June 28, 2004


Comparing Bush to Hitler no longer confined to loonies (John Leo, 6/28/04, Jewish World Review)

One hallmark of the new mainstream Hitler rhetoric is that the speakers typically try to soften the accusation right after making it. Greeley said, "He is not another Hitler. Yet there is a certain parallelism." Calabresi said he was "not suggesting for a moment that Bush is Hitler." No, course not. That was probably the furthest thing from his mind when he decided to link Bush with Hitler. In his heyday, Joe McCarthy used the same rhetorical device. If he wanted to plant the idea that someone was a traitor without quite saying it, he would announce that somebody or other "is a traitor to America's highest principles," which is not exactly an accusation of treason.

As a test of the state of "Bush the Nazi" rhetoric, I went to Google and typed in "Bush is a Nazi" and got 420,000 hits, well behind "Hitler was a Nazi" (654,000 hits), but then Hitler WAS a Nazi...

The gist of Mr. Leo's essay is that the Bush=Hitler comparisons are not confined to the margins of the Left, the loony Left, but are widespread. This begs the question of whether the Left isn't generally loony at this point.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 28, 2004 10:03 AM

Comparing Bush to Hitler is still confined to loonies. It's the loonies who have broken out.

Posted by: Bob Hawkins at June 28, 2004 11:37 AM

Nope, Bush NE Hitler.

Strange how people on the right seem to go on and on and on about this equation.

Now they're counting hits on google. Don't forget feedster.

Posted by: Bill at June 28, 2004 1:44 PM

Dear Bill,

We go on and on about it, because it happens all the time. Feel better now?

Posted by: andy at June 28, 2004 5:16 PM