« Cognitive Dissonance | Main | Condi The Truth Teller? »

January 19, 2005
Lessons From History

I hope Billmon doesn't mind that I'm going to quote his entire post, but I know how you people don't click on stuff, so screw it. It's just a collection of quotes, anyway, but a good collection.

President Bush plans to reactivate his reelection campaign's network of donors and activists to build pressure on lawmakers to allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market . . . The campaign will use Bush's campaign-honed techniques of mass repetition, never deviating from the script and using the politics of fear to build support -- contending that a Social Security financial crisis is imminent when even Republican figures show it is decades away.

Washington Post
Social Security Push to Tap the GOP Faithful
January 14, 2005

The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas . . . only constant repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea on the memory of the crowd.

Adolph Hitler
Mein Kampf
1925

The Social Security Administration is gearing up for a major effort to publicize the financial problems of Social Security and to persuade the public that private accounts are needed as part of any solution . . . The agency's plans are set forth in internal documents, including a "tactical plan" for communications and marketing of the idea that Social Security faces dire financial problems requiring immediate action.

The New York Times
Agency Running Social Security to Push Change
January 16, 2005

The great masses of the people . . . more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others . . . Therefore, something of even the most insolent lie will always remain and stick --a fact which all the great lie-virtuosi and lying-clubs in this world know only too well and also make the most treacherous use of.

Adolph Hitler
Mein Kampf
1925

Comments

Previous Comments

Logical fallicy of argument by analogy:

Bush's statements (heavily edited and taken out of context) are like Hitler's statements (heavily edited and taken out of context). Hilter was evil. Therefore, Bush must be evil.

Sheesh.

1) It's "fallacy" not "fallicy"
2) Arguments by analogy are not by definition fallacies. Arguments by false analogy, yes, but I believe the analogies I cribbed from elsewhere in this post are clearly apt. Apt, I tells ya!

The comparison made above is between the communication and marketing strategies of the Bush administration and words written by Hitler on the same subject. What this points out is that the strategies they (Bush & co.) are using to promote their policies are similar to techniques described by Hitler. Since Hitler was unabashed about his propaganda, it's illustrative to compare the two. Hitler's stark, cold words help to expose what the administration is doing for what it is: cynical propaganda designed to play on people's fears and to exploit human weakness and the population's susceptibility to "big lies."

These statements (by Hitler) and descriptions (of Bush's strategies) are not taken out of context, they stand on their own. Their meaning is unambiguous and not dependent on context.

I didn't say or even imply that Bush is evil, by analogy or in any other way. I've read your blog, so I know you're somewhat obsessed with this stupid analogy fallacy, but you've got it entirely wrong. Comparing similar practices by historical figures does not imply that they are alike in every way, and is not automatically - or even usually - fallacious. Hitler and Bush are clearly different in many ways. For example: Bush, as far as I know, hasn't yet been responsible for even 1 million deaths, let alone tens of millions as Hitler was. Hitler also had a mustache. The validity of comparing one aspect of a thing or person isn't dependent on all aspects satisfying the same comparison. Duh.

I thank you for yet another sloppy example of modern conservative debating techniques. Ignore the substance of the argument at hand, make wild accusations and imply false motives based on nonsensical conjecture, rinse, repeat.

Pathetic.

Point out a typo, hold me up to ridicule: now there is a debating technique worthy of applause.

What is the point of comparing anything Bush does to Hitler unless you are trying to provide some sort of rhetorical connection? When you do so do you demean Bush or do you minimize Hitler?

Why don't you ever compare Bush to Churchill? Why not Lincoln? Why not Cicero?

Why is a great mass murderer the first thing that comes to mind?

As long as you are comparing modern political figures to great tyrants, why don't you use Pol Pot, Stalin, or Cleon?

Heck, I think using Aristophanes's criticism of Cleon for using the victory at Pylos to his political advantage might be more apt, but it lacks the rhetorical punch you're looking for, doesn't it?

I suppose it would be too much to ask for you to compare the rhetorical techniques used by the Bush administration (and all modern politicians) to the advice proffered by Aristotle in his Rhetoric? You could probably read Machiavelli and do the same thing. That might give one the wrong implication, yes?

And as far as debating on the merits of an argument, what does Hitler, or the German context, have to do with the modern debate over social security?

In addition, you might take a moment and consider the sources that are describing the Bush administration's actions.

whoa Fritz just pegged himself as someone who remembers (or just took) the first half of the first semester of their very first class in rhetoric. aww soo cute

Lame, lame, lame.

The use of Hitler in this comparison is certainly deliberate and, as you say, designed to make a connection between the two. Namely, that Bush's use of the techniques of mass repetition, fear tactics, etc are the same tactics used by someone whose politics has very few defenders. The point of the argument is that the techniques are those of totalitarian regimes, not free societies.

I'd be happy to compare Bush to all kinds of other historical monsters, and many such comparisons can be made. The fact that in this case I did not has no bearing on the point being made.

Once again, you ignore the substance of the argument (that the communication techniques are very similar) in favor of a bunch of irrelevant historical name dropping. Suppose I did compare Bush to Lincoln, would the argument be rendered invalid because I didn't compare him to a bunch of other people?

I didn't say that Hitler (or "the German context") has anything to do with the substance of the debate of Social Security, but that it compares with the style of the propaganda campaign being waged by the administration.

As for your baseless impugning of the credibility of The Washington Post and The New York Times, two of the most respected newspapers on earth, it's just a silly Republican talking point. If you have some evidence that what is being reported here is inaccurate, by all means provide it. Otherwise, please spare me the propaganda.

You might also do well to note that the Republican Party's own data contradicts the administration's "crisis" rhetoric, though I suppose this is also somehow an invention of the "liberal media."

So lame.

If the style of propoganda is what is important, why don't you talk about that, instead of using baseless comparisons to Hitler and the Nazi regime? Don't tell me you can't talk about propoganda without talking about Hitler.

I say back to you: if you have some evidence that what is being supported by the Bush administration is inaccurate, by all means talk about it. Otherwise, please spare me the propaganda of comparing Bush to Hitler.

Dude, super lame!

Your position seems to be that while it's okay to talk about the administration's propaganda, it's not valid to make certain comparisons to other political figures who have used or advocated similar techniques. I can certainly talk about propaganda without talking about Hitler, but talking about Hitler doesn't weaken my argument in any way.

Again, the comparison is not baseless. It's a direct comparison of something very specific which you seem to be at great pains to avoid refuting in any way.

There is endless evidence that what the administration has been saying is inaccurate, though you'd probably accuse the sources of bias, so what's the point?

The major lie is that the system is in "crisis." This is debatable at best, yet the administration very deliberately presents it as an irrefutable fact.