Tax Policies and Inappropriate Nazi Comparisons
In last Friday’s edition of Oregon State University’s daily newspaper, The Barometer, I found an article criticizing Barack Obama’s tax policies. The writer, Peter Druckenmiller, a junior in new media communication, basically argues that Obama is opening a can of worms by raising taxes for the rich and will as a second step raise everybody’s taxes as well. Therefore, the author opposes any type of financial support for people who haven’t paid many taxes in their lives, for example students.
So far, so good. Druckenmiller finishes, however, with a curious Third Reich comparison:
Martin Niemöller once said, “When they came for me, there were none left to speak out.” He was referring to the Nazi’s ideology of selecting one group to persecute, and laid out the Nazi progression from Communists to Jews and finally to himself. The same logic should be employed when examining the class warfare of Obama and Biden: if we allow any to be exploited (wealthy or not), then we are allowing all to be exploited.
Unlike many of my fellow Germans, I am usually not sensitive to nazi comparisons (I must confess: I am a fan of Seinfeld’s soup nazi). However, this one struck me as so inappropriate that I decided to write a letter to the editor. Comparing the systematic extermination of political and ideological opponents with any type of tax policy is going too far.
Here is the short comment I wrote to the paper:
Congratulations, Peter. By making a grotesque nazi comparison in the last paragraph, you managed to lose every ounce of credibility you tried to build up in the entire article before. That, my friend, takes serious skills only few will ever master.
Quite ironically, your apparent, kafkaesque fear of “communism” was much more a property of national socialism than financial support for society’s most needy members, that you choose to compare so inappropriately with it.
It doesn’t even matter if people follow your–admittedly weak–arguments or not (you may have missed that “richer people pay more” is not an unknown concept even in the US, with a progressive income tax like most countries), if you want to convince, not deceive, people, you first need to get your research straight.
Maybe you shouldn’t have stopped reading that history book of yours after the first page after all.
Writers, please learn a lesson from Peter: Arguing with extremes is hardly ever convincing, in particular if you mess up the comparison. If you have a nazi reference readily available for your next submission to your school’s newspaper, I suggest you leave it in your pocket and consider arguing differently. Chances are people may read, maybe even agree with you, and above all, you avoid making a complete fool of yourself.
Update: Jean Pierre points me to Godwin’s Law, which, in turn, led me to the logical fallacy named “Reductio ad Hitlerum”. Druckenmiller abuses a Nazi comparison in an apparent attempt to avoid rational discussion of the issue at hand.
Update: Tara mentioned an article in today’s edition of the Barometer, entitled “Don’t fall to trappings of Godwin’s law”. Columnist Bill Bradford writes:
“I dislike criticizing fellow Barometer columnists, but Wozich and Druckenmiller deserve it. In fact, I’m not just calling them out, but demanding they have their GOP American flag lapel pins removed and placed in safekeeping until they can prove they are capable of avoiding Godwin’s Law.”
Thanks, Bill, for reminding me that student journalism isn’t completely out of its mind quite yet.
Reminds me of endless Usenet threads and then–all of a sudden–Godwin’s law kicks in.
Good job in speaking up, this country is finally getting back on track but we still have a lot of idiots out there. I’m glad this guy was held accountable for his stupidity! I love the soup nazi as well. There are lots of arguments for a somewhat progressive income tax, this is not a slippery slope that will turn us all into communists (or nazis).
He was making a point with that paragraph, not trying to insult anyone. And it was a good point that needs to be made, which is that people are far too quick to vote for the candidate that will raise taxes on “other people, just not you”.
In fact, if he wanted to make a point, he was making it badly, which is what I criticized (and so did Bill Bradford in the followup article). Using a weak Nazi comparison to make a point is like smashing somebody’s car window, then asking, “do you agree?”. It’s just not a healthy basis for a discussion.
Also, you are suggesting people do not making informed decisions when voting, which is an opinion I cannot share with you that easily. You, as the here criticized Druckenmiller, seem to believe that the simple fact of paying taxes is a bad thing, an opinion that luckily not everybody shares. It may never have occurred to you, but a lot of struggling people may gladly want to pay a little more in taxes if in return, they know that their retirement is safe (instead of it going under with the employer going bottoms-up), and they don’t have to tell their children they can’t afford the medication when they are sick.
Repeatedly stating “taxes are bad, let’s lower them” just doesn’t solve all of society’s problems, no matter how much you wish it did.
Where did I say paying taxes was bad? It’s ironic how you throw out a strawman argument right after accusing someone of “making a point badly”.
The point that was being made is that scapegoating the successful/wealthy in order to win over voters is something that people need to be wary of, not something they should be quick to support.
I understand, and in fact, I agree: Voting Obama for the belief that everybody else’s situation will change but your own won’t is probably a bad idea. Much like voting McCain for the belief that everybody’s taxes will drop while magically raising the society’s wealth as a whole is a bad idea.
Making an informed decision is what it’s all about.
Unfortunately, mister Druckenmiller’s case in question is stengthened by the recent call to impose a 90 per cent tax on bonuses paid to AIG employees. The bonuses were required by existing private contracts and, like it or not, were guaranteed by the bailout legislation. If they get away with such a confiscatory retroactive tax, the door will be open for every kind abusive governmental fiat against anybody they want to go after, and for any reason for which they can gin up enough emotional hysteria. Rule of law, and especially equal protection under the law, will be a forgotten concept.
Although comparisons with Naziism has long been a third rail of political discussion in this country, it would not hurt to look beyond superficial analogies and examine the fact that the German people took an active part in their descent into tyranny by allowing their fear, prejudice, and envy to overcome their commitment to a philosophy of the primacy of the individual over that of the state, and the rational and equal application of law.
The same thing is unquestionably happening here now, and we cannot afford to ignore it.