Hitler is ok to use for good

I don't usually post about politics but this post at Scripting News and I feel compelled to point out something. Firstly the post from Scripting News posted on 6/27/2004:

Bush is an awful leader, but so far there's no indication that he's comparable to Hitler. But he's running an ad with pictures of Hitler, between pictures of John Kerry, Al Gore, Richard Gephardt and Howard Dean. How could someone want to win so badly that he would be willing to do that? What are we supposed to think about this? Does he know that Americans have families who were murdered by Hitler? Is this what compassionate conservativism is? What does he stand for? This should be question #1 at the next Bush press conference

Now, here is a post about the very Moveon.org ads that are featured in the bush ad, posted on Scripting News 1/5/2004:

People who support Bush apparently don't like the MoveOn.Org comparison of Bush to Hitler. I haven't seen the ad, but I don't find the idea offensive. It's about time people outside the blogging world started ringing the bells. Wake up. They're taking the Bill of Rights apart. Get your priorities straight. An ad with some imagery you find offensive is nothing compared to what the Republicans are doing. We live in amazing times. The professional press isn't covering the laws that are passing in Congress and being signed by the President.

Most people will agree that the use of images of Hitler in any political advertising is not a good idea, but it looks like Dave only finds it offensive if he doesn't agree with the candidate.

Why is it ok for a Democratic organization to use offensive imagery to attack the President, but it is very offensive if the President responds to the attacks and tries to turn them around?

Comments

[Dave Winer]

Okay in retrospect, it wasn't okay, and MoveOn took it down. But...

1. Bush is President of the United States. That's quite an escalation.

2. He uses it to smear people who had nothing to do with the MoveOn ad. Why?

3. I didn't use Hitler imagery, nor did I have to to make my point, nor did Bush have to to make his point. Also, if he wanted to engage in discourse, he could have said what he had to say without dragging Democratic leaders into it. Because he did, it seems he did it to score political points at the expense of millions of people who were slaughtered.

4. I am still concerned about the US and fascism under Bush. And this is the first time in my life that I ever have. We made it through Nixon without the kinds of extreme limits on freedom, and the Iran hostage crisis. What we're getting in return for the limitation on rights is totally unclear, but needs to be discussed.

[Jacob Levy]

It's easy to find inconsistencies in the expressions of any person. What Dave said reflects what his thinking was at that time, and now that he's seen the Republican response his thinking evolves further.

We're all just humans, OK?

Points I mentioned to Dave in private:

You're holding Bush to a standard that is too high, especially based on his past record. He's just a human. Of course his campaign will use whatever weapons they have, especially free ones given to them by stupid Democratic tactics that are just *asking* for such a response.

I think both ads were wrong. The political discourse has not been advanced by either of these ads.

This is the first presidential election in which I will vote. There are no choices here. Is this democracy, or supermarket conglomerate politics where it doesn't matter whether you vote K-mart or Walmart?

--JYL

[Cameron Watters]

I'd sure like to believe that this is just an example of Dave's growth. It has been, however, characteristic of his opinions on a number of issues. Dave waves his moralist flag only when he disagrees with the individual/company in question. If the someone representing the opposing view uses the identical tactic, he cries foul.

I'll agree, however, with the premise that the using Nazis/Hitler/Insert Facist Here in US political ads should be beneath anyone seeking any national office.

Godwin's Law probably applies somewhat as well:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

[DarthPedro]

Jacob, you're right. The choice between the two parties in the US isn't much of one. Although both parties will rant about one another, when it comes down to it, they both support nearly the same agenda - funded by the large corporations to keep the economy running as smooth as possible and well-protected.

When it comes to truly revolutionary concepts, you really have to look outside of both parties. However, these are the fringe outsiders without the financial backing to really break through. Maybe one day soon, an ultra-popular third party candidate will be able to actually get enough momentum to challenge one or both parties. But, unfortunately, this doesn't seem like the year for it.

As for Dave's inconsistencies, political discussions have a tendency to move people to extremes, even when there really isn't that much difference. People develop blinders to their own chosen party's tactics, but an over-developed sensitivity to what the other party is doing. Forget it both parties will use whatever means they need to get elected -- and so would a third party if it had the chance.

[Scott]

First off, I can't get over the fact that my name is on Scripting.com, with that bit of fanboyism out of the way I will continue.

Dave, I totally agree with you that it is an inappropriate use of imagery on the part of Bush, and on the part of MoveOn. Like you said it is both offensive and clearly not the case. I have not heard any compelling evidence that supports the argument that Bush is another Hitler. That statement is absurd, the very fact that we can talk about this undermines the premise.

If I were in charge of Bush's campaign I wouldn't have stooped to the same level, but then again playing on people's fears is a time honored tradition in political campaign. Hopefully people can look behind the 30 second commercials and the sounds bites and make an informed decision.

I work at the university that Benjamin Franklin founded, and as he said, 'Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither.'

As Jacob says there really are no choices in our current political party. whether you agree with him or not I recommend reading Ralph Nader's 'Crash!ng the Party,' it really is an eye opener about what it takes to run for President.

Let me add that I am not faulting Dave for his opinions, I am inconsistent about a number of things, it is all part of being human, but like I said in my post I felt compelled to comment.

[Sean Stickle]

A few points regarding Mr. Winer's rejoinder:

>> 1. Bush is President of the United States.
>> That's quite an escalation.

I would agree, in principle. There is a certain "defining deviance downwards" (as Mr. Moynihan would have said) going on here. However, when a well-funded PAC casts you as Hitler, and your political opponent hires the man in charge of that same video as his online communications manager, I can imagine that Mr. Bush would wish to respond directly to the charges levelled against him.

>> 2. He uses it to smear people who had nothing
>> to do with the MoveOn ad. Why?

Mr. Kerry, running for President of the United States, recently hired Zach Exley, director of special projects for the MoveOn, the organization that solicited and posted the Hitler video. So, I think it somewhat disingenuous to claim that Mr. Kerry had nothing to do with MoveOn. One must expect Mr. Kerry to be fully aware of who he hired.

>> 3. I didn't use Hitler imagery, nor did
>> I have to to make my point, nor did Bush
>> have to to make his point. Also, if he
>> wanted to engage in discourse, he could
>> have said what he had to say without
>> dragging Democratic leaders into it. Because
>> he did, it seems he did it to score political
>> points at the expense of millions of people
>> who were slaughtered.

I find this a non-unique trait among the political parties. Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush are both trying to score political points at the expense of those dying in Iraq, regardless of whether one thinks that an appropriate undertaking or not. Same thing with the events of Mogadishu, the Balkans, etc. I would agree that this is objectionable on all sides.

To imagine that political ads are actually an attempt to engage in "discourse", however, is, at best, an amusing fantasy. These ads, both Democratic and Republican, are not the Federalist Papers by any stretch of the imagination. They aim not to come to an understanding of the Good and the Beautiful (kalos kagathos) through conversation, as per Plato, but rather to move hearts (ignobly or nobly), as per Pericles.

>> 4. I am still concerned about the US and
>> fascism under Bush. And this is the first
>> time in my life that I ever have. We made
>> it through Nixon without the kinds of extreme
>> limits on freedom, and the Iran hostage
>> crisis. What we're getting in return for
>> the limitation on rights is totally unclear,
>> but needs to be discussed.

I think that the term "fascism" is somewhat hyperbolic, like many things on the Web. But I take and agree with your point, which is similar to Mr. Bruce Schneier's point, that we ought to be more discriminating customers of security. What are we getting for our investments of money, and the new restrictions in place? Do the actual benefits justify the costs? Is the price right? More conversation on this, surely. On that point, Mr. Winer, I am most certainly on your side.

[Dave Winer]

Scott, here's the scoop, I'm a partisan in this election. I will vote against Bush, and I will work to have him thrown out of office. Anyone who reads Scripting News knows that. In January, I had not declared (I waited until after BloggerCon in mid-April). And I meant what I said, I had not seen the ad (as I disclaimed). I'm pretty sure by that time it had been withdrawn.

I think the screen shot I was able to grab, even though it contains a disclaimer that it was taken from MoveOn.Org, is a convincing argument why Bush shouldn't be using that imagery. No matter how it got there, he shouldn't want the despot we fought in WW II on his election home page. It makes a convincing spot against him, as the screen shot illustrates.

And as a child of Holocaust survivors, it means something special when the President of the United States uses that imagery. I've voted in every Presidential election for the last 31 years, and I've never seen anyone stoop as low as this, esp so early in the campaign.

[JDHarley]

I think it's clear that MoveOn.org is a PAC that although liberal in its leaning is not directly tied to the Democratic Party.

What they do should reflect on MoveOn.org and its supporters. It's unfair, though convenient, to ascribe the behavior of the most extreme elements in a campaign to their most closely associated party as the BushCheney04 certainly did.

Besides, I think '1984' is much closer to the Bush administration's ideals than is 'Mein Kampf'.

[Scott]

JD, I think you are right, if Kerry was smart he would have the people who did the famous Apple 1984 ad whip up something for him.

Dave, as a reader of Scripting News, I know you are very passionate about getting Bush out of the White House, and I agree that the use of the image of Hitler was completely out of line.

I suppose I am just one of those cynical 20 somethings who think that Bush and Kerry are basically the same candidate. They both answer to corporate interests, not the American people.

I am more concerned that there is no viable alternative to the 2 parties that we have. I am a registered Republican but I don't think I really identify myself with either party. And while I am a fan of what Nader is doing, I don't agree with a lot of what he has to say either.

I just need to start my own country.

[Dave Winer]

Scott, the time to have gotten involved was during the early primaries before the choices were nailed down. I like Al Sharpton myself. I know he's probably got skeletons in the closet, and they'd laugh at him if he got elected, but boy he's a smart guy and he really is a great communicator (and he can dance).

[Scott]

I know I should have gotten involved earlier. I was going to join the Nader campaign, but it seemed pretty much DOA.

As for Al, being a New Yorker I have too many memories of Rev. Sharpton getting involved in things just to cause trouble (I am talking baout the jogging suit era Sharton), however, I must say he did make the deabtes worth watching.

I think there should be a 'None of the above' choice on the ballot.

[mjr]

Just wondering how Bush would have responded to a situation like Cuba Missile Crisis in October 1962

[Rex Luscus]

Dave Winer would never stoop to "Hitler imagery." Except when he does it.

http://archive.scripting.com/2001/12/06

Winer invites the comparison of September II with the Reichstag Fire. The implication is undeniable.

[Kim Pearson]

First of all, MoveOn.org did not create the "Hitler" ad. It was one of two ads among hundreds created by contestants in the "Bush in 40 Seconds" contest held before this year's Super Bowl.(see http://www.bushflash.com) It would be specious to even say that it reflected the views of MoveOn.org, since it was not the ad that emerged from the competition.

What is really telling about all of this is the fact that the Bush campaign thought it would be rhetorically effective to intercut the "Hitler ad" with the clips from the Gore, Dean and Kerry clips. I've shown it to a number of people whose politics range from liberal to moderate, and they said it was proof that Bush is farther out there than they thought.

If the folks who keep Bush's approval ratings afloat found the ad persuasive, that suggests something about the range of polarization in contemporary public discourse.

[Lisa Williams]

Scott, Jacob, I'm 33, and in the Bush/Gore election of 2000, I basically felt the same way that you did -- that the candidates were identical corporate clones.

I now know how terribly wrong I was.

Do you believe that Al Gore would have led us to war in Iraq? Do you believe that he would have allowed the kind of corruption and cronyism exemplified by Halliburton? Do you think he would have had allowed more mercury, sulfur, and heavy metals into the air and water?

I agree with you that all of Washington is too enthralled to corporate interests -- I agree with you, I really do.

But the Bush administration is just so incredibly over the top -- in its lies, lack of judgement, cronyism, and corruption -- that it's just not true that the two candidates -- either in the 2000 election or in this one -- are the same.

Vote as if your life depends on it, everybody! Because it does.

(jylevy, man! Hi!)

[Greg Bair]

Not only did it not reflect the views of MoveOn.org, it was removed from competition due to "poor taste".

As a registered Republican who voted Bush/Cheney in 2000, I will be voting for Kerry this year to send a message to the RNC that Bush & Cheney are not Republicans. They are power-hungry warmongers that go against the conservative values that I was taught - fiscal responsibility (largest deficits in a long time), minding your own business in world matters (Bush said in 2000 that he would leave Israel and Palestine to settle their own differences, yet he kept the US actively involved), limited government (Patriot Act) and states' rights (No Child Left Behind).

[Dave Winer]

Greg, your voice, as a Republican, is very powerful. If I were a Republican I would do as you are doing this year.

[Scott]

One thing that is clear is that Bush isn't the great uniter that he billed himself as.

However, I think that if Gore were elected President we may indeed have invaded Iraq. I don't think that the President was lying when he said that the intelligence they had pointed to a connection between Osama and Hussan, and that there were WMD (isn't it sad that we all know what WMD stands for?). Of course we know now that there aren't any connections (or if they are connections they aren't that clear cut) and the WMD's are no where to be found. However since I can't know what would happen if Gore was elected it is silly to postulate. Once you are in office you hit with the cold reality of the job, and what you promised to the people might not be possible.

I will admit that I am not following the election too closely at this point, and I didn't think this post would get any attention at all, but I just don't have a feeling of Kerry. He hasn't made a strong impression on me. The main difference between the Bush and Kerry seems to be that Kerry now thinks the war on Iraq was uncalled for (although I think he did vote for it, but I could be wrong on that). Kerry needs to aggressively highlight their differences and maybe, just maybe that will convince me that one would be better than the other.

I still think the 2 party system sucks.

[john]

leave hitler out of it ok? hes not an all pupose boogieman. think outside the box.