It’s time to call out those that play the Nazi card
August 20th, 2009If you can’t win a debate by using facts, the next best thing is to derail it.
editorial director of
Red Flag Publishing
What is the best way to derail a debate? Undoubtedly to invoke the name of Hitler or the Nazi party.
Reductio ad hitlerum.
You may not be familiar with the term, but unless you never watch, read, or listen to news reports, you certainly have seen the technique at work.
According to Wikipedia:
“Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, or reductio (or argumentum) ad Nazium (dog Latin for “reduction or argument to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis”) is an ad hominem or ad misericordiam argument, and is a formal fallacy in logic. The name is a pun on reductio ad absurdum. The phrase reductio ad Hitlerum was coined by an academic ethicist, Leo Strauss, in 1953. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card,[1] by analogy to playing the race card.
It is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. Hence this fallacy fails to examine the claim on its merit.
The fallacy most often assumes the form of “Hitler (or the Nazis) supported X, therefore X must be evil/undesirable/bad,”[1]. For example: “Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarianism is wrong.” The tactic is often used to derail arguments, as such a comparison tends to distract and to result in angry and less reasoned responses.”
the First Amendment
that this kind of vile,
contemptible nonsense
is so freely propagated.”
- U.S, Rep. Barney Frank
In the current political debate, it takes an even more insidious nature: “Hitler was in favor of a national health care program; Barak Obama is in favor of a national health care program; ergo, Barak Obama is Hitler.”
The reason this form of argument is insidious is that it demonizes and dehumanizes the arguer, not the argument. The logical progression is that, if the person presenting this argument IS Hitler, then any argument he or she presents - on any subject past, present, or future - is wrong and evil.
Not to mention that just about every baby boomer, at some time during his or her years in public education, was asked to write an essay on the ethical dilemma: “If you could go back in time, and could murder Adolf Hitler before World War II, would you?”
This takes the technique far beyond just derailing an attempt to reform our health care system.
Did I just fall off the cliff into conspiracy theory?
I don’t know. But, the absolute consistency of the shouters’ chants seems much too uniform to be something these people thought up and decided to act on individually. So, if they are being fed their shouting points, there is someone feeding them. And there has to be a reason to feed this frenzy above and beyond objections to health care reform. Otherwise, why not just give them logical talking (shouting) points with which to challenge reformers? And certainly there are thoughtful, reasoned responses to what is being proposed?
Instead, we have name callers shouting “Nazi” while holding up portraits of the president defaced with a Hitlerian moustache.
This country has always been home to a lunatic fringe, whether you look to the left or right. Once you have branded the president as Hitler, how much convincing would it take to push one of the fringers on the right to decide to take matters into his or her own hands and free the world of the greatest evil since … well, Hitler?
Ridiculous? Tell that to the family of Dr. George Tiller, who was gunned down in his church by Scott Roeder - who since his arrest has justified his actions with the over-heated rhetoric of the anti-abortionists.
If we do not stop it, Reductio ad hitlerum will be the death of political debate in this country. And quite foreseeably, the man they point to and shout “Hitler.”
And, while trying my hardest not to fall into that which I decry, I cannot resist pointing out the grandest irony in all of this: Hitler came to power on the strength of the Brownshirts. These thugs shouted down (with carefully crafted - often misleading - talking points) all those with whom they disagreed. They bullied the populace into thinking their ideology was the only one acceptable for those who truly loved the Motherland. The Brownshirts effectively used intimidation (and a misdirected popular anger toward groups “responsible” for an economic downturn - sound familiar?) to get their way. So, it seems that those in our political debate who are closest to resembling the Brownshirts are exhibiting a case of psychological projection when they refer to others as Nazis.
The bottom line is, the “protesters” arguments fail for one simple reason: Hitler wasn’t bad because he promoted national health care. Hitler was bad because he killed those who disagreed with him, including minorities such as Jews, gays and blacks, and used intimidation to bully an exhausted and cowardly public into going along with him. Hitler used violence to suppress his political enemies and intimidation to scare the rest from opposing him.
Thus anyone who calls a political opponent a Nazi, or compares them to Hitler, while they themselves engage in bullying shout-downs or inflaming the public with over-heated disinformed rhetoric might do well to look in the mirror and see if it’s a case of the pot calling the kettle a Nazi-Socialist-Baby-Killing-Butcher-Who-Wants-to-Snuff-Out-the-Elderly-with-Death-Panels.
So, we are asking everyone to begin a grassroots effort to bring back logical, thoughtful debate. We ask that whenever you see someone resorting to Hitler name calling on line, respond with this simple comment:
“Reductio ad hitlerum = argument:FAIL”
and add a link to this post.
For that matter, send a link to this post to everyone you know whom is tired of listening to the shouting, and would like to see a return to more civil discourse. A discourse where two people who disagree can each make their point, and even while disagreeing, accept that the other has a right to make their point as well.
This post was co-written by Joe Williams, creative director of Red Flag Publishing
WordPress database error: [Table 'blog1.wp_post2cat' doesn't exist]
SELECT post_id, category_id FROM wp_post2cat WHERE post_id IN (7)
