In Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post's editorial "The Hitler Analogy" Applebaum discusses the fact that labeling various politicians or political activities as similar to Hitler or the Nazis has become overused and purposeless.
Applebaum cites several instances of faulty and over hasty comparison to Hitler which cause me to really consider her point of view. She brings up that in any political argument, a "Hitler analogy" kills the argument, instead of broadening it. The reason Applebaum states, which I have to agree with, is that society-any society-almost unanimously agrees that Hitler was evil. Of course, there are many people across the world that supported, and still support Hitler and the Nazi movement, however the majority of people presumably do not, and even among supporters there are many who would not make their beliefs known publicly. Thus, when engaged in political discussion all one must do to end the discussion is compare their counter to Hitler. Naturally, this forces an unfair position upon someone, because it is uncomfortable to try to defend your stance once it’s analogized to Hitler without defending something you believe to be evil. Applebaum is correct in stating that it is an unfair argument.
I do disagree that it is a pointless argument though, because there may be some situations where it is truly beneficial to examine history and compare it to what events we are currently going through in order to make better decisions. Thus, in some distinct cases I would concede that the argument is useless, however I disagree strongly that we should throw away the argument and all agree to never again bring up Hitler or the Nazis!
I appreciate Anne Applebaum’s argument because it does bring up something we all should consider regarding the logic and legitimacy-or lack there of -of Hitler analogies, and I agree with many aspects of her argument while still disagreeing that her statement can be made into a blanket statement for all uses of Hitler analogies.
No comments:
Post a Comment