fearlesshistory

…definitely not bliss. Ignorance, or in the case I’m about to expound upon, misunderstanding of history is ugly and prevents rational discussion by evoking emotional issues with the vague threat of dire consequences. Case in point, Republican Representative Paul Broun said this about President-designate Barack Obama:

It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s the one who proposed this national security force,” Broun told the AP. “I’m just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may– may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism.”

Broun was specifically referring to a July speech by Obama, where the then-Democratic presidential nominee said he supports a civilian force helping the military when it comes to national security: “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as the military],” Obama said in the speech that was largely a call to national service.

Responding to those comments, Broun told the AP Monday: “That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did. When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”

“We can’t be lulled into complacency,” Broun added. “You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I’m not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I’m saying is there is the potential.”

First, let’s tackle the historic problem. Yes, Adolph Hitler was elected in a democracy, but then again, he was elected on the rhetoric of fear and blaming the problems Germany was facing on the Jews and Bolsheviks. Obama’s message was not predicated on exclusion, but rather inclusion. His acceptance speech on Nov. 4th spoke directly to those who opposed his election, stating “I may not have won your vote, but I need your help.” The whole dogma of the National Socialist party was based on designating someone (Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Bolsheviks, Gays, etc.) as an “other” within the bounds of European society in general and German society in particular. By doing so, he allowed his followers to establish a sub-national and nationalist identity within their own boundaries. Hitler called this identity the “Aryan Race” and placed it squarely atop the hierarchical structure he was building. Obama seems to have no intention of doing so and, in fact, his life history seems to be just the opposite.

As the President of the Harvard Law Review, he angered his liberal supporters by not just appointing three (3) out of four editorships to conservatives, but he actually spent time socializing with them to get to know them and understand their concerns and ideas. In Chicago, while working on the Board of Education, he was often the moderate voice, bridging rifts between Republicans and Democrats. Similarly, while running for President, he received Republican endorsements for his candidacy. Not exactly the kind of personality which seeks to divide on conquer.

On to the problem of conflating Marxism and Hitler’s ideology. They’re polar opposites. Socialism, and in particular Marxist Communism, is anathema to the ultra-conservative model that Hitler preached. Where the Marxist and Socialist model gives all persons, regardless of class or race, an equal say under the law and equal rights protected by the law, the radically-conservative Nazis believed in tiers of people, the utmost was Aryans, under that were semi-Aryans such as Indians (from the subcontinent), French, Dutch, Italians, and English (though not, interestingly, Scottish). Under that was the “other” races; Asians of all kinds. Under that were the Africans and other “mongrel” races such as Americans (Hitler felt the promise of America was watering down the racial purity of the Founding Fathers and the presence of so many Jews, Blacks, and other races proved it was worth only becoming a slave society to the Third Reich). Finally, there were the “parasites” which served no purpose for Europe; Jews, Bolsheviks (who were also conflated with Jews) and gays (as well as anyone who protested the treatment of “parasites”). In classic Marxism, the one written about in Karl Marx’s Das Kapital and other works, each member of society (even the bourgeoisie, after they’d been dethroned) would be entitled to equal rights, equal compensation for their work, and equal access to work. For Mr. Broun to conflate Marxism and Hitler shows his deep, fundamental ignorance of the differences between the two and only a passing knowledge of the mechanisms employed by both political philosophies.

Now, on to further matters and glaring problems with Mr. Broun’s assessment that point to his mental and educational deficiencies. First, the idea of a civilian security force has already been implemented for a long time in American history. They are called U.S. Marshalls. They accompany the transfer of military hardware (especially nuclear missiles) because - as civilian law enforcement - they have authority to enforce federal law where the military (under the Posse Comatatus Act of 1878)  can not enforce Federal, State, or Local law in the course of executing their duties. Second, it is not just “Communists,” “Socialists,” or Hitler who have relied upon a civilian security force. During World War Two, civilian security agents (see Truman Library Online for posters and more information) ensured that war-time regulations were enforced and security violations were reported to the Law Enforcement authorities. Also, Japan has a Civilian Defense Force which helps in the event of a terrorist attack, national emergency, or other situation in order to augment the National Police force. Thirdly, Costa Rica has a civilian security force instead of an army and relies upon the national police to protect its borders while the civilian security force keeps traffic moving, ensures security in hospitals and schools, and generally upholds the law. Mr. Broun has evidently forgotten those examples.

As a final note, if Mr. Broun is concerned that the country is headed in a “Socialist” direction, why did he not call Mr. Bush “Hitler”? Karl Rove’s elections strategy and the later governing strategy (as acknowledged by Mr. Rove in an interview with Fox News) was to divide the country to more easily govern it; those who supported the President were “real” Americans while those who did not were often purged from the government (Justice Department firings, for example). Also, Mr. Bush pushed through legislation that allowed for secret, warrant-less wiretapping of American citizens. This KGB-style tactic was even upheld in the Supreme Court in 2007 using Orwellian doublespeak logic; a group of citizens who suspected they were being wire tapped had to bring evidence of their concerns to the court, but they could not subpoena records because doing so would violate national security protocols. In other words, the plaintiffs had to produce documents that they could not legally obtain in order to prove the action they were victimized by was illegal. Also, let us not forget that under George W. Bush’s administration, torture, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, and the abrogation of international treaties resulted in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and “Extraordinary Rendition” (illegal, covert deportation of people from this and other countries to countries with no scruples about torture, the period of imprisonment being indefinite). Additionally, while under the pro-business President, subsidies to corporations via no-bid contracts bouyed Haliburton and their subsidiaries from obscure service and materials conglomerate to world-famous and incredibly rich mega corporation. The bailout plan, which is complex in its structure, purchased failing AIG (80% of whose stock is now owned by the U.S. taxpayer), WaMu, other investment banks and insurance companies, and is on the verge of loaning huge amounts of money to the Automobile industry (the so-called “big three”). Purchasing companies with government money, covert surveillance of the citizenry, internment of political prisoners in gulags  outside the reach of legal frameworks…Why wan’t Mr. Broun concerned about that?

Finally, in a fit of pique, I wish to ask Neoconservatives why they are so hysterical over the re-emergence of Hitler? When George W. Bush invaded Iraq, he likened Saddam Hussein to Hitler. He also Likened Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to Hitler. He also likened Fidel Castro to Hitler. He also likened Kim Jung Il to Hitler. Bashar Assad of Syria has also been called Hitler. Now Mr. Broun (and other hysterical Neocons) have likened Obama to Hitler. Considering the acts of the previous occupant of the Oval Office, this seems like an attempt to distract the American people from what is really going on.

Oh, and to all those who spout the axiom “Well, if you’re not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.” I reply with this:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Social Democrats,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Social Democrat.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew,
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

~Pastor Martin Niemoller (supported Nazi pogroms until he, too was taken to Dachau in 1942 - fortunately for him, he survived and lived until 1984)

Trackback URI | Comments RSS