3500
« on: September 18, 2006, 02:52:57 PM »
I don't think it is outdated so much as not useful. Clearly Bush isn't similar to Hitler. Bush is not a Fascist. In fact, it is difficult to say what political philosophy Bush follows, if any. Perhaps some kind of patrician opportunist? I'd say that is as close as Bush comes to an actual political philosophy.
He's also clearly not as intelligent or as adept at understanding the general psyche of the people as Hitler was. Yes, the GOP and Karl Rove are spin machines with a lot of money and the ability to use information or statistics to meet their agenda - but Bush, personally has no concept of rallying the masses and using support. We can tell this easily by how quickly his 90% approval rating fell apart.
Lastly, Bush doesn't have the grapes that Hitler had (and ironically Hitler only had one). The world is better off for this and the previous characteristic as well. For example, Bush has had his own party in office and has personally been at the helm now since January 2001. What has he accomplished? Hitler had already turned around a horrible economy suffering from hyperinflation. Indeed, he would have gone down in western history as a great leader had he died in 1938 or 1939 pre-Polish invasion. The German military went from barely existent to feared throughout Europe. The army and air force had invented all new methods of warfare, never before seen in battle. German industry was envied. German national pride was extremely high.
And what has Bush accomplished, with his own party in control of Congress?
Indeed. The comparison is not useful. Hitler was one of history's true villains. Bush is just one of history's worst presidents. Villainy and incompetence aren't directly comparable.