Peter Heck - columns - Politics of Hope: Calling Citizens Nazis

Archive

Subscribe to this blog's feed

2009 Articles

Sunday, August 09 2009

Politics of Hope: Calling Citizens Nazis

The Democrat leadership is out of control. That's the only way to put it. Whether it's caused by panic, arrogance, shock, or a combination of those things, the utter contempt for normal American citizens that has been flowing from the lips of these liberal elitists has been downright disgusting. The bitterness was always just a matter of time given the left's fundamental misreading of the 2008 election results.

The truth was that the election of Barack Obama was much more about charisma and image than it ever was about ideology and philosophy. Suffering from Bush fatigue and without any viable alternative, a majority of Americans went to the polls mesmerized by the history-making figure that they saw in Obama...too caught up in the mantra of "hope and change" to pay any attention to those tiny details like what "change" might really mean.

But that reality was lost on the liberal "progressives," who riding the wave of Obamamania, ecstatically proclaimed the outcome to mean that Americans were finally embracing the policy goals of the far left. And so, beginning in January of this year, we have seen a steady onslaught of the freedom-destroying aims of liberal statism - an ideology that scorns the notion of individualism and personal liberty.

Every policy initiative they have introduced - whether taking over your healthcare, your credit card company, your bank, your retirement, your business, what light bulbs you use, how far you're allowed to drive - is tailored to fit their belief that they can run your life better than you can.

Thankfully, normal Americans have recoiled at this attempted revolution, and have pulled those dusty First Amendment freedoms off the shelf. In town halls and tea parties, formerly disengaged citizens have begun to remember what it means to "peaceably assemble" and use their "free speech" to "petition their government for a redress of grievances." And that has the liberals worked into a tizzy.

Now, undoubtedly the intense opposition to socializing American society that the left is facing from their constituents is an unwelcome surprise to them. But that doesn't excuse the strategy of "denigrate and destroy" being ordered from the highest levels of Obama, Inc. Far from being the great uniter who would - as he said in his inaugural address - "put an end to petty grievances," President Obama's deputy chief of staff urged Democrat Senators returning to face the American people, "if you get hit, we'll punch back twice as hard." No word yet on whether the Senators burst into a spontaneous chant of "yes, we can!"

If President Obama was truly concerned with "putting an end to the politics of the past" as he has told us numerous times, he would take this opportunity to do so. He would go on national television, withdraw all current healthcare proposals and say, "Let's take this slow, let's listen to the people, and let's get this right." Instead, he has allowed the AFL-CIO President to call for union thugs to intimidate any town hall dissidents, approved a DNC attack ad that calls concerned citizens "extremist mobs," and set up a White House website to accumulate names of those spreading "disinformation" about Obamacare. So much for the inauguration day pledge of choosing "unity of purpose over conflict and discord."

Not to be outdone, the always classy Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi demonstrated an even more direct approach by asserting that these evil protesters were carrying swastikas into meetings. What a bold new Democratic strategy for confronting concerned constituents: call them Nazis.

As it turns out, the swastika appeared on a homemade sign with a giant "NO" line going through it. Mrs. Pelosi, with all due respect, many of these folks who are protesting your crusade for socialism were among those who actually fought the Nazis a few years back, so how about a little respect? Furthermore, a bit of advice: when you lead a Democrat Party whose own platform frighteningly mirrors the Nazi Party Platform (rabid environmentalism, abortion and euthanasia rights, nationalized healthcare, government works projects, anti-profits, anti-big business, animal rights, etc.), it would probably be a wise move to limit any references to swastikas.

It's interesting...on the campaign trail, candidate Obama seemed to understand the significance of grass-roots activism. He said at a September campaign stop, "I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors...I want you to argue with them and get in their face...You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case."

We can assume that applied only to those who agree with him. To those who don't, the message is somewhat different: "try any of this at a town hall meeting on healthcare, and our union thugs will kick in your teeth." Ah, the politics of hope.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 09:56 pm | Permalink | 13 Comments | Email

Comments:

Likening your opponents to Nazis has done irreparable harm to the discourse of public debate. In fairness it has been done on both sides, though it is done with much more frequency and nastiness by those on the left. It really accomplishes three things. First, it cheapens the true evil of the Nazi regime. Is it really a fair comparison to equate the incineration of millions of Jews to the barbecuing of chickens as PETA did with the "holocaust on your plate" as protest to KFC? Backyard BBQ - human incineration.

Posted by Asburystrider on 08/10/2009 11:40:46

Isn't referring to tea party participants and town hall protesters as "brown shirts" a bit rediculous considering that the brown shirts murdered, tortured, and intimidated political opponents? Thuggery and murder - vocal public disagreement with elected officials. Then there is the global warming debate. If you are skeptical about the notion that global warming (a) exists, (b) is primarily human caused, and (c) is catastrophic, then you are no different than someone who believes the holocaust never happened. Denying the most documented mass murdering of our day - questioning the predictions of scientists for our world fifty years from now.

Posted by Asburystrider on 08/10/2009 11:41:47

When these comparisons are made, it is not only absurd, but it demonstrates a cheapening of the real suffering and tragedy of one of the world's greatest evils. The second problem is that it is a nasty form of an ad hominum attack. Rather than have to defend your position (in this case health care) just call your opponents Nazis. The irony of Hillary Clinton's labeling of vocal opponents as the "right wing smear machine" is that use of smears and labels exist in far more frequency on the left.

Posted by Asburystrider on 08/10/2009 11:50:14

There simply isn't an equivalent to the use of terms against conservatives such as racist, bigot, homophobe, xenophobe, sexist, or elitist. The only thing I've found even close is the use of the socialist label, to which I actually challenge anyone to point out where the left wing differs from the Socialist Party in Europe. The third issue is that the flippant use of the term Nazi demonstrates the true ignorance of real evil that exists today. Bush is Hitler. Hitler is not someone you negotiate with, after all you can't negotiate with evil. But with the Ahmadinajads, the Castros, the Kim Jung Ils, the Chavezs of the world, we need to normalize relations.

Posted by Asburystrider on 08/10/2009 11:58:31

The left railed against Reagan for calling the Communists an "evil empire" despite the fact that communism killed more people and restricted more freedom than any ideology in human history. No, the true evils to the left are American imperialism and Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. In the Democratic debates Islamic fundamentalism was never mentioned once, but I guess they have more important things to mention like those Nazi sympathizers at the town halls.

Posted by Asburystrider on 08/10/2009 11:58:52

This article is super-charged with emotional language, and highly weak in rational arguments. Unless a critique is grounded in fact, it's nothing but an attack. By failing to defend his assertions with supporting evidence, Heck cheats his audience of the right to think for themselves. IÕm calling Heck to confront issues responsibly: to calm down, cleanse his tool kit of logical fallacies, and look at issues directly - without relying on overblown language. His irresponsible use of rhetoric is inexcusable, fanning folks to a fever-pitch while consistently refusing to engage any question he raises. WeÕre smarter than this. WeÕre capable of more. Unfortunately, the only one who appears to be Òworked into a tizzy" here is Mr. Peter Heck.

Posted by Elisabeth McCumber on 08/11/2009 14:00:49

Thanks for the comment Elisabeth. Could you cite some examples to defend your accusation? It would probably help people (including me) understand what was so illogical about my column to you. Do you disagree that the Democrats condemnation of angry citizens is inappropriate? Do you not feel citizens have a right to confront their lawmakers? Do you not believe that there is nothing logical behind calling citizens Nazis? I agree some of the language is "overblown" and "emotional." Those are the parts where I'm quoting Democrats. I need you to explain this statement: "consistently refusing to engage any question he raises." That is unquestionably false.

Posted by peterheck on 08/11/2009 21:12:31

Hey Elisabeth, nice try. It is hilarious that you would suggest Heck needs to "calm down, cleanse his tool kit of logical fallacies, and look at issues directly." Do you not realize how silly that looks given the subject matter at hand? If not, let me help you: Peter Heck is blasting the Democrats for "super-charged emotional language," not "confronting issues responsibly," their "irresponsible use of rhetoric" that "fans folks to a fever-pitch." Your post was silly and completely void of any meaningful objection to the column.

Posted by Observer on 08/11/2009 21:16:48

Not to pile on here, Elisabeth, but I do think you have some explaining of your position to do. You write, "Unless a critique is grounded in fact, it's nothing but an attack." Unfortunately, that's exactly what you did. Heck quoted Democrats and recited their recent actions...then critiqued those facts. He took on the issue of the Democrats' irresponsible behavior and supported his claim they were irresonsible with reciting what they've done. I don't think you can find much more supporting evidence than that! So what is your real issue here? Your post lacked any substance. It was, as you would say, merely an "attack."

Posted by John Wilcone on 08/11/2009 21:21:38

EM how can you miss the obvious point of such a well-articulated column? Seriously? I understand you're upset because Peter exposed you guys, but come on. Let me help you here since you seemed to think there was no rational or logical point to Pete's column: the Democrats are resorting to name-calling (supported with evidence) rather than engaging the debate (supported with evidence). If Obama means what he's long said (supported with evidence), then he should call off the rush. But he won't do that (supported with evidence) because this is like all the other policies to this point - it's about control (supported with evidence).

Posted by Suffering Fools Is So Annoying on 08/11/2009 21:32:05

One more thing, Elisabeth...when you wrote "We're better than this. We're capable of more," I hope you picked up on the fact that THAT was the entire point of the column. We are better than resorting to personal attacks to cover over for our inability to engage the issue. We are capable of allowing those we disagree with to voice their opinions without calling them racists, Nazis, AstroTurf, and manufactured Brooks Brothers Brigades. I'm glad you agree. Perhaps you should tell your fellow travelers on the left (pardon me if I jumped to a conclusion there about your political leanings...just a guess). After reading a few of these other posts, I think it would be good for you to provide some clarity to your post.

Posted by peterheck on 08/11/2009 21:33:14

Elisabeth, is it possible for you to post links to all of the concern you raised every time someone called former President Bush a nazi? Or perhaps the many comments you must have made on progressive/liberal blogs that have been attacking conservatives in general with the term for years now? Or perhaps you have written Rep. Pelosi herself to remind her to not use overcharged emotional language. We would be interested in the contents of such correspondence.

Posted by ChucksChants on 08/12/2009 09:55:24

I'm not sure how you can look at yourself in the mirror- you jump all over Nancy Pelosi with a Nazi reference, and in the same sentence accuse her and the entire Democratic Party of having a true Nazi platform. You sir, are hypocrite. The article should have been called, "Here's how I can be a hypocrite with the term "Nazi". "

Posted by danstermeister on 09/08/2009 18:43:32