The Hitler Test
by Butler Shaffer
In previous years, and on the first day of class, I have given my new
students a ballot, indicating that "it is time to elect the leader of a
great nation," and offering them two candidates, A and B.
Candidate A is identified as "a well-known critic of government, this
man> has been involved in tax protest movements, and has openly advocated
secession, armed rebellion against the existing national government, and
even the overthrow of that government. He is a known member of a militia
group that was involved in a shoot-out with law enforcement authorities.
He opposes gun control efforts of the present national government, as well
as restrictions on open immigration into this country. He is a businessman
who has earned his fortune from such businesses as alcohol, tobacco,
retailing, and smuggling."
Candidate B is described thusly: "A decorated army war veteran, this man
is an avowed nonsmoker and dedicated public health advocate. His public
health interests include the fostering of medical research and his dedication
to eliminating cancer. He opposes the use of animals in conducting such
research. He has supported restrictions on the use of asbestos,
pesticides, and radiation, and favors government-determined occupational health and
safety standards, as well as the promotion of such foods as whole-grain
bread and soybeans. He is an advocate of government gun-control
measures. An ardent opponent of tobacco, he has supported increased restrictions
on both the use of and advertising for tobacco products. Such advertising
restrictions include: [1] not allowing tobacco use to be portrayed as
harmless or a sign of masculinity; [2] not allowing such advertising to
be> directed to women; [3] not drawing attention to the low nicotine content
of tobacco products; and, [4] limitations as to where such advertisements
may be made. This man is a champion of environmental and conservationist
programs, and believes in the importance of sending troops into foreign
countries in order to maintain order therein."
The students are asked to vote, anonymously, for either of these two
candidates. I employ this exercise only every other year, at most, so
that students will not have been told to expect it. Over the years, the
voting results have given candidate B about 75% of the vote, while candidate A
gets the remaining 25%. After completing the exercise and tabulating the
results, I inform the students that candidate A is a composite of the
American "founding fathers" (e.g., Sam Adams, John Hancock, Thomas
Jefferson, George Washington, etc.). Candidate B, on the other hand, is
Adolf Hitler, whose advocacy for the programs named can be found in such
works as Robert Proctor's The Nazi War on Cancer.
In one of my classes a few years ago, we were discussing the Schechter
case, in which the United States Supreme Court struck down the
cornerstone legislation of the "New Deal," the National Industrial Recovery Act. I
was explaining to the students how this legislation had transformed American
commerce and industry into a system of business created but
government-enforced cartels. I also pointed out to them how popular
fascist/socialist programs were throughout much of the world at that
time. There was Stalin in the Soviet Union, Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in
Germany, Franco in Spain, and Roosevelt in the United States.
I then informed my class how Winston Churchill had, in 1938, praised
Hitler, as had such luminaries as Ghandi, Gertrude Stein (who nominated
him for the Nobel Peace Prize), and Henry Ford (who was pleased to work with
the German leader). One of my students could take it no more. "How can
you say that so many people could support such an evil man as Adolf
Hitler?," she pleaded. "You tell me," I responded, "just two weeks ago 78% of you
in this class voted for him!" Some twenty seconds of pure silence settled
into the classroom before we moved on to the next case.
A couple days ago, I decided to introduce a new group of students to
this exercise. After they voted ?again, anonymously ?I tabulated their
votes and discovered that, once again, Hitler had prevailed, but by a much
narrower margin than in earlier years. In my two classes, Hitler won by
a 45-41 combined total of votes (nor did he require the Supreme Court to
validate his victory). His support, in other words, had fallen from
previous averages of 75% to about 52.3%.
One of my students wrote on his/her ballot "leaving ballot blank, or
writing in a socialist candidate if one exist." At the following class
meeting, I read this notation aloud and told the class that a "socialist
candidate" did exist: candidate B, in the person of Adolf Hitler. The
word "Nazi" was derived from the formal name of Hitler's party: the National
Socialist German Workers' Party. That so many of Hitler's policies have
become the essence of modern "political correctness," as well as
"mainstream" Republocratic platforms, is a sad reflection on just how
far the American culture has deteriorated in recent decades.
Still, there may be some basis for optimism in this latest response from
these students, who had never had a class with me before. When close to
half of these young people were more comfortable siding with the kind of
men whose thinking was reflected in the Declaration of Independence,
there may be healthy signs that support for the Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft/Ridge
form of fascist state is starting to wane.
Additional evidence of a diminishing enthusiasm for leviathan can be
seen in the resolutions passed by over one hundred city/town councils ?plus
one state legislature ?stating their opposition to, or even refusal to
abide by, the Patriot Act! The lobotomized voices that insist upon passive
submission to authority, may find themselves screeching to a rapidly
depleting audience. They, and their statist overlords, may be able to
count on the continuing complicity of a round-heeled Congress, but many
thoughtful men and women may be peeling the "love it or leave it"
bumper-stickers off their minds and cars.
Having had a brief taste of the brown-shirted culture of the present
administration, perhaps enough Americans are rediscovering the
significance of their own history. As the media lapdogs continue to recite their
scripts and slobber on cue, it may prove to be the case that the "spirit of
'76," with its love of liberty and distrust of governments, is still
sufficiently engrained in the fabric of our society.
August 22, 2003 |
