.jpg)
Glenn Beck claimed that Hitler was a liberal. AP Photo Evan Agostini
Last night Glenn Beck's documentary featured the questionable claim that Hitler was a progressive liberal. In this way Beck is re-igniting the age of old debate regarding exactly what kind of politician Hitler was.
The answer is obvious. Hitler was a Nazi. As such he was more "Nazi" than liberal or conservative. As I have stated before Hitler's racist beliefs, his economic policy, and form of government are all uniquely "Hitler" in their own evil way and not to be carelessly compared to the politicians of today. Many are no fan of the policies of George W. Bush or Barack H. Obama but neither deserve to be put beside the mass murderer of six millions Jews.
Having said that since Glenn Beck has made the absurd claim that Hitler was more liberal than conservative I feel the need to defend the progressives. Looking at all of Hitler's policies, not just the select few Beck picks, Hitler was clearly more right-wing conservative that left-wing liberal. Though I would never say any of the current, prominent modern-day conservatives are on the same level of Hitler's craziness. Let us now look at all of Hitler's beliefs and policies.
Economic Policy:
As the Beck clip below correctly asserts Hitler did believe in a strong emphasis on education and universal health care (except of course for those he ruthlessly murdered). However they are also correct in their assertion that Hitler outlawed labor unions in Germany. Yes that would be the "progressive" labor unions of the day like SEIU that Beck always complains about. Beck and Goldberg then go on to say there is no real difference between Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Hitler worked with the industrialist of Germany and allowed a tremendous profit incentive to remain. The Nazis were a socialist party in name only. The State did not take over all the major factors of production in the German economy which is the hallmark trait of socialist state. In addition when Hitler did use government to control the economy he used his dictatorial powers and terror as the means of control. Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt used the democratic process to allow more government control of the economy. Hitler could literally use the army to take over a business. Roosevelt used his Justice Department to break up trusts using the laws enacted by an elected legislature. There is a tremendous difference between the two.
Having said this it must be conceded that progressives generally favor more governmental regulation of the economy than conservatives. Hitler was certainly in favor of more government control though his policy was more extreme than anything proposed by American progressives.
Military Policy and Foreign Policy:
Another major part of Hitler's policy was militarism. Hitler greatly increased the portion of the German economy devoted to military spending and further believed that the best defense was a good offense.
A look at recent history reveals that Republicans certainly favor more military spending than liberals. Reagan greatly increased "defense" spending even though a good portion of the increased budget was devoted to weapons of an offensive nature. President Bush was also noted for his large increases in the defense budget. Beck claims Bush was a progressive, a belief not at all agreed upon by the many conservatives who call him part of their own.
Finally Hitler's foreign policy was focused not on cooperation but on the use of force or the the threat of force to dominate the rest of the world. President Obama has consistently been criticized by Beck and other conservatives for "apologizing" and being "soft" in his foreign policy approach. They contrast this with people like Reagan who attempted to use military power and a "tougher" stance to achieve American foreign policy objectives.
Social Policy:
Most conservative beliefs have a religious underpinning. Beck himself cites his Mormon beliefs many times in justifying his political views. Conservatives use religious reasoning to justify their opposition to gay rights, the separation of church and state, and the general loss of "morality" in American culture.
The myth is that Hitler was anti-religion. In reality Hitler used religious reasoning to justify his own policies. Hitler focused on how the Aryan people had a "Christian heritage" with principles that must be adhered in order to rebuild the country. This all sounds awfully similar to Beck's urging for us to return to the supposed Christian foundations of our own country.
Hitler worked with the Catholic Church to implement his agenda. The Catholic church has subsequently apologized for its role during the Nazi era.
One of the targets of Nazi persecution, in addition to Jews, were homosexuals. Homosexuals were viewed as deviants under Hitler's government who were not deserving of equal rights along with other German citizens.
Conclusion:
The liberal and conservative movements of today are distinct from the beliefs and policies of Hitler's Nazi-era regime. Beck only distorts the historical record by arguing Hitler was somehow more progressive or liberal than conservative. In anything an analysis of all of Hitler policies resemble more of an extreme far-right ideology than anything else.
Comments
Please take a look at B.O.'s Czar John Holdren if you want to put this into perspective. Czar Holdren's view of the imminent and grave global dangers posed by overpopulation should provide pause, given his current view that global warming now presents imminent and grave global dangers. It's not just the fact that he co-wrote a book in 1977, Ecoscience, and Population control, a book that mused openly about mass sterilizations, forced abortions, putting sterilants in the water to control the population. It's the fact that his ideological mentors promote these same ideas of social engineering through the guise of "science" that basically amounts to eugenics and taking away babies from "undesirables". He and his mentors openly refer to the people as "useless eaters" and "a pulsating mass of maggots". Yes, THIS is B.O.'s Czar John Holdren. Please look into it before you dismiss what's REALLY happening in this country. BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!
Well Spoken Mr. Witt. This is... I think you are starting to understand. Conservatives & Liberals were once a part of the U.S. Political landscape. Those days are long gone. Progressive left and right monpolize the levers of power today. Never confuse the two. Failure to understand that is the failure to understand GB.
In 1920 it was unthinkable what Germany would become. Are there parallels today? Yes! Unlimited debt is accepted by progressives because they don't plan on paying it back. Their greed is power. Sure Bush or Obama aren't mass murderers. But unlimited debt will destroy capitalism. WWGDB provided your readers a credible website that addresses industrial Nazi Germany. When great power becomes highly concentrated things never end well, ALWAYS. Tyrants take over. It is the immutable path we currently find ourselves on. On the other hand concentrating power in the individual as our Constitution has done prevents this carnage. Our politicians ignore that at our peril.
I am reading more of your post Witt. I believe you are beginning to moderate somewhat. You wait longer to write left wing type name calling. Keep it up.
WW: I'll drink to that! I agree. I have learned a lot and enjoy responding to RW's reports and all of his readers. It has been a good website. If it isn't too capitalist I hope he gets a raise in his paycheck. I guess I'll be drinking the cool aid.
Ryan,
Nazi's were not 'socialists in name only', but ownership of production was 'private in name only' during Hitler's regime.
The gov't decided what and how much was produced. It dictated the prices, wages, and every other aspect of producetion.
Wage controls were imposed in 1936 as a response of the inflation of the money supply required to finance Hitler's government programs and public works.
The 'STATE' was important; not the individual.
No freedom of speech or political descent allowed!
Guns and gun owners were the root of all evil.
These are all LEFTIST!!!
Linking conservatives with NAZIs has been a lie told by the left for decades.
Linking the right with Hitler because he 'used the Catholic Church' and many on the right are religious is as absurd as most of the 'connections' drawn. Hitler did not believe in GOD!
Conservatives want the military for self defense.
Good try with the BS though!
Check out this story below from someone who actually lived it. You'll see quickly who Hitler should be aligned with. Or you should unless you have your blinders on.
newzeal.blogspot.com/2010/01/werthmann-on-how-totalinarianism-came.html#links
All the obfuscation in the world will not hide the fact of unity under Marxism between Hitler, Stalin (who by the way killed 10 million Jews but we rarely hear about it) and modern "liberals." The fundamental similarity that obliterates all superficial distinctions is that they all see individuals as the defacto property of the state. Only the American Covenant differs in this regard with all other political ideologies. That is why it is so reviled (privately if not publicly) by all Collectivists; be they Communists, Fascists, Socialists, Progressives, Liberals or Democrats. By the way; the only reason there are so many names for the same evil doctine is for the purpose of misdirection. Honest men don't need fancy names to make themselvees seem honorable. Only tyrants do. In the final analysis, the similarities between modern liberalism and Nazism are far greater than their differences. Shame on you Mr. Witt for promoting confusion. No amount of frosting can make a turd tasty.
Dear Mr. Witt. Your understanding (or at least your presentation) of the Right/Left dichotomy is completely bogus. You may have picked it up during your "Liberal Arts" education. Hmmm. Anyway. The true Left/Right spectrum is much simpler and easier to understand, which is probably why you and your Statist buddies promote the distorted version. Simply put. The farthest Right is Anarchy and the farthest left is Totalitarianism. The US Constitution (when someone actually obeys it) places our government right in the middle. Not so much government as to suppress liberty; and not so little as to allow chaos. Only someone trying to mislead people would come up with the whole incredible fabrication that Hitler was right-wing. Save it for Obama, Reid and Pelosi. Then you can all snicker privately about having decieved the great unwashed masses.
Check out this story below from someone who actually lived it. You'll see quickly who Hitler should be aligned with. Or you should unless you have your blinders on.
newzeal.blogspot.com/2010/01/werthmann-on-how-totalinarianism-came.html#links
Dear Stan: Your understanding (or at least your presentation) of the right/left dichotomy is completely bogus. You must have picked it up by listening to right wing radio. Hmmm. Anyway. The true left/right distinction is much more complex than you make it out to be, which is probably your right-wing goons promote this false simplicity.
You did not refute any of my reasoning Stan. Drawing your own conclusions with no basis is easy but not legitimate (see above)
Ryan, I'm going to have to go along with Stan. I think he clearly has a better grasp of the political spectrum. The left wants a powerful central government and the far right would be the absence of any government. The US was designed not to be in the middle though. It was designed for maximum individual freedom with the government serving a minor role in the daily lives of the people. So it would be further to the right than the middle. The people directed the government not the government directing the people.
Mr. Witt; you assume too much. The only "right-wing goons" that influence my philosophy also drafted the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. The left/right spectrum I rely upon may be too simple for your oh so advanced intellect, but according to the "Occam's Razor" of politics, it provides what your mumbo-jumbo attempts to hide. That being the clear deliniation of the single most important factor in politics: Where does the REAL power reside. Your obfuscations provide the cover of needless complexity for the rampant accumulation of state power and the subsequent subjugation of the rest of us to serfdom. It may make you feel important to play a part in the Socialization of America, but when the statists have achieved their goal, you will be just another carcass for the furnaces just like the rest of us. Enjoy it while you can, but don't expect rational people to buy your transparent defamation of the American Ideal.
Tubby: Are you confusing extreme right with anarchy? I don't see that. They want to control you every bit as much as the far left and are every bit as shameless. And who is going to secure your liberties and rights if anarchy prevails?
Klatoo, I'm not confused about anything. The farthest right you can go is anarchy, and I'm not for that.
Stan: I am assuming you probably didn't exactly ace your mathematics course in high school. Your understanding of the cartesian coodinate system is a little fuzzy. While Anarchy and totalitarianism are opposite and could be considered to be on the same plane as conservative values and liberal values They are defined on a wholly separate axis.
I also don't recall Stalin Hitler or Mao considering individuals as the defacto property of the state (Your words not mine.) No I believe that was the United States Government that did that.
Tubby: I am cool with that. I think the idea here is to question with boldness hold on to the truth and speak without fear. You can still do that in America but I don't know for how much longer. It is people like you who are beginning to wake up and take back your liberties. That is the important and patriotic path forward and you are doing it. I congratulate you.
Klatoo, you're losing me with "individuals as de facto property of the US." What do you mean?
Those were Stan's words. He said that:
"All the obfuscation in the world will not hide the fact of unity under Marxism between Hitler, Stalin... ...and modern "liberals." The fundamental similarity that obliterates all superficial distinctions is that they all see individuals as the defacto property of the state"
Well he is wrong and he needs to do a little more research.
He also said:
"Only the American Covenant differs in this regard with all other political ideologies"
Wrong again. If you read the constitution you will find that the United States government instituted slavery.
...continued
So what I am saying is tyranny can and historically has occured in the United States But the Constitution is designed to limit the powers of government (a very good thing) and put the power into the hands of the individual (even better). But we have to stay alert. Someone asked Ben Franklin:
Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
He said,
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
Klatoo; you are confused. First, the political spectrum has nothing to do with mathematices. It merely measures the relative degree of government power. There can be none, total and anything in between. Period. The D of I state that ALL Men are equal, and that governments are for securing our rights, drawing their JUST powers from our consent. The Constitution did not create slavery. It was a constant of civilization until the 18th Century. Rather, the Constitution acknowledged the existence of slavery. One is an act of tyranny; the other an act of temprary political consession to an insurmountable problem. If the state controls the means of production, housing, healthcare, education (or can send some people to concentration camps (somthing Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot all did)THAT is defacto ownership. The more power we surrender to the gov't, the closer we are to the same reality here. We are moving away from the spectal balance toward the left of totalitariansim.
Klatoo; you are confused. First, the political spectrum has nothing to do with mathematices. It merely measures the relative degree of government power. There can be none, total and anything in between. Period. The D of I state that ALL Men are equal, and that governments are for securing our rights, drawing their JUST powers from our consent. The Constitution did not create slavery. It was a constant of civilization until the 18th Century. Rather, the Constitution acknowledged the existence of slavery. One is an act of tyranny; the other an act of temprary political consession to an insurmountable problem. If the state controls the means of production, housing, healthcare, education (or can send some people to concentration camps (somthing Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot all did)THAT is defacto ownership. The more power we surrender to the gov't, the closer we are to the same reality here. We are moving away from the spectal balance toward the left of totalitariansim.
Witt is PROOF of what the entire Beck special was about. The white washing of history. The revisionism. All by the LSD's who cannot win at the ballot box for too long. People say a few times a generation to give them a shot. They fail each time.
Capitalism, freedom and liberty win out every time.
The author's ridiculous assertion that Nazism is closer to 'right' than 'left' is dispelled by one simple fact. Leftists are statists at the core. The right (conservatives) are against the state, for 'limited government' and individual liberty. No amount of spin is going to obfuscate that simple fact. Nazis, Stalinists = statists. Glenn Beck could not be more correct.
Stan: There you go again. You can't put energy on target if you can't properly define the target. So your blathering was of no effect to Mr. Witt. The D of I did not institute a govenrnment. It dissolved existing bonds of the divine right of kings. The constitution did not create or acknowledge slavery it instituted it. Mass extermination is not ownership. Mathematics has everything to do with the political spectrum such as statistics from USA Today, Rasmussen, exit poles. It is relied upon to form legislation. That's mathmatics at work. Both Liberal and conservative ideas were conceived and used rightly by the founders. Both values are valid and shape this nation. Glenn Beck targets progressivism as that ideology that is fundamentally transforming America onto an unacceptable path. It has been destroying this country for 100 years. It will ultimately end badly for all of us if it continues
Ned: GB doesn't approve of progressive liberals or progressive conservatives. He has talked about that openly many times. The progressives use both parties to enact their goals.
Klatoo: A few of points: The D of I “dissolved existing bonds” by articulating the moral and practical basis for just government. THIS is how it formed the ideological basis for the Constitution. It established the only valid basis for government authority – which rests entirely with the sanction of the governed: IOW the “Divine Right of the Individual” if you will.
To institute a thing is to make it come into being. While the Constitutional Convention did acknowledge the existence of slavery, they did so with the express intention of revisiting the issue later. This was a temporary concession necessary to keep slave states committed to the very dicey business of forming a union in the face of the greatest superpower on the planet. They were however successful in establishing the fundamental principle that “...all Men are created equal...” meaning equal under law. (continued below)
(Continued from above) As for your insistence that mathematics is indispensible for understanding the political spectrum, Mark Twain said it best: “There are lies, damn lies and statistics.” The political spectrum is intended (hopefully) to provide a simple but accurate range of possibilities for relative government authority. No math is required for Joe the plumber to understand that more for the state means less for him. Introducing obtuse calculations only serves to diminish its utility for those neither interested in or adept at the complexities of mathematics. It merely adds yet another layer of complexity and inaccessibility without any practical benefit – much the same as the confusion injected by Witt and his “some statists are right-wing balderdash. (continued below)
(Continued from above)The only mathematics necessary for the creation of legislation is to count the votes. However, there IS a number that is critically important under our Constitutional Republic. It is a number that is repeatedly trampled under the stampede of legislative capriciousness in DC. That number is ONE – the total number of people whose rights may be infringed if a bill becomes law. When we forget this critical number, we have either mob rule or oligarchy. Neither is lawful or morally justified.
Oops, I forgot the posts show up in ascending order. Bear with me.
Stan: Dictionary.com definition 4, 5 &6 [Institution]:
4. Sociology. a well-established and structured pattern of behavior or of relationships that is accepted as a fundamental part of a culture, as marriage: the institution of the family.
5. any established law, custom, etc.
6. any familiar, long-established person, thing, or practice; fixture.
Stan: Dictionary.com definition 10 [Instituted]:
10. an established principle, law, custom, or organization.
Don't pull an Obama on me and say the fact that I am using the dictionary leads you to believe I am stretching a bit.
Klatoo; Thank you for the review of definitions. but what we are talking about is the RESPONSIBILITY for initiating, validating or promoting something. It is a fact that slavery predates the Constitution. It is a fact that challenging the institution of slavery would have cause the slave states to walk out of the Convention. It can be reasonbly asserted that had they walked out, our success establishing of a new, independent, unified nation would have been severly hindered if the slave states had not joined. You may have noticed we have strayed way off point in this discussion. Hitler was a statist. Statists occupy ONLY the far left of the political spectrum. Mr. Witt is apparently a socialist aparatchik. You like mathematics. I like my freedoms. Glenn Beck is OK. Thanks. It was fun. Check out mys stuff at Habersham County Conservative Examiner or at www.amerexile.blogspot.com Have a great day!
Yeah we got off track but it was fun. It's better to focus on the fact that we are not better off today than two years ago. That people are really hurting. That our government ruined the economy. That too big to fail was gov't corruption. That congress caused this mess. That corporate taxes are paid by consumers. That people should never have trusted their elected officials. That our national debt is unsustainable. That our liberties should not be trifled with. That the next generation is truly screwed if we don't make government smaller and force them to secure our liberties.
I'll check out the blogspot.
Thanks
This from the horses own mouth.
www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-nazihighway-012410,0,5473783.story
"It's a small sign igniting a big debate. An official state of Colorado Adopt-a-Highway placard announcing that a one-mile long stretch of US Highway 85 is sponsored not by the Boy Scouts or the Lions Club, but by the Nazi Party of Colorado.
Members call themselves the National Socialist Movement. They are inspired by teachings of Hitler, believe interracial relationships and homosexuality should be crimes, and they want to start a separate all-white country."
Nazi=Socialist!
Larry, Baby... Based on your postings, I'm sure you don't consider the 'Democratic Party' to actually be 'democratic' - so why woof that insanity that 'National Socialist Party' actually has anything to do with 'socialism?'
It's sad. Glenn Beck followers will never know how stupid they are because, after all...... they're stupid. It's a vicious circle.
I think the fact checker needs to check his facts before posting...Hitler did not use his troops for defense. And I find it amusing that Obama is still in Iraq and AFG and thinking about going into other countries. Note he did not freeze the budget for the military as a matter of fact he will plus it up...that is if the DEMS in the house and senate will let him. Forget the reps for a season, they are too few. It is or rather was crap thru a goose and why was Obama so bloody useless during his first year? His progressive agenda is scary. JIMHO
What matters is what Hitler did to millions of People. None of us can dispute that. Stop labeling. I care about environment but understand a lot of scientists question global warming. I am a Christian, but honestly I don't have any problem with gays
A lot of people believe that a lot of both parties are just puppets for special interests anyway. Maybe we will just have to dig deeper, rather than just vote Dem or Rep. I am not voting someone in to take care of Monsanto or GE, or Goldman Sachs. I what someone who is genuinely concerned with our country. The Rockefellers should not be in control here, we should be.
Um...so I watched the documentary and GB does NOT say that Hitler was a liberal. He explains that hitler was a socialist (fact) and that his policies mirror that of Stalin. (fact)
Hitler's policies had nothing to do with Stalin's. Hitler's economic policies go back to pre-WW1 Germany under Bismarck. His political philosophy was extreme right nationalism. Communism is arguably more anti-nationalistic than any other economic/political philosophy on earth. Actually there are plenty of anti-socialist far left anarchists that subscribe to anarcho-capitalism aka the austrian school. There are also many right-wing anarcho-capitalists as well. An economic system is not a political system. George Washington was also a "statist" who established a nationally chartered bank in which the government had a major equity stake. Washington also bailed out the heavily-indebted states, supported paying out subsidies and having the federal government coordinate the development of infrastructure.
Let me get this straight: Glenn Beck--who has no college education, cannot read German, and probably does not understand the intricacies and nuances of the Historians' Debate--is an expert on National Socialist ideology?
What a bunch of bull. The Nazis did NOT gas 6 million Jews or anyone else for that matter and yes, the Nazi government was authoritarian, however it was not totalitarian as was the Jewish Communism of the USSR. Hitler was not a "racist" as such, he was determined to keep Germany GERMAN and not have it end up a multicultural polyglot as the USSR was and Great Britain and the US were becoming. Germans had enough strength in their own identities that they were not about to let Jewish Cabaret take over their cultural life. Here in the US we are coming very late to the realization that our society has been broken down from the insidious nature of the propagation of filth throughout our "entertainment" industry, even accepting homosexuals parading in public almost naked and pleasuring each other for all to see.
I suspect Mr. Witt has very good reason to push his nonsense. Don't you Rabbi?
Beck never says that Hitler was a Democrat, and I don't believe he ever called the man liberal. He says that Hitler was a progressive, which is undeniably true, and that he was a socialist, also true. Hitler did not take the side that today's American liberals take on the issues. We are talking about his ideology, not his opinion on issues. He liked big, powerful government. That is a leftist ideology. He may not have taken over corporations "using the law", but he just as well as took them over because he controlled them through force. Also, the author says that FDR and Teddy used "the laws" of the nation to create their reform. Bullshit. The constitution is the law of this nation, and their reforms are against the constitution in word and spirit. Teddy broke the law to pass his socialist reforms, and so did Hitler, and so does Obama. The difference is of degree, not type.
Point is this article is correct factually, it even leaves out many key facts that prove how right wing Hitler was. His original political party (DAP) was considered "too far right" and in order to gain support, the DAP made an alliance with the Old Prussian Aristocrats (ie Conservatives) to gain legitimacy. That alliance created the NSDAP, a name he chose very carefully to give the illusion that the party was a populist movement.
Like the Communist Countries of their time, the name is usually the opposite of the intent. The Fascist were properly titled by the founder himself, when Mussolini correctly stated, "We really should call ourselves corporatist". Which would be correct, but the authoritarian version of that is the term most people struggle with today. So to make it less confusing, Nazi is simply a right wing authoritarian paradigm, its opposite is called communist.
take out the authoritarian, and you have the US swaying back and forth between these two for centuries n
Hitler was an extreme right winger
Hitler's campaign was largely focused on scaring people about the dangers of the Bolshevik menace.
Before Hitler got to power, he re-assured German industrialists that he would respect private property and fight labor unions.
Hitler only got to power with the help from the conservatives in the "Enabling Act" (left wing social democrats opposed it, communists had been arrested after the fire falsely blamed on them).
After Hitler got to power, he sent thousands and thousands of communists, social democrats and unionists into concentration camps and killed the communist leaders in Germany. He outlawed labor unions and guaranteed corporate profits for Krupp & Co.
Wow, we live in such odd times that we have to even ask that question.
You didn't even disprove anything Glenn said. You simply said he is wrong and gave a few flimsy arguments with NOTHING to back them up. Lol, stupid libs.
Whatever happened to writers using (and citing) scholarly sources? What sources does this "author" rely upon?
Part I
I was skimming this and came across this line...
"Hitler focused on how the Aryan people had a "Christian heritage" with principles that must be adhered in order to rebuild the country."
ROFL... the hell he did.
You don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Hitler did not like Christianity... and DID NOT AT ALL focus on how the "Aryan people had a Christian heritage".
The "Aryan people" didn't have a "Christian heritage"... you're thinking of the Tuetonic Knights. (The Nazis did make use of references to this "Holy Order" and it's bloody crusade against the Slavic Peoples because it suited their opinions on the Slavs and fit their desire for a "heroic age" to make reference to - one that reflected a war against the "subhuman hordes of the east"... but the fact the Tuetonic Knights were Christian wasnt even of secondary importance to the Nazis.)
The focus for the Nazis was on how the Aryan people had a PAGAN heritage.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!