What is the garbage you hear that sounds like Hitler coming out of Mitt Romneys mouth? I find it ironic that most of my party finds him to be moderate and most dems think he is a radical. He's far from a nazi.
I started to write a rational, researched response to your challenge, showing direct parallels and comparisons; but in that research, I've come to realize that there's an immense danger of getting hung up on labels and party-isms rather than focusing on acts. Broadly speaking, Hitler rose to power by turning the disenfranchised working class against the existing republic. As Nazism grew in popularity, Hitler used false news reports, ram-rodded legislation that gave his government sweeping powers, and revisionist history to solidify his place. That led to (forcible) disarming of civilians, property and asset seizures of people deemed "threats," book burning, then genocide, eugenics and war. The big question then, is who does that sound more like: modern-day US Republicans or Democrats? Even if we're able to keep ourselves in a debate from getting distracted by terms like "republic" and "socialist," it's too easy to cherry-pick from the timeline to support whatever position it is that you already have. My view is that US Republicans are far more guilty than Democrats of: - trampling on civil rights (the Patriot Act was a reactionary act authored by Republican congressmen and signed into law by a Republican president -- it reeks of Hitler's "Emergency Anti-Terrorist Act") - consolidating governmental power despite being elected on a platform of fighting 'big government' and 'the existing corrupt, effete government' Republican congressmen refusing to work with Obama and Democratic congressmen, then blaming Obama for 'not getting anything done' More of the same - false flag attacks and projection (vastly overstating concerns of voter fraud in order to pass draconian voter registration laws which target groups more likely to favor non-Republican candidates More voter registration fraud Training poll watchers to mislead voters More of the same Elimination of early voting days
) The religious issue is a dicey one. I think it's clear that our Republicans are vastly more interested in pursuing religious agendas, or at a minimum to letting their decisions be guided by their alleged religious principles: Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" statement Richard Mourdock's rape pregnancy as a "gift from God" statement The mega-storm Sandy a result of human sin rather than anthropogenic climate change Texas replacing Thomas Jefferson with Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin in textbooks in order to question the foundation of this country's secular government... ... as well as replacing the word "democratic" with "constitutional republic" and other such Newspeak However I've found conflicting accounts of just what role religion played in Nazi Germany. Apparently the Nazi party as an entity denounced Christianity in favor of pagan symbolism, though Hitler himself was a fervent Christian and worked to restrain anti-Christian elements. What matters to me is that the Nazi regime enforced any religion at all and that they used religion to justify and bolster their stances. I feel strongly that government should neither draw from nor endorse any religion. I realize religious people tend to be offended when their faith is lumped together with all others as generic "religion" so I tend to avoid this topic. But it does matter to me. I'll finish by saying that all politicians lie. Calling it "lying" is really just a harsh way of saying "pandering." And all politicians pander to some extent. I'm also careful to distinguish between pandering (lying) and honest mistakes, because no one can reasonably be expected to perfectly remember everything. Plus, people sometimes genuinely change their minds about topics as they gain knowledge, responsibility and experience. It's harder to do that when you bear some authority, because it inherently makes you look like you are unsteady, can be influenced, and can't be trusted. But it's important (among thinking people, anyway) to be mature enough to keep taking in new information and to admit when you've been in error. As an example I can cite Obama's change in his stance on gay marriage. Is he pandering to a newly emerging majority? Is he legitimately, maturely changing his view after having had some years to consider the issue and gain experience? Maybe he's merely trying as a politician to follow the will of the people? No one can know his inner motivations, and it's all highly debatable. As another example I could call upon Romney's recent decision to cancel a swing state (Ohio) political rally in the face of a huge storm, then to replace it with a relief drive, only to have that event look very much like the political rally they planned from the beginning. Any rational person has to admit it looks bad. But one could argue from the POV of the event planners, that once you had a place set, staffers hired, food bought, music decided and so forth, why not go ahead and use all that? It's debatable. Better not to waste time on moot topics. What I'm concerned with is not changing of mind, nor mistakes in recall, nor basic pandering or questionable judgement. I'm talking about blatant misdirection, obvious and extreme cases of pandering, and getting facts (not views, FACTS) incorrect when they really are in your supposed area of expertise.
I meant to include a few sentences explaining just what I meant by the danger of getting hung up on labels. I couldn't quite figure where to include it in my missive, then I forgot about it. It's simplistic and incomplete to look at WWII from a current perspective and say something like, "Hitler disarmed the citizens and grew his governmental power -- just like Democrats want to do! And Hitler was a socialist! Fuck Democrats and their socialist Nazi agenda!" It's a ridiculous and sad misconception that Democrats are socialists. Equally so that Republicans favor small government, that Obama is a Muslim, and so forth. Those are all simplistic, inaccurate misconceptions -- lies spread by organizations whose best interests lie in getting you to consume their materials. Maybe those organizations are just selling the drama, or maybe they want you to feel and vote a certain way, or maybe part of their business plan includes significant income from benefactors who themselves have agendas that are unknown. Regardless, you can't trust them. The best any of us regular people can do is take in information from a variety of sources and assemble the truth from that. Blind men and the elephant, you know.
Nazi stuff is always hyperbole. It was when they did it to W, and it certainly was when they did it to Obama in those ridiculous anti-health reform ads that featured him with a Chaplin mustache. I think the reason right wingers think Mitt is moderate, and left wingers think he's conservative is because its not difficult to find a sound bite of him saying moderate things and extreme things about the exact same issues. If not for his Mormonism, I would think he is a Nihilist, as he seems to hold no conviction too close to his chest.