[dreadgeek]

Before I say where I think we are, I want to ask you to do a little thought experiment with me.

You are a German living in Berlin in 1937. The war has not started yet. Austria hasn't been given to Germany and neither has Czechoslovakia. Kristallnacht is still in the future. "All" that has happened is that a man named Hitler has risen to power. He and his party have passed laws that while they do not directly harm *you*, clearly harm others. He sounds like a dictator. He is violating treaties and rearming the nation in violation of the Versailles treaty. He talks of peace and prepares for war. He has set himself up as the supreme law of the land, answerable to no one. The Nuremberg laws making the Jews estranged to the German law and economy are in effect but there are no death camps yet. There are concentration camps, but 'political prisoners' are being sent there.

To make this more interesting, you are a member of the German Army. Someone has come to you and proposed overthrowing the Nazi regime. You certainly have the means to do something about this tyrannical madman. What do you do? To make it even more interesting, as you sit at home that night pondering what move to make a hole opens up in the space-time continuum and a thick black book falls through entitled "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". You read it and learn what Hitler is going to put your nation and the world through. NOW what do you do?

I ask this question NOT because I think that America is Germany under the Nazi regime. I didn't think it was under Bush the Younger and I certainly don't think it under the Obama administration. Rather, I invoke it because who *hasn't* had the thought "Hitler was so obviously bad, why didn't anyone do something about it?" It is because of that thought that I think that the tendency to cavalierly compare presidents with whom we disagree with as Hitler or Stalin is inherently dangerous. We should use that language if it is necessary but only if it is necessary. Saying that a POTUS is like Hitler or Stalin or doing anything remotely akin to their actions other than breathing, should be something we approach--if at all--slowly, carefully and after much deliberation.

Is Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or the Tea Party or MoveOn or David Brock or Barack Obama responsible for the actions of this man? No, not in any ordinary since of the term 'responsible' and certainly not in any legal sense. Is the language that Palin, Limbaugh and Beck or the Tea Partiers using in describing the current administration dangerous? Yes, as a matter of fact it is. Unless, of course, you actually believe that the Obama administration has 'FEMA camps' set up to put political conservatives in. If you actually believe that then it is incumbent upon you to present the evidence for that belief. If that evidence is not forthcoming then it is incumbent upon the rest of us to not take you seriously unless and until you have solid evidence.

Sarah Palin should stop talking about 'death panels' that will order your grandmother to be put to death. Glenn Beck should stop making comparisons of Obama to Hitler and Stalin. Rush Limbaugh should stop saying that liberals want the terrorists to win or are on the side of Al Qaeda. The media, perhaps, should start doing their jobs with a little more gusto and mature behavior. If a politician states that his opponent voted in favor of providing Viagra to pedophiles (as was stated by several candidates during the 2010 midterms) then the media should do due diligence, look at the Congressional record, and if it turns out to be a lie call it out as a lie. Don't call it a 'misunderstanding'. The next politician who claims that the Obama administration "gave GM to the unions" should quite simply have their political career end right then and there.

Yes, people are responsible for their actions. However, words--the speaking and printing of them, at least--are actions. Like all other actions, they have consequences. If you are a person of national stature and you claim that the opposing side is a domestic terrorist, you should NOT be at all surprised if some unhinged person takes you at your word and tries to be the hero of the action movie called 'America' and take out the 'domestic enemy'. If you are a person of national stature and you make statements about 'Second Amendment remedies' or 'don't retreat, reload' you should not be at all surprised when someone takes you seriously. This is not just about conservatives or liberals--I winced (and would argue) when liberals claimed that Bush the Younger was like Hitler.

Perhaps if we didn't have a nation awash in guns we could hurl those kinds of insults at one another all day long. It's very hard to kill 6 people in a matter of a minute or two with a broadsword. However, we are a nation absolutely awash in guns and with a persistent mythology of the hero with a big gun, quick on the draw and able to snapshot the wings off a mosquito at 50 yards. If I thought we were a mature country, I would suggest that we make a choice between being armed to the teeth or calling our political opponents everything but some mother's child. However, I don't think we are capable of making that choice.

Cheers
Aj