 |
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS HERALD |
 |
||
|
||||
|
SON OF HITLER My mother-in-law, who came of age during Franklin Roosevelt’s first term, hated FDR with a fiery passion for her entire life. She thought he had wrecked the country, so she regularly called him The Beast (as in the Beast of the Apocalypse – see the Biblical book of Revelation). Of course, she could have called FDR the American Hitler, but Roosevelt and Hitler were actually contemporaries. Her hatred of FDR reached full flower before Hitler really became Hitler. In our time the Beast label has fallen into disuse, but “Hitler” has been overused to the point of silliness. Whenever a politician dislikes something the opposing party has done, he is likely to call his opponents “Hitlerian”, or say that they are acting like Nazis. In recent years, George W. Bush has received that tag frequently, but he hasn’t been the only one. In just the past few weeks Senator Harry Byrd said Republicans’ plans to change Senate rules to keep judicial nominees from being filibustered were “Nazi-like” tactics, aimed at achieving “absolute power”. Some politicians who indulge in these histrionics are old enough – like Senator Byrd – to have actually known Hitler (‘…listen, I knew Hitler. Hitler was a friend of mine…’, etc.), so they should know better. But younger journalists and pols throwing the H-name around are just showing that they probably slept through the classes on Nazi Germany back in middle school. Were he here, Der Führer would undoubtedly be seriously annoyed that his reputation for ruthlessness has been reduced to such trivialities. Changing filibuster rules indeed – Hitler would simply have shot a few Democrats to get things moving. The guy must be spinning in his grave. The pity of all this is that most voters – especially younger ones – who hear this stuff are so poorly educated that they wouldn’t know if comparing Mr. Bush with Hitler is accurate or not, or whether the Republicans really are Nazi-like. But people who have trouble putting the Civil War in the correct half-century, or identifying which countries we fought in World War II, are not likely to have any real concept of who Hitler was or what he did during his political “career”. All too often our concepts of Hitler or the Nazis have been framed by cinematic depictions. Of course, the Nazis are the all-time favorite villains of Hollywood film-makers. This is not undeserved, since Hitler and the Nazis were genuine bad guys on a scale seldom seen in history. They murdered millions of people for no reason except that their religion or ethnicity offended Hitler’s crackbrained theories of racial purity. Their crimes truly beggar the imagination. Hitler’s hatred of the Jews was so extreme that he arguably wrecked his own war effort against the Soviet Union on account of it. He diverted vast amounts of war materiel, transportation resources, and men to carry out his crazed Final Solution – a highly organized attempt to kill every Jew in Europe and, ultimately, the world. Some historians believe this large-scale diversion of resources allowed the Soviets hang on and ultimately defeat Germany. Hitler not only seized and exercised “absolute power” (as Senator Byrd observed), but ruthlessly crushed all opposition, both real and imagined. He even rubbed out his long-time comrade Ernst Röhm, when Röhm wanted his Sturm Abteilung (a.k.a. The Brownshirts – a 1.5 million-strong quasi-army of street hooligans, thugs, and ne’er-do-wells) to be made part of the Wehrmacht. Although the SA had helped the Nazis come to power, Hitler needed the General Staff on his side. The hooligan army had to go, and Röhm was toast. Hitler also crushed the communists via the pretext of the Reichstag fire. The German Parliament building burned to the ground soon after Hitler became Chancellor in 1933. A half-witted Dutchman was quickly blamed for setting the fire, which clearly originated under suspicious circumstances. On the premise that he was a communist, all known (or suspected) communists were rounded up and either imprisoned or executed. This was how Hitler dealt with opposition. Some historians believe the Nazis set the fire so they could hammer the communists. Maybe Senator Byrd knows something I don’t about Mr. Bush and the Republicans – A Bushian Gestapo operating below the political radar? A Gunpowder Plot to blow up the Senate? – but I just don’t see much justification for his comparison. If anything, it insults the Nazis. In my book, Republicans have been pretty timid about exercising power since they gained control of both the Congress and the Presidency. Maybe Republicans have been afraid the voters will kick them out if they get too tough on the Democrats. Or maybe they just don’t have it in them to play real hardball. Or maybe it just takes more time to get used to being in charge. After all, the Democrats had sixty years of practice at this. Miracles can’t be expected immediately. Democrats have been especially fierce in their unaccustomed opposition role since Mr. Bush was elected. Nothing similar occurred in the Congresses from 1933, onward, when Democrats gained control and Republicans were newly demoted to minority status. Republicans had had a long majority run up to that time, but their new minority status did not prompt angry filibusters of FDR’s judicial nominees or threats to arrest the government’s business if they didn’t get their way. They were also entirely loyal through all four wars that Democratic presidents got us into. There was no anti-war wing of the Republican Party. In fact, Republicans actually became converted, during the decades of Democratic control, to a kind of “soft liberalism” – a.k.a. “me-too-Republicanism” – wherein the party adopted the role of responsible parent and tax collector for the Democrats’ welfare state. They agreed with the liberal platform – just not so much. Some Republicans made an entire career of “going along to get along” in their minority role. Most of the real conservatives were southern Democrats who had a role and an important place inside FDR’s big tent. Democratic rule became accepted as the natural condition of American politics. FDR presented a genial persona to the American public, but privately he was a vigorous partisan who did not mind using his presidential power to control the opposition and get what he wanted. The Fairness Doctrine, enforced by the Federal Communications Commission, was an example. The Doctrine required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in a “fair and balanced manner”. In practical terms, it was employed to make sure conservatives did not have an effective voice on the airwaves. For decades, the liberal political line – subtly presented as the true way – was all you really heard on radio or TV. All this changed in 1987 when the FCC repealed the Doctrine. Republicans, who controlled the commission then, claimed the doctrine was inhibiting rather than enhancing debate. (No kidding!) They suggested that it was probably unconstitutional. Although a few provisions of the doctrine were retained, the DC Court of Appeals finally struck them down, too, in a 2000 ruling. The subsequent explosion of broadcast commentators – many of them conservative, like Rush Limbaugh – was a direct result of the Doctrine’s repeal. The Fairness Doctrine was a 50-year testimony to the power of FDR’s political control. Democrats have decried its loss ever since. Republicans could have turned it to their own purposes. Instead, they tossed it altogether, showing that they have a lot to learn before they are in FDR’s (or Hitler’s) class. Although it’s amusing to fantasize about Republicans ruthlessly hammering Democrats with the Fairness Doctrine, the fact is that this would not be in the country’s interest any more than the way Democrats misused the Doctrine. FDR and others might have thought it was a great idea to muzzle the conservative message, but he was mistaken. The people need to hear a full public debate, even if that debate is not as decorous as some white-gloved ladies might wish it. Naturally, the wide-open political climate was too good to last. In 2002 Congress passed the McCain-Feingold bill which banned unregulated contributions to the political parties. 90% of Democratic Congressmen supported the bill, no doubt expecting that it would level the political playing field. For much of the 1990s, the Democrats had trailed the Republicans in soft money fundraising, so a ban on such contributions made partisan sense. Perhaps President Bush thought he was making a gesture of political good citizenship, or maybe he genuinely believed there was too much money in politics. Whatever the case, Mr. Bush inexplicably signed the bill into law over the objections of many in his party. Insiders say he was certain the Supreme Court would strike down the legislation, leaving the Court to take the heat. However, the Court let the law stand. Subsequently, the so-called “527” organizations – named after a loophole in the legislation – played a major role in the 2004 presidential campaign. This showed at least three things:
The place is starting to sound like the set of Dr. Strangelove. (Jawohl!)
|
|
| ||||||
