Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Trump: To Be Or Not To Be Hitler, That Is The Question...

I've often wondered who the left would accuse everybody of being it there never had been a Hitler. Would Reagan have been called a "Napoleon"? Would Nixon have been accused of being a "Kaiser Wilhelm II"? Would either Bush have been named an "Oliver Cromwell"? None of them have the pizazz of Hitler.

Well, analogies are just analogies, and you can make certain points with them, but when history repeats itself it always varies just a little from what went before. Obama isn't quite Robespierre, and Hillary isn't Caligula. Quite. Well, we'll see.

At any rate, we're certainly in the midst of the "Trump is Hitler" trend. It's all over the net, and most of the purveyors of the notion seem to be blissfully unaware that they're unoriginal. I can certainly remember back as far as when Goldwater was Hitler, and just about all Republicans since him have been such as well. And since the Trotskyite neocons mostly moved over to the Republican party from the Democrats, they've pushed the Hitler analogy back towards the Democrats.

But, seriously, if you want to find an analogy for Trump, who would it be? It's popular to compare him to Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson, more for their style than for their principles, of course. And he's similar in his insurgency to Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, and George Wallace — and Goldwater, for that matter.

Moving overseas, it's tempting to compare him, because of his grasp of the immigration crisis, to such European leaders as Pim Fortuyn, Le Pen (both of them), Jörg Haider, and Viktor Orbán.

And because of his, dare we say, vulgar demeanor, he has a certain likeness to the late Mao.

But Hitler? No. It's a simple matter that the left (including the neocons, who are certain left in most respects) call everybody they dislike "Hitler."

But Steve Sailer has found a much more satisfying comparison. He writes, over at Takimag [link]:


Staying up all Monday night to write a column for publication Wednesday morning is a tricky business when elections fall on a Tuesday.

So let me offer four longer-term perspectives.

First, Hispandering. While we still have Marco Rubio to kick around some more, let’s ponder just how badly the conventional wisdom has failed regarding the candidacies of Rubio and, to a jaw-dropping extent, Jeb Bush.

After Mitt Romney’s loss in 2012, the Republican Party establishment quickly proclaimed that the remedy to what ails them was exactly what the Democrats and liberal media had been advising: amnesty for Hispanics.

GOP leaders recruited young Senator Marco Rubio to be the Republican face of a bipartisan “comprehensive immigration reform” drive. Time put Rubio on the cover of its Feb. 18, 2013, issue as “The Republican Savior”; after all, there’s nothing more inspiring than an ethnic politician demanding special favors for his ethnicity!

Meanwhile, big-money insiders poured cash into the presidential campaign of Jeb Bush because he was both a dynast and a Hispanic-in-law. (A third presidential candidate, Ted Cruz, benefited modestly from having a surname ending in a “z,” although Cruz made less effort to claim the Latino mantle.)

But somebody forgot to send the memo to GOP voters. Jeb’s idea of campaigning among Americans on his love of Mexicans proved a historic fiasco, while Rubio’s admittedly less absurd campaign has repeatedly failed to take wing.

He may still wind up with the nomination so often predicted for him. But his sponsorship of the amnesty bill with Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has been a deadweight dragging him down, even thought the media have hated to admit their mistake. For example, The Washington Post ran a lengthy autopsy on the Rubio campaign on March 6, “Some Supporters of Rubio Say Bad Strategy, Poorly Run Campaign Killing His Chances,” without ever mentioning the I-word.
“Can a candidate appeal to whites who live loud while still retaining the indoor-voice whites?”

Second, expanding the map. Republicans in recent presidential elections have narrowly lost large numbers of electoral votes in the Great Lakes region, the part of the country traditionally covered by the Big Ten college football conference. Romney won at least 45 percent of the vote in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota, but still lost all 80 of their electoral votes. Why? Because Romney carried only 52 percent of the white vote in these six states, and a terrible 47 percent of white voters who hadn’t been to college.

Donald Trump has spoken out for a protectionist industrial policy that at least theoretically should appeal to voters’ self-interest in these Rust Belt states.
------------
Now, there are comments at the end of Steve's piece at Takimag, but there are also comments on the same article at Steve's own site, here [link], where I got one of the quibcag quotes, so I advise you to go there and read those as well.

Anyhow, I think the most apt analogy of all, that comes up is Julius Caesar. The downside of that is that Julius Caesar was followed by Emperors, one after another, till the whole thing fell apart. Think aobu tit.
----------
Quibcags: Three of them. A record. The Nazi girl in the first one I just found browsing around on the net. and the quote is from one of Steve's commenters. The illustration in number two is Tendo Akane fighting off her suitors in  Ranma ½ (らんま½). The third is also from one of Steve's commenters, and I found the girl on the net.

1 comment:

  1. I'm surprised you didn't know about this one. There's also Mao, Stalin, and others.
    Who's calling Trump Hitler? (((The usual suspects))) of course.

    ReplyDelete