« Bush is Toxic to Foreign Leaders | Main | Avian Flu: US Plays Catch-Up »

April 04, 2005


I don't know how to say it in english, but in french, this reference to Nazi Germany could be called "Crier au loup". It simply means that he is using a very strong reference to make his point and that next time he will use this reference, it will have lost its strength - because it has been use for a "less important" point.
The quotation marks are here to show that i don't support the Nuclear Option. But also that i don't especially like easy references to an event that has negatively shaped Europe and is the last proof that culture can't prevent everything.

Actually, it is not the latest, but in the European collective memory, it certainly is the most painful one.

I almost never think references to Weimar/Nazi Germany are either apt or useful in terms of U.S. politics. However, this was one case where I thought the reference, focusing as it did on process, was appropriate. But even if one thinks it was inappropriate, I think Foxman's reaction was histrionic and the reaction of the right hypocritical and deeply cynical.

And what Byrd said affirmed the rule of law; what Cornyn said almost mocked it.

I don't have any problem with the historical allusion.

Often I think we shy away from comparisons that could be too provocative or trite.

Jared Diamond makes a similar point, in Collapse, which I higly recomend.

You didn't have to think of those references before. They never had this kind of power so their true nature had to be hidden.

I am not disputing the point at all since your "article"/post was clear and my opinion of the right is quite well established. I am just regretting that the simple evocation of the law is not strong enough to make a point. Which i think is sad, in a country of laws.

Abe Foxman's outrage over Sen. Byrd's comparison strikes me as identical over those in the black community who complain about comparisons between the civil rights movement for blacks and the struggle of the gay community for civil rights. I think it is a fair assessment that it was widely viewed as a tremendous civil rights victory when the Supreme Court struck down miscegenation laws in the late 60's. Now, there is a minority in the black community who are making arguments against gay marriage, that sound remarkably similar to arguments against allowing different races to inter-marry. I remember reading about the case of the poor man who was half Indian and half Black who was prohibitted from marrying anyone legally.

Is it inflammatory or ironic that Abe Foxman comes across like a Good American? Is that a discussion we are allowed to have? Is it inflammatory to suggest that nearly every silent Republican and every silent Democrat on Capitol Hill is playing the role of Good Germans?

Is that too reactionary? I certainly wouldn't want to be rude or offend delicate political sensitivities.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad