“Mr. Dewey has pledged himself to an administration of unity and efficiency.  In our time, we have seen the tragedy of the Italian and German peoples, who lost their freedom to men who made promises of unity and efficiency and security.” […]
“When a few men get control of the economy of a nation, they find a ‘front man’ to run the country for them. Before Hitler came to power, control over the German economy had passed into the hands of a small group of rich manufacturers, bankers and landowners.  These men decided that Germany should have a tough and ruthless dictator who would play their game and crush the strong German labor unions.  So they put money and influence behind Adolf Hitler.  We know the rest of the story.”
— Harry S Truman, October 1948

It’s a bit difficult to remember what about Dewey might inspire any passion of any kind — neither a Saint nor a Devil be that Thomas Dewey, but I believe that there was a bit of the 2004 Bush v Kerry “Swift Boat” going on there where the idea was to throw out something ludicrous and should it not be responded to ask the question “If he can’t handle this punch as a candidate, how is he going to handle a punch Stalin as a president?”

Harry Truman presents a bit of a conundrum with this classic item of raw demagougery.  In the great game of ahistorical Hitler references… The problem with Thomas Dewey is shown with a photograph:

If I wanted to do that whole “Hitler” thing, would  I strip him of that mustache and replace it — or go ahead and scribble a differently colored “Hitler Mustache” over Mr. Dewey’s already extent mustache?

For a more current example, we can turn to John Bolton.  Could I just color a big chunk of his white mustache brown, leaving the chunk of his mustache that hangs around his mouth white?

John Bolton at least has enough of a crowbar to make a color swatch work.  Dewey just kind of flummoxes me.  (You’d have to — what? — color the two sides in and clip it off ever so slightly at the edges?)

In the end, if I have to go ahead with the generically understood two factioned tribalist nature of the body politic, I will take “our” hyper-ventiliating rhetorically ratcheted ahistorical Hitler analogy over “their”s.  Ted Rall wrote a Bush = Hitler piece (one?) which probably could have been proferred with only slight variations by an advocate for a war in Iraq with the typical always at the ready (and always tired) “If Hitler had been stopped at Munich” line.

Consider the Disruptors at the Town Hall meetings.  When not speaking of the “One day God’s going to stand before you” (and his… um… right to leave?), we have (Can someone identify what the woman from :12 to :18 is trying to sell us?), we have an allusion to the Socialism of Russia — Obama dismantling the nation, apparently — Maoist China.  Also please let Obama know he’s an American (for once, I can cheer Arlen Specter for something: “I think he knows that.”)  To explain the problem of the incoherence, I can point to sometime in the Bush Administration, a bit annoyed by Hitler references I pleaded for some new infusion of Totalitarian Leaders through history — though with specific allusions for specific items, I therefor can’t get behind rolling them all into one. 
For the Obama — Hitler analogy (Hey!  The Larouchies are getting around!), we are churned over to The Euthanasia Card — the Death Panel that might have voted down Sarah Palin’s baby and perhaps Steven Hawking.  It does feel like addressing that one is addressing a straw man — ’tis heavily compromised by its very nature — Obama bought out phrma to get Harry and Louise on board, (something I see Jonah Goldberg couldn’t help but notice, though he calls phrma “naive” and profers that Obama can’t say “no” to the extremist leftist Henry Waxman and — I guess double crossing Big Phrma?), and Senator Johnny Isakson is in the artful position of having to push away at this while not allowing Obama to claim him for political purposes.

Was Gerald Ford ever Hitler for anyone’s darkest impulses?  It seems like a weird proposition but consider for a moment one thing (on this, a few days after the anniversary of Ford’s ascension to the president, and as we come near the release of Squeaky Fromme): 

A much reviled and despised man, the fury of public scorn through over two decades.  He had the honor of one hell of an electoral thumping, and then was kicked out of office in the lowest public regard.  He was replaced by a genial well liked man, who went out of his way to not offend the sensibilities of a troubled nation, who was impossible to hate, and not a terribly bitterly partisan official.
Richard Nixon didn’t come particularly close to being assassinated.  The best we can do there is Samuel Byck.  Gerald Ford, on the other hand, had two attempts — at close range — in quick succession — on September 5 and then September 22 of 1975.  Those two particular assassination attempts were, I guess we can call sort of after-shocks after the that funny period of time we define as the 1960s.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 11th, 2009 at 6:18 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.