RSS Feed MenuSouth Carolina senator Jim DeMint misspoke himself Wednesday night, comparing the contemporary United States to Germany “before World War II.” In the senator’s defense, it might be noted that he did not specify exactly when before the Second World War he had in mind.
Here’s the statement as quoted by Dave Weigel in the Washington Independent.
Weigel attended an event at the National Press Club to promote DeMint’s book, Saving Freedom. The key passage began by citing the experience of an Iranian immigrant who had complained to DeMint about the surge of government spending under President Obama. DeMint praised immigrants like her because:
They understand socialism. They understand tyrants. But none of us have ever had it here. We don’t even know what it looks like. Part of what we’re trying to do in “Saving Freedom” is just show that where we are, we’re about where Germany was before World War II where they became a social democracy. You still had votes but the votes were just power grabs like you see in Iran, and other places in South America, like Chavez is running down in Venezuela. People become more dependent on the government so that they’re easy to manipulate. And they keep voting for more government because that’s where their security is. When our immigrants get here, they’re worried, because they see it happening here.
With only a little ingenuity, you could argue that DeMint’s words qualified as a not too inadequate description of the terminal phase of the Weimar Republic, especially the years 1930-32, when Chancellor Heinrich Bruning ruled by decree…
OK, OK, let’s try a more serious reply:
DeMint’s remark exposes the real harm conservatives do to themselves by indulging in extremist talk. Some liberals may think that Fox News is an instrumentality by which conservative elites deceive and manipulate the yokels. Not so. By any definition, a Republican senator belongs to the conservative elite – and yet he obviously watches Fox News too, and is affected by it.
And these kinds of overstatements distract and detract from the core and true Republican message that the major actions of the Obama administration do open the way to very serious future abuses of power. You don’t have to worry that the US will go the way of the Weimar Republic to worry that the concentration of financial and political power by way of programs like TARP will change American society for the worse.
Why cannot conservatives and Republicans stick to saying that, without trying to improve the argument by crazy-sounding analogies that discredit rather than enhance the message?
barker13 // Jul 10, 2009 at 8:24 am
Hey, David… what ever happened to that thread you started prior to the “re-launch” which focused upon the “outrage factor” – or lack thereof in your opinion?
Did you deliberately remove it during the “switch-over” to the “new” New Majority of is it just hidden way, way back in the archives?
Just curious.
As to THIS thread…
Hmm… Frum or DeMint… who do I trust…???
(*SMIRK*)
Sorry, David… you lose!
BILL
ottovbvs // Jul 10, 2009 at 8:44 am
Well leaving aside the fact the TARP program was conceived by a Republican administration who actually committed multiple abuses of power in the DOJ and elsewhere, what you’re missing here is that the GOP has effectively become the party of talk radio and Fox News. And you didn’t need any ingenuity, charitably DeMint meant the last days of the Weimar Republic. And he’s not alone. Such utterances are a commonplace from Coburn, Inhofe, Pence, Sessions, Ensign, Bunning, et al. I provided a link to some oped in the NR which is supposed to be conservative central by some allegedly serious commentator which was dripping with this nonsense. Now these aren’t fringe nutters ranting on blogs, screaming at Palin rallies, these are in the mainstream of politics just like the various political operatives Crystal was pillorying for racism the other day. At the end of the day this is all a by product of those polarisation strategies the GOP has pursued with such enthusiasm and in which the drummers (maintaining DeMint’s Weimarian analogy) of talk radio and Fox News are taking over as the voice and face of the Republican party. Can you imagine Eisenhower, Nixon or Reagan allowing themselves to be hijacked by these folks but that’s what’s happening. As appetites are coarsened, and the bar on extremist expression falls ever lower, the De Mints of this world are forced to compete. And what’s even scarier and in the long run much more damaging for the GOP is that some (not all, with many it’s just cynicism) of these guys actually believe this stuff.
sinz54 // Jul 10, 2009 at 9:26 am
Part of the problem is the rise of New Media, without any of the ethical constraints or principles of the Old Media.
The Internet has enabled the wildest, most insane, theories and charges to be flung about at the speed of light. And very few blogs have standards and ethical codes that prevent the wild stuff from being flung about there. Thus it’s easy for the surfing public to get infected with this stuff; and then the politicians have to pander to it or be viewed as RINOs or sellouts. Far more people read about Obama’s birth certificate issues on the Internet than will ever even hear about DeMint’s book. (Campaign books by politicians are usually remaindered quickly.)
The lack of standards in journalism can be dangerous. Hearst’s “yellow journalism” played a major role in foisting the Spanish-American War on us.
There are some rays of hope, however. I was gratified to see that RedState.com, a staunch conservative and anti-Obama blog, nevertheless has banned any wild theories about Obama’s birth certificate. LittleGreenFootballs has even gone after and exposed the wildest of the anti-Obama charges.
mymy // Jul 10, 2009 at 9:43 am
Briefly scanning the list of articles for the past few days,the majority of Mr.Frums articles seem anti the conservative members of the Republican party.Some positive feed back might encourage more people to join your new movement
ottovbvs // Jul 10, 2009 at 9:53 am
mymy // Jul 10, 2009 at 9:43 am
“Briefly scanning the list of articles for the past few days,the majority of Mr.Frums articles seem anti the conservative members of the Republican party.”
…….He’s just pointing out the old truism that you attract more bees with honey than vinegar. As he put it the other day the GOP is in the grip of virus…..now you can either deny it and say no we just need more of the same or you can point out that this is the path to marginalization……you may not like his message but it doesn’t make it any less timely.
ottovbvs // Jul 10, 2009 at 9:56 am
sinz54 // Jul 10, 2009 at 9:26 am
“I was gratified to see that RedState.com, a staunch conservative and anti-Obama blog, nevertheless has banned any wild theories about Obama’s birth certificate”
……..Progress…..we have stopped beating our wives
mymy // Jul 10, 2009 at 10:18 am
OTTO I swear I think you are David Frum or at least a close relative.I can’t imagine a bigger supporter than you.The Republican parties base is still conservative,I don’t understand how being negative about us is going to attract a lot of people.
ottovbvs // Jul 10, 2009 at 10:36 am
mymy // Jul 10, 2009 at 10:18 am
“OTTO I swear I think you are David Frum or at least a close relative.I can’t imagine a bigger supporter than you.”
……Actually my view is much more nuanced……I consider him along with much of the ‘young turk’ Republican party establishment since the early 90’s to be largely responsible for the mess the GOP finds itself in…..One side of my family have been staunch Republicans since Lincoln….we have a pic of my great granddaddy with McKinley…..Until the late 90’s I almost always voted GOP but I really think it’s gone completely off the rails…….they have ceased to be the party of making things work….However as they say “better one sinner saved” and with David the lightbulb has actually come on…. sort-of……He talks entire sense when it comes to the dynamics of domestic politics……he’s still off the wall on international affairs where he’s complete neocon…..that said he was really the first highly visible conservative pundit to his balls on the line over Palin….and since he earns his living as a conservative publicist basically that tooks some guts although some of the more simplistic posters here don’t get it…..so he’s not nephew but he is deserving of support both because he showed some moral courage and he’s basically right in the central thrust of his argument about the Republican party.
barker13 // Jul 10, 2009 at 11:03 am
Re: Sinz54 // Jul 10, 2009 at 9:26 am –
“…the ethical constraints or principles of the Old Media.”
Which “old” media are you referring to, Sinz – the “old” media who covered for Kennedy when he was popping pills and sharing a mistress with a mafia don?
(*SNORT*)
Next…
As to “new media,” there are several “new medias,” the first coming out of the late 60’s and early-mid ’70’s when “new media” referred to turning aside from the very objectivity that you (and I) long for. Now of course you’re free to focus on the “newer new media” (*SNORT*) meaning Fox News, the internet, et al, but there you must realize that Fox and “conservative media” was a reaction to the mainstream media’s unabashed liberalism and worse, partisanism.
“Far more people read about Obama’s birth certificate issues on the Internet than will ever even hear about DeMint’s book.”
That’s true; but whose fault is that…??? By and large Americans are simpletons, Sinz; nothing you can do about that short of electing me Dictator. (*WINK*)
Seriously, Sinz, we can debate which came first, the “media dumbing down machine” or the “dumb American People,” but one thing we do know is that it’s a mutually reinforcing phenomenon.
(*SHRUG*)
Re: Mymy // Jul 10, 2009 at 9:43 am –
Yep.
Re: Mymy // Jul 10, 2009 at 10:18 am –
Nah…
While I didn’t bother to read Otto’s ramblings which elicited your response, regardless of Frum’s character flaws there’s simply no doubt that he possesses a first class mind and demonstrates the abilities of a true scholar. Otto on the other hand…
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
CE // Jul 10, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Frum writes: “And these kinds of overstatements distract and detract from the core and true Republican message that the major actions of the Obama administration do open the way to very serious future abuses of power.”
How is this in any sense a true Republican message? The Republican message for eight years was quite clear with respect to consolidating the most awesome powers in the executive branch – including the ability to capture, detain and torture American citizens at will. It would be fairly absurd to hear a Republican decry the excesses of TARP as eclipsing any of the egregious constitutional trespasses of the former administration.
balconesfault // Jul 10, 2009 at 1:52 pm
The question is – has the Republican Party in its current form become essentially extremist? Is there a way to tell the religious right that we’re not going to use big government as a tool to regulate morality, and tell the neocons that we’re not going to use big government as a tool to force the world to do what we want … without having to reach out to the Blue Dog Dems to form some new political entity?
ottovbvs // Jul 10, 2009 at 2:08 pm
balconesfault // Jul 10, 2009 at 1:52 pm
” The question is – has the Republican Party in its current form become essentially extremist?”
…….In a word….Yes…..I used to be a sceptic on Obama but I’ve become something of a fan……In a curious sort of way the Palin controversy highlights the extent to which she and Obama represent the ethos of their respective parties at the moment. Intellectually, temperamentally, philosophically, spiritually she’s where the GOP is at present , whereas he encapsulates the ethos of the Democrats. And it’s not a comparison from which the GOP emerges well. Anyone can see Obama sitting quite comfortably in the executive suites of America’s largest corporations or the partner’s room at the top law firms. Believe me I’ve either worked for or had some dealing with some big hitters and he’d be right at home. Where do you see Palin in this context. Behind the receptionist’s desk, painting her nails and catching up on the latest news from People magazine. That’s the unfortunate reality and until we return to having people like Bush 41 as the face of the party that’s going to remain the picture in the majority’s mind.
SFTor1 // Jul 10, 2009 at 8:05 pm
David Frum makes the point that perhaps Americans aren’t quite so stupid as to equate Barack Obama with the young Fuehrer. The fact that there is a discussion around it at all is remarkable. Of course DeMint made an irresponsible comment. Of course the GOP is better off without that kind of nonsense.
Obama’s policy choices continue policy choices Bush made before leaving office, most importantly the bailout of the financial industry. To paint him as some sort of black devil who is out to bring down the country, as Frum correctly points out, is a recipe for further GOP decline and misery.
Maybe it would be an idea for GOP’ers not to be so darn staunch all the time.
andydp // Jul 11, 2009 at 6:33 pm
As someone who voted for Nixon twice, I can safely say I’ve been a loyal Republican. This is NOT the GOP of Dirksen, Nixon, Reagan, Eisenhower its the GOP of Limbaugh, Cheney, neo Cons and Fox “news”.
Extremist talk is not going to re develop the GOP; we’ve all seen what it does in issues such as immigration or even gay marriage. Prostituting the GOP to interest groups (Just like the Dems) is what got them to the situation they’re in now.
The GOP needs to divorce itself from the “whack job talk”, start coming up with solutions to the problems we have now (other than tax cuts and less government) and of course stop being the “party of NO”.
I’ve just joined up and find the discussions here to my liking (ie intelligent) but we all have to remember Ben Franklin’s words: ” If we’re all thinking alike then no one is thinking”
ottovbvs // Jul 12, 2009 at 9:40 am
andydp // Jul 11, 2009 at 6:33 pm
……..I voted for Nixon first time, I was out of the country the second time. What a lot of posters here don’t seem to have taken on board is the extent to which the people like Nixon that were heading the GOP at the time didn’t look that different in the main from their Democatic counterparts. Some of them like Eisenhower could have been Democrat. This started to change somewhat in the Reagan era but not much. Bush senior was right of center but really governed from the center putting the country above party most typically over breaking his taxes pledge. The tone and dynamics all really started to change in the early 90’s and I don’t think it’s coincidental that this coincided with coming together of three elements. The final playing out of the southern strategy which put all the factions in the right boxes, the use of polarization as a motivator and vote getter, and the rise of talk radio. Of course it’s the usual amalgam of personalities, events and policies so it’s sometimes hard to separate the important from the less so. I read somewhere the other day that conservatism is a political philosophy but also a cultural movement that’s being mined by commercial interests for profit . A perfect summary.
barker13 // Jul 12, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Re: Andydp // Jul 11, 2009 at 6:33 pm –
“…issues such as immigration or even gay marriage. ”
Andy. With respect… does reality ever intrude into your political analysis…???
On immigration the vast, vast, vast majority of the American People want the borders secure and oppose amnesty. As you may recall, BUSH (as president!), McCain, Pelosi, Reid, large chunks of the RINO establishment, a strong majority of the Democratic political establishment, the MSM, the Academy… they were ALL in support of Bush’s proposed immigration “reform.” Do you by any chance recall WHY in the end Congress couldn’t muster the votes to pass it? I’ll give you a hint: Millions and millions of Americans called, wrote, emailed, and even visited their representatives in person to say in unequivical terms… “STOP! WE DON’T WANT THIS “REFORM.”
Like it or loath it… THAT’S what happened. I was there. So were you. Let’s at least wait a couple of decades before trying to rewrite history.
As to gay marriage…
(*SIGH*) (*HEADACHE*)
Again… sorry to let facts and reality intrude upon dogma, but when these sorts of policies get a public hearing in the BALLOT box…
(*SHRUG*)
I’m in favor of gay marriage. The American People aren’t. That’s just the reality.
“As someone who voted for Nixon twice…”
Then you no doubt remember wage and price controls, the oil crisis, the beginnings of stagflation, etc.
Don’t get me wrong. I would have voted for Nixon over Humphrey and Nixon over McGovern too… but let’s not pretend Richard Nixon was a “conservative” in the Reagan mold. (And we didn’t even address foreign policy.)
Ike? Well… do you recall what HIS response to the “immigrant problem” was…??? Hmm…???
Do you happen to recall what threat he made against the North Koreans (and Chinese) in order to get the permanent ceasefire of the Korean War…??? Hmm…??? (Through back channels he threatened to NUKE ‘em! To NUKE ‘em! Now how’s that rank in your lexicon of “extremist talk…???”
(*SNORT*)
May God have mercy upon this poor troubled nation of ours. Let’s hope Bismarck’s dictate that, “There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America,” remains in force.
BILL
ottovbvs // Jul 12, 2009 at 3:09 pm
barker13 // Jul 12, 2009 at 2:21 pm
” Do you happen to recall what threat he made against the North Koreans (and Chinese) in order to get the permanent ceasefire of the Korean War…??? Hmm…??? (Through back channels he threatened to NUKE ‘em! To NUKE ‘em! Now how’s that rank in your lexicon of “extremist talk…???”
………..Barking as usual invents his facts……Eisenhower did not threaten through “back channels” to nuke North Korea or China……if this was so why is North Korea sitting about 25 miles north of the capital of SK with allegedy around 10,000 artilllery pieces targetted on Seoul…..the Korean war was essentially a draw and in fact Eisenhower was desperate to get a settlement that ended hostilities and which was really mediated by the Soviet Union.
BA McCormick // Jul 12, 2009 at 10:31 pm
I don’t think calling people “extremists” is all that helpful? This is a standard leftest tactic, and just like the word “racism,” doesn’t really have any meaning but to demonize people.
With that said, its difficult to figure out what DeMint meant by his comparison with Wiemar Germany? If he meant that Obama and the Left are to Hitler and the National Socialists, then its kinda foolish? The only similarity that I can see is that Obama and Hitler were both charismatic racialists with strong oratory skills. A racialist is someone who considers race paramount in their worldview. This is similar to a Marxist with class, and/or a feminist with gender. A racialist is not a “racist.” The word racist/racism has no meaning and should only be considered a weapon in which to smear someone. If anyone wants to understand Obama’s racialism I would recommend reading “Dreams of My Father” by Obama.
A better comparison with Wiemar Germany would be with the current political atmosphere. Both periods were experiencing bad economic times and decadence socially. More important however was/is the growing agitation by the Left during both periods. The Nazis would have never risen had the Left not been behaving like it was. The State of Bavaria literally was taken over by a band of Leftists. Germans also understood what was happening in the Ukraine and Poland, and what occurred in the USSR. The SA or “Brownshirt” came into existence in an attempt to control left-wing violence in the streets and especially at political events.
Today we’re seeing similar activities by the Left. Its to a point where the Black Panther party is even allowed to intimidate white voters at polling places. The “Conservative” Bourgeoisie parties in Wiemar were pretty much impotent in dealing with the situation and there seems to be many parallels with the GOP. This will open opportunities for more radical Right wing ideas, people, and solutions to fill the void. They will be lead by a dedicated cadre of people who believe in what their doing more so than the people who attend non-partisan cocktail parties in the Beltway.
barker13 // Jul 14, 2009 at 12:13 am
Speaking of “extremism,” over on another thread there was a fair amount of referencing (plagiarizing by some) of Peggy Noonan’s most recent Wall Street Journal column.
Now the focus of the exchanges centered on Noonan’s views regarding Palin, but if one were to read the column start to finish…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124716984620819351.html
…you’ll come upon the following:
QUOTING NOONAN — “Here are a few examples of what we may face in the next 10 years: a profound and prolonged American crash, with the admission of bankruptcy and the spread of deep social unrest; one or more American cities getting hit with weapons of mass destruction from an unknown source; faint glimmers of actual secessionist movements as Americans for various reasons and in various areas decide the burdens and assumptions of the federal government are no longer attractive or legitimate.”
Hmm… sounds kinda… er… familiar… huh? (*CHUCKLE*)
Seems like it’s not just guys named BILL who hold a less than sanguine vision of America’s future.
Just saying…
(*SHRUG*)
BILL