If you’re not among the small number of subscribers to Omaha’s Midlands Business Journal, you probably missed the latest column by publisher Bob Hoig. And boy, it’s a doozy.
Back when I was a reporter at MBJ, sources would occasionally make disparaging comments to me about the paper’s extreme-right politics. One business owner joked about how he needed to start subscribing to the paper to get his weekly dose of conservative fanaticism; another business owner flat-out refused the free publicity of having a story done because of the politics of the paper.
Hoig’s latest column probably won’t change any minds; or if it does, it probably won’t be in the way he expects, for he has gone and woken Leo Strauss, making his case for how Obama resembles — you guessed it — Adolph Hitler.
Hoig explains how he came upon this theory when re-reading Paul Johnson’s “Intellectuals,” saying the Obama campaign is using “Nazi techniques.”
The message I took away was that Republicans, Independents and Democrats need to think hard about this intellectually impressive man, Barack Obama, and not vote for him simply because he is charismatic, a spellbinding orator, a messiah figure inveighing against the past while ill-defining the future, black, or a messenger of hope and vague ideas about change.
Any of the above can be charming individually or, at worst, harmless.
Taken, however, as “all of the above,” similar traits unleashed the most magnetic, flawed and dangerous individuals upon the 20th Century that the world has ever known.
Apparently, people voted for Hitler because he was black. (??!?)
The basic premise that voters learn about the positions held by the candidates they support is not invalid. But that’s clearly a minor part of this column. The real goal is to show we are living in the Nazi rebirth.
Hoig outlines the similarities between Hitler and Obama — Obama is going to accept the nomination in front of 80,000 people (Hitler held large rallies); Obama is capable of giving long speeches (Hitler would go on for hours, and Hoig got the impression that Obama was “just warming up” when he ended a recent 40-minute speech); Obama acknowledges there are problems based on race and class differences (Hitler blamed all his problems on the Jews — same thing); newspapers and television networks cover Obama speeches and write about him (Joseph Goebbels ran the Nazi propaganda machine); Obama has changed his positions on some things, like Reverend Wright and FISA (Hitler acted like he was friends with Russia, and then invaded it).
Hoig points out that mass looting and vandalizing and Nazi gang attacks followed Hitler’s rallies. “We haven’t heard of any mass parades down 16th Street, but that might be coming,” he writes.
Without a hint of irony, Hoig warns that Hitler seized “every organ of state power, from military to security to prosecutorial services. And then there was no going back.” And he warns us that all this happened because “the charismatic little man who spoke so well; the man who wasn’t even born in Germany (Hitler was born in Austria) outfoxed and triumphed over them all.” He seems intent on reminding the reader that Hitler wasn’t born in Germany. Hitler wasn’t like the Germans. He was an outsider.
I wonder what his point is there.
There’s a reason that comparisons to Nazis / Hitler / etc. are so routinely mocked (though those who make such comparisons are probably comforted that it’s usually just the intellectual elite who mock them):
There were so many facets to what Hitler and the Nazis did and represented that simply making some kind of “Nazis did A, therefore A is inherently bad” does not prove a single thing. Hoig, or any other writer, could compare virtually anyone to Hitler or the Nazis if he wanted to, and that’s the key — the comparisons are an obvious stretch, and the desperate reaches say more about the writer and those who would cheer such connections than they do about Obama.
Beyond the logical problems, it’s completely despicable. I can’t imagine that even the fiercest Obama opponents think he’s actually planning anything even remotely as horrible as what Hitler and the Nazis did. So to pretend that he’s at that level is not only a shameful low blow, it’s disrespectful to the millions who actually suffered at the Nazis’ hands.
Comparing someone to Hitler is an act of desperation. It’s an act of intellectual bankruptcy. It’s an act of fear.
And we all know who preyed on people’s fears to rise to power… bwahahahahahahaha.
No, man, Hoig is right on. Hitler’s ear-splitting screams about racial purity are exactly the same as Barack Obama’s velvety smooth calls for calm political discourse and hope. God save us all!
Now I gotta go out and get my Nazi card renewed – didn’t realize Barack was going to run on the Nazi ticket. I suppose it could make some of his family reunions a little ackward with the whole racial cleansing thing?? Certainly he’ll use his nearly hypnotic oratory skills to talk his way through it. And I can’t wait for the rally on 16th Street!!
Perhaps someone should refresh Mr Hoig’s memory of our current commander and chief. He certainly lacks the “spellbinding” oratorial skills required to be considered an “intellectual of the 20th century”, but his centralizing of power and errosion of civil / human rights should qualify him as a good candidate for the Nazi party.
I completely agree that comparing Barack Obama to Hitler is offensive and absurd, and the idea that Obama is a closet Nazi is beyond laughable.
However, the letter should not be dismissed in its entirety. The assertion that people should “…not vote for him simply because he is charismatic, a spellbinding orator, a messiah figure inveighing against the past while ill-defining the future, black, or a messenger of hope and vague ideas about change,” is 100% accurate. Voting for any person solely on any one of those characteristics, or even those characteristics as an aggregate, is irresponsible. That is the only part of the story I agree with, the rest, in my opinion, is hogwash.
Charisma doesn’t make our country safer. Oratory skills don’t solve this country’s energy crisis. Condemnation of the past does not improve our future. Using race as a qualifying factor is discrimination. Hope is a wonderful thing, but promising more than one can honestly deliver is dishonest. Change sounds great, but change always has consequences, and the entirety of the consequences needs to be weighed against the change itself to determine whether or not change is a good thing.
Now, I’m not saying that Obama is all style over no substance…and I’m not saying that Obama is incapable of leading this country. I do, however, believe it is a voter’s responsibility to consider the truly important aspects of the candidate’s character and politics, ignore the garnish, and vote accordingly…whichever candidate that may lead them to.
Neil — excellent analysis. If we are not supposed to rely on the empty rhetoric of hope, should we instead fall back on our reliance on the empty rhetoric of fear?
Hitler was a secret Muslim too!
Putting politics aside for a moment, Nebraska readership must realize that just because a publisher expresses his/her opinion about a situation, that does not mean it reflects the views of the entire editorial staff.
Boycott if you will, but you must realize that the MBJ and LBJ papers are known for positive, geniuine business features that help companies in our community grow and be recognized. Most staff members do not even read the editorial section until AFTER it is printed and on the desks of the subscribers.
If you don’t enjoy Hoig’s comments on politics, then rip those pages out of the issue and throw them away before your staff reads them. Focus on the positive! It’s the only way change will ever occur in our country. If you think it’s divided now, then just wait until McCain or Obama hits the Oval Office. We’re in a for a vomit-inducing, mind-spinning ride during the next decade if we get so upset over one person’s negative views that should really be ignored because, like protests and hate-filled e-mails, they aren’t helping our situation.
You’re right — a publisher’s signed editorial does not reflect the entire staff. That’s why Bob Hoig is mentioned by name, and no other MBJ staffers are implicated in this or any of the other media attention that has come as a result of these ridiculous columns. Other than when Bob ran cartoon ideas by me, I never had any idea what was going in the opinion pages that week. But considering I pay my bills by commenting on that which I think is bad / harmful / wrong / etc., I hope you’ll accept that I respectfully disagree that ignoring fear-mongering isn’t the best way to confront it. I don’t think the fact that no one takes Bob Hoig seriously makes his columns any less repulsive or any less worthy of opposing. Nothing will change if you choose to turn a blind eye to the ugliest things around you.