And You, Sir, Are Worse Than Hitler

"To laugh often and much; To win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; To earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; To appreciate beauty, to find the best in others; To leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition; To know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded." - Ralph Waldo EmersonHitler is not the most popular historical figure. Despite his best efforts and a clear love for children, nothing could prevent the ultimate Carrie-style humiliation that led to der Fuhrer's death and subsequent vilification.  

Nowadays, Hitler serves as a sort of secular Devil; in a world in which very few people actually believe in the Devil, there must be something to quelch dangerous ideas like healthcare reform and to warn people about the dastardly plans of a sitting President and his evil disciples.  

Enter Godwin's Law, the idea that, as a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison to Hitler approaches one.  Given the longevity of the healthcare debate, and assuming Godwin's Law is correct, it is not surprising that the nuts eventually came out of the woodwork to compare a democratically elected President advocating his agenda via established legislative processes to a murderous dictator.

In the wake of the healthcare Hitler scandals, Clarence Page suggested that "Hitler analogies should not be made to anybody but Hitler."  However, I agree in principle with Mike Godwin, that it is precisely because a comparison to Hitler may be appropriate that overuse of Hitler comparisons should be avoided.  In discussions of totalitarian regimes, genocide, propaganda, censorship, or self-righteous morality, comparisons to Hitler are indeed relevant.  And for this reason, Godwin's Law itself, as well as the "fifty Hitler post" and it's various incarnations, can be used in the same way as the very comparison to Hitler as a form of censorship.     

Nevertheless, while comparisons to Hitler may be valid sometimes, they have been so overused as to be relatively meaningless at this point.  As I mentioned before, Hitler has become a sort of secular Devil, that is, monolithic evil incarnate, and so the fact that Hitler and his followers believed they were serving the greater good, the very fact which made Hitler so invidious (and so tolerated) is forgotten.  And so, I'd like to propose, for the sake of saving the appropriate instances of comparison to Hitler, a new internet meme for silencing critics: reasoned, substantive logic.  If one wishes to highlight aspects of totalitarianism, genocide, propaganda, censorship, or self-righteous morality in an opponent's argument, it is better to simply say those things and argue against them logically, instead of trying to inject rhetorical flair vis-a-vis a Hitler comparison, debate's equivalent of a murder-suicide.  

The concept of Hitler has been so taken to extremes and cheapened that it is now widely used in surreal comedy.  Hitler is unfortunately hilarious.  And so what's next for this postmodern, funny Hitler?  Apparently, he's gotten into Emo and Hip Hop, may be involved in the gay scene, and is evidently pursuing a career in music.