Inflammatory Rhetoric ... A Quiz
Sunday June 25, 2006
A member of the US Politics Forum points us to an online quiz comparing quotes from Ann Coulter and Adolf Hitler. I have a knee-jerk negative reaction to comparisons between Hitler and any current political figure (and no bones about it, Coulter is a political figure).
But rather than shut down the thread -- I checked out the quiz. To say that I was surprised would be an understatement (even though I got 10 of the 14 quotations correct). Here's a sampling (to see which is Coulter and which is Hitler -- either use Google or take the quiz):
What passes for paid political commentary can very easily be confused with rhetoric from someone the West almost universally views as a demonic dictator. Her example flies in the face of my efforts to maintain a community where folks can disagree on ideas in a respectful manner. What a model Coulter makes.
Back Story
I was appalled at a 2004 Republican 87-second-long “Webmercial,” where footage of a vocal Hitler "is overlaid with the words 'sponsored by MoveOn.org' while the ad’s opening screen says 'The Faces of John Kerry’s Democratic Party.'" In 2004, MoveOn sponsored a contest -- two of the 1,100 entries contained comparisons to Hitler. After learning about the spots, MoveOn removed them. [Please spare me any comments suggesting that "liberals" are the first to officially sanction use of the Hitler card in debate about this Administration.]
I don't know why I'm surprised that Coulter's rhetoric so closely matches Hitler's. As FAIR pointed out in January 2004, "however hyperbolic, comparisons to Hitler and fascism are not unknown in the American political debate. Rush Limbaugh has routinely called women's rights advocates "femi-Nazis," and references to "Hitlery Clinton" are a staple of right-wing talk radio. Republican power-broker Grover Norquist on NPR (10/2/03) compared inheritance taxes to the Holocaust."
An Emotional Distraction
Hate talk is hate talk. It should have no place in legitimate political dialog in this country.
The fact that it does have a place says something ... I'm not sure what, but it ain't good ... about acceptable political discourse and the state of media in America. Maybe it's as simple as sowing FUD or "Look, over there!" distraction.
After all, it's a lot easier to call someone a liar than it is to talk intelligently about serious issues -- issues that have no easy solutions. Issues like the burgeoning debt and deficit spending, inflationary pressure, immigration, the cost of health care and the potential for Medicare to bankrupt the country in my lifetime, our role in the world ...
But rather than shut down the thread -- I checked out the quiz. To say that I was surprised would be an understatement (even though I got 10 of the 14 quotations correct). Here's a sampling (to see which is Coulter and which is Hitler -- either use Google or take the quiz):
"The truth is another hateful "bourgeois institution."... liberals always seem to be enthusiastically defending liars. Lying is their most cherished human activity."The lack of civility in modern political discourse is something that bothers the heck out of me. Don't believe me? Go visit the US Politics Forum and see the whines from members when we enforce rules about personal attacks and intentionally inflammatory rhetoric. For the uninitiated, that means we frown on arguments based on personal attacks, instead of on reason. We enforce the apparently novel concept called "discuss the idea, not the poster."
"The foremost connoisseurs of this truth regarding the possibilities in the use of falsehood and slander have always been the liberals..."
What passes for paid political commentary can very easily be confused with rhetoric from someone the West almost universally views as a demonic dictator. Her example flies in the face of my efforts to maintain a community where folks can disagree on ideas in a respectful manner. What a model Coulter makes.
Back Story
I was appalled at a 2004 Republican 87-second-long “Webmercial,” where footage of a vocal Hitler "is overlaid with the words 'sponsored by MoveOn.org' while the ad’s opening screen says 'The Faces of John Kerry’s Democratic Party.'" In 2004, MoveOn sponsored a contest -- two of the 1,100 entries contained comparisons to Hitler. After learning about the spots, MoveOn removed them. [Please spare me any comments suggesting that "liberals" are the first to officially sanction use of the Hitler card in debate about this Administration.]
I don't know why I'm surprised that Coulter's rhetoric so closely matches Hitler's. As FAIR pointed out in January 2004, "however hyperbolic, comparisons to Hitler and fascism are not unknown in the American political debate. Rush Limbaugh has routinely called women's rights advocates "femi-Nazis," and references to "Hitlery Clinton" are a staple of right-wing talk radio. Republican power-broker Grover Norquist on NPR (10/2/03) compared inheritance taxes to the Holocaust."
An Emotional Distraction
Hate talk is hate talk. It should have no place in legitimate political dialog in this country.
The fact that it does have a place says something ... I'm not sure what, but it ain't good ... about acceptable political discourse and the state of media in America. Maybe it's as simple as sowing FUD or "Look, over there!" distraction.
After all, it's a lot easier to call someone a liar than it is to talk intelligently about serious issues -- issues that have no easy solutions. Issues like the burgeoning debt and deficit spending, inflationary pressure, immigration, the cost of health care and the potential for Medicare to bankrupt the country in my lifetime, our role in the world ...
See Ann Coulter Attacks 9/11 Widows, Senator John Kerry on How to Irk Ann Coulter and Honor 9/11 Widows, Opinion: Time Magazine Dignifies Hatred, Ann Coulter and Vietnam, DNC04: Coulter's Demise?
Technorati Profile
Technorati tags:
Coulter ,
Politics
gada.be tags:
Coulter,
Politics
Category: Commentary
Comments
RE: “Rush Limbaugh has routinely called women’s rights advocates “femi-Nazis,”
Rush refered to feminists who want abortion on demand at anytime during a pregnancy as femi-nazis.
I got 12!
My hat’s off to you, Daniel … what was your technique?
I too got 12 correct - I basically just applied the verbiage to the likely choice.
Re: civility… I am forumless of late due to discontent with all the About political forums these days(not much free time in summer anyway) but I struggle between wanting some semblence of civility but too, being utterly turned off by heavy handed oversite if/when things get a little hot between old Friends/foes. I may check in again here down the road - there’s a few that don’t post here anymore that I wouldn’t miss in the least.
Final thought - TOM - do you think “feminazi” is an ok term because you happen to disagree with a woman’s right to choose? This is just what I think Kathy is trying to address: how people rationlize flaming rhetoric when they personally agree with the premise.
Hi, Julie:
First, I’m not Tom … but knowing Tom … I don’t think this is what he meant. I believe he was merely trying to add information.
Second, would love to have you come back. Personal attacks are “down” and generally speaking, don’t get noticed until someone complains. (We don’t go looking for them, in other words.)
I understand that “old timers” understand when two people get into a tussle. But when a tit for tat causes a thread to deteriorate, that behavior has to stop. Better to stop it sooner than later — which is why we call anything that has three “rounds” a tit for tat and ask that it cease.
When a tit for tat moves from one thread to another, like the latest between Bob and Greg, that gives further ammunition to “temporary gag for heads to cool.” Note that in this case, neither was gagged — just warned both on and off forum.
As I said on forum, I am open to other ideas on how to stop this kind of downward spiral.
Kathy
Several years ago there was a detailed historical comparison between the moves that Hitler made in gathering power in Germany and the moves that Bush and Republicans have made. I did not save it, but it was an honest attempt to show the way our democracy was being encroached upon and diminshed by the actions of Bush and some mebers of the Republican Party. There was also a lengthy commentary by several people who had lived through the early days of Hitler’s consolidation of power, and who were having a sense of deja vue. These seemed to me then, and still seem to me now, to summon up Santayana’s famous remark (and I am not quoting it precisely word-for-word, but am certainly getting the gist right) that those who do not remember the past are destined to repeat it. Such a comparison is not hate speech. It is valid and serves a purpose — to make us think, compare, and, if necessary, protect our liberties.
Hello, Richard -
I agree with Santayana’s sentiments - and I agree with you that rational analysis, even of something that may be hateful, is not itself “hate speech.” However, much of what passes as political discourse today is, IMO, hate speech.
basically the same thing julie did
i don’t listen to ann coulter much but i’m used to the current right-wing rhetoric (i like to watch o’reilly when i get the chance)
i watched triumph of the will and a documentary on joseph goebbles; i find nazism to be fascinating yet at the same time horrifying, especially in its masterful use of propaganda
“fascinating … yet … horrifying.”
the bigger horror, imo, is that we have a world (not just US rhetoric) where rhetoric of this type no longer raises eyebrows.
hear something often enough, and you become inured to it.
I got all the quotations right; then again I am a German major and amateur historian. I don’t think it speaks well of Ann Coulter that I picked out her quotes on the basis of them consistently being the less eloquent yet more vitriolic ones. How can this woman possibly be a public figure? She’s not only offensive to liberals, but the majority of conservatives as well. I have friends from all wavelengths of the political spectrum, and even the most right-wing among them would have to lose a good percentage of their brain cells before they’d join her fan club. In fact, I wouldn’t call her conservative because it’s an insult to conservatives. The proper term would probably be “neo-fascist”.
Hello, Nathan:
Thanks for your comments. Yours is an interesting decision-making process.
Do you mean you are German-born? Do you live in Germany or the US? I ask because I’m trying to figure out if your friends are repesentative of Europe or the US. It’s pretty well established that the European “center” is left-of the US “center.”
You are not alone in thinking of Ms. Coulter as neo-fascist. This is probably the point the author of the quiz is attempting to drive home.