compliance with the demands of the collective for the greater good.
The National Socialist-Fascist principles in practical application are not the stuff of Hollywood, certainly nothing containing suspense or excitement. Separate it from war and genocide and it was rather dull. Life under National Socialism in Germany or Fascism in Italy was authoritarian yet mundane. The state apparatus was a massive bureaucracy operating on the Fuhrer principle, a top down hierarchy. It was characterized by flowcharts of administration extending from the Leader (Adolf Hitler, or Mussolini) to the little Fuhrers of the many agencies controlling every aspect of existence, down through regional bureaus and committees to local bureaucrats and finally neighborhood ward leaders. For any individual or any business to get anything done, there was a necessity to get an endless series of approvals, stamps, waivers, certifications and official seals creating a mountain of paperwork and inefficiencies, much like getting a building permit today in America. At any point, minor issues could hold up any decision forcing it to be pushed up the chain of command for approval at higher levels. The power of the state and the power of the people in the chain of authority was a weight upon the shoulders of every citizen. The whim of anyone in a position of authority could throw a wrench into the best thought out plans and there was little recourse available for redress..
Both the rhetoric and actions of the National Socialists-Fascists was:
1.Anti capitalist: Freedom to think and to act in one’s own interest, to create and accumulate wealth, to innovate, to take personal responsibility, were all verboten. The profit motive was denigrated as unpatriotic and against the interest of the state. Likewise, “excessive salaries” were to be abrogated.
2.Anti corporation: The socialists spoke out against the corporations and sought to nationalize those which could be of service to the state and to destroy those whose only justification for existence was to benefit those who owned and ran them. Managers who made too much money were vilified. The charging of interest was considered dirty.
3.Anti individualist: Their language was that of the “we”. The interests of the many (as elucidated by the Leaders) superseded the interests of the one. The individual was expected to willingly sacrifice his interests for the betterment of the collective. It was considered unpatriotic to live for one’s own interest. Any action by an individual had to be justified on the basis of the good it would accomplish for society as a whole.
4.Pragmatism: The debates among members of the Leadership elites centered on arguments over which policies would work best, completely disregarding the wishes of individuals using their own parochial judgment. The decisions of those who could see the whole picture and thus knew best were rigidly enforced. There was no effective form of redress or challenge for those whose only choice was to comply.
The National Socialist-Fascists were intent on regulating every facet of life through various Ministries administered by individuals whose decisions could virtually not be questioned except by the Leader himself. In today’s parlance, we might call them Czars. These Fuhrers oversaw the management of banks, wage and price controls, cradle to grave health coverage, government run retirement benefits, education, agricultural policy, industrial production and distribution, setting quotas, land reform, environmental policy, recreation, ownership transfer, nationalization of private property, fuel policy, subsidies for the poor, ad infinitum.
Service to the state was promoted as patriotism. Leveling society to proximate equality of outcome was the National Socialist ideal.
The collectivist-statist premises of National Socialism are very much in evidence in American discourse and have been to varying degrees for a century. Most of their economic policies have been adopted and are assumed by many to be in harmony with the constitution. The nationalization of many of the largest American banks and industries has already occurred. Redistribution of wealth through the tax system is well established and considered the morally correct action. The wages of many workers from the entry level to the corporate suite are now set by government, government run retirement benefits are in place, governmentally mandated permits for the use of private property proliferate, education policies are dictated from Washington, fuel policies and efficiency regulations continue to expand. Government regulated or provided health care is now on the near horizon. American citizens now live with something closely akin to the Fuhrer structure envisioned by the National Socialists.
The language has been collectivized i.e. “We are all in this together,” “It takes a village,” “We need to be more Communitarian,” “We spend more on X than any other country,” “We are a rich nation,” “We need to give back to our communities and country,” “We can’t afford not to see that everybody has X.” All of these statements drop the context of the individual, who in fact has the constitutional right to work and to earn, keep the fruits of his labor, act according to his independent judgment, and spend his money for that which he judges best.
Sadly, the loyal opposition rarely takes issue with collectivist policy on the basis of principle. More frequent are arguments on the pragmatic level i.e. “Our program would work better than yours,” or “We just can’t afford to do this during an economic downturn.” Underlying these responses is the unspoken and perhaps unrecognized acknowledgement that “We accept your collectivist premises, but we differ on the best way to apply them.” The acceptance of these premises means that there is no effective opposition. Rare is the politician who asks whether the plans being discussed are constitutional according to the enumerated powers doctrine.
So, back to the question, Is it ever proper to make the Nazi analogy? If the context is dropped and it is used as an easy insult, it is counterproductive and diminishes the content of the term. But if the analogy with National Socialism is connected by premise and principle, it is apropos. In simple terms, “If the shoe fits…”
BlogTalkRadio -- Interview with Bart Willruth on Political Vindication discussing this article.
