Reductio ad Hitlerum
wesmorgan1Ben Stein, speaking with Glenn Beck on CNN (emphasis added):
STEIN: I want -- I'm glad you brought up this Denver thing. I don't like the idea of Senator Obama giving his acceptance speech in front of 75,000 wildly cheering people. That is not the way we do things in political parties in the United States of America. We have a contained number of people in an arena. Seventy-five-thousand people at an outdoor sports palace, well, that's something the Fuehrer would have done. And I think whoever is advising Senator Obama to do this is bringing up all kinds of very unfortunate images from the past.
BECK: Well, yeah, you know what? I've been -- I've been saying that we're headed towards a Mussolini-style presidency forever.
STEIN: Well, I think --
BECK: I mean it's crazy.
STEIN: It's a scary situation. I mean, I think he has to recognize some bounds on his own ego. I understand politicians are politicians because they have ego deficit problems and they try to cure them by having lots of worship and adulation and adoration. But 75,000 people screaming at an outdoor arena, that's just too much. It's just -- it's scarily authoritarian.
BECK: Ben --
STEIN: It's like Juan Peron --
BECK: It's not --
STEIN: -- and Evita.
BECK: It's not gonna make a difference.
It's July, four months out, and we're already seeing reference to Hitler, Mussolini, and Peron. That's reprehensible.
Here's a free clue for those of you scoring at home - when someone resorts to a rhetorical device that has been satirized by Dilbert, South Park, and Office Space, they are either desperate, bereft of coherent argument, or both.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (17)
Thanks for posting that, Wes. I've always liked Ben Stein, so it's good to see more of him.
I see the MSM's failed to mention there was a free concert before Obama took the stage in Berlin yesterday. I guess the messiah needs a warm-up act to get the crowd in and cheering.
I love both of those guys...
thanks for the morning laugh.
Redbeard, I happen to like Ben Stein's humor. His political commentary, going to back his various apologia for Nixon, often leaves me cold. This case, in which he was NOT playing the comedian, went beyond the pale. I'm just sorry that you seem to approve of it.
Thomas, you are increasingly transparent. Every time you throw an off-topic heckle into the mix, you simply confirm that you have no coherent argument to make.
Stein and Beck were, unfortunately for our political process, right on the mark. Funny, no. Tragic, yes.
So, just so I can keep it straight:
1) Liberal fringe comparisons of Bush to Hitler are loony and/or un-American.
2) Conservative fringe comparisons of Obama to Hitler are tragic but accurate.
Do I have that right? If so, that's a pretty disgusting double standard. Congratulations, guys. *snort*
(For the record, both fringes are horribly wrong in my book.)
truth can be pretty painful Wes...
...i trust you'll get through this.
What "truth," Skinny? Quit dancing around the edges - if you want to make the direct comparison, do so. Unless, of course, the reflexive truth is that you guys agreeing with this are "conservative fringe." (grin)
I think that most of the comparisons I've encountered are inappropriate.
The name Hitler is associated with mass murder, and to respect those still living who survived his evil, his name shouldn't be used frivolously or without due consideration to the meanings associated with it.
On that note, and this is not to be critical of the intent of the topic, we should also avoid using the man's name in thread titles unless the topic is specific to him. Seeing his name showcased in such a fashion was troubling. To reiterate, let's avoid it in the future.
Um...I didn't coin that title for effect, Zoy.
Reductio ad hitlerum is a specific, if relatively modern, term in logic. It was coined by Leo Strauss in 1950. The fact that Leo Strauss is also considered, by many, one of the intellectual antecedents of neoconservatism made its application here ironic for those who know the term's origin, but no less accurate. It's what immediately came to mind when I read Beck's/Stein's comments.
When the argument being made includes phrases like "that's something the Fuehrer would have done" and makes an implied comparison to the Nazi Party rallies in Nuremberg, that's as specific an example of reductio ad hitlerum as one could hope to find.
Actually, that last statement isn't quite true. I was on the verge of critiquing this op-ed instead...but Beck/Stein have a higher public presence than does that clown. Incidentally, I now see that this guy covered it. I hadn't seen Obermeyer's article when I wrote mine, but I note that we used the same title.
We have to call this kind of garbage what it is, don't we?
Without the offending Hitlerisms, Obama remains a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur. A cult of personality surrounds him, and he thrives in that milieu. An imperial presidency seems to be his goal, if all this presumptive posturing is any guide.
"Scarily authoritarian" seems hardly an out of place characterization.
Uh huh - which still doesn't explain why you seem to have no problem with the comparisons to Hitler, Mussolini and Peron. To be specific, you said that Beck and Stein were "right on the mark" with the Nazi comparison.
While we're at it, it's ludicrous for anyone on the right side of the political aisle to play the "imperial presidency" card after what we've seen over the last eight years.
Nixon was imperial, or wanted to be, but Bush isn't.
As for the Hitler/Mussolini/Peron deal, the comments of Stein and Beck were directed at the style of Obama's cult of personality, his desire to use massive public arenas filled with cheering throngs, and his huge ego which must be fed by sycophants wherever he goes. Those traits are shared with some of history's worst actors.
But nothing in that statement, and nothing in what Beck and Stein said, even hints at accusing Obama of the horrors perpetrated by the dictators in question. To make that assertion requires putting words in the mouths of others, since they said no such things.
You can say that they weren't "accusing Obama of the horrors," which is literally true, but they made the comparisons nonetheless. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of world history made the connections, which is exactly what Beck and Stein intended with their comments. To suggest otherwise would seem to be willful ignorance.
We all see and hear what we want to see and hear, I suppose.
Yes - and we all see you agreeing with the introduction of Nazi comparisons to this campaign.
I know what the term means. And I'm not criticizing you for pointing out the dialogue between Stein and Beck. I just didn't like seeing the term Hitler up in the title.
I should have told you privately. You're a good editor, and I did not mean to take away from your efforts with what appeared to be a public rebuke. You have my apology.