Why we must remember
Dave Weinberger says we must discuss comparisons, even if they say Hitler. By identifying what lies at the bottom of the problem, focusing on what we should do to avoid the evil that a decent society might suddenly find accepting, Dave raises the bar and makes the discussion centered about what might mean we are approaching such a place, and not equating a particular administration to any historical period. Indeed, if we avoid the oversimplification and, at the same time, remember the values that somehow are being forgotten gradually through the acceptance of restrictions and the convenient compromise stemming from purely security reasons, we poise ourselves, our government and the roles as responsible for our own civil government.
Of course, as we simply surrender more and more of our liberties, and accept that, in order to appease the everlasting professional alertness of our security forces, we must then forego all what are our values and principles, we are lost.
Case at hand: the "Freedom Speech Zones" that the Secret Service sets up in order to protect the President against a possible attack. OK, they are being conscientious, and applying their own brand of paranoia against a possible worst scenario. However, they, the Secret Service, are not the owners of the streets, nor are they the ones dictating policy! Their ideal security must yield in front of the rights of the population to express themselves, even though it may mean less control.
Now, take that little example and extrapolate, and above all maintain the ability to discuss, dissent and protest. Otherwise, we are already in our road to ruin.
Comments
there's something broken about the entire bush=hitler concept. frankly i cannot understand how any thinking person can begin to accept these comparisons.
in your post, you casually state that "we simply surrender more and more of our liberties," but the only example cited is not letting Bush-hating mobs gather round the President. they're not being prevented from speaking, they're not being prevented from assembling, they are being prevented from mobbing around the President of the United States.
please notice that wherever there are an "anti" -war, -globalization, -meat-eating, ... protests, they are usually accompanied by smashing, burning, looting mob behavior. if Howard Dean is elected President, and vitriolic Dean-haters attempt to gather in his path, i'll be the first to support the secret service's efforts to keep those dangerous people away from the President.
for the record, i have not surrendered any of my liberties, although sadly enough, in virginia, it's still illegal for me to kiss my wife below her neck. we're working on it though :}
Posted by: chris hall | January 14, 2004 4:24 PM
One of the problems with comparisons to Hitler is that Hitler had a long resume of many different evils. Even if he hadn't committed the holocaust, or invaded Poland, or started a world war, or imposed a totalitarian economic and political regime on Germany, or any of a number of other sins, he'd have been an evil man. But when you compare someone to Hitler for any one of these things, the assumption is that you're comparing them to the whole package -- a standard that few other tyrants or scoundrels can meet (Stalin is the only contender who springs to mind).
Posted by: Prentiss Riddle | January 22, 2004 3:03 PM