By Frances Rice
The full-throated attack on Sean Spicer, an honorable man, over his remarks
about how Hitler used chemical weapons to kill people puts in sharp relief the liberal
hypocrisy on Hitler comparisons.
Flashback to 2009, David Leonhardt brazenly and
approvingly compared President Obama to Hitler in an article
published in The New York Times. The text of that article is posted further
below.
Immediately below is a 2009 article by Warner Todd Huston
that was posted by News Busters which excoriates Leonhardt and the New York
Times.
After that article by Leonhardt, further below is an article by Eddie
Scarry “Seven times the media compared Trump to Hitler.”
_____________
NYTimes: Obama's Economic Ideas Great...
Just Like Hitler's Were?
By Warner Todd Huston| April 3, 2009
For The New York Times economic scene section for March
31, David Leonhardt came across with one of the most amazing admissions about
Obama that I've ever seen in the Times. Namely that Barack
Obama is just like Hitler. Now, many of you may be solemnly shaking your
head in agreement, but in so doing you would be missing why the Times was
comparing Obama to Hitler. You see, Leonhardt didn't mean it as an insult. He
was saying that it was a good thing that Barack was being like Hitler at least
in an economic sense.
Here Leonhardt is taking the trains-on-time track with
his Hitler angle by saying that, despite that whole Holocaust and World War II
business, Hitler's policies were good for Germany. So good, in fact, that he
celebrates the ways he sees that Obama is emulating the mustachioed mad-man's
economic prescriptions with the massive takeover of the economy and bloated
government spending on "stimulus."
You know the left has lost it when they are invoking the
"success" of Hitler to prop up The One!
If I might rephrase Leonhardt's opening sentence a bit:
"Every so often, the left serves up an analogy that’s uncomfortable, a
little distracting and yet still very telling."
The telling thing here is that Leonhardt is willing to
ignore the ultimate outcome of Hitler's policies so that he might justify the
destruction of the capitalist system, elimination of personal property rights,
and to excuse away giving dictatorial power to an all encompassing government
juggernaut here in the US. He so dearly wants the Keynesian theory to be the
right one that he is willing to turn his face from genocide and world war to
prove his wishes beneficial to man.
Here is how he sets up his absurd take on history:
More than any other country, Germany -- Nazi
Germany -- then set out on a serious stimulus program. The government built up
the military, expanded the autobahn, put up stadiums for the 1936 Berlin
Olympics and built monuments to the Nazi Party across Munich and Berlin.
Oh, sure Germany became a powerhouse previous
to the outbreak of WWII. But, what Leonhardt criminally ignores is that Hitler
made Germany a powerhouse by stealing the personal property and wealth of
minorities and business owners alike and remanding them to the state. And then,
to sustain this wild growth, he launched a war of greed and acquisition on his
neighbors that added to that power but cost the lives of millions. Germany
built this empire on the destruction of God-given rights, oppression of
religious and ethnic minorities, and widespread death and war.
In light of the final outcome, I'd wager that this
Hitlarian bargain doesn't seem very appealing to anyone but Leonhardt.
From here, Leonhardt segues into an appreciation of the
policies of the most communist of presidents we've ever had, Franklin
Roosevelt. Leonhardt rehashes New Deal apology by claiming that FDR's economic
plans helped the USA out of The Great Depression. He says it all proves that,
"Yes, stimulus works."
Of course, like many who admire FDR, Leonhardt glosses
over the fact that none of FDR's policies worked at all until the gearing up
for war began. He also ignores the unsustainability of Germany's economic
"benefits" that dictated that it must go to war to expand the pool of
wealth from which the state could steal to support its wild growth. In fact,
that same war aim that helped FDR's economic outlook was also unsustainable to
the point that the singular goal was, indeed, war. At some point, it must be
realized, the war will end and one faces either destruction -- whether mutual
or exclusive -- or at the very least will discover a cessation of the activity
involved in the run up to war and hence the economic "stimulus" that
it entails. Leaving? Leaving an empty hole where that artificial war stimulus
was and no stable economic activity to fill it.
In fact, the main reason that the US came out of WWII so
strong wasn't because we had spent ourselves to prosperity by gearing for war,
but because afterward we became the supply house and construction company of
the civilized world by helping re-build the many nations devastated by that
war.
A little further in the piece, we realize just how
benighted Leonhardt's understanding of things economic is when he favorably
quotes George Soros, a man that has admitted that his singular goal isn't to
improve the economy, but to destroy it in order to remake the world in his own
image.
George Soros, the billionaire investor who was born in
Budapest and works in New York, came to Washington last week and captured both
the problem and the potential for a solution. “I think they can be brought
around,” he said of the Europeans. “I am actually hopeful something
constructive can happen.”
Leonhardt's got to be kidding, right? This from a man
that said that the world's economic collapse was "the
culminating point of my life’s work"?
Leonhardt's Soros quote could certainly have been uttered
by Hitler himself because there is no elucidation of the moral theme behind
what being "hopeful" that "something constructive can
happen" means. Like Hitler, what Soros means by "constructive"
would NOT be an outcome that any humane person would agree is so wonderful!
Yet, from Leonhardt's treatment we have to assume that he imagines that Soros'
"constructive" must obviously be a mutually beneficial good for us
all. Leonhardt truly does not understand Soros' apocalyptic point.
Anyway, Leonhardt's ridiculous exposition on the benefits
of the socialist model is replete with so many misunderstanding of history, so
many bald faced denials of truth that it boggles the mind.
But, it was interesting to see a slavish Obamaite trying
to assure us of how wonderful The One is by favorably comparing him to Hitler.
I laughed right before I threw up a little in my mouth over the reality of it
all.
Stimulus Thinking, and
Nuance
By David Leonhardt |
MARCH 31, 2009
In the summer of 1933,
just as they will do on Thursday, heads of government and their finance
ministers met in London to talk about a global economic crisis. They
accomplished little and went home to battle the crisis in their own ways.
More than any other
country, Germany — Nazi Germany — then set out on a serious stimulus program.
The government built up the military, expanded the autobahn, put up stadiums
for the 1936 Berlin Olympics and built monuments to the Nazi Party across
Munich and Berlin.
The economic benefits of
this vast works program never flowed to most workers, because fascism doesn’t
look kindly on collective bargaining. But Germany did escape the Great
Depression faster than other countries. Corporate profits boomed, and unemployment
sank (and not because of slave labor, which didn’t become widespread until
later). Harold
James, an economic historian, says that the young liberal economists studying
under John Maynard Keynes in the
1930s began to debate whether Hitler had solved unemployment.
No sane person enjoys
mixing nuance and Nazis, but this bit of economic history has a particular
importance this week. In the run-up to the G-20 meeting, European leaders
have resisted calls for more government spending. Last week, the European Union president, Mirek
Topolanek, echoed a line from AC/DC — whom he had just heard in concert
— and described the Obama administration’s stimulus plan as “a road to
hell.”
Here in the United
States, many people are understandably wondering whether the $800 billion
stimulus program will make much of a difference. They want to know: Does
stimulus work? Fortunately, this is one economic question that’s been answered
pretty clearly in the last century.
Yes, stimulus works.
When governments have
taken aggressive steps to soften an economic decline, they have succeeded. The
Germans did it in the 1930s. Franklin D. Roosevelt
did so more haltingly, and had more halting results. Even the limp Japanese
recovery plan of the 1990s makes the case. Although dithering over a bank
rescue kept Japan in a slump, government spending on roads and bridges made
things better than they otherwise would have been.
No matter what happens
in London on Thursday, President Obama and other world
leaders are sure to claim the meeting as a success. (“I do not regard the
economic conference as a failure,” Roosevelt said in 1933.)
But if the meeting is
going to be an actual success, it will have to do more than put a happy face on
trans-Atlantic disagreements. It will need to begin nudging the discussion
about stimulus toward a more accurate reading of history.
The Americans and
Europeans aren’t really as far apart as Mr. Topolanek’s AC/DC homage suggests.
Europe is doing less than the
United States, but the gap isn’t huge. It just seems so because European
stimulus tends to arrive quietly, from existing safety net
programs. In this country, where the safety net is weaker, stimulus comes
largely from new laws.
Yet the rhetoric from
Europe — even the more subdued recent remarks, like those
of Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany — still creates a problem. Stimulus
skepticism today will make it harder to pass more stimulus tomorrow. And more
will probably be needed.
George Soros, the
billionaire investor who was born in Budapest and works in New York, came to
Washington last week and captured both the problem and the potential for a
solution. “I think they can be brought around,” he said of the Europeans. “I am
actually hopeful something constructive can happen.”
Photo: The French
delegation to the global economic conference in London in 1933 during the
Depression. Little came of the meeting, which adjourned in six weeks with no
major agreements. Credit Associated Press
•The objections to
stimulus tend to come in two forms: Its costs are too high, and its benefits
too small.
Mr. Topolanek and German
officials have been pressing the first argument. They say that the additional
government spending can lead to inflation and government debt. The Weimar
Republic of the 1920s, where inflation helped lead to Hitler’s rise, casts a
long shadow.
Stimulus opponents here
in the United States — mainly Congressional Republicans (though not, tellingly,
Republican governors of some large states) — have been warning about debt, too.
But they have also been making the second argument. When the government spends
money, they say, it simply displaces spending by the private sector.
Republicans on Capitol Hill have taken to citing a recent book by the
journalist Amity Shlaes, “The Forgotten Man,” which claims the New Deal didn’t
work.
Theoretically, neither
of these arguments is crazy. But they don’t have much evidence on their side.
The best takedown of Ms. Shlaes’s
thesis came from Eric Rauchway, a historian, who pointed out that her favorite
statistic did not count people employed by New Deal programs to be employed. Excluding
the effects of the medicine, the patient is as sick as ever!
When Roosevelt stuck to
a stimulus program, unemployment fell markedly, and the biggest stimulus of all
— World War II — did the rest. It’s true that economic models say the economy
shouldn’t work this way. When resources are sitting idle, businesses should
find a way to use them profitably. But they often don’t.
People become
irrationally pessimistic during a downturn. They are driven by what Keynes
called animal spirits. Only government can typically change the dynamic.
Could the government
spending eventually lead to inflation and crippling debts? Absolutely. But the
mistakes of the last 80 years have gone in the other direction. During the
Great Depression, Japan’s lost decade, the Asian financial crisis and even the
last 18 months, governments didn’t act aggressively enough. Deflation and lack of growth ended
up being the real risks.
These are precisely the
risks facing the world economy now. In Spain, prices are already falling.
Layoffs are still mounting around the world. Financial firms have more losses
to acknowledge.
Given the diminished
standing of the United States, Mr. Obama won’t be able to get the Europeans to
fall in line behind him this week. But he can still make progress. He and the
American delegation can, in gentle terms, ask the Europeans to live up to their
own standard — and remind them of their self-interest.
Two weeks ago,
responding to criticism,
an executive of the European Central Bank wrote a letter to an Italian
newspaper claiming,
“fiscal stimulus in European countries is wholly comparable to that seen in the
United States.” That simply isn’t true, as the chart at right makes clear. The
difference amounts to about $200 billion over three years.
Because the global
economy is in many ways integrated, Europe can benefit from American stimulus
without pulling its own weight. But because the global economy isn’t completely
integrated, European stimulus would still help Europe more than anywhere else.
And that presents the American delegation with perhaps its most persuasive
case.
Right now, Eastern
Europe appears to be one of the world’s most vulnerable places. It is a
relatively poor region, where the population is disaffected
and where the economy is shrinking rapidly. In both Estonia and Latvia, the
gross domestic product fell 10 percent last year.
At the G-20, the leaders
of the richer European countries will be asking the world to help Eastern
Europe. By all means, the world should help. But Europe should reconsider its
part, too.
_____________
By Eddie Scarry
The ultimate shutdown in politics is to compare a
political opponent to Adolf Hitler.
And while Donald
Trump may have changed much of what we know about politics, that truth
lived on in 2016, even if it didn't stop the president-elect from winning.
Here are seven times, in no particular order, the
national media compared Trump to Hitler.
1. New York Times book review by Michiko
Kakutani of "How Propaganda Works" on Tuesday:
"In Mein Kampf," the review beings, "Hitler argued that
effective propaganda appeals 'to the feelings of the public rather than to
their reasoning ability'; relies on 'stereotyped formulas,' repeated over and
over again, to drum ideas into the minds of the masses; and uses simple 'love
or hate, right or wrong' formulations to assail the enemy while making
'intentionally biased and one-sided' arguments. … The subject couldn't be more
relevant, given … a president-elect who has stoked the fears and grievances of
supporters, and who frequently lies, flip-flops and sows confusion by
tweet."
2. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen's
non-comparison to Hitler in an early December op-ed:
Cohen wrote that Trump is "manifestly" not an anti-Semite and is not
"another Hitler." Then he proceeded to say that under Trump, America may become
another Weimar Republic, the unofficial designation for the German state that preceded
Nazi Germany. "Now, ask yourself what might happen if there were a huge
terrorist incident on American soil," he said. "Might this man of
little knowledge and no restraint attempt to suspend civil liberties? ... I
have too much faith in America and its institutions to think that Weimar is the
future. It is, however, a warning, not something that shouldn't be discussed,
but something that should be mulled."
3. CNN's Dana Bash, reacting after the second
presidential debate in October, when Trump quipped that Democrat Hillary
Clinton would "be in jail" if he were president:
"OK, not to sound too corny," Bash said, "but what makes this country different from
countries with dictators in Africa or Stalin or Hitler or any of those
countries with dictators and totalitarian leaders, is that when they took over,
they put their opponents in jail. To hear one presidential candidate, say –
even if it was a flip comment, which it was – 'you're going to be in jail' to
another presidential candidate on the debate stage in the United States of America,
stunning, just stunning."
4. Richard Cohen again, in September, drew a
non-parallel between Trump and Hitler: "I realize that the
name Hitler has the distractive quality of pornography and so I cite it only
with reluctance," he wrote at the time. "Hitler, however, was not a
fictional creation but a real man who was legally chosen to be Germany's
chancellor, and while Trump is neither an anti-Semite nor does he have designs
on neighboring countries, he is Hitlerian in his thinking."
5. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow told Rolling Stone
in July that studying Hitler helped her understand Trump:
"Over the past year, I've been reading a lot about what it was like when
Hitler first became chancellor," she said. "I am gravitating toward moments in history
for subliminal reference in terms of cultures that have unexpectedly veered
into dark places, because I think that's possibly where we are."
6. University of Paris philosophy professor
Justin E. H. Smith, writing for the Times in June, took the Richard Cohen route
and described Trump as "not Hitler" but with a caveat:
"The fact that the comparison has any traction at all," he said, "that it is a recognizable part of our new
political dialogue, and that the man at its center is not actively seeking to
prove it wrong, shows how severe the current crisis is, and hints at how dark
the future might get."
7. In March, the Washington Post editorial
board, during the heat of the Republican primary, warned voters that Trump
could be another Hitler: "You don't have to go back to
history's most famous example, Adolf Hitler," the paper said, "to understand that authoritarian
rulers can achieve power through the ballot box."
