Sunday, June 23, 2013

Godwin's Law Redux

There is a constant drumbeat from the right comparing Obama to Hitler. I mean, let's ignore the fact that Obama's signature legislation is a method to ensure that everybody can go to a hospital when they're sick without ending up living out of their car. Because that's exactly the same as slaughtering six million Jews and attempting to take over Europe in a bloody campaign of destruction.

Yeah, let's ignore that. Instead, let's ask ourselves why every single time that somebody disagrees with a politician, it's become de rigueur to compare them to Hitler? Why is the litmus test for political arguments the ability to reduce your enemy to the level of the worst dictator in history? Last week, I pointed out an unintentional violation of Godwin's Law, but let's consider the issue a little, shall we?

Following World War One, Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles. This treaty included Article 231, which is commonly called "the guilt clause":
The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.
Using this as a legal basis, Germany was forced to pay reparations to the rest of Europe. Unfortunately, Germany didn't think they'd lost the war - the German High Command told their citizens that the Army had never been beaten in the field, and the defeat was actually due to actions by civilians, particularly Jews, Socialists and Communists (the Dolchstosslegende, or "Stabbed-in-the-Back Legend").

That's right - Hitler didn't start the rumor that Jews were destroying the economy. Antisemitism was well-established in the German culture long before he was born.

So the Weimar Republic resisted the reparations, and defaulted on payments quite frequently. The French and Belgians, realizing that the Germans were able to pay and simply weren't, eventually invaded and occupied the Ruhr valley, which was the center of coal, iron and steel production in Germany.

Take this reduction in raw materials for the Germans and the resulting reduction in cash-flow, and add to it the fact that the German government funded a passive resistance movement among the citizens of the Ruhr by simply printing more money. This led to the famed hyper-inflation of post-WWI Germany.

Technically, the inflation started when the Kaiser decided to fund WWI by borrowing money instead of taxing his people and using his own fortune: the value of the German mark fell from 4 to 9 per US dollar. But the war ended in 1919; by November 1923, the American dollar was worth 4,210,500,000,000 German marks. Or in more concrete terms, in 1919 a loaf of bread cost 1 mark; by 1923, a loaf of bread cost 100 billion marks.

This was the situation when Adolph Hitler rose into power. During the course of his leadership, he brought his people back from the brink of ruin and ensured they could eat.

People want for life to be simple. They want their enemies to wholly evil, so that there's no question that "destroying them" is a bad thing. The reductive power of the human mind wants those we disagree with to have no redeeming features. Homophobes want gays to practice pedophilia and beastiality. Radical conservatives want liberals to be fascists and totalitarian dictators. Radical liberals want conservatives to be inhuman monsters who laugh as children starve in the streets.

The reality is that people are more complex than that. But to see that, to understand the forces that drive someone, is to understand that perhaps evil is not something simple. Perhaps evil and good are in all of us. That bad things are done by good people, and good things are done by bad people, and the world isn't the simple place we want it to be.

Would you like to see the most frightening picture of Adolph Hitler ever taken?

Hitler, holding hands with a little girl and walking in a park. Hitler loved children. He loved animals: he was a confirmed vegetarian and was opposed to vivisection.

Were you aware that Eva Braun took home movies?


Hitler was a human being. It challenges your worldview: he should be a monster, pounding on desks and ordering people to their deaths. But he lived, he loved, he laughed, he played with children.

He also destroyed much of Europe, threw the world into war, and established concentration camps where 11 million people were killed.

Perhaps "good" and "evil" aren't the simple concepts that some people want them to be.

1 comment:

  1. Yes, the banality of evil, as Hannah Arendt once pointed out, is that horrors are committed by ordinary people doing normal things according to the precepts of their societies. Jew-hating after all, has been an important pillar of European Christian society for a very long time. Who would think to question it any more than ideas like we have "too much government" or that people with African genes aren't fit to lead? Are we any better or more balanced than Germans in the first half of the last century? Sometimes I'm not too sure.

    Of course it has been necessary to accuse Obama of every accusation George Bush earned - just as the 8 year opposition to Clinton was all about the reprise of the accusations against Nixon. Republicans aren't creative, just childish and born angry and unfortunately, Americans think morals are absolute but facts are what they need them to be.

    Good and Evil (isn't that a licorice candy?) But as the Master told us, there really is no universal standard even if we hear presidents pretend there is and even if we hear all that smug, condescending preaching about the evil of "moral relativism." Everything is relative, else it wouldn't exist.

    Of course the perspective from which Hitler was justified was and still is, to some extent, relatively common even with people who considered themselves pious and patriotic; fond of dogs and children and in many respects virtuous.

    Even on a vastly smaller scale, I deal with people every day who are good people, generous, kind, understanding, honest and all that but who harbor all kinds of strange ideas that they won't consider reconsidering: the Tea Partyers are 'victims,' Taxes are far too high, the Recession was caused by regulation and all that.

    I could make a detailed argument for the idea that humans are really too irrational for Democracy to work and because the science of delusion and the technical ability to misinform and distract is so advanced, that if the immediate past is a "Vorspiel einer Philosophie der Zukunft" a prelude to a philosophy of the future, I'd just as soon not be here for the swan song -- relatively speaking.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.