Godwin 1, Leiter 0
Some will probably interpret this column as a defense of Ann Coulter, so let me be clear: she's pretty far beyond the bounds of reasonable defense. My only hope is that a third party does arise in the next election.Perot's party drew Pat Buchannan away from the Republicans, and I can hope lightning strikes twice, right?
But the fever-swamp left of the blogosphere is all a-titter today over this little quiz, which purports to challenge visitors to distinguish between the words of Ann Coulter and Adolph Hitler. It gets a favorable link from Brian Leiter, who has taken a brief vacation from his blog-sabbatical to highlight it.
It's a bit odd to see a law professor trumpeting this piece so loudly, though. At least in theory, we legal folks are supposed to care about correct citation, honest usage of quotations, etc. A brief look at this "gem" of a quiz reveals that it's not entirely forthright. I think it gets the Coulter quotations right, but the Hitler quotations suggest that the most evil man of our time was obsessed with liberals and America. For instance:
We must study this vile liberal technique of emptying garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations from hundreds and hundreds of sources at once. . . .
One might legitimately wonder why Hitler took a break from anti-Semitism to start griping at (presumably) the Labour Party. This makes even less sense:
As long as millions of the bourgeoisie still piously worship their liberal democratic press every morning, it very ill becomes these gentlemen to make jokes about the stupidity of the 'comrade' who, in the last analysis, only swallows down the same garbage, though in a different form. In both cases the manufacturer is one and the same liberal.
Why was Hitler suggesting that the bourgeoisie were worshipping a liberal democratic press? Or if he was, would it have meant the same thing as "liberal" does today? Strange yet, what was Hitler doing writing about Americans? For instance:
Here the liberal's procedure is as follows: He approaches the worker, simulates pity with his fate, or even indignation at his lot of misery and poverty, thus gaining his confidence...With infinite shrewdness he fans the need for social justice, somehow slumbering in every American man, into hatred against those who have been better favored by fortune. . . .
or:
Hence it is that at the present time the liberal is the great agitator for the complete destruction of America. Whenever we read of attacks against America taking place in any part of the world the liberal is always the instigator.
Hitler was particularly concerned about attacks against America? Did I miss the part about Nazi outreach programs in my history class?
My readers being a pretty clever lot, they've by now figured out the ruse. Hitler actually said very few of the things attributed to him in this quiz. If you substitute for "Jew" or "Jewish" for "liberal," and "Aryan" for "American" and "Germany" for "America," these are all passages from Mein Kampf. But I'm sure my readers are a cleverer lot than even that, and are now asking, "OK, Tony, but what's you're point? What's all the lead up about?"
I bother pointing this out for two reasons. First of all, looking through Technorati I didn't find that anyone had pointed out the obvious: the "quotes" from Hitler weren't any such thing. Secondly, the alterations are important, because once they've been pointed out, the whole little bubble becomes little more than another good argument for Godwin's Law. What made Hitler evil wasn't his habit of rhetorical excess, but the means to which he put it. Comparisons to Hitler hold their force precisely because they imply that the subject of comparison is similarly odious for similar reasons. And yet "liberal" is a policy position, not a race or religion, and hence the comparison is not particularly appropriate. For instance, consider the last "Hitler" quotation I gave above. The quiz places it, presumably for emphasis, right next to this Coulter remark:
It was a crushing defeat for the liberals, not because liberals were necessarily Communists, though many were, but because they had been morally blind to Communism...Liberal elites defended traitors. In response to the Soviet threat, the Democrats consistently counseled defeat, supplication, and retreat.
Now, both arguments may be (indeed are) hyperbolic. And both are wrong: Jews aren't trying to destroy Germany, nor Democrats purposefully undermining America. But Hitler's comment has an additional layer of repugnant slime: it is accusing a religious and ethnic group of cohesive behavior to achieve political power, the Zionist conspiracy. Whereas the Democrat Party isn't a conspiracy if it's attempting to gain political dominance. Heck, that's what it's supposed to do. And it's that bit of the rhetoric (and his willingness to act upon it) that makes Hitler vile and comparison to him such an insult.
On the other hand, hyperventilating columnists can be found by the dozen. It wouldn't be difficult, following the same rules of engagement, to doctor a few passages of Mein Kampf and come up with a "Hitler or Huffington Post" quiz. But to do it would be silly, wouldn't say much, and the proper role of a professor in response would be to say so. Were he a law professor, he might also point out that honest argument demands integrity, especially in the use of quotations.
Update: After some conversation, Prof. Leiter has now updated his post to recognize that the "quotations" are nothing of the sort.
Comments
Posted by: Bateleur | June 27, 2006 5:35 AM
Posted by: Anon | June 28, 2006 8:13 AM
Posted by: A. Rickey | June 28, 2006 8:44 AM
Posted by: Matt | June 29, 2006 8:12 AM
Posted by: A. Rickey | June 29, 2006 10:40 AM
Posted by: Matt | June 30, 2006 11:21 AM