Why is society prohibited from comparing any other person to Hitler?

Is it because he was so evil that no one could ever attain the same level of "evilness" in the future or in the past? As we know, politicians that compare other politicians to Adolf Hitler automatically lose all credibility. Hitlerism is a level that no one else can ever attain. It is not so much that the mere mention of his name is censored, it is that the very thought of his name is subconsciously censored by society. Why is that?

Does the fact that he tried to wipe a race of people off the face of the earth have anything to do with it? If so, how would that project itself in todays world? Is that a subject matter that is too sensitive to talk about still? Or is it just a figment of individuals imaginations that think they cannot speak of the subject, because it is still divisive and hateful? The name itself evokes hatred and anger and therefore must never be mentioned? To even speak the name brands you as a traitor to humanity itself?

Those who study the holocaust and in particular those who survived it will tell you that it's extremely difficult to attain the same level of "evilness" as Hitler.

As far as comparing Shrub to Hitler, I think that comparison is invalid but mostly for another reason. Hitler actively killed millions of people because he believed in purifying the society. Shrub I don't believe is someone who wants to actively exterminate people but rather one who would sit there watching them be exterminated and say, "not my problem." I don't believe Shrub is a murderer but rather a self-centered asshole who only helps others when it's in his own interest to do so.

I think Bush is more like Caligula: an insane, spoiled brat with no empathy or concern for anyone but himself and his small circle of friends.

the efficiency of the hitler`s extermination camps is what horrifies people. stalin was cruder in his methods yet killed many more.
75 to a 100 million innocent people were slaughtered in the last century by their fellow countrymen

Human nature is human nature. Hitler was human. There have beeen people as evil as he, and there likely will be again.

Careless hyperbole damages the credibility of anyone using it regardless of whether it involves Hitler, or just saying that some flash in the pan rookie athlete is the "greatest ever".

If someone was to make a comparison of, say, some of the Bush regimes methods in terms of use of propaganda a la Goebbels (sp?), or the political use of war and invasion to inflame nationalism and boost political standing, it would be important to note that the comparison was only with respect to that, and NOT to say that shrubco had done anything comparable to the attempted extermination of the Jewish people.

The idea that any invocation of Hitler or the Nazis in a discussion or analogy is invalid now and for all time suggests that the Nazi regime is a unique historical event, a "singularity" if you will, the type and degree of which has never happened in the past and is impossible to happen in the future, that the same confluence of circumstances and types of leaders could not come together in a similar way, ever again.

I think this is inherently absurd.

I always thought the admonition to "never forget" about the Holocaust was PRECISELY because this event revealed the full extent of the evil that is possible within human nature, and so that such an event might be prevented in the future if the signs were recognized earlier. Not simply to commemorate those who died and survived.

To prevent it happening again.

It's possible because we are humans.

By any definition of "humanity"?

But it is a fascile comparison, unless the comparison has at least some degree of accuracy. Compare Pol Pot to Hitler? That's probably valid, Both embraced genocide with zeal in order to uses it as a tool to remake society. Like Hitler, Pol Pot targeted certain ethnic minorities and groups he perceived as a threat.

Comparing Bush to Hitler is a whole other kettle of fish. IMO, it's not terribly valid. Bush is reckless, foolish, a prime example of someone wiht Narcisstic Personality disorder; unable to empathize with others, but whether it's that he's constrained by our system, or due to other reasons, he's hardlly achieved or even vocalized the hatred so easily identified in Hitler and Pol Pot.

I think ONE of the reasons the US is in Iraq is due to the demographic reality of the high population growth in the ME, along with the fostering of strong man type governments in the area, and Islamic fundamentalism.

Most of this was probably brought about by oil production in the area? Oil companies and US govt (and others) supported any political system that kept things stable....in order to pump oil? Oil money allows population growth?

When the demographics and the politics look like they are going to get out of control...in we go to supposedly stabilize things.

Bush is just following policies set in place earlier...by people in ivory thinktanks. These people are long distance chess players...humans are the chess pieces.

Between support of Israel and the current wars....looks to me like a slow form of genocide....or something close to it.

But they hate us for the Georges freedoms......? We don't really have any...anymore.

It depends.

There's the comparison as a metaphor (so-and-so is just like Hitler). When someone is measured against Hitler the man and/or what Hitler did and/or what Hitler represented, it's intended as it is or overgeneralization, usually the former.

The whole experience of Hitler, Nazism, and the Third Reich is both sui generis (unique in any category) and susceptible to use as a standard.

If someone is compared to Hitler enough times, Hitler tends to lose his extreme and radical image from overuse by enough critics. If one is fearful of another political figure rising to the status (if not exceeding) Hitler, one would not desire to see the historical image of him become that of another political opportunist who murdered a demographic that would have challenged his authority and/or he needed to exploit and destroy for his own political purpose.

IMO, before consideration of comparing anyone to Hitler, I believe that the totality of circumstances need to be examined, that is, Hitler didn't change history by himself. Mein Kampf was only a political diatribe on paper until it was put into effect. Legislation, courts, and banks were needed to legitimize this program.

I am of two minds about whether or not the use of Hitler should be used to persuade. Of course it can be done. My question is it effective and useful to discourse.

I disagree with both of you, but not because of your reasons. I am not trying to be a smart aleck or a smart-ass, but I think you premise that people cannot compare politicians to Hitler is wrong. What you should be asking is why can people not compare Republican politicians to Hitler. Anyone who compares a Democrat or Liberal to Hitler has a chance of being promoted as an courageous independent thinker. On the other hand if you are a Democrat/Liberal or someone else and you compare a Republican/Conservative to Hitler than you are called all sorts of names with traitor mentioned? If you do an internet search using the words Democrats + Hitler, Bill Clinton + Hilter, or Hillary Clinton + Hitler you will see tons of comparisons between them and Hitler and very little criticism of the people doing the comparisons. If you just do the Clinton search you will find tons of comparisons with little criticism.

I tend to think the reasons Democrats can by compared to Hitler and Republicans cannot are: (a) Democrats believe in debate; (b) Democrats do not have as many friends in the media; and (c) Democrats are just nicer. First, I contend that at times Republicans use the Hitler comparisons to scare Democrats into not debating an issue because no Democrat wants to be compared to Hitler. When issues like the Iraq war, Katrina, Congressional scandals, and others issues come up the Republicans can use the Hitler card to stop certain Democrats from issuing any objections. Democrats on the other hand like debate so when issues like the ones mentioned and other issues that need debate come up the Democrats are willing to hear the Republican side of the issue and debate the issue. Second, the Democrats do not have very many friends in the media they can run to when they are compared to Hitler. If they are compared to Hitler where are they going to go Air America, Fair, and/or Democracy Now. For Republicans not only can to run to Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and all the other cable networks people like Sean Hannity, Bill Reilly, Joe Scarborough, and a host of other TV commentators are waiting to throw their arms up in the air and bemoan the disgraceful tactics of the horrible Democrats.

For instance, look at the difference in reaction to the Moveon commercial and the Congressman who compared Democrats to Hitler. First off the commerical that compared Bush to Hitler was not made by a Democrat or the Democratic Party and was not even made by Moveon. However, the media made out like the whole Democratic Party had come together and made this horribly unfounded commercial about Bush. On the other hand at least one Republican compared the Democrats to Hitler when they wanted to debate how the Iraq war was going and you barely hear about it on any of the previously mentioned TV stations if you heard about it at all. Furthermore, during 2005 and 2006 I think the Democrats were compared to Hitler on numerous occasions.

Finally, I contend that Democrats are just nicer. Democrats seems to not want to inject such hatred into the public debate. On the other hand Republicans seem to want to inject hate in the debate.
So, you can compare politicans to Hitler. They just have to be Democrats who seem to be going in the opposite direction than you want them to go.

My only quibble is about terminology.
Republicans are not conservative-at least the most visible ones are not-they are right wing extremists, radical clerics, and, quite frankly, Hitler wannabes.

Conservatives don't burn down nine Alabama churches, nor do liberals. Neither conservatives nor liberals attempt to turn society into a ruling dictatorial elite and a vast indentured servant class.

Liberal and conservative are not opposites; they are, in fact, complementary.
Most democrats are conservative/liberal. I am quite conservative-my house is paid for, my vehicles are paid for, I have no desire to invade other countries and make them over into some sort of market based, winner take all oligarchies.
I believe government is a valuable tool to do the things that need doing that individual members cannot do alone and that killing is wrong, taking unfair advantage of others is wrong and that concentration of power/money in the hands of a fortunate few is wrong.

The vicious gangsters who have taken over our government, business and religions are not conservative, liberal or progressive; they are criminals, mafioso types who should be removed from any positions of power and are, perhaps, the only ones, along with child rapists/murderers who are deserving of the death penalty.

And I consider myself to be a proud democrat - a nice guy.

Thank you for your clear, thoughtful post.

having to spend time in a hospital to recover from that service.
Bush is a narcissistic fool whose ambition only rises to the level of wanting to be revered and to hold the job, rather than actually do the job.

Hitler was plotted against as the existing military commanders wished to assassinate him even before he achieved the heights of military dictator, while * rose to power on the shoulders of moneyed interests who needed a puppet to achieve their own ends.

So many people have been compared erroneously to Hitler that the comparison has lost its sting. This is further compounded by the fact that the media interests are invariably in favor of the policies that bush favors, since they are in part the authors of those policies, and don't want him compared to hitler-thus the automatic reaction.

It's not the average person or voter who has a negative reaction of condemning such comparisons, but the ones who actually have a voice that can be heard.
Bush is a fascist, pretending not to be.
Hitler was a fascist who pretended to be something else as well.

The actual fascists in this country are quick to brand anyone they don't like as a fascist and hitlerarian, while screaming loudly when members of the dispossessed class (us) make the more accurate comparison that they, themselves, are, in point of fact, the actual heirs to the hitler cult. Nobody likes to hear the truth about themselves because the truth hurts.

Someday we may be able to discuss Hitler more intellectually, but as long as there are still people alive who have been directly affected by the events, it will be hard to do. This might take a couple of more generations.

An analogy might be if there is a tragedy in a family, one must be careful about how it is discussed. You can't just talk about the tragedy freely. You have to be sensitive about it.

As another example, one must be careful invoking Martin Luther King. A local (white) candidate here in Georgia used MLK's image in a mail piece with a quote from him too. It causes a bit of consternation since the candidate had no actual connection to MLK. It was seen as pandering. There is still a lot of sensitivity in certain contexts. Same with Confederate symbolism. Many strong feelings still exist. Need more distance.

and bombastic pigboy conservatives, is that Hitler's evil was amplified by the nightmare of the First World war. The hell of the trenches turned helped turn the merely bad to evil. No WWI, no Hitler.

statement. First of all you have no way of knowing whether it was WWI that was the most important factor in forging Hitler's personality, and second of all, you can do that trick with any personality or period in history.

a holocaust and all that terror without WW1? I don't. War begets greater wars, and if the USA went through the trauma Germany did after WW1, our Hitlers in hiberanation would make their appearence. Look how much the milder trauma of Viet Nam corrupted our political system.

And yes, I'm cognizant of the history of the period. The point is that history isn't comprised of what ifs, it's comprised of what is. The what ifs can make for excellent fiction and philosophical discussion, but no one can state with real knowledge that such and such wouldn't have happened if x hadn't happened.

it immediately turns a discussion emotional. One side of me says we should leave the emotionally-charged, manipulative rhetorical devices to the Freeps. Another side of me says that we need to learn from history, and must point out the similarities.

I think it's an arguement you should keep in your sleeve, and only pull it out at appropriate times. Use sparingly for maximum effect.

who would the U.S. been allied with, and what then would have been written in the history books? Fortunately Prescott Bush was not president and Hitler was defeated and his horrible crimes shown to the world, but the evil spirit of fascism was not defeated, in fact it is alive and well but most people don’t even know what it is, and could never make the comparison or connect the dots. It seems as though people have a tendency to believe the official story via the censored government / corporate controlled media propaganda machine, without question. To believe otherwise is to be as Bush says, “You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorist”. And to question the official story is then twisted into being unpatriotic. To compare some one’s leader to Hitler doesn’t go over very well when people blindly follow and refuse to entertain any other facts given. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Decoration of Independence, “all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” People are accustomed to what they are being shown and told. When you show or tell them something different, they can’t except it, and pass it of as just another conspiracy theory. Out of sight out of mind, not shown on fox news, it just couldn’t be true.

when we try to talk about current issues in the context of Nazi Germany we are slammed for doing so. The reality is if you truly want to stop another holocaust from happening, you can not ignore the comparisions. "Never again" needs to be more than an empty slogan, it needs to be a commitment to stopping evil in the world. You can not fight another Hitler if you are not even willing to make some comparisions that will make people think about the danger that person poses.

have systematically ridiculed that tactic

I think for most other people the idea is that you diminish his unique evilness when every evil person is described as being a "Hitler". I don't know of anyone who has tried to quantify eveilness, creating a scale to find the most evil.

I suspect that the fact that Hitler was of recent vintage and led a war we won against him also plays a part. The Republicans did link Saddam to Hitler - to increase his perception of evil - though he was evil in his own right. What I do think is unacceptable is to compare any American to Hitler. The reasonm there is that, noty only is it going too far but people think they know the person at least a little.

As Hitler has been defined as complete evil - someone you know could never completely fit that degree of evilness. (Yes - I despise Bush, think he has created nightmares everywhere, think he lies and is personally despicable and very unlikable)

And I've said it before, but when you compare two things, they should be similar in degree wrt their most salient properties.

I could say my hamster is like Hitler: both mammals, both with dark hair.

I could say my computer is like Hitler: both composed of baryons and leptons.

Martha Stewart is like Hitler: both employ(ed) soup with soup spoons.

But none of these are Hitler's salient characteristics. *Which* actually salient characteristic comes to mind is largely driven by context. Stalin was like Hitler in some ways, and Pol Pot was like him in other ways, and Ahmedinejad in yet others: mass killer through the use of state suppression and camps, genocidal in pursuit of ideology, fervent anti-Semite through feelings of aggrieved but non-existent victimization. Whatever. But the final characteristic is "really, really bad person", using thoroughly inappropriate and over-the-top hyperbole. "Bush is like Hitler" basically means, "I think Bush really, really, really, really ... really sucks ... dude"--but you have to say it like a 13-year-old Wayne's World fan would, otherwise it doesn't sound nearly juvenile enough.

Think of the restriction as resulting from principles of conversational implicature (i.e., "relevance", see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_theory; if you do, be sure to follow the link for Gricean maxims, this is something that should be taught in every 9th grade English class). Deviations from relevance are usually reserved for poetic uses, where the reader/listener is to figure out how the metaphor is true: "You are the bread and the knife/ the crystal goblet and the wine..." (http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poem.html?id=30605). Pretty much every other use shows a lack of cooperativeness that's taken as intentional, quickly resulting in beaucoup d'ill-will.

Remember: John Kerry and I are both like Hitler. (All speak/spoke a non-English language spoken on continental Europe: Kerry speaks French, Hitler spoke German, I speak Russian :-)