Godwin’s law is invoked daily in blogworld: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”
It’s generally true, and by custom a “thread”, or online discussion, is closed as soon as such a comparison is made. At that point, the one raising the analogy loses the argument and there is usually little more to say. It works like this:
Conservative: “We should throw everyone disloyal to America in jail!”
Liberal: “You mean like Hitler did?”
Anyone: “Godwin’s law!”
Godwin’s law (as it is popularly understood) is based on the unspoken assumption that it can’t happen here. Yes, there can be a Muslim Hitler, or a North Korean one, but not Christian, not American. Not here. So all such comparisons are invalid and represent overheated rhetoric.
The ‘not here’ part is never explicit, because as soon as you state it so baldly, it becomes absurd. Of course it can happen here, as someone else will retort, “What about the Stanford Study?” The reference is to a famous 1971 study at Stanford university that found that even very nice people can be cajoled into doing very nasty things. Which obviously means, you see, that it can happen here. Ipso Flatulato, or something like that.
‘Godwin’s law’. ‘Stanford study’. The use of such rhetorical shorthand reminds me of an old joke: a guy goes to prison, and finds himself seated at the lunch table in the cafeteria. The old-timers are eating silently, and every once in a while one will call out a number, like; “42!” and then everyone breaks out laughing. Mystified, the newcomer asks what’s going on. “Oh, we’ve been here so long that we know everybody’s favorite jokes by heart. So to save time we just gave them numbers!”
Of course, telling a joke by number isn’t funny*, any more than excluding an entire class of comparisons based on distastefulness is logically valid. The structural flaw in Godwin’s law is that sooner or later, anything will happen, including situations that legitimately call for the Hitler comparison.
If someone invokes the spectre of Hitler inappropriately, it shouldn’t be that hard to show them wrong. But no harm would come of pausing to consider as well if the speaker might be right. Hitler the genocidal dictator was preceded by Hitler the popularly elected guardian of German national pride and progress. The two images are snapshots on a continuum that makes up one person. The comparison might be quite valid to the earlier Hitler, calling for vigilance and strong democratic action. If the comparison were valid to the later Hitler, it wouldn’t be physically safe to make it.
Part two of this discussion, on ‘civility in political discourse’, I will post on Wednesday. If you like to read ahead, go here, here, and here.
*(Exception, anyone?)