Friday, July 8, 2011

The Dirty, Nasty Comparison (UPDATE)

Very Long Post

UPDATE at the bottom of the post.

The other day a friend of mine sent me an e-mail that was supposedly written by a Professor of history named David Kaiser. I thought about posting the e-mail on my blog as it was really interesting to read. However, I tend to try and accomplish due-diligence whenever I see something attributed to “whomever”.

BTW: if you send me stuff, I will use it. But be careful, I do research what I receive.

After doing some very basic Yahooing, I found Professor Kaiser. He has a blog titled “History Unfolding”. Almost from the get-go, I realized this guy could not have written the contents of what was contained in the e-mail. The contents of the email where very much against Obama, but Kaiser’s blog content when comparing it to the email was, in his own words “…are in many ways the opposite of my own.” (Source: Snopes) In other words, there is no way Kaiser could have written the email. He is too far left.

So I decided to do a little reading around the site and needless to say, I did not agree with many of the issues he covered and the way he covered them. One article caught my eye. It was title “Right-wingers, then and now”. Even before reading the article I knew he was going to compare the recent resurgence in the conservative movement to the Nazi movement in Germany 80 years ago. I was not disappointed. Well, actually I was disappointed.

Yesterday a friend for whom I have a great deal of respect wrote ma (sic) an email suggesting that today’s Republicans and the early Nazi party have a good deal in common. The remark immediately set me thinking, because I think that at this point, it is a half truth—and it’s very important for anyone with any hope for America to understand both what is true, and what is false, about that analogy. While the Tea Parties may show psychological parallels to early enthusiasts for National Socialism, they are, in many ways, inferior to them—and nowhere more so than among their leadership. Thus, while they may indeed have dreadful consequences for the United States, the consequences, it seems to me, will be of a very different character. (Source: Unfolding History)

In his very first paragraph, he doubly slams the resurgent conservative movement. This first is obvious: He says he agrees with his friend who thinks the Tea Party and early Nazi have much in common. The second slam was a little more subtle. “… they are, in many ways, inferior to them…” How low can anyone go to not only compare the Teat Party to the Nazi, but to go as far as to say the conservative movement is inferior to one of the most diabolical regimes in earth’s history. That is disgusting.

So I wrote him a note, but the comment was rejected because it was too long.  So here is my comment, unedited. But I recommend that you read his post before you continue on.  Also, read the comments, very interesting.

Good Grief people, almost everything said in the article and the comments afterwards read like the talking points of the media and the progressives as they try to belittle and eliminate the this grass roots movement. Have any of you so-called experts actually sat down with somebody who is affiliated with the Tea Party and actually talked to them? I’m not talking about spending five minutes with them, or asking leading questions. I mean spend a day at a rally, listen to what is being spoken up on the dais. An even better question would be; have you just sat around and listen to what the regular folks at a Tea Party rally are saying to each other? Don’t engage, just listen. You might be surprised at what you hear. Maybe the language won’t be as fancy the ruling class in Washington DC or the educated from Harvard, but we do know what we are talking about.

Any historian worth their salt can make any comparison argument and make it sound well learned and researched. A comparison between the Nazi party of Germany and the current left could also be made valid. So here we go. One of the most revered persons in the progressive/liberal mind (I know, they are not necessarily one in the same) is Margaret Sanger. She was very much supportive of culling the human race of people she considered less than desirable (blacks). Hitler was of the same mind (Jews). The only difference was that Hitler had the means to accomplish his insane scheme.

A very key part of the Nazi platform was “socialist”, and they played it very well. While businesses were allowed to remain privately owned, the government dictated what and how much of a widget (tanks) or a thingamabob (Stuka diver bombers) would be produced and also dictate the price the company could charge. Controlling how business is conducted in the USA is a utopian dream of the left. “Right-wingers” as you call them, have absolutely no desire to see the federal government run any business.

As for some of the more invective descriptions of Tea Party folks, here is where it might pay dividends to actually spend a little time with them, rather than getting your information from Anderson Cooper. There is little to no resentment of any class of people, other than the entitlement class. We are tired of people thinking that someone owes them a living (and I’d lay a dollar or two that most are part of that Gen-X crowd you talk about).

I also happen to think it might be more appropriate to link the Tea Party folks with the “Greatest Generation”, rather than 1890. The Greatest Generation was the driving force that helped America reach her full potential. If that is backward think, then so be it. We are witnessing the future and we do not like it one iota. The Greatest Generation got us through the most devastating economic crisis in history, and then fought off two imperialist empires. As an encore, they brought us the greatest economic expansion of all time. All of this was done because they had the heart, desire, and willingness to work hard to make it all happen. That kind of “can-do” spirit is what we are searching for (OK, so I used one of those slogans). It’s out there, but muzzled by tons of government regulations and laws. These regulations have gotten so intrusive and anti-growth that in some locations you have to file an environmental impact statement just to add onto your home.

Moral superiority is not just a function of the Tea Party. Every political party or movement thinks they have a better way to slice the apple. Liberals are the exact same way. How else do you explain the laws they pass that forbid us to use salt in our foods? Or the attempts to take away the right to own a weapon? Or to tell us that we MUST purchase health care insurance. It is because they feel they know better than us country bumpkins out in flyover country. Whenever I hear the term “for the common good” I cringe because that is liberal speak for “I know better than you, so shut up and do what you are told.” There is no question that Barack Obama is a smart and well-educated man; the problem is that he knows it and too often acts like it.

I will give you props for the “hatred of the political establishment.” But to equate that with a desire for anarchy is just stupid (sorry, I know it might be abusive, nothing else came to mind). We don’t want the federal government to go away, we just want it to stick to the original charter granted it by the Constitution. The duties are fairly simple: raise and pay for an Army, defend our borders and interests, negotiate and enforce treaties, and regulate interstate and international commerce. I am sure I have missed a couple, but I do know for certain that the Constitution was not intended for our taxes to pay for a welfare state, cover everyone’s health care needs, dictate what is to be taught in public schools, or run a multi-national company. We want to Federal government to stop intruding into our everyday lives.

Lastly, I really think you are stretching things a bit when you say the Tea Party’s rise was fueled by conspiracy theories. The only one that I can think of, and it really never gained much traction within the Tea Party, is the whole birther issue. Yes, there were and are folks within the Tea Party who believe President Obama was born in Kenya, or Malaysia, or Mars. But the progressive have Van Jones, the communist who thinks 9/11 was an inside job. Oddly enough, that didn’t give rise to the “Bottom Up” Party. And the whole “grassy knoll” conspiracy has adherents throughout the ideological spectrum. To group the large percentage of Tea Partiers with those with some silly beliefs in one conspiracy theory or another is really going out on a limb.

I challenge you and the other readers of your blog (which I do enjoy from time to time), to not dismiss the Tea Party as a bunch of tin-foil hat wearing knuckleheads. Go to a rally; don’t just get your information from Chris Mathews.

I think this column by Patrice Lewis over at World Net Daily captures a part of what folks in the conservative resurgance are feeling. The entitlement system is way too far out of whack. Far too many people are abusing the system, creating this massive over spending we are under right now.


  1. This blog post made me think of a really good book I got at the library recently: What Would The Founders Say? by Larry Schweikart

    It uses the writings of the main "fathers of our country" to extrapolate how they might have responded to such issues as public education, the role of religion in society, the right to bear arms (I thought the book was brilliant just for that chapter alone), the bailouts & stimulus packages, and many other current issues. One of the author's points was that the Tea Party stands for "Taxed Enough Already"! I highly recommend it.

  2. Jeanne, I have heard of this book and will look for it the next time I get to the library. Thanks for the tip!

  3. I am delighted to reply right here.

    The Tea Party is the exact opposite of the greatest generation in values and impact, and Grover Norquist, an angel of the Tea Party, has recognized this. (Search for his name and you will discover this.) The federal government looked after the greatest generation for the whole of its life. FDR put them to work in public works projects and the CCC, and allowed them to organize unions. After they were drafted to fight the war, the government provided a generous tax code for families (and very high rates for the rich), 4% mortgages, and new housing in the suburbs. The top marginal tax rates fell from 91% to about 70% in 1964 when the greatest generation was entering its peak earning power. Social security benefits were substantially increased in 1972 when they were beginning to retire in large numbers. Medicare assured them a safe old age.

    These are all things the Tea Party wants to destroy.

    You edited my post rather selectively--I'm glad a good many people have gone to read it.

    By the way--I never watch Chris Matthews. I've been reading and studying on these issues myself for half a century. My opinions are my own.

  4. THANK YOU for posting this . We always learn something when we visit your blog!

    Common Cents

  5. David, I am glad that you found my little blog and have decided to post a comment. it is always good to hear "from the other side." This is how discussion should go.

    One of the points that you make in your comment is how FDR took care of them by putting them to work, and I will have to agree. But one thing I would like to point out, is while it is very true there were these huge government programs, it was actually WORK. Dams and highways and other large scale public works programs were implemented, while the whole "shovel ready" Obama stimulus has been pretty much a bust. FDR didn't waste money studing the mating habits of grizzly bears and other such nonsense. If Obama's program had been to rebuild the bridges that are now falling apart and other infrastructure programs, I think there would be less critique. And one could argue that FDR's New Deal wasn't all that successful in bringing us out of the Great Depression. Some would say that the preparation for WWII was the factor that got folks back to work.

    FDRs support for unions was a bit on the tepid side, based on some of the stuff that I have read, and he especially did not support the unionization of public sector employees.

    As for selectively editting your post, the paragraph from your blog that is in my post is word for word. I might have fat fingered a letter or two (my son spilled grape kood-ade on the keyboard), but as far as I can tell, there is no selective editting.

    And I have to disagree with your point about the Tea Party wanting to destroy Medicare and Social Security. Quite the opposite I think. They want these programs to be solvent, to make the government accountable for the money that is paid in. We don't very much like the whole IOU system that has raided the SS coffers.

    I think what point was, and I guess I might not have made as clear as I could have was that while the Greatest generation did receive a largess from the federal government, the end results are easily measureable. While home-ownership skyrocketed, it wasn't the same as the recent crisis when folks who shouldn't have bought homes were given sweetheart loans. The GI bill educated millions. Unions were in their golden age. Corruption, while there, wasn't nearly as evident or visible as it is now. Job safety and wages increased dramatically and helped bring about the huge growth in the middle class.

    Anyway, thanks for posting a comment at my blog, I really do appreicate you visiting and sharing your thoughts. As I have said here and in other posts, the exchange of thoughts and ideas is a good thing.

  6. "There is little to no resentment of any class of people, other than the entitlement class."

    My experience is that Tea Party types have more resentment and animus than most towards blacks, gays, immigrants, ethnic minorities, and any "other". Polling of Tea Party members appears to bear this out.

    THE primary force behind the Nazi Party was the perception that the Nation had been "soiled" by immigrants and liberals, that "Real Germans" needed to stand up and take the country back, and the Communist / Marxist scourge posed a great threat that needed to be purged before it was too late. The Nazi Party played upon an economic recession, upon citizens suffering the effects of an economic downturn and Germany's fall from grace going all the way back to WWI.

    As for Sanger / Hitler comparisons, Margaret Sanger completely rejected the idea of gassing the unfit (the idea was surprisingly popular at the time among Darwinist eugenicists). 'Nor do we believe,' wrote Sanger in Pivot of Civilization, 'that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding.'

  7. To day that Sanger was against the gassing of the unfit hides the fact that she firmly believed that there were those unfit to live and they should not be allowed to do so. Maybe she didn't want it done through the methods employed by Hitler, but she had other ideas.

    When you mention the polls, it might be a good idea to provide those polls. As someone who is solidly in the Tea Party belief arena I know that I can tell you that I don't have any bigotry towards all those groups of people you mention. Just because I don't agree with their stances, doesn't mean I am bigoted. I don't agree with hardly any Obama policy; does that make me a racist?

  8. Hmm, Mr. Kaiser believes the Tea Party and the National Socialist German Worker's Party (NSDAP) are approximately the same, but the NSDAP was superior to the Tea Party. Perhaps a common saying among the SturmAbteilung (SA - Brown Shirts)might lend a little clarity to the political position of the NSDAP. That common saying among the SA in the 30s was "Brown on the outside, Red on the inside." Sort of like the present day description of radical environmentalists as "Watermelons", "Green on the outside, Red inside."

    The Left constantly makes the mistake of believing that since the NSDAP viewed the Communists as a mortal enemy (and vice versa), they must be on the "Right", or Conservative. In fact the NSDAP and the Communists were fighting over virtually the same political turf.

  9. I'm always amused by those who draw parallels between the kinds of projects that were completed under the WPA and what is occurring now. Indeed, the government back then did provide jobs for people, but then and now, government jobs do not create wealth or personal independence. The wages they pay in essence come right back out of the pockets of those who earn then in taxes. They do not stimulate the economy but put it in an ever deepening tailspin. Only a healthy private sector can put us back on the road to fiscal health and strength.

    One of the major differences between then and now is that now we are actually out of other people's money and the rest of the world is sitting up and taking notice. Mr. Kaiser's suggestion that the Tea Party wants to destroy Social Security and Medicare is, at best a misstatement. I have yet to see any rhetoric to that effect from any member of that movement. What I have seen is those who are concerned that Social Security and Medicare cannot continue with the funding mechanisms currently in place. There is no doubt that changes must be made and only the most ardent socialists/leftists refuse to accept that irrefutable truth.