It’s hard to imagine a historical figure who has visited more wickedness on the world than Hitler. And it is quite clear how he embodied and expressed this wickedness, and what cautions we should take from his baleful example, isn’t it?
Don’t be so sure. If the crimes he sponsored are indescribably and indelibly fixed in history, the vile elements of the nature that gave rise to them appear to be more elastic. This is never more clear than when he is used as the archetype of all sorts of evils that are suspected in various places and times.
Because, it seems, he can and is used to paint whoever you don’t like as equivalent to, or even worse than, him.
Of course, lots of people called Saddam Hussein a modern Hitler, and others apply the characterization to various terrorists and heads of radical regimes. But did you know that many progressives have used the slur to demonize American presidents whose policies they disapproved of?
For example, Bertrand Russell, a 20th century British philosopher and passionate advocate of unilateral disarmament, called John F. Kennedy “50 times worse than Hitler” due to the President’s support of nuclear deterrence. This, from a person whose views are supposed to be impregnably founded on objective academic detachment. (Please see Thomas Sowell‘s enlightening “The Quest for Cosmic Justice,” for more on this reference, as well as similar examples of an unfortunate tendency to smear debating opponents with emotionally-charged rhetoric in order to evade engaging in the debate with well-constructed argumentation.)
More recently, I read an essay by a blogger that, with archly implausible deniability, slurred an unnamed current American political figure for being similar to Hitler due to the former’s response to the terrorist attacks on the United States seven years ago.
Progressives themselves – again, including American presidents – are sometimes the targets of such comparisons. This is typically done from a different angle, and with the coy suggestion that there is a dangerously thin line between passionately insistent idealism and devastatingly dangerous – even evil – intolerance.
Hitler, after all, began his political career attracting the admiration of forward-thinking liberals around the world. He championed progressive solutions and implemented social policies inspired by them that were largely successful in relieving widespread suffering and poverty resulting from what was seen as inept and unjust punishments imposed upon the German nation and its people after World War I.
Even after the devastation and evil unleashed by this man during the next world war, many perfectly well-intentioned progressives nevertheless continued to admire, and sought ways to adapt, the organizational methods for mobilizing the populace and using government to implement social change employed by him and Mussolini. (Please see this review of Jonah Goldberg‘s “Liberal Fascism” for more on this angle, as well as this one of F.A. Hayek‘s “The Road to Serfdom” and this one, directed specifically to managers, of the same book.)
And, more generally, ideologues of all stripes don’t hesitate to condemn as “Hitlers” or “jack-booted fascists” all who disagree with them. Again, note that this is a robustly bipartisan tendency.
So, what is your own exemplar of evil – in the world at large, in your community, in your workplace? And, if you invoke it, are you sure that you and your conversant – even if he or she agrees with the characterization – will be drawing the same moral from it?
If not, perhaps we should pay more attention to the content of what we wish to say, than to the passion with which we wish to say it. If we can more closely and specifically draw the latter from the former, then we may have ourselves an argument that strikes a full chord. That’s how to get everyone on the same sheet of music.
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of carefully assessed content delivered with the intensity of well-considered experience, please see this recent guest essay, on Miki Saxon‘s Leadership Turn, about the shortcomings of our education system. It’s a must read, and one that may even get you muttering about jack-booted thugs of one sort or another. Your cardiovascular exercise for the day – enjoy!
—
Have you noticed the blue “Sphere” icon, below? When you click on it, it will produce a window offering you content related to today’s item from other blogs and the regular media. Give it a try!
And, while you’re clicking around down there, don’t forget to subscribe, by email or RSS reader!
Technorati Tags: Hitler, Saddam Hussein, progressive, American, president, Bertrand Russell, British, philosopher, John F. Kennedy, Thomas Sowell, United States, idealism, intolerance, liberal, German, World War I, government, Mussolini, Jonah Goldberg, F.A. Hayek, ideologue, workplace, experience, Miki Saxon, Leadership Turn, education
Sphere: Related Content
Jim, How can you have the temerity to say “perhaps we should pay more attention to the content of what we wish to say, than to the passion with which we wish to say it.” in the middle of an election year?
Do you really want to deny us the rhetoric from our favorite ideologues? Since when do we Americans care more for substance than form?
And if, in fact not fiction, the desire for substance over form took root, what in the world will these same ideologues have to talk about?
Thanks for pointing your readers to CandidProf’s post yesterday. It’s important information.
Hi Miki,
That’s true, isn’t it! And yet, in a really interesting way, the peculiar course of the campaign does manage to reveal perhaps the most important thing we need to know about the candidates – their character. That’s also relevant to the post; and there’s certainly more there to talk about – thanks for resetting the discussion to that!
My pleasure to pointing to the post, which I agree is important, as well as your own writing on your blog!
Thanks as always for your visit!
Jim, thanks (if you wrote this)! In your early paragraphs, you refer to those opinionated folk as “progressives.” Your later term “ideologue” seems to me more accurate. It was not Hitler who was “evil.” It was what he believed in. We all have such beliefs. Whether they are “good” or “evil” depends on the consequences, wouldn’t you say? Given the excruciating problems of today’s belief in “diversity,” he may have had the right idea after all? He certainly regenerated the world’s economy! Those who think our leaders are either “good” or “evil” are always wrong.
And, thanks for the link. I believe the ghostwriter confuses learning with education. Our schools are not in the learning business. They’re in the “education” business. We’re clearly losing because the system is dysfunctional. When the responsibility belongs to the teacher, the school, or the society and not the pupil, the results are what you would expect.
Hi Lee,
Thanks for your kind comments about the post – and, yes, of course, I wrote it, as I do all the posts.
I have always used the term “ideologue” to refer to someone who has a dogmatic – even a fanatical – attachment to an ideal, and “idealist” for someone who simply aspires to the realization of an ideal, but who is able to maintain a moral grip on the connection between means and ends. I think the term “progressive” can encompass both. Of course, so can terms like “conservative,” “libertarian,” or, even, “free-market capitalist!” I used “ideologue” here to refer to people, of any stripe, who go directly to the smear campaign as a way to deal with those who disagree with them.
I think a key thing to note about political leaders is that they are more a reflection of their societies than, truthfully, independent actors “leading” anyone. Certainly, there are degrees in this, but in the larger scheme – surely in Germany in the inter-war years as well – we get what we want, or what we will tolerate. While the dynamics, mechanics, and avenues available for recourse are different, I think the general idea applies to varying but meaningful degrees everywhere from the workplace to politics.
Your point about something turning out to be “good” or “evil” depending at least to some degree on the consequences is interesting in this context. It is precisely that ideologues (again, of all stripes) are more interested in the realization of ideals than in the personal and other consequences of their implementation that makes them so dangerous.
The guest author on Miki’s site makes a clear suggestion that certain abstract progressive ideas are being imposed in our school systems in a way that shunts aside family influence and even, as you indicate, personal responsibility, to a damaging degree on many levels. I’m glad you mentioned that post – I hope more visitors will take this as encouragement to click through to it from Miki’s comment – it is definitely worth a read.
Thanks again, Lee, for your visit, your kind comments, and your always thought-provoking observations!
Jim, The post to which you’re referring is School sans learning, not the one in my link.
Lee, are you really saying that your solution to the “excruciating problems of diversity” is to fire up the ovens and get rid of the diversity? Will you be basing the decision on color, religion or some new set of characteristics. Hitler didn’t regenerrate the economy. At that time the world economy was “war-based” as opposed to “consumer-based,” although it could be argued that the military is just another kind of consumer.
The ghostwriter, as you choose to call him, hasn’t confused anything. Yes, the system is dysfunctional, but to put the responsibility on children and teens is absurd. The most important thing any person acquires from school isn’t information, it’s learning how to learn.
Moreover, a lack of accountability while young does not translate to accountability upon achieving a certain status or age.
Hi Miki,
You’re right, of course – I misidentified the location of the link – thanks for catching that. The link to your guest – who posts periodically on your site – is in the “Today’s Tip” section at the end of the post, above. Thanks for putting it in again in your comment immediately above. Again, I hope visitors will click through.
I agree with your comment about putting the onus for learning on the student in this context. The student, after all, looks to us for guidance and example regarding what to learn and how to learn it. It is my impression that your guest’s concerns are that we are sacrificing our responsibilities in these areas to some ancillary views about society and development that may be proving counterproductive.
It may be interesting to hear the professor’s views on this commentary here on the post.
Thanks for stopping by Miki – and for clarifying the location of the link to the post.
I’m sure CP will and I’ve forwarded the discussion link to him, but he may be slow, between the start of school and Hurricane Ike.
I wish students actually did look to adults for guidance, etc., but it seems more and more that they look only to their like-minded peers—which definitely falls under the ‘blind leading the blind’ category.
Hi Jim
Count me in as someone who knows that Evil certainly is real, but the last part of your post is the ballgame for me.
It’s what the mis-appropriation of language says about where we’re heading that really concerns me.
Yes, some people of the “Progressive” persuasion invoke Hitler (not Stalin, or Mao) as their exemplar of Evil – because they never want to miss a verbal opportunity to have this clear embodiment of right wing evil be generally, continually despised – as he should be, obviously.
But I’m more focused on cultural evolution, and my problem with what’s going on now includes the reality that freedom and free markets precisely favor “market differentiation,” as reflected in “passion,” and its perceived authenticity.
Too often, lapses in logic, lack of substance, and ultimate lack of authenticity are never quite tracked down, or unmasked, before the market (meaning us) “rewards” – yet again – careless use of language with Google hits, cash flow, and celebrity.
So, my concern is that un-reflective freedom, quarter by quarter income statements, personal cynicism masked by claims to “self fulfillment,” time accelerating at warp speed, all add up to fewer and fewer of us minding the “cultural” store. And yes, that would include firmly, but gently, reproaching people who utilize name-calling toward people with whom they disagree.
Hello Shaun,
Your use of the creation of cultural market segmentation to approach this topic is interesting. You follow that up with concern about “lapses in logic” which aren’t discovered in an environment of “un-reflective freedom” – this is a rich vein for exploration – minding the culture store – do we do that, or does it self-organize around our behaviors and beliefs (including “personal cynicism masked by claims to ‘self fulfillment’” – great phrase)?
Something like that is the great question, really, of history – do we allow ourselves to be “led” by those who engage in this reflection while we thoughtlessly putter about our trivial self-interest, do we ascend to sovereignty only at the cost of investing in burdensome reflection about our culture and society, or do we leave things to the invisible hand of self interest trusting that it will do more good – both culturally and economically – than we could obtain from self-absorbed do-gooders? But, is the risk of its self-organizing into a monstrosity one we can afford to venture?
Or, does that largely unregulated cultural marketplace itself generate reflective whistle-blowers that we use as outriders, scouting for trouble ahead as we careen down the cultural rapids, serving as our conscience?
And what does all of that mean in the context of business and its management?
This is great stuff, Shaun – thanks!