This morning, I read an email from National Jewish Democratic Council and found myself so frustrated I had to write a response. The email mentioned a speech Senator Byrd made maybe a month ago, where he compared the "nuclear option" to Hitler's use of the "enabling clause" to legally come to power in Germany. The article was actually about how Santorum criticized Byrd for the comparison but never criticizes members of his own party for their comparisons to Hitler, the Nazis or the Holocaust. As an aside, they mentioned that they didn't approve of the comparison either. What I am wondering is, what is wrong with that comparison?
I am Jewish and I certainly understand the argument against people comparing everything to Hitler and the Nazis. There is a very real fear that such comparisons trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust and that it is very important for people to remember the atrocities of the Holocaust to prevent it from happening again. When Tom Delay calls the EPA the gestapo or Grover Norquist compares the estate tax to the Holocaust, it really does seem to trivialize genocide. (both real examples)
Nevertheless, I do not believe in limiting free speech. When Senator Byrd made his speech and the Anti-Defamation League responded by calling the comparison "hideous and outrageous," I was really upset. First of all, I think the comparison here is different. Byrd wasn't comparing the nuclear option to genocide. He was comparing the methods of forcing majority opinion on the people without regard for the minority. He wasn't even talking about any of Hitler's policies, JUST the fact that he was determined to make his rise to power look legal. I think his point was that just because something is legal does not make it right. I think that by calling Byrd's speech hideous and outrageous, ADL is trivializing comparisons to Hitler that really are hideous and outrageous (like the ones mentioned above). It seems to me that it is just an automatic response to all mentions of Hitler without regard to the point that was actually being made.
I'll admit I may be wrong that this comparison is valid - I really do worry about the nuclear option passing, allowing the republicans to pack the lower courts and the supreme court with right-wing justices while the Democrats have no way of stopping them so maybe my judgement is clouded. But even if this analogy is wrong, this made me realize that I don't believe in suppressing all Hitler analogies. In fact, I think such a limit to free speech is just as dangerous as trivializing the Holocaust for petty political reasons. We often say "never again" in the context of genocide, which is why we compare the situations in Sudan and Rwanda to the Holocaust, but why don't we also say "never again" with regards to abuses of power? If people are afraid to make Hitler/Nazi comparisons for fear that people will accuse them of trivializing the holocaust instead of paying attention to their arguments, how can we ever make sure a regime comparable to Hitler's "never again" arises?
I am a shy person who never responds by writing letters out of fear they might bring attention to me and I certainly have never written a diary here (it usually takes a lot of nerve for me to just comment), but I disagree so vehemently that I really felt I needed to respond, and the co-worker who usually gets to hear me express outrage is not here today. So I wrote them a letter, but I also want to know what other people think. Maybe make sure I'm not just doing what the NJDC is accusing Santorum of doing: criticizing it when it comes from the Republicans but not when it comes from my own party.