"Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" and The Nazi Card

In 1990, when the internet was little more than a network of academics underwritten by the National Science Foundation, and the rampaging torrent of electronic dialog we now know was but a minor trickle that took place in a rather odd format called Usenet, a fellow by the name of Mike Godwin formulated something called Godwin's Law, which if you hang around internet discussions long enough, you realize is hilariously true.  The law, as formulated in the Wikipedia entry, states:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

I hadn't heard of this law in college, but it certainly held on the political discussions held on VAX Notes at Carleton.  We generally called it playing the Nazi card—you compare someone or something to Hitler, the Third Reich, the Nationalist Socialist movement, etc., you're playing the Nazi card.  One could expand upon similar but lower powered trump cards such as the Stalin card, the McCarthy card, and a bit of an odd one you might call the Orwell card or the 1984 card.  (Insert joke here about the Orson Scott Card.)

These card comes out in the most inane of places,   The idea is that they should remain unplayed as much as possible, particularly in situations where they become gross hyperbole or stretched analogy, such as talking about Stalinism in regards to the management of a tiny cooperative grocery store or fascism in a Kung Fu movie with flying people. Currently, I'm on about 394 in counting to 10,000 before replying to someone on the durhambikeped mailing list who's likening bike lanes to Jim Crow laws. But as the Wikipedia entry on Godwin's Law cautions, this doesn't invalidate all rhetorical comparisons to these icons of evil, particularly when entirely appropriate.  When comparing to political systems, where you're making a direct apples-to-apples comparison, historical events like the Holocaust should be treated with the respect due such an emotionally charged and rhetorically powerful statement.

In this regard, despite my utter horror at the current administration of the Federal Executive, I've avoided playing the Nazi card at all costs.  Even though Bush's brand of American exceptionalism, preemptive military action, electoral manipulation, and an eruption in the power of the military-industrial complex all mark the closest America has come to our own brand of fascism since the movement swept Europe in the 1930s, there have always been better ways to make the point than just pulling out Mein Kampf at every opportunity.  As bad as this Presidency has been, I always felt it had a ways to go before rising to the level to justify the Nazi card.

Sometimes, however, it just can't be avoided any longer.  Andrew Sullivan has been beating the drum against the Administration's condoning torture of prisoners under the name "enhance interrogation techniques" for several years now, drawing as much attention as he can to the evil that's been publically encouraged from the highest levels in the Pentagon.  I don't share quite as much of his shock, as I have friends who ensured I knew about the results of the US's involvement in the El Salvadorian civil war, Plan Colombia, and Pinochet's regime, among others.  But the fact remains that it was always carried out on the down-low, which as Sullivan points out is a meaningful distinction.  When a nation moves from denying torture publically while practicing it occasionally, to having a written practice endorsing it, we've taken a large step towards a much darker place.  But again, we have remained allies with the state of Israel, which has had a policy refusing to disavow torture for years, so the shock still wasn't enough.

The written word is a funny thing, though.  The process of the Nazi takeover of Germany was not a sudden one, but a slow creep that went from a democratically elected Nationalist Socialist party to a totalitarian state by small steps, and it so happens that we have documents of those steps available to us.  And there's something about seeing the words "Verschärfte Vernehmung," which can be alternately translated as "sharpened interrogation" or "enhanced interrogation" atop a Gestapo memo describing ways of getting information out of prisoners.  And it's quite another to see that this memo lays out many of the techniques authorized by our current administration, and even forbids some that we've now embraced as too inhumane. 

Again—we've now reached a level of inhumanity that the Gestapo was hesitant to stoop to.  And we're even using the same Orwellian phrase to dress it up to make it more acceptable.

I simply can't ignore it any longer.  What we are faced with in this country is a political movement centered around the White House which may possibly be the closest to totalitarian fascism I will see in the US in my lifetime.

Comments

[barry]

"What we are faced with in this country is a political movement centered around the White House which may possibly be the closest to totalitarian fascism I will see in the US in my lifetime."

One can only hope this is as close as we get.

[GK]

I don't think you need to worry about Godwin's Law, although I like that you worked it in. It is most depressing to me that the public at large can accept an inexorable slide towards a state that we never would accept in one fell swoop. Great post.

GK

[VNC Communication Consultants]

Thinking is mostly: using words correctly. This is not the case here. From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (online, look it up):
" COMPARE, CONTRAST, COLLATE mean to set side by side in order to show differences and likenesses. COMPARE implies an aim of showing relative values or excellences by bringing out characteristic qualities whether similar or divergent. "
In other words, one has to read Mike Godwin's "comparison" the right way.
One can compare a horse to a truck; does that make a horse a truck, or even remotely like it? No. Q.E.D.: this discussion is senseless.
All the best,
VHJM van Neerven, Philosopher-Consultant VNCCC

[Robert McLendon]

Mr. van Neerven's post demands a response.

First, the idea that "thinking is mostly using words correctly" is hard to defend, especially in the case of abstract thinking such as mathematics. Even if you replace "words" with "symbols", the statement is not entirely accurate. Thinking involves understanding concepts and the relationships between concepts, as well as nuance and uncertainty. "Using words correctly" is certainly essential in this process, but not necessarily the bulk of the process.

Second, you bring up the definition of the word "compare". You seem to be misquoting Merriam-Webster. My own search on Merriam-Webster.com has this definition: "to examine the character or qualities of especially in order to discover resemblances or differences." I believe this definition applies accurately to Mike Godwin's post. He is examining resemblances and differences between the Gestapo and the current White House administration.

Third, regarding your horse/truck analogy: a horse is remotely like a truck. They can both be used for transportation, they both require fuel, they both have limited operational lifespans, etc. There are many differences as well, which are mostly obvious. Does that make a horse a truck? No, of course not. That doesn't render the process of comparison useless. For instance, the fact that horses have largely been replaced by trucks for transportation of goods was based on a comparison of their relative values, e.g. speed, efficiency, reliability.

If Mike Godwin were claiming that the Bush administration and the Gestapo were literally identical entities, that would be senseless. He is not. He is comparing the two -- that is, examining the qualities of each to show similarities. These similarities are factual, in that they are based on actual statements of policy made by the respective organizations (Bush admin and Gestapo). The similarities are chilling, and should be pause for consideration, even if they are not sufficient to show that the Bush administration and the Gestapo are exactly the same.

Mike Godwin's argument is both sensible and relevant. Mr. van Neerven's grasp of the concept of comparison seems a bit shaky; I hope he demonstrates better critical thinking skills in his "Communication Consulting" business.

Best regards,
Robert McLendon, dedicated rationalist

[Robert McLendon]

I just realized that I made a mistake. Mike Godwin was not making the comparison between the Bush administration and the Gestapo, Andrew Sullivan was. Mike Godwin made the observation that as internet dialogs grow in length, the likelihood of a comparison involving Nazis becomes greater.

Regardless, I don't see how the word "compare" is being misused, nor how this discussion is senseless. Again, the act of comparing two things doesn't imply an identity relationship between the two things. Even when the two things are not identical, the comparison may yet prove useful.