tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post9115924537774416008..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Romney's Hitleresque StrategyAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-57286662779792585292007-12-14T16:02:00.000-07:002007-12-14T16:02:00.000-07:00Romney as I see it is attempting to carve out a co...Romney as I see it is attempting to carve out a constituency. He is entitiled to believe (I am not saying he does) that atheists represent a danger, just like you are entitled to believe that fundamentalist Christians might represent a danger. Both of you can rally to try to get a majority (an "us", to limit "them" from gaining power and so improve or protect all that we hold good.<BR/><BR/>To say Romney's attempt to rally his "Us" is like Hitler , while yours is not seems to me to be unreasonable.<BR/><BR/>The beauty of showing an argument is a "straw man" say, is that it shows in a un-emotional way what is wrong with it. You state that you didn't want to use McCarthy as an example, because of all the baggage around Stalin, that would cloud the argument. Hitler has baggage as well.<BR/><BR/>The creation of us vs them, like in your best 80% vs the worst 20% evokes cooperation amoung the best 80% inspite of theist/atheistic differences, to combat the worst 20%. This is us vs them. The problem is not that it is always bad to be divisive, there are times when we must show that we are different from a them. <BR/><BR/>Rereading your piece, I get the image of Romney strategists combing the Hitler legacy for tactics that they can use with impunity because no-one will dare accuse them of being Hitleresque. I think the reality is quite different. Like the football coach hoping an opposing player will make some statement to the press, that the coach can then use to motivate his own players.<BR/><BR/>This is the trap I thing you fell into. Because you were a bit lazy in looking for a less emotional analogy, you resorted to Hitler. And now the other coaches can use this to try to motivate their base, in the same way you are using unjustified aspertions to the patriotism of atheists to rally your base.<BR/><BR/>You can't expect people not to rally their base. Doing so is not Hitleresque, just as straw man (which Hitler frequently used, is not called Hitleresque. We rarely name strategies after their creators, except for perhaps Machiavelli. But the use to my mind, says more about a certain amorality behind its use, than whether the strategy itself can ever have good uses.)<BR/><BR/>To me, bringing in the Hitler angle, is almost always an attempt to poison the well. Hitler killed millions of Jews, and that sort of baggage, like Stalin's should not be attributed lightly to anyone.<BR/><BR/>You rejected the Bush/Cheney analagy because it would take too long to explain. I hope (and trust) it was not a cheap recourse to try to drive a wedge between Romney and Jewish voters. <BR/><BR/>The real issue, is not us vs them, but rather, what is ethical, when we public express our distrust or disagreement of/with others. For Hilter the distrust was total, and could not be sated. This is what is Hitleresque about it. Your distrust of Huckabee or Romney, and I believe their's of you does not in my mind qualify as Hitleresque. <BR/><BR/> Best regardsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-43368448820938274962007-12-10T19:03:00.000-07:002007-12-10T19:03:00.000-07:00A Bush/Cheney analogy on homosexuality would be a ...A Bush/Cheney analogy on homosexuality would be a poor analogy for two reasons.<BR/><BR/>First, I would have had to show that this analogy had all of the elements that made it bad. That would take as much work as the original case. I do not have to go through this effort with respect to Hitler, because those elements are already known.<BR/><BR/>Second, I would have had to deal with the people who support Bush/Cheney who would not be willing to accept a negative portrayal of their policies. Of course, I have to deal with the people who support Hitler, but this is a much smaller portion of the audience.<BR/><BR/>As for a gunman killing Romney to prevent another Hitler, please note that I did not argue that Romney was another Hitler. I argued that Romney used a strategy that Hitler used. Having one negative quality in common with Hitler does not imply that one is the next Hitler.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-13674999816648471462007-12-10T12:04:00.000-07:002007-12-10T12:04:00.000-07:00I am not challanging that Romney or many other pol...I am not challanging that Romney or many other politicians try to evoke feelings of us and them, or that we should keep quite about the use of this strategy.<BR/><BR/>Is Hitler really the best example of this strategy, of using an external or internal scapegoat to unite and mobilize a majority?<BR/><BR/>Is Romney more like Bush/Cheney and the gay marriage issue here, or more like Hitler? <BR/><BR/>Appeals to Hitler, Stalin, Antichrist, may be valid in some contexts, but they seem designed more to evoke fear (of them vs us) than elucidate rhetorical fallacies(like straw man, ad hominem, poisoning the well etc. with which you are undoubtably quite familiar)<BR/><BR/>If we are strongly opposed to us vs them tactics, I think we should be very reticent about playing the great Satan card, if only so that when the next Hitler comes, and we cry wolf, the example still evokes enough fear that we will rise immediately to action. <BR/><BR/>I concede that you may think that day has already come, and as such the Hitleresque strategy is warrented.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-39513357452773682332007-12-10T10:51:00.000-07:002007-12-10T10:51:00.000-07:00paulvClearly, my argument was not of the form, "X ...<B>paulv</B><BR/><BR/>Clearly, my argument was not of the form, "X was done by Hitler; therefore, it was evil," so your rebuttal here is against a straw man. Your response would have been effective against that inference if I had made it, but is not relevant to what I actually wrote.<BR/><BR/>My argument was, "Among the evil things that Hitler did is that he manipulated the crowd by exploiting a cultural divide, backed by myth and sophistry, between 'us' (Ayrians) and 'them' (Jews, among others). This is what Romney did in his speech as well."<BR/><BR/>Hitler provides the best current example of that type of strategy - one that best explains <I>why</I> it is wrong without a lot of additional explanation being required. I see nothing wrong with using the best example of P when trying to explain P. In fact, I think it is irrational not to use the best example of P when talking about P. If that best available example is some act done by Hitler, then I will use it.<BR/><BR/>In order to challenge my argument, the form that the rebuttal would have to take is one that somehow argues that this strategy of prying open a divide between 'us' and 'them' that is based on lies and sophistry is somehow <I>not wrong</I>, or that neither Hitler nor Romney used this strategy.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-73362742790977591962007-12-10T10:21:00.000-07:002007-12-10T10:21:00.000-07:00I have a Hitleresque way of putting my pants on. (...I have a Hitleresque way of putting my pants on. (one leg at a time). Yesterday, someone (we don't know what strain of madness he had, shot up a church) And tomorrow if some sick person attempts to assasinate Romney lets hope he does not say he was trying to prevent another Hitler.<BR/><BR/>Evil is evil, it is not an evil strategy because Hitler used it. So the use of Hitler is not central to the argument. If the issue is how was Hitler bad, then discussing his strategies is relevant, but when the issue is why is Romney bad, the association with Hitler is at best irrelevant and at worst an impediment to clear thinking about the subject.<BR/><BR/>Unless you want to argue that I have a very dangerous way of putting on pants.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-87197646610175389262007-12-09T22:37:00.000-07:002007-12-09T22:37:00.000-07:00Doug S.McCarthyism would actually be a poor analog...<B>Doug S.</B><BR/><BR/>McCarthyism would actually be a poor analogy for two reasons.<BR/><BR/>First, many of the accusations under McCarthyism were false allogations based on 'evidence' drawn under durress. I am not talking here about false accusations of atheism. I am talking about an attack on atheism itself.<BR/><BR/>Second, there is already an unfortunate and misleading association between communism and atheism in the public mind. It would no good to strengthen that assertion.<BR/><BR/>The Hitler analogy is more accurate. There is no legitimate reason to demand that I substitute a poor analogy for an accurate one.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-4527980714737494682007-12-09T13:40:00.000-07:002007-12-09T13:40:00.000-07:00http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_HitlerumE...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum<BR/><BR/>Evil is evil, regardless of whether Hitler did it or not. Go for the Joseph McCarthy comparison. ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-16428169771738796142007-12-09T13:11:00.000-07:002007-12-09T13:11:00.000-07:00If it is Hitleresque, to try to convince some of t...If it is Hitleresque, to try to convince some of the people, that others represent a very grave threat to all that we hold good, then, you are using this strategy yourself. <BR/><BR/>I think the Hitler reference is in poor taste, and attempts by revulsion to convince people what your arguments fail to do. Atheists while they may be hated by some, (If I go by work such as the NewYorker's, Atheists with Attitude, are not a small fringe group but represents a significant portion of society, and an even larger proportion of segments like the scientific community. The analogy fails, without even examining Romney's views on democracy.<BR/><BR/>The reference to Hitler implies that you know Romney has a hidden agenda to eradicate atheists. If you have evidence, show it, because we would all like to see it. Otherwise, I find the debate about which prospective leaders are the most like Hitler, Stalin, Amin, or Franco pointless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-45547181070613077372007-12-09T11:08:00.000-07:002007-12-09T11:08:00.000-07:00Good comparison, well explained. I also appreciat...Good comparison, well explained. I also appreciate the insight about the "under God," etc., language.Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-80444263843462195362007-12-09T04:00:00.000-07:002007-12-09T04:00:00.000-07:00I think the Hitler comparison is justified, but it...I think the Hitler comparison is justified, but it still adds a certain emotional tint (in the mind of readers) that might undermine the important points you're making.Matt Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08062352280843955046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-72067104353730065562007-12-08T23:37:00.000-07:002007-12-08T23:37:00.000-07:00Start with PT 2 if you don't have a lot of patienc...Start with PT 2 if you don't have a lot of patience ... that's where he starts in on the culture war stuff.Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-57594779683764149562007-12-08T23:27:00.000-07:002007-12-08T23:27:00.000-07:00This is why I plug the work of David Neiwert on "t...This is why I plug the work of David Neiwert on "transmission" so often. Romney is giving a friendly face to a message (or a meme if you want) that is deeply rooted in hate and bigotry.<BR/><BR/>To see what it looks like in pure form, go to YouTube and search "Pat Bucanan 1992" and watch his culture war speech. Then the Hitler comparison won't seem as outlandish.Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-76776352561947982007-12-08T21:54:00.000-07:002007-12-08T21:54:00.000-07:00There's a bit more than just Rob Sherman's word ab...There's a bit more than just Rob Sherman's word about Bush Sr.'s quote on atheists:<BR/><A HREF="http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060525.htm" REL="nofollow">http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060525.htm</A>Brian Westleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14191964121225569563noreply@blogger.com