Saturday, June 2, 2012

Some Speaking Advice For Jeff Barth: Remember Godwin's Law and The Maltese Falcon

I have never been an Internet sensation, so I don't know what pressures, if any, Jeff Barth faces after his campaign video went viral, but when David Montgomery reports that Barth drops the Nazi allusion "final solution," I feel the need to offer a bit of advice.

According to Montgomery,
Talking about Noem, Barth said:
“I don’t know why she doesn’t answer any of those questions about her fictitious support for a balanced budget, or her final solution for people on Medicare.” [emphasis in original]
Every high school graduate should know that the phrase final solution carries connotations of the Holocaust.

I, therefore, offer the following advice.  First, remember Godwin's Law which contains the corollary that the person who refers to Nazi's first loses the debate.

Second, listen to Sydney Greenstreet in the first two minutes of this clip.  I know Bogart goes nuts at the end of this clip and makes the craziness work, but Jeff, you are no Bogart.



Finally, remember some of us are going to vote for the person we believe has the best judgement because we won't be able to agree with anyone on all of  his or her positions.  Further, we won't know what the big issues are going to be 15 months from now, so our guess about one's judgement is as important as agreement on positions.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Republican position on health care is simply "Don't get sick, but if you do .... dying quickly" That is flatly their Darwin solution. Republicans tend to not believe in Darwinism, but they practice it everyday. I think Jeff just got a little too exuberant in his expression .... he'll learn.

Anne said...

The glib and meaningless throwing around of the terms Nazi and Hitler is juvenile name-calling at its worst and Godwin's rule is accurate, because people have lost the real significance. That does us all a disservice because we are not able to see legitimate comparisons and patterns of attitude.

I graduated from a DOD high school in Germany where my father was stationed during the Cold War. We had a program that exchanged classes and events with a local German school, and a common interest of the time was how it was possible for someone like Hitler and his Nazi regime to take over a country. For my BA thesis, I returned to Germany to write on that subject.

During the last ten years or so, there has been an outpouring of books and films exploring just that factor of history. The Holocaust overshadows the attitude that Germany at large in trying to re-establish itself as a world power, at attitude which saw the "useless" eaters--the poor, disabled, and disadvantaged--as standing in the way. They were the first victims of a systemized eradication. The instruments and techniques used to exterminate the Jews were first used on them.

They attitude is essentially the same one that has been raised against health reform and the unemployed. There is a wide-held feeling among some people that those who are ill, without work, and unable to afford health care are in that situation by choice, so they deserve whatever dire ends befall them.

Mr. Barth may have spoken harshly and too bluntly for a legitimate observation to be heard for what accuracies about political attitudes it identifies. We do not want to think that fellow countrymen wish us ill, but the words and actions are all out there for anyone who listens and observes.

Anne said...

That second sentence in the third paragraph should read: The Holocaust overshadows the attitude in Germany at large in trying to re-establish itself as a world power, an attitude which saw the "useless" eaters--the poor, disabled, and disadvantaged--as standing in the way.

Barry Smith said...

I agree with Anne. Imagine the Ryan plan coupled with an attempt to repeal the Medical Emergency and Active Labor Act, brought on by the dramatic increase in unpayed hospital bills that it would cause.

LK said...

I think Anne's statement "Mr. Barth may have spoken harshly and too bluntly for a legitimate observation to be heard for what accuracies about political attitudes it identifies" sums everything up.

Being too blunt about a point means it's not heard. SD has only one Rep, so I have to decide whether "Anon" is correct when he/she asserts Barth will learn