Originally posted by Eversor:
That's unfair, I think. I'll give you that mainstream Republicans make stuff about the founding fathers in order to support modern day policy prescriptions that have nothing to do with the views of the founding fathers. The founding fathers, for example, are invoked by Republicans in order to make the case for interpretations of the first and second amendments that have no connection to what the founding fathers' thought about free speech or access to fire arms. But that has very little to do with the Nazis' invention (other extremist far-right nationalisms in the first half of the 20th century did it too) of a primordial, mythical warrior class from ancient times who in the Nazi imagination was a symbol that justified military conquest and national solidarity through blood and soil nationalism. For most Republican politicians, I'd wager, the founding fathers are tied up with values having to do with individual liberty, and are invoked for that reason, rather than because of white supremacy.
Yeah, you're right about this. I was more teasing at the fact that, Nazis loved to appeal to ancient things. Classical architecture, use of pagan (völkisch) religious symbolism, eagles and other imagery resembling ancient Rome. You tend to have a bit more of this "classicism is better in art" thing on the right - which is the vein I was trying to get at.
Originally posted by Eversor:
I think a more reasonable argument can be made that confederate heroes play a similar role in far-right American thinking to the thing that you're describing. But I suspect that celebrating confederate heroes because they fought and died for white supremacy is rarer among Republicans than I'm sure you do.
For the most part, celebrating the white supremacy of the confederacy is far too divisive for most Republican politicians of any consequence (i.e., congressmen and women). Even the Trump administration hasn't lionized confederate leaders -- the administration has been much more equivocal. And despite all the ways that dog whistling, irony and coded language does suggest support for certain morally repugnant ideas, the fact that veiled language is used to express support for such ideas indicates that the cost of a full throttled endorsement would be too costly, even amongst his base.
For the most part, celebrating the white supremacy of the confederacy is far too divisive for most Republican politicians of any consequence (i.e., congressmen and women). Even the Trump administration hasn't lionized confederate leaders -- the administration has been much more equivocal. And despite all the ways that dog whistling, irony and coded language does suggest support for certain morally repugnant ideas, the fact that veiled language is used to express support for such ideas indicates that the cost of a full throttled endorsement would be too costly, even amongst his base.
I don't think most people on the right revere confederate heroes, more that they tolerate it. Southern boys will be southern boys kind of thing. I think any racism in the Republicans today is exactly like you say: dog whistling coded language. Here it's more valuable to look at what's done rather than what's said: Trump defunding anti-KKK groups, labeling antifa domestic terrorists, trying to equate racist groups with antiracist ones, Trump's comments on the NFL player.
It should be noted that, this isn't that far from what early Nazis were like. You can find more explicit, deliberate racist stuff they were saying, but when they were actually seeking political power, they geared themselves to appeal to a wide audience. And actually, most Germans didn't like the strong racism, so the party skirted around it, despite it being an obvious part of their message. Heilbronner wrote:
Quote:
The origins of Nazism, and hence Nazi antisemitism, lie in the crisis of Weimar society, which was reflected in a profound radicalization and politicization of that society. The radical populism which so typified the antisemitic peripheries in the period of the Second Reich gained a central position in the Weimar period as a result of the war, the revolution and the events of the early 1920s. Nazism was a general mart for all the social movements that had existed on the fringes of Wilhelmine society, had risen to prominence during the war and had become influential during the 1920s. But what was even more significant was that, in addition to the extremist currents that had infiltrated the party, Nazism in the period before 1933 also represented central streams of Wilhelmine society: national liberals, social Conservatism, Catholics and the socialist left. Democratic, conservative, liberal and Marxist ideas could be found within the party, together with calls for social and political reform under an authoritarian or populist democratic regime. ...
Most historians agree today that during the early years of the Third Reich ‘the war against the Jews’ was not the main goal of the new regime. ... The main task was to remove Jews from their positions in the state and the economy, but Jews could continue to live in Germany. As late as 1936, a Jewish funeral in a village in the southern Rhine region in western Germany could be accompanied by the heads of the local Nazi Party who had come to pay their last respects to an anonymous Jew. As Ulrich Herbert has recently claimed, the German people did not fanatically support anti-Jewish policy until the late 1930s. As late as 1938, the heads of the SS could oppose Kristallnacht on the grounds that the disturbances might be too violent. But, as the Second World War reached its climax and the Germans were mired in the mud and snow of Russia, and the reverses of 1942 showed the Nazi leadership that victory was turning into defeat, the heads of the Nazi state took it on themselves to order the ‘Final Solution of the Jewish Question’ as well as cruel and vindictive actions against other social and ethnic groups.
Most historians agree today that during the early years of the Third Reich ‘the war against the Jews’ was not the main goal of the new regime. ... The main task was to remove Jews from their positions in the state and the economy, but Jews could continue to live in Germany. As late as 1936, a Jewish funeral in a village in the southern Rhine region in western Germany could be accompanied by the heads of the local Nazi Party who had come to pay their last respects to an anonymous Jew. As Ulrich Herbert has recently claimed, the German people did not fanatically support anti-Jewish policy until the late 1930s. As late as 1938, the heads of the SS could oppose Kristallnacht on the grounds that the disturbances might be too violent. But, as the Second World War reached its climax and the Germans were mired in the mud and snow of Russia, and the reverses of 1942 showed the Nazi leadership that victory was turning into defeat, the heads of the Nazi state took it on themselves to order the ‘Final Solution of the Jewish Question’ as well as cruel and vindictive actions against other social and ethnic groups.
When giving speeches:
Quote:
Hitler and other Nazi speakers carefully tailored their speeches to each audience. For example, when speaking to businessmen, the Nazis downplayed antisemitism and instead emphasized anti-communism and the return of German colonies lost through the Treaty of Versailles. When addressed to soldiers, veterans, or other nationalist interest groups, Nazi propaganda emphasized military buildup and return of other territories lost after Versailles. Nazi speakers assured farmers in the northern state of Schleswig-Holstein that a Nazi government would prop up falling agricultural prices. Pensioners all over Germany were told that both the amounts and the buying power of their monthly checks would remain stable.
and Sarah Ann Gordon writes:
Quote:
Many Germans hoped Hitler could pull Germany out of depression and others thought he was the only man capable of restoring dignity to the nation after its humiliating defeat in World War I and the Treaty of Versailles. Still others counted on his giving precedence, both economically and politically, to their own special interest groups; and some were merely fed up with the Weimar government and wanted a change. In short, there was a myriad of reasons for joining the Nazi Party or voting for Hitler.
The point I'm getting at here is, people tend to think that the Nazis came forward blaming the Jews for everything and like, campaigned on a genocidal platform? They didn't, the rise of the Nazis was, as I heard it described once, "surprisingly banal", and that's what makes it so damned terrifying.