Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

'This Guy is a Modern-Day Hitler'

By Norman Solomon, AlterNet. Posted July 27, 2005.


For more than 40 years, comparing an administration's enemies to Hitler has been a reliable way to convince a pliant media and unquestioning public to go to war.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Editor's Note: The following is an excerpt from Norman Solomon's new book, War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death, just published by John Wiley & Sons.

Evil that warrants the large-scale killing of war needs a face. But that face cannot belong to some amorphous mass of an enemy population; in fact, it's a ritual for the president to offer assurances that civilians who may be caught in the crossfire are not among the Pentagon's targets. The bull's-eye must be painted on someone who links the nascent war to an indisputably justified one of the past.

For this purpose, Hitler's name has been pressed into service, intermittently, for decades. Pointed mentions of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust open floodgates of emotion, connecting a present-day foe with a regime that slaughtered millions of people near the fulcrum of the twentieth century. What helps to do the trick is the message that while horrors of the past cannot be changed, they can be prevented in the near future.

At a press conference on July 28, 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson spoke about the need to escalate the Vietnam War, he used a historical analogy. "We did not choose to be the guardians at the gate, but there is no one else," he said. "Nor would surrender in Vietnam bring peace, because we learned from Hitler at Munich that success only feeds the appetite of aggression. The battle would be renewed in one country and then another country, bringing with it perhaps even larger and crueler conflict, as we have learned from the lessons of history." And Johnson declared: "We just cannot now dishonor our word."

A beauty of the Munich analogy, as several of LBJ's successors found, was that it could seem irrefutable on its own terms. The comparison might be very useful for likening a certain government to a Hitlerian menace.

Since the Vietnam era, various leaders -- most famously Manuel Noriega, Slobodan Milosevic, and Saddam Hussein -- have been promoted as sufficiently evil to necessitate U.S. military action. Singling out a particular villain (while winking at, or even cooperating with, a range of other tyrants) is vital to laying the rhetorical groundwork for war. To demonize -- and that's just about a prerequisite for war -- requires picking and choosing. With dozens of governments engaging in torture and political repression every day, sometimes accompanied by systematic military atrocities, targeting a specific regime is a matter of White House policy priorities.

During the 1980s those priorities involved so much hostility toward the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua that the momentum of Washington's rhetoric carried it to absurd comparisons with the Third Reich. At a World Affairs Council session in Boston on February 15, 1984, Secretary of State George Shultz said: "I've had good friends who experienced Germany in the 1930s go there and come back and say, 'I've visited many communist countries, but Nicaragua doesn't feel like that. It feels like Nazi Germany.'"

Two weeks later, Boston University president John Silber, a member of the Bipartisan Commission on Central America appointed by President Ronald Reagan, likened Nicaragua's "overt violence" to Nazi Germany, without a mention that the U.S. government was subsidizing most of the violence in Nicaragua with aid to the Contra guerrilla army.

Iraq I: Demonizing an Ally

When Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, abruptly soured the cordial relations between Washington and Baghdad, the White House suddenly propagated analogies between the Baathist and Nazi regimes. "A half century ago, our nation and the world paid dearly for appeasing an aggressor who should, and could, have been stopped," President George H. W. Bush said. "We are not going to make the same mistake again."

Some commentators warned against the facile comparison. Syndicated columnist William Pfaff, based in Paris, wrote in mid-August that "Saddam Hussein is not Hitler, and to describe him as Hitler feeds hysteria and confusion." But for war planners in Washington, some hysteria and confusion were already proving to be quite helpful. Polls showed three-quarters of the American public in support of the large U.S. military deployment already under way to the Middle East. And, as a news story noted when September began, "Support for President Bush climbed from 58 percent to 76 percent in the three weeks after Iraq seized the small oil-rich country of Kuwait."

The Saddam-as-Hitler motif rapidly became a familiar pattern on the media wallpaper. "When he wasn't going after Congress, President Bush had a few choice words for Saddam Hussein," CBS newsman Charles Osgood intoned. "In a speech yesterday, Mr. Bush characterized the Iraqi leader's behavior as Hitler revisited."

During the fall 1990 congressional campaign, the president described Hussein as "a little Hitler." Meanwhile, the same analogy came from retired general William Westmoreland, former commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, who spoke up as a guest on ABC's Nightline program: "You know, here in the 1990s, Saddam Hussein is the Hitler of the Middle East. And if we're going to give him a free rein and not stand up to him and not have the troops available to resist him, the Middle East is going to be in turmoil."

All in all, the LexisNexis media database shows that major American news outlets printed and aired comparisons between Saddam and Hitler on average several times each day during the 5 1⁄2 months that led up to the Gulf War in mid-January 1991. But Saddam Hussein had long been a horrendous dictator: before, during, and after the Iran-Iraq war, which spanned most of the 1980s. Washington tilted toward Baghdad with tangible assistance in that conflict. Year after year, Saddam remained on good terms with the U.S. government, while negative press notices were sparse in the United States.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Norman Solomon’s latest book, “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death,” is available from Wiley.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
HITLERS ARE EVERYWHERE
Posted by: LMNOP on Jul 27, 2005 4:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So-called “Hitlers” are not even a problem let alone a big or important problem. Like most of us, I was raised to think of Hitler as an anomaly, a rare monstrosity. What is apparent now is that Hitler’s are everywhere at all times. What is anomalous the context in which ‘Dolph found himself, one that was ripe for exploitation.

Hitlers are no more rare than the opportunistic bacteria that putrefy a rotting corpse. They are everywhere, always, and if you die today, you will stink by tomorrow. Do we shriek, “putrefying bacteria!” in fear when we come across such a mess? No. And we need not point out one of the hundreds of millions (if not billions) of potential Hitlers when we see him. Nor should the actual brutal dictator (such as Stalin or Pol Pot) amaze us when he does rise to power or distract us in any way beyond neutralizing him. What deserves our study and concern is the manner by which a polity comes to be susceptible to such exploitation and the means to prevent or reverse such a condition.

So, hearing G. H. W. Bush or his spawn call Saddam or anyone else in their crosshairs a Hitler should be without effect except to alert us to the fact that someone is trying to manipulate us into accepting and committing an impending violent action without compunction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: HITLERS ARE EVERYWHERE Posted by: trutex
There is only one modern day Hitler and that is Bush!
Posted by: Pepper on Jul 27, 2005 4:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.....and I am not saying that to evoke a war, just a warning since this is how Hitler started. He created an enemy for the people to cover the economic hardships the people were facing. A bogus terrorist attack allowed for the ignoring of the Constitution in Germany and creation of the gestapo one week later, stating in his speech "...we must protect the HOMELAND". Sound familiar???

In additon, how did Hitler know enough about what would happen sufficiently to create the uniforms and have the gestapo conveniently in place when the Reichstag was burned? Exactly! Need I say more??? Now we (the USA) have a civilian department under the military. Homeland SEcurity is under the NOrth American Military Command. Totally against everything we believe in. Nice, huh???

Forget all those other bums, its this bum I am most worried about since he has far more power to conclude his evil plan than any of those others did.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Torture YES, Hitler NO Posted by: AdamSelene40
» Valor -- the Barbarian's Virtue Posted by: AdamSelene40
Hitler here at home
Posted by: ORENDA on Jul 27, 2005 5:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How ironic that Bush, like apparently so many others chose to invoke the hallowed sacred evil name of Hitler.
Evil rarely shows its face as the ugliness it truly is. If I remember correctly It was not commonly known what was going on in those camps in WW2, at least not at first. Reminds me a bit of America's off shore detention area for suspected "terrorists". Hitler too picked an enemy so as to rally his supporters . Hummm let me think did our government EVER prove a connection between the 911 terrorists and Iraq? Also as stated in this article Saddams "evil" ways never bothered any politicians until just recently.
What about all the other despots in this world are we now going to preemptively strike at them too?
What about our own bloody history is the American government going to finally own up to that?
The" american way" is fraught with bloody sacrifice from the war against the Native American peoples where they were shuffled off to "camps" and the sentiment "the only good Indian is a dead one" prevailed. What about the African Americans whose ancestors were treated like property used as slaves? Are the politicians in Washington DC prepared to make amends for there predecessors Hitler like ways?
In my opinion this war with Iraq is no more than a fight for oil. With so many dead and us still over there will the history books soon write that Bush is nothing much better than a modern day version of Hitler, an evil that should've been stopped much sooner. Time will tell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Comparing Bush to Hitler? Posted by: sensitiveguy
» RE: Comparing Bush to Hitler? Posted by: AdamSelene40
There are exceptions of course
Posted by: Exlib on Jul 27, 2005 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet the author failed to mention that there are, of course exceptions to this rule. We all know that the reference to Hitler is totally out of line when referring to ruthless thug dictators who gas their own people and oversee regimes that imprison and kill thousands or millions of their own people.

But take heart dear readers, the one exception to this rule is that the administration of George W. Bush is open game. You can compare him to Hitler all your little heart desires.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: There are exceptions of course Posted by: sensitiveguy
tonyy
Posted by: Tonyy on Jul 27, 2005 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In future years, Hitler may get a break. Leaders wishing to avoid coflict will refer to G W Bush as the despot responsible for starting WWIII

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: tonyy Posted by: Exlib
» RE: tonyy Posted by: nakis
» RE: tonyy Posted by: Exlib
» RE: tonyy Posted by: bonapartist
» RE: tonyy Posted by: Exlib
» RE: tonyy Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: tonyy Posted by: Exlib
» RE: tonyy Posted by: heftysmurf
» RE: tonyy Posted by: Exlib
» RE: tonyy Posted by: heftysmurf
» To be more precise Posted by: Senqi
» RE: To be more precise Posted by: Exlib
» RE: To be more precise Posted by: royrogers
» RE: To be more precise Posted by: AdamSelene40
» 911 a timeline Posted by: expat in tokyo
» RE: 911 a timeline Posted by: Exlib
» RE: tonyy Posted by: nakis
» RE: tonyy Posted by: Exlib
» RE: tonyy Posted by: Exlib
» Starting Wars Posted by: AdamSelene40
» libs are on the wrong side again!!!! Posted by: sensitiveguy
» Good stuff smurf....... Posted by: Diecash1
Watch 'Into the West'
Posted by: Crusader Rabbit on Jul 27, 2005 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While watching this basically well done TV series (I have a few quibbles about some of the editing and production) I was sickened by the openly accepted racist, dishonest/lying, savage butchery shown--the awful but historically accurate representation of the U.S. Army, the media, the politicians and the people.

1800, 1900, 2005... nothing has changed because the majority of the U.S. people still believe that bigotry, lies, theft, slavery, rape and murder are all perfectly OK if done in the name of religion for the profit of self of country--and fully support the behaviors based on those amoral beliefs. (everyone in and the government of US must be Christian or else; 'Nuke Iran & Iraq'; anything OK for the corporate bottomline, etc)

The shrubett (aka Bush II) is the perfect mirror of our society.

If you doubt this, find out what the ratings are for hate radio, TV, & internet. He has overthrown our Constitution, nullified two elections, blatantly lied to everyone, started an illegal war to profit friends & family, rescinded environmental, labor and reproduction freedom laws and there are not millions marching in the streets. We sheep are obviously being lead where we are willing to go.

A special note:There are mounting objections to the Iraq war from the ultra-right Neo-cons. They don't mind that the war is on but some of their sons are over there (as opposed to the good management of the Viet Nam War in which mostly poor whites and persons of color were drafted) and they are fearful that if a draft happens all of their sons will go. But what they fear more than losing thier sons is that their daughters may wind up in the Army.
Daughters returning from military are not likely to support anyone who tries to limit equality for women. They are terrified this will overturn the Christian dogma of male dominance. (They must read a different version of the red letter New Testiment than I do. I never found an attributed quote that Jesus referred to women as less than or subject to men. That was said by Paul.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Right and Wrong
Posted by: nakis on Jul 27, 2005 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's rarely ever been about right and wrong. You can argue about WWII motives. But everything in recent history has been about money. This article makes a point that's been spoken about millions of times. Demonize who you want to something from. Spread propaganda and rhetoric about your 'enemy'. Set up the population to desire conflict. And then go. We've seen it time and time again. Hateful propaganda that makes other less than human.
As long as we elect these @$$holes to office we will always have more of the same. Unless we reform elections and the media we will continue to fall into the trap of destruction to support the desires of the wealthy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ight and Wrong Posted by: royrogers
Save the World?
Posted by: bellota on Jul 27, 2005 9:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok so if we are going to protect the world from Hitlers, genocide, and the like......why are we not in Sudan?

Are we being hypocritical? I just get tired of these wars, conflicts, etc being promoted for the purpose of saving the world in one area (when we well know that is not the case), while closing our eyes to that very situation in another region.

Mr. Bush you will do what you want anyway and color it how you wish....just quit blowing the smoke up our @$$ and invoking the wrong monster for the incorrect situation. (Hitler, Saddam, etc)

Remember the truth should be self evident and needs no window dressing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush is a Hitler Replay
Posted by: revsuzanne on Jul 27, 2005 10:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush and Hitler show more similarities in bahavior and tactics every day. Bush is controlling mass media coverage, has staged terror attacks to scare the populace into giving him unprecedented control, and is using the methods of law to remove our constitutional freedoms. Of course, anyone disagreeing with Bush is an unpatriotic terrorist sympathizer and Bush will sic Rove on that person and their family, never mind the detriment to national security. Bush has made his ill-gotten presidency the very example of a feeding frenzy for the mega-rich at the expense of everyone and everything else. Assuming we every get the voting machines straightened out, it will take years to undo Bush's damage.
We have exhibited every possible pompous trait of imperialism.
The U.S. is the bully in the big schoolyard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bush is a Hitler Replay Posted by: magistre
» RE: Bush is a Hitler Replay Posted by: worldbfre
wars are us
Posted by: 0hmygod on Jul 27, 2005 11:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See really funny stuff on war:
The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth
Render Them Iraqis
War, You Can Bank on It

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Munich Revisited
Posted by: pjrsullivan on Jul 27, 2005 12:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the time of the Munich agreement, when Czechoslovakia was handed over to Hitler, in the background were a group of German military elements waiting for Hitler to slip, and they then would of helped him fall.

The reason the front man for the Anglo-banking establishment, Chamberlain, handed Hitler his wishes, was specifically because the London bankers knew that any real pressure on Hitler would cause him to fall, and the English bankers had put to much money into their boy Hitler to allow him to fall.

That 70 years later the Munich agreement is still used as a tool of deception is amazing. If Hitler had been a boxer he would of been hired to be the bum of the month. The same strategy is happening with Saddam, the Anglo-American-Zionist criminal cabal put him in as their bum of the month and made a ton of money, and now their bum of the month is like one of their earliers bums of the month. Build him up, to knock him down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Munich Revisited Posted by: bonapartist
Boy who cried “Wolf!”
Posted by: bonapartist on Jul 27, 2005 2:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The comparison to Hitler is so overused these days that I am afraid we wouldn’t be able to identify real potential new Hitler appearing. Not to mention that people who yell Hitler often know little about Nazism and its raise to power.

Hitler was up and until 1939 a darling of the west and if you look at newspapers from that period, even those in the US, they are at best mildly critical. The big praises of Hitler as the man who solved unemployment, combated the reds and brought general order out of Weimar chaos years were quite frequent.

Also, it seems that more pathetic dictators are more likely to be compared to Hitler. Milosevic got more Hitler references then Saddam, who got more then Kim Yong Il etc. After all, medias don’t want to risk the wrath of really powerful abroad, and politicians at home for that matter, by comparing say General Musharaff or Beijing potentates to Hitler.

Saddam was good young Hitler as he had some vague similarities and, unlike Fuhrer, he wasn’t able to put up a fight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Boy who cried “Wolf!” Posted by: mr. joshua
Historical comparisons to Nazism
Posted by: Exlib on Jul 27, 2005 9:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During the period between 1933 and 1934, Germany went through 4 or 5 elections in a row. Each time, the Nazis would convince the President to declare no confidence in the newly elected chancelor's government. Also, with each new election they campaigned harder and harder until they finally won with 43 or 44 percent of the popular vote. Coincidentally, the same percentage of vote that one William Jefferson Clinton won with in 1992.

I read about this and fast forwarded in my mind to the year 2000 and the Florida elections. The vote was close. The Democrats called for a recount. They didn't like the results and called for a manual recount. They didn't like the results. They did another manual recount, this time looking at the hanging chads or "undervotes" as they called them. They still didn't like the results so they called for another recount this time looking for "dimples" on the cards. What is a dimple anyway. And you can bet your bottom dollar that as soon as the first recount showed even one more vote for Gore, that would have been the end of the recounts. Just as once Hitler won the election, the calls of no confidence in the government stopped. Isn't that interesting.

How about if we talk about education? Hitler brought all the education system under the control of the state to use as an indoctrination system into the Hitler Youth Corp. Or some such thing. How does that contrast with W and the Republicans? They want to provide vouchers for parents to determine their own course of education to release them from the bondage of the state system. So, who is it that wants to keep the education system under the control of the state?

How about gun control? Didn't the nazis disarm the population? Especially the jews. Why? Well, an unarmed populace cannot defend itself against tyrrany can they. There are several references online to a gun control act of 1968 introduced by Senator Dodd, father of the current Senator Dodd, which if you held it up to the german gun control law, it would bear a remarkable resemblancee.

More to come.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It feels like you're a fool! Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: Historical comparisons to Nazism Posted by: walldodger1969
Bush is a sadistic war-crazed bastard -- and should be stopped, immediately!
Posted by: Liberal on Jul 28, 2005 12:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not to mention the fact that Bush loves war, and loves to kill those who are different among him (I'm surprised he hasn't told the CIA to go kill the gays and lesbians of America), he is also against gay rights, (which, in my opinion, isn't ethical) he is for the death penalty, which kills innocent people (and in my opinion, the only way we won't kill innocent people, is if we abolish the death penalty), he thinks that the Iraqi's were a part of the terrorist effort to destroy America. (Which he clearly has something stuck up his ass, because he has no proof of his absurd claims), he helped get the Patriot Act passed (which clearly goes against our freedoms, and just gives the President more power to screw us over), and, not to mention that, but maybe he thought that Saddam needed to be stopped, but, like I say: Bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity -- it doesn't work.

And, my final comment about George Bush, he went into Iraq for WMD's, right? How come I can't see any in Iraq? Where'd they go? Was he right? Or, did he just want to kill over 25,000 innocent iraqi's?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jerry Seinfeld did the same thing for entertainment
Posted by: FlapJackSeven on Jul 30, 2005 3:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ever see the soup Nazi episode?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

you liberals are right!!!!!
Posted by: sensitiveguy3 on Jul 31, 2005 2:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who are we to defend ourselves??? we should just let them come over in droves and kill as many people as they want!!!!
Who are we to fight a war on terror?? maybe boxer or kennedy or pelosi can start a bill to subsidize them with taxpayer money to help the terrorists out.You guys are right on track!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't listen to the Voices, Joan ... Posted by: AdamSelene40
Support "Hitler Word Control" Legislation
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on Aug 1, 2005 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would be so nice if everyone who invoked the images of Hilter, the Reich t it and the Holocaust KNEW something about Hitler, the Reich andthe Holocaust ...

to have read just ONE cannonical history ... say Shirers's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" ... and to have visited one Holocaust Museum ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Heil Hitler!
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Aug 1, 2005 1:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Boy, there's no other name, metaphorically speaking, in modern history that conjures up evil like Der Fuerher. If there's a madman loose in the planet, he is called Hitler.
We all know Hussein didn't send his army loose on the world, and build concentration camps in Syria, Lebanon; neither did Slobodan launch a blitzkrieg on the Balkans! Our analogies are invalid. But our invasion of Iraq was similar to the invasion of Poland in 1939; a lie was invented to attack a defenseless Slavic nation whereas Bush said Hussein had all these weapons the U.S. has.
But we should stop making these comparisons of Hitler to another fanatic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My one and only experience wih the 'Pubs or any party
Posted by: nietgal on Aug 2, 2005 8:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Texas we declare our party by how we show up to vote. I'm not into politics. I was new to Texas. An active Dem' suggested I take the REpublican route to vote to see what it's like. She explained the precinct convention and the Dallas County convention. In the precinct convention, surrounded by new neighbors I barely knew, I ventured some comments on all the Party resolutions. Turns out, except for abortion, we were all in sync.

Then came the appropriate County convention. Surrounded by my neighbors. The conduct of the meeting was announced. They had a time limit, around 3 hours. So they conveniently packaged the 40 resolutions into 10 packets. They talked about the various contents and then asked for an "aye" vote. I thought it strange, no discussions? No "nay" vote? Where could I vote? Then some gentleman protested that there was no discussion. He was ignored. Then someone protested no "nay" vote, and they did it just once.
They interrupted the entire 3 hour session with speeches. One was from one who wrote a book about God in school. He spoke for what seemed like 45 minutes. Every packet of resolutions had a God vote in it. The neighbors were actually screaming and raising their arms like you see at revival meetings.

All I could see was "Heil Hitler". I'm retired but the next day, Sunday, I spent in bed absolutely scared to death from what I saw all around me the day before. I just wanted to hide under the covers.

I was active in internet news groups at the time. I wrote about all this in the group. One person said he was active in organizing the convention. He said to the effect "don't quit. we need people like you." :)

I don't know how the Dallas County Democratic Convention went that year. That was the year Clinton first ran for President.

That's why I think we need to see the bible in public schools. A bible that includes: TaNaK, Apocrypha, New Testament, Koran.

A little humor here: if we do this, then the Koran which is considered by some to be the Final Testament is superceded by the Book of the Latter Day Saints because God/Allah came to the USA in 1827.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]