I have clear memories of history classes in middle school when the discussion of WWII Germany came up (for me, in the mid '70s). The question invariably came up, "how could the German people allow such monsters to gain power?" I even recall an ABC After School Special on the topic. Now, I understand how in a very personal way.
In the 1920's, Hilter declared that the Jews were the source of Germany's problems. By the 1930s, Hitler and the Nazis had softened the rhetoric against the Jews, and many Germans had convinced themselves that Hitler and the Nazis had wised up. The democratic mechanisms were getting pretty clunky, as the government seemed ineffective in solving Germany's woes. Hitler presented himself and the Nazis as the solution to this. Note that the "Final Solution" was not part of the Nazi platform; that developed after Germany went to war (Nazis in power 1933, Germany at war, 1939).
Appropriately in America, no candidate could ever reach the national stage if he were a racist. Even the hint of such caused Trent Lott to lose his position as Senate Majority Leader. On the national stage, racism is one of those "single issues" that would automatically disqualify a candidate from consideration. The Clinton campaign recognized that fact when they suggested that the burnings of black churches would resume if Republicans came to power. MoveOn.org recognizes the fact when they deliberately compare Bush to Hitler.
Is racism worse than abortion? I'd say no, especially when you consider the tepid "separate but equal" sort of racism practiced in America. What I mean by tepid is: even though racism was practiced, the very phrase recognized that blacks were "equal" and that racism was wrong. This is not so in the current language. It refuses to recognize certain human beings as persons; the concept of equality is not even considered. The language is of "choice." Freedom for adults, disaster for the unborn. This is the language of not so tepid racism.
In the issues between Kerry and Bush, there are only shades of difference. Kerry is pro-war, but not as much as Bush. Bush is proposing nationalized health care, but Kerry says he'll do more faster. Bush signs Democratic Senator Kennedy's education bill, but presumably that's not enough. The biggest Kerry issue is that he is not Bush. Frankly, the best claim is that Bush is so incompetent that we should give the weak junior senator from Massachusetts a chance to prove himself (really, as a senator, Kerry hasn't lead much; he has just been sitting there and avoiding controversy).
But on abortion and embryonic stem cell research, Kerry shines brightly in his opposition to life at its earliest stages. By no means is Bush perfect, but Bush's position is better than the current legal reality, while Kerry's position is worse than the current legal reality.
Is racism worse than abortion? What chance would Bush have if he went to a KKK rally and promised an end to Affirmative Action? What chance does Kerry have after promising to protect a woman's "right to choose" abortion at a NARAL dinner?
Some issues give clear indication of a person's moral make up, their ethical character. Catholic John Kerry stands against the teachings of the Catholic Church on the sanctity of life. No one needs to show me that Bush isn't perfect. What they have utterly failed to prove by the widest of margins is that Kerry is better than Bush.
Posted by Bob at October 28, 2004 09:35 PMGreetings!
I don't know any liberal who claims that Bush is like Hitler due to some sort of racism (though we tend to disagree with Bush's stance on affirmative action).
The comparison to Hitler is because he literally kills people indiscriminately (denying DNA evidence to be examined that might exonerate someone from the death penalty), takes away civil rights (detaining prisoners at Gitmo without due process, believing the Prez has the right to authorize torture), wages wars of aggression (Iraq), and generally acts like a terrorist trying to become a dictator.
These things are not worse than abortion. They are the same as abortion.
What is worse than Kerry, however, is that he personally orders these deaths and other intrinsic evils, where Kerry merely permits them.
Take a look at the Church teaching on the war in Iraq and the follow up article I wrote called Why I Voted for Kerry as a Pro-Life Catholic.
The actions of the Bush Administration are gravely evil and this Administration is probably the most immoral Adminstration America has ever had.
Peace!
Posted by: jcecil3 at November 12, 2004 05:58 PMHi jcecil3,
The point is that in American no politician could declare himself to be a racist and expect to stay in office/get elected. However, politician can declare himself to be pro-abortion (as John Kerry has), and get elected and stay in office.
Even though John Kerry did not win the presidency (in small part due to people like me), it is still shameful that he got 48% of the vote. Could an overt racist get 48% of the vote?
This tells me that abortion does not rank very high as an issue for many voters (especially liberals, including pro-life liberals). It certainly doesn't rank higher than racism.
Peace be with you,
Bob