The Misuse of Hitler and its Unfortunate Cause

There is an alarming trend in modern politics: the comparison of Adolf Hitler to those we don't like. If it isn't Assad, it is Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump or anyone else that isn't too popular. To the better educated, this phenomenon is a mere annoyance, but the comparison sticks with those who are quick to judge and slow to learn. I had previously dismissed this as a scare tactic for the inexperienced minions of corresponding political factions. This aspect did not change, but the alarming growth of the use of this comparison did. Ever since Donald Trump announced his candidacy, there have been non-stop attacks against his person. These attacks typically relate him to Hitler. I am no fan of Donald Trump, but these attacks are lacking in information. Therefore, I wish to do my part in putting certain aspects of this outdated comparison to bed.

An example of this ill-conceived comparison in action. 

The first and most obvious goal of the attack is to compare the xenophobia (alleged) of Donald Trump against the proven xenophobia of Adolf Hitler. This is not accurate in any way. Adolf Hilter abhorred Slavs, Gypsies, disabled people, homosexuals, Catholics, and Jews. This was not simply a desire to keep them out of Germany. Hitler did not stand in front of thousands of people to simply demand that a wall be built and illegals to be deported. His ultimate goal was the extermination of the Jews and the enslavement of the slavs. Hitler wanted to fulfill Germany's century long eastern ambitions by expanding Germany well into Poland and the Soviet Union. Donald Trump, however, only seeks to deny refugees entry and to stop illegal immigration. This is not grounds enough for a comparison to Hitler. Trump does not wish to annihilate the Syrian people nor enslave the Mexican people. At every accusation of being called racist, he loves to remind everyone how much he loves the Mexican people. One may believe this or not, but, again, Hitler would never have made the same claims about those he deemed 'subhuman.'

Now to the meat of these claims. Hitler and his Nazis are often related to the 'Far Right' of politics. In a sense, this can make sense. Populism, nationalism, and xenophobia are often attributed to the far right. Then comes the phrase 'National Socialism.' Obviously, Nazism and Communism are two different evil beasts, but they were more similar than many care to realize. At the heart of Nazism, it is true that whichever 'best race' runs the show is to be the higher class. In Communism, however, class was determined by one's allegiance to the state only. Both systems intersect, but both are opposite to the way that class is determined in a capitalist society. National Socialism was state ownership. Everything about the Nazi order was about state ownership and the relationship between the state and its subjects. This relationship would drastically change depending upon the class of citizen, which again, was determined by race. It should be needless to say that a Donald Trump economy is not about state ownership. It is, however, about bailouts, eminent domain, subsidies, and other things that I do not like. Despite this, a Donald Trump economy does not involve national socialism.

Additionally, it should be brought up that Trump is not the only subject of this comparison. That was just another instance of this phenomenon. The Hitler comparison is just a more forceful and ignorant way of calling someone racist or tyrannical. In reality, the comparison is hyperbolic, but it is never used in such a way. This comparison is a symptom of a greater problem involving politics in the English language. Hopefully, one should conjure up thoughts of George Orwell's piece about proper use of language to articulate an idea. Orwell suggested that simpler language should be used in order to more directly communicate thoughts to a reader or listener. The issue now is that our discourse is too simple. Every aspect of politics has been diluted into identity politics, name-calling, and God words vs Devil words. For example, words like liberty, privilege, minority, and totalitarian are thrown around too often. It would often give trouble to an individual if they were made to give a concise definition of the words that they throw around. For example, instead of outlining what privilege is (Like I did in the linked article above.) and how it affects society, one simply declares that their opponent is privileged. This creates a dangerous political climate in which massive hordes of uninformed populace is swung one way or the other by simple terms and insults. Several examples of this lie in the Republican and Democrat debates. Words and phrases like 'freedom' and 'income equality' and 'socialist' draw applause and booing alike. Democracy is the will of the majority, but if the majority has no will, then it is all for naught. A democracy craves substance. The people of a nation deserve to know the fleshed out ideas of their candidates.

A Spawning Ground for Poor Political Discourse. Source:Washington Post

There is one reason that can be tied to almost every factor that is causing this poisonous atmosphere is individual laziness. Political discourse between opposing viewpoints has been minimized to forced family gatherings and trolling on the internet. Too often do people sit in their camps and complain about the other camp without a shred of respect for that camp's viewpoints. Why? They are too lazy to take responsibility for their own viewpoints. They are too lazy to truly know what it is that they believe aside from a few God-Terms. Thus, upon confrontation, these sides end up spewing nonsense at each other and no-one is left more knowledgeable. Furthermore, when asked for an example of the Russian decent into the dark and deadly Soviet era being repeated in the West, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said: "... It is considered embarrassing to put forward one's counterarguments, lest one become involved. And so there is a certain abdication of responsibility, which is typical here where there is complete freedom. Let us take the press writers, journalists, who enjoy great freedom and meanwhile lose their sense of responsibility before history, before their own people." Solzhenitsyn confirmed then the cause of this ongoing degradation of political discourse. The only solution to this problem of over offence and fear of causing it is to pursue the truth. In so doing, every opinion becomes valuable and every viewpoint becomes useful. Discussion and debate is no longer about defending a political camp or attacking that which is undesirable. Discourse becomes a vessel through which the agreeable course of the nation is made discover-able. If anything, it will make these idiotic comparisons less common.

There will probably come a person who can viably be compared to Hitler, but until then, please refrain from such useless comparisons. Those who use the comparison seriously are only contributing to their own ill-image.