Let’s entertain the absurd, and intellectually explore the concept. What if Trump is Hitler?
There really is only two choices:
- the left has lost their nut, and while Trump may have some flaws, he isn’t going to be the next Hitler, and thus the histrionics and temper tantrums can only make them look stupid and weaker in the long run
- the left’s is brilliantly insightful: Trump is a Nationalist, Racist, Bigot, Megalomaniac (who wants to exterminate all people not like him), and that wants to take over the world, and thus claiming he is the next Hitler is completely justified (and will speed up the progression)
What evidence for #1 (lost their nut theory)
The list of evidence on this is long and rich, like:
- The left said the same thing about Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Buchanan, Perot, Bush, McCain, Romney, and now Trump. The left has always been wrong before, and in hindsight, everyone that looks that those candidates later records must openly laugh at the comparisons.
- Who was Hitler (what is fascism): it’s Democratic National Socialism: a top-down pro-government authoritarian, anti-individualist bend, anti-conservative (that had no interest in going back to the way things were), who believed in progressivism, social justice, and political correctness. Fascism is a bundle of stick, a workers symbol for unionizing and creating syndicates of special interests, and that people working together could do more than individuals, and that’s why their system was more powerful than Western Liberalism/Individualism. Slogans that would fit in with fascism were “you didn’t build that, the community did”, “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do to serve your country”, and in big pageantry. Hitler’s fascism had racism, populism, and nationalism meaning not only that Germans were superior, but they had a social responsibility to force their way of thinking on other nations (for their own good).
- Who is Trump: a Capitalist Individualist that wants to decentralize government and reduce it’s power (anti-authoritarian). A conservative in many ways that wants to go back to more individual liberty and take us “back”. He mocks top-down progressivism and political correctness, recognizes that social justice is just another name for tyranny, and wants to break up Washingtons syndicates and cartels. He appears to have zero interest in America throwing it’s power abroad (unless it’s in retaliation), and believes in racial and cultural diversity.
There’s very little intersection between the two. When you start breaking down the what’s in common, and what isn’t, or actions you’d expect and wouldn’t from a Hitler type, you get something like the following:
- Reducing corporate taxes: opposite of Hitler
- Decreasing regulations – opposite of Hitler
- Deregulating banks and not vilifying bankers – opposite of Hitler
- Weakening Washington establishment – opposite of Hitler
- Putting Constitutional originalists (pro-individual/anti-central government) types on the Supreme court – opposite of Hitler
- Inauguration speech about how "regardless of the color of the person, patriots blood was red” – opposite of Hitler
- Building a wall to defend against immigration, instead of preparing to invade (making excuse about how we once controlled all of Mexico, so should annex it again) – opposite of Hitler
- Attitudes to Israel – opposite of Hitler
And when you look at the left’s excuses for how they’re the same, you get very weak-sauce:
- They claim Trump is a racist, with very, very, weak evidence and a lack of understanding what racism even means.
- They claim well, if Trump isn’t the racist, his puppet-master Steve Banon is. Ignoring that the left always plays that game (Chaney was Bush’s puppet master, Reagan had Caspar Weinberger or the Moral Majority, and they ignore the influences of their side like Saul Alinsky or George Soros). Only there’s no evidence Bannon is a racist either. He runs the most popular Jewish publication (Breitbart), that occasionally allows voices that the left doesn’t like as too extreme, unlike the NYT, HuffPo, or CNN which all do the same (only worse).
- They claim Trump is a nationalist and a populist, and he is. However, Hitler’s nationalism was Imperial Nationalism: the superiority of their nation and race, justifying taking lessers over for their own good. Trump’s is the opposite, he wants us to withdraw from playing world-cop and do less of the expansionism.
- If you threw a few antisemitic slurs in an Elizabeth Warren, Michael Moore, Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton speech, they are far more aligned with like national socialism than Trump is. Free education, gun control, social justice, more government, suppression of “hate speech”, consensus/conformity/collectivism, these are all things the National Socialists supported. Hillary supported reducing the protections of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments — that’s what fascism would look like coming to America. Not Trump’s moves.
So #1 is completely absurd. But let’s play make believe anyways.
But what if #2 is right (Trump is Hitler)?
So let’s pretend we’re a good progressive and we know nothing about the history of Hitler, Fascism and National Socialism, and we truly believe that Trump is like Hitler. And in this alternate universe, Hitler was a conservative, isolationist, that wanted to reduce government and increase individual liberties at first, but his megalomania got the better of him. How would that have happened?
Well that history would have Hitler using his oppositions attacks on him as each excuses for clamping down on the violence and protests. The lawlessness of the opposition, justified the centralization of power to crush the civil unrest.And then once lured by that power, he would keep suppressing the protests, until he was a dictatorship.
So what would having a bunch of violent protests and opposing all of Trump’s appointments do? It would give him the excuse he needed to consolidate power. He must govern, and if the other side is being lawless enough, and attacking anyone who they don’t agree with, then naturally you have to clamp down on that? (People hate anarchy). So they’re giving him exactly what they wanted.
More than that, their Facebook and Twitter protests is giving the government everything they need to know who the biggest idiots are. You donate to the ACLU for fighting an imaginary #muslimban, or you tag all your twitter rage so that government can find it, and you’re aiding and abetting the crackdown on the dumbest among us — as well as pissing off the other side with your irrational rants, as to make the majority of Americans more tolerant towards the backlash that you’re begging for, by being such loudmouthed clueless little twats.
So even if they’re right (without any lack of evidence), by playing Malcom X instead of MLK, they’re turning not only the right against them, but a lot of moderates: this doesn’t weaken him, it cements his power. They shouldn’t be monitoring how much the left is cheering them on, but how what they’re doing plays to the right and middle, and so far, it’s having the opposite effect than they should desire. The more shrill the left and media gets, the more tolerance the other side and center has towards natural retaliation that they’re begging for. Empowering that which they are decrying (by how they are going about it), doesn’t seem like the prudent path.
The left is doing everything they can to prove they’re overly shrill, completely irrational, and they’re teaching the other side to ignore them. Trump’s popularity ratings seem to be rising, not falling, amongst conservatives and independents — who are the people you need to change their minds next election. Instead, more people are openly mocking the left’s overreactions, or tuning them out completely (blocking them on Facebook or going away). That doesn’t bode well for the party that’s been declining in power since 2008.
- If you want to appeal to moderates and intellectuals or conservatives, then you don’t act like shrill immature radicals. Instead of opposing everything, you pick your battles and use your capital to make them look worse than you. Discuss the flaws/reasoning rationally.
- If you care about Supreme Court stacking, then you don’t have a tantrum over the first one — when Trump is replacing a constitutional originalist with another constitutional originalist. You save your ammo for when he’s replacing RBG (Ruth Bader Ginsberg: a far left anti-Constitutional progressive), with someone who cares about the law and individual liberties and will swing us away from you causes.
- You don’t freak out over a short term travel ban, and pick fights you can’t win (as he completely has the Constitutional precedence on his side), you complain quietly, warn civilly, and wait until he does real overreach, and then you still act like the adults in the room, instead of the kid having a meltdown.
There’s no win to comparing Trump to Hitler. The choices are you’re wrong, and you look more and more like a shrill buffoon (and teach everyone but the far left to ignore you. Or even worse, you’re right, and you’re giving the other side excuses to do exactly what you claim they want to do: you’re aiding them in their objective.
The left keeps proving they’re ready to oppress anyone they disagree with, and use bullying or any tactics and any means to their end. Which justifies to the other side, them doing the same. So they’re not decrying fascism, they’re just complaining that they’re not in charge of it. That drives both sides closer to fascism, not further away. I shouldn’t have to make the choice between sore losers getting their way at undermining our civility and creating a fascist bully-state to stop Trump/populism, or accepting a police state to stop the anti-Trump bullies from doing that. But freedom comes with responsibility, and eventually, if the left keeps proving they can’t be trusted with it, and they’re going to make us choose between their fascism or the other sides, they might not like who wins that one. And nobody wins when that happens.