I have been told many times that as soon as you compare your opponent to the Nazis you have lost the debate. I agree. Resorting to comparisons to Nazi Germany usually indicates a lack of salient argumentation. I do not think that makes analysis of the Nazi’s – or fascism as a political ideology – useless. It is valuable to examine how Hitler came into power, what methods he used and what circumstances and fears he exploited. There is also value in examining current political trends to determine if there are current movements that seek power using similar tactics.
I had a discussion with a friend recently about progress. He rejected the idea that the march of human history is always going up. I have to say I am a bit of a romantic is this regard. I do think the human race is getting better and better with minor setbacks. But, my friend has a point. In many ways the same battles of ideas get fought over and over again through history. The names of individuals and respective target groups change but the same ideas are repeatedly challenged then reaffirmed.
I had to reread Plato and Aristotle for a class in the past few weeks and something that stood out to me this time around was the age-old question of how human beings deal with the issue of inequality. The more staid among us couch analysis of these things in terms of pluralism and competition but I do not think that is comprehensive enough. In societies there are those that have certain resources including but not limited to power and money. Plato thought everyone fit roughly into three categories based on innate abilities at birth. Integrity was defined by one’s performance at their level. Aristotle thought some people were meant to be dominated by the better. He excused slavery because he though naturally some were designed to be slaves.
Fast forward through the centuries and we have become quite sophisticated in how we wrangle with inequality. We reject the notion that anyone should be a slave. We parse words over equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome. But we still have acceptable targets in society. We still have groups for whom it is currently (temporarily?) okay to treat differently. In order to maintain the power of those in power, myths about those not in power have to be perpetuated. The victim/oppressor paradigm has to be flipped so that those kept out will appear to be the aggressors and those on top will seem the subjects of assault.
A large part of Hitler’s power was propaganda. He created the narrative of a lost, ideal and unified Germany. And he exploited stereotypes that had been around in Europe since the Middle Ages. Everyone is familiar with the propagandist imagery against the Jews. They were depicted with big noses, paunchy bellies, and surrounded by coins and stars of David. The formula was nothing new. Those in power had to depict the oppressed as aggressors and threats. A target is chosen to justify the rule of a tyrant. 
The same tactics were used to combat the progress of African Americans. Cartoon depictions of dark skinned characters with distorted proportions and giant red lips appeared in Looney Toons cartoons and newspapers.
One character in particular named Anglefood McSpade appeared commonly in Sunday funnies and children’s cartoons. There was no overt political message but the subtext was enough. Exaggerated features and jungle signifiers sent messages about those people seeking equal rights. Do they look equal?
Lately I’ve seen a spike in the use of political cartoons on religious right websites. They are apocalyptic – literally – in their panic about McCain getting the Republican nomination. James Dobson, who finally endorsed Mike Huckabee in blatant disregard for the tax-exempt status laws, has begun making daily radio addresses about America hanging on the precipice. In congruence with their hysteria they have begun deploying the lowest form of political persuasion, the propagandist political cartoon.
Take for example this lovely comic from the American Family Association. Notice the shoes on the men. Notice the eyes. Notice how they are surrounded by symbols not unlike the stars of David and coins used in anti-Semitic cartoons.
I know that one can find any offensive material imaginable on the Internet. The existence of cartoons like these is meaningless outside a particular political context. Anglefood McSpade is no longer persuasive. These groups posting anti-gay cartoons have enormous political influence. James Dobson is the leader of the social conservative moment. The American Family Association who runs One News Now and American Family Radio has enormous influence in the Bush Administration and played a direct role in the nomination of Justice Alito. The tactics they use are worthy of examination in light of the power they wield.
The parallels between the current gay rights battle and previous battles over inequality are not limited to political cartoons. But the images tell stories both in the time of their release and the overall narrative of human history when examined together.
That is not to say that all equality battles are the same. No one ever said a gay man was 3/5 of a person. And though Hitler targeted Jews and homosexuals, denying gays marriage equality does not compare to systematic extermination. Still, at question is the issue of target groups and inequality. We will fight it out for a while and in the end I am confident that sexual orientation will not remain a viable justification for unequal treatment under the law. There will be new targets in the future. Atheists might be the next subgroup to have a mini-civil rights movement. The target de jour is almost beside the point when looking at the tools used to perpetuate inequality.
You may be tempted to draw the distinction between the debate over gay rights and past discourses on equality because gay rights have something to do with sex. I would point out that neither gay people nor freedom of conscience are limited to sex acts, nor is sex anything new to the debate. Notice the women in the anti-Semitic cartoon. Beloved entities such as countries are often depicted as the victims of the brute identity being targeted. Try not to notice the vulgarity of the Anglefood McSpade pictures. Because intercourse involves dominant/submissive, active/passive, or giver/recipient roles, struggles over equality always have a sexual undercurrent.
I do not limit my research to the websites of flame throwing activists groups to access the status of this struggle. Fed up with the Adam-and-Steve level argumentation of the cartoon above, I seek actual intelligent discourse on the issue. What is the intellectual argument against allowing two people of the same sex to have a marriage license? From the best conservative political philosophy I can determine that the case against marriage equality (and related gay-centric issues such as employment protections) boils down to two key arguments.
1. Being gay and/or engaging in gay sexual relations is immoral. Therefore gays deserve to be treated differently by the law in the direction of exclusion from participation in certain institutions in order to preserve the special status those institutions enjoy in society.
This argument is compelling but weak. If you are devoutly Christian then it is immoral to be Jewish because a Jew rejects Jesus Christ as the messiah. If you are a Muslim it is morally wrong to be a Christian. If you are an animal rights activist it is morally wrong to eat beef. If you define immorality as contributing to human suffering then an endless list of actions and groups are immoral. A liberal democracy respects the freedom of conscience of individuals to arrive at different and incompatible moral conclusions and order one’s life accordingly. Some citizens reject the idea that having a same sex relationship is innately morally wrong. They deserve the same right that Christians (or any other group defined by chosen moral parameters) have to order their lives according to their understanding.
2. Allowing gay inclusion into institutions will cause an irrevocable collapse in society. This will result in social disorder and/or the loss of God’s protection over the nation.
This is tantamount to the promise that the sky will fall if you share your toys. Massachusetts has one of the lowest divorce rates in America. It is also the only state to fully recognize gay unions. Furthermore, the states with the largest concentration of social conservatives – the “Bible belt” – all have the highest divorce rates. The overwhelming success of gay marriage state constitution amendments in those states should be viewed by history as the use of gays as scapegoats at the expense of addressing other social ills such as poverty and loss of manufacturing jobs. The Jews did not cause Germany’s troubles. Gays are not weakening marriages.
It is Black History Month so I have a homework assignment. Research what powerful Christian leaders believed to be the moral position on giving Black peoples the right to vote. Explore what they thought the consequences for social order would be and what God’s opinion of America would be. Hint: see above.
This distillation of the arguments against gay equality is similar to the discourse in previous equality battles. One can view history as a continuous march forward or an endless repetition of the same fight, different fighters. Analysis of the gay rights struggle now lends well to both views. More and more identity traits claim rights than ever before in human history. But when you listen to James Dobson rail against the ills of American society and why gays, feminists, and liberals are the cause, you get the sense that we’ve had this conversation before.
Regarding Hitler using the old stereotypes of the middle ages - in Bern, Switzerland I was quite surprised to see a fountain depicting a large ogre eating babies from a sack.
Apparently it was originally painted yellow and represented a Jew. Dates from the mid-16th century IIRC.
Image courtesy GIS
Also thanks for continuing to update ediblemouse with the RFJ articles - I enjoy reading them.
Posted by: Andrew WK | February 26, 2008 at 11:06 PM
"How many people work here?"
"Oh, about half."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://mariarobinsonhj.easyjournal.com
Posted by: creemePycle | May 13, 2008 at 03:15 AM