Shameless
Grover Norquist, an anti-tax right wing lobbyist thought to be the architect of President Bush’s giant tax cuts, compared the estate tax (or the “death tax” in rightie parlance) to the Holocaust.
The transcript is truly chilling. These people have no shame.
Well, I guess if it’s okay to compare Bush to Hitler, it’s okay to compare the estate tax to the Holocaust.
Except, no, it’s not okay to make either comparison, since that only cheapens a horrendous event.
I think Norquist’s point — that it’s not okay to give a pass to things happening to a few people over there as long as it isn’t happening to me — is a valid one. While that wasn’t the morality of the Holocaust, that was the (im)morality of those who let it happen (cue the Martin Niemoller quote).
And, to be fair, Norquist isn’t comparing the estate tax to the Holocaust, but attacking the “it’s someone else’s problem, not mine” and “it’s only a small group of people we’re treating unequally” attitudes he perceives behind some arguments in its favor.
(And I say all this as someone who agrees fully with the estate tax and opposes its abolition.)
Nonetheless, it was a bad move for him to frame the argument in those terms. In Usenet parlance, he loses, regardless of the validity of his analogy.
Except the Norquist is smarter than that. He could have found any number of other, more appropriate, analogies to underscore the (debatable) injustice of the estate tax, yet he chose to invoke the inescapably inflammatory language of the Holocaust. This will have two complimentary effects: liberal outrage will be smeared as “PC politics” and “class warfare”, and conservative entitlement will be reinforced vis-a-vis the co-opting of the “persecuted minority” thing that progressives coined for their own purposes and which conservatives are doing a BANG UP job of stealing from them.
People like Norquist do not just say whatever pops into their heads. They are scripted individuals. You don’t get into that sort of position by not knowing what you’re saying. Norquist’s supporters don’t think he’s cheapening the Holocaust. They think he’s shaping public policy.
Dave: I never compared Bush to Hitler*. I think we’ve got to deal with things on their own terms. And I think your defense of Norquist is linguistic hairsplitting worthy of Bill Clinton. Norquist knew what he was saying.
*(In looking through my archives, in the interest of complete disclosure, I did say that “Department of Homeland Security” did have a “Fatherland” feel to it. But that’s the closest I’ve come.)
No, I don’t specifically recall your comparing Bush to Hitler. But it seems to be a widespread meme among more vocal Bush critics (drawing analogies between Schwarzenegger and Hitler being a more recent but analogous cheap shot). I was simply agreeing that drawing in Nazi/Hitler/Holocaust analogies are almost always cheap shots — no matter who is making them — and themselves cheapen the tragedy and horror of that regime. Unless you’re comparing Hitler to Stalin or Mao, in which case you can make some valid historical parallels (and body counts).
As someone who believes both in progressive taxation (within reasonable limtis), includnig the estate tax, I can understand Norquist’s analogy, and even agree that it’s valid, without agreeing with his policy. To the extent that rich folks are singled out for certain taxes, or higher tax rates, does make them a “persecuted minority” — what remains then is whether the discrimination is morally or legally justified (which, within reason, it is). To argue that it is not (defenisively) discriminatory is also linguistic hairsplitting.
As to whether people like Norquist are cleverly scripted masterminds — well, so far as I’m concerned, his transcript certainly doesn’t read that way, and his comments are outrageous enough by association (even if arguable) that it doesn’t seem terribly clever to me.