The Strategic Blunder of ‘Trump-as-Hitler’

By Allan Richarz, opinion contributor — 06/24/18

You knew it was coming. Eighteen months into the Trump administration and the president’s ostensibly serious critics have finally broken the glass on the “Trump-is-a-Nazi” line of attack.

To be certain, there were previous allusions to this from media, Democrats and “Never Trumpers” — accusations of authoritarianism meant to implicitly draw the connection between President Donald Trump and Nazi Germany. Apart from the “over-woke,” under-informed Hollywood set, however, critics largely managed to avoid making the explicit comparison.

Until now, that is, with the issue of family separations at the U.S. border dominating headlines.

But overwrought comparisons to the Nazis are both historically illiterate and an extreme strategic misstep. The president’s critics have crossed a rhetorical line from which there can be no turning back.

That the Trump administration would be compared with Nazi Germany is not surprising. Accusations of “Republicans-as-fascists” long predate this administration. A Democratic congressman accused President Ronald Reagan of “trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from ‘Mein Kampf.’ ” In more recent times, recall Keith Olbermann’s tarring of President George W. Bush as a “fascist” in an on-air segment in 2008, an appellation also bestowed upon other members of the Bush administration.

Perhaps memories of the unfair accusations of fascism experienced by her husband explain Laura Bush’s decision to break ranks and instead go with a tortuous comparison of separating families of illegal border-crossers with the internment of Japanese-American citizens, keeping with the World War II theme but without resorting to outright accusations of Nazism.

Others, however, have no such compunction. Members of Congress, former officials, reporters and TV commentators have tweeted comparisons of U.S. detention facilities to Nazi concentration camps or issued none-too-subtle invocations of gas chambers in their tweets about children being led away from their parents by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Reporters have peppered administration officials with questions about their “Nazi” tactics.

On Friday, an MSNBC commentator extended the Nazi label to every Trump supporter, declaring: “If you vote for Trump then you, the voter, you, not Donald Trump, are standing at the border, like Nazis, going: ‘You here, you here.’”

Earlier, one magazine fact-checker beclowned herself by mistaking the tattoo of an ICE forensics analyst — a wounded Marine veteran and Paralympian — as a Nazi symbol.

Given that the Obama administration also housed separated children in “cages,” which merited the faintest of peeps from supplicant media, politicians and activists, this newfound outrage comes off as contrived partisanship.

Apart from the historical ignorance in comparing the mechanized genocide of 6 million people with the temporary warehousing of children in detention facilities, going full-bore with accusations of Nazism is a grave strategic error on the part of those opposing the president.

There has been escalating rhetoric from the moment Donald Trump pulled off his “upset” defeat of Hillary Clinton, rhetoric that has reached its natural conclusion that Trump must be literally Adolf Hitler. For some bizarre reason, however, Democrats decided that now — five months away from midterm elections, and in the midst of a whirlwind of other headlines — was the time to deploy their rhetorical nuclear option.

Like it or not, news cycles move at breakneck speed in the Trump era and often are determined by the president himself. Last week’s summit in North Korea? May as well have been ten years ago. So, too, will the issue of border separations fall by the wayside as a gnat-like attention span turns to some newer, trendier outrage du jour. By the time midterms roll around, this latest contretemps will be the faintest of memories. Unconvinced? Here are all the other times Trump has “finally gone too far.”

This, then, raises the question: Where do Democrats and their “Never Trump” conservative hangers-on go next, rhetorically, having spent their shot on the border issue? Anything less than full accusations of Nazism will seem tame by comparison. Now that Trump is “actually Hitler,” any compromise by Democrats will be viewed as kowtowing to fascism. Conversely, sticking with the Nazism line of attack cheapens its effect and, frankly, makes its proponents come off as a little more than unhinged, something perhaps already at play given that a Gallup poll has put Trump at his highest approval rating to date.

Is this perhaps the last, desperate gasp of the president’s critics? Do they double down and ride the Trump-as-Hitler narrative — and themselves — into the ground until November’s midterms and beyond? Undoubtedly, the president is ready to chum the waters with another carefully manufactured outrage to distract the pundit class.

Despite what should have been a slam-dunk for critics of the president, the overwrought rhetoric of Democrats may have handed the modern-day Teflon Don another victory, and harmed their longer-term prospects in the process.

Allan Richarz is a privacy lawyer in Japan and certified information privacy professional in Canada (CIPP/C). His work has been published in the New York Times, Forbes, New York Daily News, Christian Science Monitor and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @AllanRicharz.

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/393049-the-strategic-blunder-of-trump-as-hitler
 
"According to the piece, Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that Trump often re-read “My New Order,” a collection of Adolf Hitler’s speeches from 1918-1939. What’s more, Trump allegedly kept the book in a cabinet by his bed.

When Brenner asked about the book, Trump said, “Actually, it was my friend Marty Davis from Paramount who gave me a copy of Mein Kampf, and he’s a Jew.”

Later, Trump said, “If I had these speeches, and I am not saying that I do, I would never read them.”

The best part? While Davis acknowledged being Trump’s friend, and giving him a copy of “My New Order” (not “Mein Kampf” as Trump claimed), he isn’t even Jewish.

Donald Trump’s aides recently made headlines for comparing Obama to Hitler on Facebook and inserting Nazi SS uniforms into a promotional Twitter image.

Here’s the full excerpt, per Vanity Fair:

Last April, perhaps in a surge of Czech nationalism, Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed. Kennedy now guards a copy of My New Order in a closet at his office, as if it were a grenade. Hitler’s speeches, from his earliest days up through the Phony War of 1939, reveal his extraordinary ability as a master propagandist.

“Did your cousin John give you the Hitler speeches?” I asked Trump.

Trump hesitated. “Who told you that?”

“I don’t remember,” I said.

“Actually, it was my friend Marty Davis from Paramount who gave me a copy of Mein Kampf, and he’s a Jew.” (“I did give him a book about Hitler,” Marty Davis said. “But it was My New Order, Hitler’s speeches, not Mein Kampf. I thought he would find it interesting. I am his friend, but I’m not Jewish.”)

Later, Trump returned to this subject. “If I had these speeches, and I am not saying that I do, I would never read them.”

Read more: https://forward.com/schmooze/318664/trump-and-hitler/

"

So he lied his ass off meaning.. he read and used them. The clue is he keeps doing these little rallies. Hitler also freestyled a lot, less gibberish than Trump perhaps though he have over 5000 speeches a lot got routine. Trump got Twitter of course.
 
Last edited:
seuss-5.jpg


seuss-1.jpg



seuss-2.jpg



seuss-3.jpg


seuss-6.jpg
 
"Conversely, sticking with the Nazism line of attack cheapens its effect and, frankly, makes its proponents come off as a little more than unhinged, something perhaps already at play given that a Gallup poll has put Trump at his highest approval rating to date."

For TDS Tony....
 
All the amazing similarities between Trump's Demagoguery and Hitler's, their lying, manipulation of the media and white supremacy bullshit, is about to get even more amazing: Hitler served time in prison and Trump is on his way.
 
https://saidtomyself.com/2014/08/15/dr-seuss-and-being-a-german-jew/

All the amazing similarities between Trump's Demagoguery and Hitler's, their lying, manipulation of the media and white supremacy bullshit, is about to get even more amazing: Hitler served time in prison and Trump is on his way.

Trump intentionally plays up the parallels I am sure. As long as somebody is at somebody's throat that is all he needs.

One thing I do like about Dr Seuss (besides every book I had as a kid) is he once mentioned an accusation of 'anti-symmetric'. A German Jew himself he understood how stupid people (there is no better description) try and reduce things to a simplistic symmetry. Trumpism's rampant but-what-about-ism comes from this.
 
Last edited:
By Allan Richarz, opinion contributor — 06/24/18

You knew it was coming. Eighteen months into the Trump administration and the president’s ostensibly serious critics have finally broken the glass on the “Trump-is-a-Nazi” line of attack.

To be certain, there were previous allusions to this from media, Democrats and “Never Trumpers” — accusations of authoritarianism meant to implicitly draw the connection between President Donald Trump and Nazi Germany. Apart from the “over-woke,” under-informed Hollywood set, however, critics largely managed to avoid making the explicit comparison.

Until now, that is, with the issue of family separations at the U.S. border dominating headlines.

But overwrought comparisons to the Nazis are both historically illiterate and an extreme strategic misstep. The president’s critics have crossed a rhetorical line from which there can be no turning back.

That the Trump administration would be compared with Nazi Germany is not surprising. Accusations of “Republicans-as-fascists” long predate this administration. A Democratic congressman accused President Ronald Reagan of “trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from ‘Mein Kampf.’ ” In more recent times, recall Keith Olbermann’s tarring of President George W. Bush as a “fascist” in an on-air segment in 2008, an appellation also bestowed upon other members of the Bush administration.

Perhaps memories of the unfair accusations of fascism experienced by her husband explain Laura Bush’s decision to break ranks and instead go with a tortuous comparison of separating families of illegal border-crossers with the internment of Japanese-American citizens, keeping with the World War II theme but without resorting to outright accusations of Nazism.

Others, however, have no such compunction. Members of Congress, former officials, reporters and TV commentators have tweeted comparisons of U.S. detention facilities to Nazi concentration camps or issued none-too-subtle invocations of gas chambers in their tweets about children being led away from their parents by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Reporters have peppered administration officials with questions about their “Nazi” tactics.

On Friday, an MSNBC commentator extended the Nazi label to every Trump supporter, declaring: “If you vote for Trump then you, the voter, you, not Donald Trump, are standing at the border, like Nazis, going: ‘You here, you here.’”

Earlier, one magazine fact-checker beclowned herself by mistaking the tattoo of an ICE forensics analyst — a wounded Marine veteran and Paralympian — as a Nazi symbol.

Given that the Obama administration also housed separated children in “cages,” which merited the faintest of peeps from supplicant media, politicians and activists, this newfound outrage comes off as contrived partisanship.

Apart from the historical ignorance in comparing the mechanized genocide of 6 million people with the temporary warehousing of children in detention facilities, going full-bore with accusations of Nazism is a grave strategic error on the part of those opposing the president.

There has been escalating rhetoric from the moment Donald Trump pulled off his “upset” defeat of Hillary Clinton, rhetoric that has reached its natural conclusion that Trump must be literally Adolf Hitler. For some bizarre reason, however, Democrats decided that now — five months away from midterm elections, and in the midst of a whirlwind of other headlines — was the time to deploy their rhetorical nuclear option.

Like it or not, news cycles move at breakneck speed in the Trump era and often are determined by the president himself. Last week’s summit in North Korea? May as well have been ten years ago. So, too, will the issue of border separations fall by the wayside as a gnat-like attention span turns to some newer, trendier outrage du jour. By the time midterms roll around, this latest contretemps will be the faintest of memories. Unconvinced? Here are all the other times Trump has “finally gone too far.”

This, then, raises the question: Where do Democrats and their “Never Trump” conservative hangers-on go next, rhetorically, having spent their shot on the border issue? Anything less than full accusations of Nazism will seem tame by comparison. Now that Trump is “actually Hitler,” any compromise by Democrats will be viewed as kowtowing to fascism. Conversely, sticking with the Nazism line of attack cheapens its effect and, frankly, makes its proponents come off as a little more than unhinged, something perhaps already at play given that a Gallup poll has put Trump at his highest approval rating to date.

Is this perhaps the last, desperate gasp of the president’s critics? Do they double down and ride the Trump-as-Hitler narrative — and themselves — into the ground until November’s midterms and beyond? Undoubtedly, the president is ready to chum the waters with another carefully manufactured outrage to distract the pundit class.

Despite what should have been a slam-dunk for critics of the president, the overwrought rhetoric of Democrats may have handed the modern-day Teflon Don another victory, and harmed their longer-term prospects in the process.

Allan Richarz is a privacy lawyer in Japan and certified information privacy professional in Canada (CIPP/C). His work has been published in the New York Times, Forbes, New York Daily News, Christian Science Monitor and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @AllanRicharz.

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/393049-the-strategic-blunder-of-trump-as-hitler

The Left sees half of Republicans as deplorable. The Right sees half of Democrats as deportable.
 
A German Jew himself he understood how stupid people (there is no better description) try and reduce things to a simplistic symmetry. Trumpism's rampant but-what-about-ism comes from this.

I consider projection, what you call 'whataboutism', to be much more complex than reducing national populism down to the national socialism of Hitlarian 1933 Germany, or worse, to Hitler's own intentions in 1933, which probably included wars of expansion (unknown to the average German).

Disliking that argument style, you've never seen me say something like, ' if this had happened under Obama we'd be in jail and the left would be silent'. I much prefer to see hard evidence of the alleged hypocricy. (Recently we did see an example of hypocricy with the whole Red Hen restaurant fiasco.)

Arguing yourself for global socialism (or Globzism for short) you propose to have better solutions than national socialism. It's still socialism! And if you are a socialist running for chancellor/president of a nation (Bernie Sanders cough cough), you are a national socialist! Or if you prefer, a Globzi.

Currently, I estimate the most nationalist+socialist state is Israel, given it is an enthno-state with one of the highest tax rates in the world.

I also consider the US to be national socialist, given its relatively high tax rates, and the way they are distributed.

Germany too, has been national socialist, up until the past three years or so. When west Germany absorbed east Germany, it was especially national socialistic, absorbing IT'S OWN KIND. This worked relative to what would happen next.

When Germany started with the uber absorption of global cultures unlike it's own, it began down the path of global socialism. This has not worked, as taxes have been distributed to complete foreigners, to come and take 3% of the jobs, and be paid not to take any other job except the job of cultural (national) replacement.

What makes socialism work is a sense of family. As a rule, families help themselves first, and share the most wealth among each other. From the outside, the level of sharing can make no sense, as the most undeserving seem to benefit simply from membership in the tribe. But because of familiarity, IT'S EASIER TO SHARE THE WEALTH.

The nation state, as an extention of family culture, can get away with collecting taxes (and redistributing) to the extent it is a relatively cohesive group. The more familial the cohesion, the higher the taxes can be, as in the case of Israel.

Breaking down the nation-state is a lot like breaking down family. The more "black sheep of the family" a family has to endure, the more the family can be broken to pieces. Fragmented, it has less chance of surviving, let alone thriving.

Drunken immigration policies, driven by Globzis, claw at the incentive to pay any taxes, let alone high taxes, as the concept of familial welfare is stretched beyond the average, inate sense of justice.

In a worst case scenario, the indigent population pays out of pocket for its own ideological-cultural (and possibly racial) destruction. The worst ideological destruction is the demolition of the idea of one people, one law ("rule of law"), to a class system rife with dual standards (rule of claw) resulting in a clash system.

Reciprocity is a solution, perhaps the only solution, if national socialism (the status quo) can be extended to foreign nationals.

For example, for every Mexican migrant, Mexico has to open its doors to one American emigree. Prospective migrants need to find prospective "ex-patriots" to exchange nationalities with. The overseeing nations need to release all ex-patriots from tax liabilities, painlessly, as migrants enter new taxing jurisdictions.

This could be called a biological balance of trade.

Nations would naturally compete for the best tax payers.

I don't think any national populace would argue much about such a policy. I think it would be very popular.

Someone has said Mexico is using the US as a large part of it's social services...services it might offer its own people, but for its corruption (rule of claw and clash). This has been unpopular, except with the Globzis.

Back in the day they had something called foreign exchange students. What I'm talking about would be an extension of a program like that. Students can have a proscribed time to flavor another nation, to see if they'd like to stay. Then another program for anyone seeking permanent exchange, for students with students, tradesmen with tradesmen, businessmen with businessmen...you get the point: reciprocity.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top