It’s an overused and much abused cliché in modern America to compare anyone that disagrees with your point of view to a Nazi. I’m not about to do that. But after reading In the Garden of Beasts, I can’t help but compare the environment that allowed brown shirts and thugs to take control of a modern world power with our own.
The first parallel is economic. At the time the Hitler government first assumed power, Germany was a busted economic engine, and as the book points out, the U.S.’s primary concern when it came to diplomatic relations was gaining assurances that the Germans would continue to pay off debt held by American bankers. Hitler represented a hope to Germany – a hope for jobs and growth. All of which he achieved … by declaring war on the world.
The second is social. As we all know, Hitler almost immediately sought to build a new Germany by declaring certain people enemies of the state. And although we’re certainly not sending anyone to concentration camps, there was a Presidential debate this week where the notion that an uninsured individual should be locked out of safety net medical care to die was soundly applauded. That charming salvo was followed up by a diatribe on vaccinating women to prevent cervical cancer.
In essence, it has now become ok and socially acceptable to express hateful racism, sexism, classism and a slew of other negative “isms” in public, on TV. Provided of course that it’s associated with “getting America back on track.”
To fail to notice this disgusting downturn in the public discourse is to fall into the same trap our government did when dealing diplomatically with Hitler. In the Garden of Beasts details the daily life of the first American ambassador to Hitler’s Germany. At first, we didn’t particularly care for the Nazis’ social policies, but did believe a new Germany was blooming, and that a basically good thing was happening under the new regime. We ignored all the early signs and sloughed off despicable behavior because we thought ultimately it would subside and economic prosperity would take its place. We were so very wrong.
Similarly today, we let shameful applause lines go without broad public condemnation, saying it’s just a sign of the times or the byproduct of our economy. And that’s true. But just because we’re in a financial pickle is no excuse for a lapse in morality.
And we are talking about morality, embodied in a rhetoric shift that warrants greater scrutiny. Think for a minute how some characterize the notion of “entitlement.” Entitlement is a bad word whenever a foreigner or person of color accesses the social safety net. In those cases, we’re fostering a culture of “hand outs” and creating a “nanny state” when people really should be taking care of themselves. But whenever an English speaking white person accesses the system, entitlements become a reflection of our poor economy and job losses. And Medicare is sancrosanct. So, it’s ok for some of us to use and need the safety net, but not others?
I point out this fact because it was once unthinkable that America could ever resemble Germany in the 1930s. But we’re there. In fact, we’ve gotten so drunk at the Tea Party that complete insanity now looks moderate.
