Political Histrionic Disorder: Godwin's Law in Beltway Psychology

In a recent blog, the Daily Kos' staff writer Hunter highlights a disturbing trend in partisan politics, the argumentum ad hitlerum, or rush to compare all things that a given talking head or politico disagrees with to Hitler, Nazi policy, or any of an assortment of colourful World War II throwback phrases. In this particular case, Dan Webster (R-FL) compares the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with the Gestapo for having the audacity to attempt to carry out its mandate to amass cohesive data sets about mortgage loans. Hunter has a point that in an economy that warrants a Wikipaedia page about a crisis, it may be a good idea to compile accurate data about who has loaned money to whom, for what, when, and how that loan payment is going. Unfortunately, current political shorthand for "that makes too damn much sense" seems to be "this is some nazi-ass sh*t!"

Let's be clear. Regulation of sub-prime lending by banks who recently got away with a slap on the wrist for very nearly collapsing the entire economy is not in the least akin to rounding up people and putting them in death camps. Not only is the insinuation belittling of actual human suffering at the hands of pure ideological evil, it is the most trivial and predictable logical fallacy of modern American political discourse. This knee-jerk political response even has an internet "law": Godwin's Law. Hunter is right to respond to this sort of thinking with a resounding "what?"

American politics these days are murky. We have no clear evil, anymore. In the past, American office seekers could draw a clear, concise picture of the decidedly evil other to whom to contrast themselves. Stalin. Marx. King George III, and the grandaddy of all that is wrong with government run amok: Adolf Hitler. In answer to Hunter's question of how politicians in modern US discourse get to the point of shouting "Hitler" and "Nazi" at everything they don't like, I say: laziness. Argumentum ad hitlerum, sadly, WORKS. Nothing sticks in the mind; nothing seems quite so comforting to the American political psyche as to draw allusion between the other guy and Hitler, history's consummate OTHER GUY. So, firing up the base by conjuring images of shiny black boots and ghetto raids is often far more useful in politics that one might hope. It certainly works better that trying to actually break down complex issues like sub-prime lending and assess--never mind accept--actual political responsibility.

Where I disagree with Hunter is in that he asks how politicians get to the point of aggrandizing simple, logical regulation to pogroms. What he should be wondering is how we continue to allow ourselves to elect those sorts of people. How are we, the voting public, allowing ourselves to get caught up in the laziest, most illogical forms of political propaganda? THEY WANT TO REGULATE HOW WE TRACK MONEY IN A SYSTEM THAT NEARLY DESTROYED THE VERY FABRIC OF THE NATIONAL AND GLOBAL ECONOMY?!?!!!!  THOSE NAZI BASTARDS!!!!  Hunter doesn't really take the chickens of outrage quite all the way back to roost. If we stopped giving the Chicken Littles of US politics a forum to holler about falling skies, we might be able to do something about things that actually matter, like unemployment and effective regulation of banks.