BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?

Subject: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: TIA
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 06:29 AM

"It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and EXPOSING THE COUNTRY TO DANGER. It works the same in any country."

--Hermann Goering, Nuremberg, Germany, April 18, 1946

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice. Because IF WE MAKE THE WRONG CHOICE, THEN THE DANGER IS THAT WE'LL GET HIT AGAIN. That we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."

--Dick Cheney, Des Moines, Iowa, September 8, 2004

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie."

--Joseph Goebbels, c. 1939

"Terror…Iraq…9/11…Saddam…terrorists…Iraq…9/11…Iraq…Saddam…9/11…terror…9/11…Iraq…"

--George Bush, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and a multitude of administration mouthpieces, 2001-2004



Are the parallels just coincidence? These folks are not stupid. How can someone not have noticed? Scariest prospect is that Rove et al. are aware, and are following the model. God I hope not.

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 07:05 AM

'guilt by association' is a time honoured rhetorical trick.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 07:50 AM

Guilt by association would be saying (e.g.) "Goering and Cheney are both avid ping pong fans".

When Cheney does what Georing counsels, that goes far beyond simple "association" does it not?

Whether by design or coincidence is my question.

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 07:52 AM

Try it out, how easily you could replace Cheney by any other politician and it still would make remote sense.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 08:01 AM

You are correct. If any other politician said it, it would be just as creepy.

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 11:13 AM

"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
— John F. KENNEDY

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 11:20 AM

I wish that had been John F. Kerry making such a statement today.

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 12:06 PM

From Terry Gross' Fresh Air radio show yesterday: Journalist Wayne Slater is the co-author of Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential. The book, now in paperback, looks at the impact of White House senior adviser Karl Rove on President Bush. There's a new documentary based on the book.

Slater described the Rove technique as not attacking an adversary's weakness, but attacking their strength. Causing doubt is enough; it appears to many as discredited if they don't pay attention when the followup stories appear (if they eventually do). Rove does it with well-funded shadow organizations and whisper campaigns. Lee Atwater (king of dirty tricks) was Rove's friend and mentor, and in many way's Rove has outdone the master. Slater said he absolutely doesn't have evidence that Rove is behind the Swift Boat Veterans who smeared Kerry, but he said he can show you again and again the exact same pattern occuring as Bush comes up against stronger candidates, and in hindsite Rove has been linked to them. This is merely the latest incident.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 12:30 PM

Dang, SRS, I was just going to post the exact same link to Terry Gross's show. You can hear the archived program at that website. Also, here's a link to Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential at Amazon.com.

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 12:35 PM

I agree partly with TIA and partly with Wolfgang.

On TIA's side, I think Cheney's statement is one of the most blatant uses of Goering's technique that I've seen. I don't think you really CAN replace Cheney with any politician.

Let's try it: Cheney's counterpart John Edwards.

That doesn't work for me; I haven't seen Edwards say anything like this.

Now, on Wolfgang's side, I would say this is "guilt by association" for another reason. When you point out that people are using the same propaganda techniques as the Nazis, it is creepy. But it's mostly creepy because of the OTHER things the Nazis did. In other words, we're associating Cheney with a crowd who murdered--what? Ten million people? A crowd who murdered people for racist reasons. Etc, etc. These are not things Cheney would do.

You could point out that Bush wears the same brand of shoes as Hitler (I made that up of course; just an example!), but it wouldn't mean he'd make the same choices as Hitler in other areas.

So coming to power in a Nazi-like way IS creepy. But we must remember that this does not make them Nazis.

Still, I think TIA's point is valid: that Cheney et al are using manipulative tactics reminiscent of fascism.

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 12:57 PM

Nerd:

Despite the fact that you only agree partly with me, I agree entirely with you. I never intended to imply that Cheney has been complicit in the murder of six million+ innocents. Instead, I was pointing out, in my muddle-headed way, that the current administration is gaining power in the same way as the Nazis, and that scares me (well, because of what did eventually occur under the Nazis). If you master control of the masses, you can do whatever you want. And whatever you want might actually be good, bad or very, very bad. Where the current US Administration fits in that spectrum is a matter of opinion, but I hope people are arriving at their opinions based on rational analysis rather than on mind-controlling fear and repetition.

So, I do not intend the Cheney-Goering analogy to extend all the way to their ultimate goals, but it seems the right time to examine how they are getting to wherever it is they want to go.

Remember, you cook the frog by putting him in the water before lighting the fire under the pot.

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 01:22 PM

I think reprehensible statements and fear tactics have always been a part of politics in every system everywhere. In the US system, Cheney is free to appeal to our fears and we are free to say what we think about it.

I think it is safe to say that Americans feel they have been attacked and may yet be attacked, no matter who wins the next election. I don't think it's safe to say that Cheney gained anything by his statement. He may even believe his own words. Stranger things have happened.

I also listened to Terry Gross's show yesterday about Karl Rove. He is an example of the hard-core dirty tricks power players which are also everywhere in politics. He is apparently a very successful practitioner. They DO occur in every party.

There is an interesting little political novel I read a few years ago, I forget the author. It's a fantasy about a thorougly dirty political campaigner WHO STOPS AT NOTHING. (It was written as a worst case scenario entertainment, NOT about any actual politicians, but it does take place in Texas). It's title is "Dark Horse".

By the way, Terry Gross is a national treasure. I've gained a lot by listening to her show and her fascinating selection of interviewees from all walks of life. My favorite was a man who works in medical imaging. When Terry asked him how he got into his field, he started out with: "Well, I was a goatherder..."

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: DougR
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 01:45 PM

TIA: Horse pucky! The current administration gained power through the ballot box. The same old way as your heros, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter did.

What Cheany said, and I agree with him by the way, is Kerry would be a softy when dealing with terrorism. With his reputation as a anti-war protestor, peacenik, whatever you want to call it, how could he send armed forces to fight terrorists, send bombers to bomb them. If he did, he wouldn't be true to what supposedly is his credo. No war, never!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: jeffp
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 02:04 PM

DougR:

Hitler gained power through the ballot box, too.

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 02:10 PM

DougR,

I'm talking about HOW they gain power at the ballot box, but you knew that didn't you?

Bill Clinton: decidedly not a hero (campaigned against him...thought you had me figured out dintcha?)

Jimmy Carter: not a hero until after he left the Whitehouse and started building homes for Habitat.

Kerry: I suspect Rush or Sean told you what his credo is, 'cause it's never been reported that he said that himself. Rush et al. also created his peacenik "reputation". I strongly recommend you listen to Kerry's actual peacenik testimony here. It's rather longer than the soundbites Rush and Sean and the Swift Boat fellows use to create this "reputation" (soundbites which John McLaughln - no raving liberal - recently termed "an obscene extraction"), and creates quite a different impression.

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 02:18 PM

One of the punditocracy commentariats we heard speaking about Cheney's speech summarised it this way:

CHENEY: "Vote for Bush or die."

We found it amusing, but also disturbing and sad.

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 02:40 PM

I would ask you all to play by the rules.

Only democrats are allowed to compare republicans to Hitler and nazi's.    (Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft/Gingrich/Rush/Hannity)   Not only is is allowed, it is encouraged. and justified.

Republicans are not allowed Nazi comparisons.   By law they are required to pollute the water, poison the air, and fight wars for oil.

So please, play by the rules.   Do not use the word Hitler or Nazi in any thread mentioning a democrat.   If you insist please substitute "you know who" for Hitler.    We will all know who you mean.   

PS:   Hitler actually lost the run off election, but was appointed Chancellor because England and Germany thought they could contain him better.    Very similar thinking to what democrats said about Sadaam.

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 03:56 PM

one of the best books to read for backgournd on Hitler's rise to power is Volume 2 of the Last Lion, by WIlliam Masterson. biography of Winston Churchill uses mucho documentation of records uncovered at Nuremburg and elsewhere after the war. more interesting are the all too similar tactics of Hitler & Goebels with Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and the like, wittling away at personal freedom in the name of security, only to strike when the civilian population is too weak and frightened to do anything about it. Bush's Iraq war is all too reminiscent of Hitler's 'pre-emptive' strikes. He had no right, no authority, except that granted him by Democratic appeasers, no national security reason, just a desire to remake the world, starting with the middle east, into an American plaything. Democrats, in thier fear of Republicans and quickness to give in so as not to anger the opponents, are too like Chamberlain, Henderson, Halifax, Wilson, et. al. I worry about a peaceful real transfer of power should Bush lose.

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 03:57 PM

that should be William Manchester

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 04:33 PM

LarryK:

Funny, Bush actually lost the election too, by most accounts both the popular and electoral forms. But he was appointed president because five members of the Supreme Court thought he would work more in their interest.

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 06:10 PM

The current administration gained power through the ballot box.

A ballot box result distorted by the fact that the count was first disrupted by a mob and then brought to a halt before it had been completed, and two months before the elected candidate was due to take office, so that there was no reason on earth for any kind of rush.

The point being that for anybody genuinely committed to the democratic process, that process can never be subordinated to political preferences. The sad fact is that November 2000 saw Americans lining up for or against carrying on the vote until it was completed to the satisfaction of all candidates - and this lining up appears to have been purely on the basis of the candidate people wished to see win.

That really was rather disgusting. It seems to indicate that for a great many Americans the commitment to democracy must be paper thin.

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 06:46 PM

as McGrath says....

there is plenty of evidence that access TO the ballot box was compromised 4 years ago in Florida...some of it was obvious, some was not 'provable', but done by intimidation and making it harder for folks who don't vote the 'right' (pun intended) way to make themselves heard.

Changes since then have been largely cosmetic...Kerry can win if he gets a LOT more votes, but if it's close again, I shudder to think what will happen.....and in 4 & 8 years from now, it will be beyond help, I fear....

if a nasty, liberal place like Mudcat is still here in 8 years, I'll refresh this thread....

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 07:05 PM

You're right, McGrath. The commitment to democracy on the part of many Americans is paperthin. What they really want is this:

1. They want their team to "win".
2. They want things their way.
3. They want personal security.
4. They want more money.

It would be hard to say in exactly what order to put those, however...that would kind of depend on the individual, and the moment.

To destroy democracy when dealing with such an immature and uninformed constituency is really quite straightforward. You frighten them and appeal to their lowest basic instincts...fear and greed. You provide them with someone else to hate and fear. You control the money supply. You control the firepower.

Bingo! Totalitarian state with full consent of more than 50% of the populace.

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 07:54 PM

1. They want their team to "win".
2. They want things their way.
3. They want personal security.
4. They want more money.

All those things are reasonable things to want - but for anyone who claims to be a democrat (small d) the democratic process has to come first. Any attack on the process of voting and counting the votes has to be recognised as a kind of treason.

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 08:08 PM

TIA: Forgetting and passing by the rest of the thread---which probably drifts as they all do----RIGHT ON.
      You have it right. Darth---sorry---Cheney has crossed the line for a U S campaign.

       Those who think of voting for that group had best see Judgement At Nurenmburg again---the scene where the Judge (Tracy) confronts Lancester (A German judge) in his cell---Lancester has not spoken one word throughout the film---here he tells his problem of how this all came to pass and he was not complicit--he was, after all representing the state. All others were complicit

Tracy's response is what can be said now to Cheney. The Lancester character then realized it also.

   Our nation has always (well, outside the HUAC era and one or two other blemishes---WW2/Japanese citizens) allowed free exchange of ideas and those who disagree are not cowards, anarchists, or some such as Cheney would have you believe Kerry is---especially when he defended the country and dear old Dick (what an appropriate term) got many deferments.    By the way--was he with W then thinking of more ways to avoid serving???? (I kid--they, allegedly, did not know each other then---and Halliburton was a couple of years away yet).

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: The model for recent political rhetoric?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 08:14 PM

Liberal is NOT a dirty word! Is it wrong to want, in the greatest country in the world, that people be treated fairly and paid such? Is it wrong to expect politicians to devote as much energy and money(in the billions)on little things like available health care and a decent education for our children? We claim to be the greatest country in the history of the world. I wonder what those other people around the world think when they see our education levels declining or that infant mortality rates in some areas rival third world countries? And we expect them to emulate us?