Skip to main content

Nazi References and Free Speech

The mainstream media is having a little fun affirming its own role as thought-police with a ridiculous statement made on the floor of the House by Tennessee Democrat Representative comparing the tactics Republicans have used to (properly!) criticize the Obamacare bill to those used by Nazi propaganda mastermind Paul Joseph Goebbels.

Here are his words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG2hWFPLmZ4

Of course, even bringing up the Nazis has become so politically taboo that immediately Talk Radio condemned Rep. Cohen for comparing Republicans to Nazis. This he did NOT do. And in defending himself on CNN with Anderson Cooper, Cohen was quite right to insist that he wasn't comparing the morally repugnant Nazis with his political opponents the Republicans. Instead he attempted to be careful--and his logic is flawless in this--about re-affirming that it was the (in his mind) dishonest propaganda tactic he was condemning, not the politicians.

Here's his interview on CNN: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/anderson-cooper-has-frustrating-exchange-with-nazi-comparing-rep/

Anderson Cooper, of course, kept hammering on the point that any comparison with the Nazis immediately brings up associations. It's automatically the worst possible example of evil anything to talk about Nazis, in Anderson's view, so that making such comparisons, correctly or not, is automatically incendiary, and thus participates in an undesirable polarization and unnecessary heating of political rhetoric that can inspire crazies to shoot innocent people in the name of hatred.

The problem is, that Anderson Cooper isn't and should never be the arbiter of what is proper. The problem is that Rep. Cohen should have free reign to express his opinion in any way he sees fit. The problem is that being truthful must always trump being inoffensive if real problems are to be honestly addressed and rectified.

Now I'm in complete disagreement with Cohen on the direction of Obamacare. He is dead wrong that Republicans are falsely characterizing the bill as a government takeover of the health care sector of the economy. Of course the bill doesn't ENACT such a takeover, but the unavoidable consequences of such a bill would eventually have that effect, and Cohen can't be ignorant of this.

However, Cohen is right about one thing and one thing only: finding a concise resounding "big lie" and repeating it until it’s believed is the tactic Goebbels is famous for. I find NOTHING WRONG in using the most famous example you can think of to illustrate whatever point you're trying to make. And there's a SPECIAL interest we should ALL take in familiarizing ourself with the Nazi examples. Those are the ones we should understand the BEST so that we don’t REPEAT their genocidal errors in our society.

The problem isn’t that Cohen misunderstands the tactic of Goebbels. The problem is that he’s wrong about the CONTENT of the “big lie” he’s calling out. Republicans have told the TRUTH about Obamacare, and it's the Democrats who have been using Goebbels’ tactics to hide it.

Fellow conservatives, please don’t fall into the PC trap of: 1. Trying to claim any and all Nazi references should be banned; 2. Trying to claim that any reference to any Nazi anywhere automatically burdens the specific charge of the reference with the full and entire weight of evil associated with the Nazis.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the term “identity”

I didn't want to become one of those grad students who takes forever to find out what he wants to study, so I entered the Masters program at PITT with an idea what I wanted to do as a dissertation: national identity in the Ivory Coast. It sounds like a straightforward enough concept, but I encountered an article while I was taking a history course which looked at several case studies of the construction of racial, ethnic, and gender identities over a variety of geographical locations and historical periods that made me radically re-think the entire concept of identity . It's a concept that makes intuitive sense to most people, I would imagine. It means who you are, right? The layperson could also probably understand quite readily that there seem to be many different levels at which our "identity" can be determined or constrained. A black person may feel more of a racial component to identity than a white person, for example. My religious identity takes primacy over my...

Abortion "Complexities" and Morality

It's just not that hard, folks.  Unless we're dealing with the context of a justified war, there's simply no moral defense for killing innocent humans if there are any other options, let alone for the convenience of the living.  And while both sides may exaggerate to make a point, only one side of the argument does insane logical backflips to hide the true and morally repugnant nature of the acts, their numbers, their consequences, and the assumptions underlying their "justifications". Ever since the leaked Alito draft hinting that Roe v. Wade was about to be overturned, pro-abortion activists have had their day.  I suppose I can understand a certain need to defend against what they perceive as a threat on their liberties and rights.  So now that they've had their time to externalize their fears and put out ad campaigns, and fake being handcuffed at protests in unlawful locations, let's stand back from the emotions and just examine the core moral argument...

Historical Malpractice

  Heather Cox Richardson is a favorite among some of my leftist friends.  Her position as an academic offers imprimatur for her wanton partisanship and her acumen as a historical researcher helps her find the cherry-picked details she needs to cover a false narrative with a veneer of historicity.  I don't usually engage because her posts are long enough that it would take too much unpacking to deal with, but I wanted to take a crack at just a part of this one. Keep in mind that her schtick consist mostly of framing modern Republicans as morally corrupt and modern Democrats as knights in shining armor for all that is good and right, by peppering her argument with so much actual historical facts that you have the feeling of "context" so you don't notice the logical sleight of hand by which her narrative escapes reason and reality.  With that said, here's my summary, responding in snarky kind to her own partisan framing, but faithful to the content of her...