I think I've devised a good method for determining whether a particular political action is good or bad, without having to worry about things like patriotism, party loyalty, or campaign contributions. I call it the Hitler Test, and it works for pretty much every current event and proposed legislation.
The idea behind it is if you can take any given action and it sounds acceptable if you imagine Hitler doing it or saying it, then it's probably an action that the government should be cleared to do, and that the people should probably be behind. If, however, it sounds ominous and/or downright scary when Hitler does it, then it should be an action to be avoided at all costs.
So, here's the formula:
(continued)1. Determine the action in news headline form. (ex, "Bush and Republicans approve amendment banning gay marriage, Democrats dissent").
2. Convert approving party references to "Nazi." (ex, "Bush and Nazis approve amendment banning gay marriage, Democrats dissent").
3. Convert dissenting party references to "Allied force." (ex, "Bush and Nazis approve amendment banning gay marriage Allied forces dissent").
4. Convert approving figurehead references to "Hitler." (ex, "Hitler and Nazis approve amendment banning gay marriage Allied forces dissent").
5. Replace negative group references to "Jew." (ex, "Hitler and Nazis approve amendment banning Jew marriage Allied forces dissent").
6. Convert personal stance to popular German opinion. (ex, "I think" ==> "German people think").
7. Ensure subject/verb agreement.
Now, you've successfully gotten to the core of the issue, and now you can effectively gauge whether it's a good or bad thing. Clearly, we can see from this scenario that banning gay marriage would be a bad thing, because we all know about the pink triangles that were given to the gays sent to death camps, and, if we apply the 5th rule, we also see that banning "Jew marriage" would have been a bad thing as well. We also remember the “Protection of Marriage, Family, Motherhood” law that Hitler signed into order, which bears a striking resemblance to the “Defense of Marriage” act.
What about good actions, though? Let's take universal health care. Assume Hillary supports it. "Hillary Clinton and fellow democrats support universal health care, Republicans disapprove." After run through the Hitler Test, we get "Hitler and fellow Nazis support universal health care, Allied forces disapprove." That one kind of makes you go, "wait a second, how could that possibly be bad? Wouldn't it have been okay for Hitler to have done that?" Thus, it passes the Hitler Test and is an acceptable political action.
Let's try out some others.
"Bush invades Middle Eastern country, citing terrorist harboring."
==> "Bush invades Middle Eastern country, citing Jew harboring." (bad; see also, WWII).
"Democrats outlaw gun possession nationwide unless owner part of police force."
==> "Nazis outlaw gun possession nationwide unless owner part of police force." (bad; see also, the SS).
"Bill Clinton lies about a blowjob"
==> "Hitler lies about a blowjob." (innocent; laughable, even).
"Dick Cheney advocates torture to gain intel on rebels."
==> "Hitler advocates torture to gain intel on Jews." (bad; see also: prison camps and Mengele's experiments).
"Bush establishes Homeland Security department"
==> "Hitler establishes Homeland Security department" (bad; especially if you translate "homeland" to "fatherland" as well).
"Republicans back Patriot Act extension."
==> "Nazis back Patriot Act extension." (bad).
"Republicans favor tough borders to prevent terrorist entry"
==> "Nazis favor tough borders to prevent Jew entry" (bad; especially if you want to leave the country. Papers, please?).
"Democrats favor increased media censorship."
==> "Nazis favor increased media censorship." (bad; we all know where this led to)
"Democrats combat big business"
==> "Nazis combat big business." (good; this would contradict fascism, which favors an increase in big business to further the the interests of the state; thus, anti-corporate Nazis aren't really possible).
“Bush doesn't trust scientists.”
==> “Hitler doesn't trust scientists.” (bad; google: Law for the Restoration of Civil Service).
"Bush disapproves of sex before marriage."
==> "Hitler disapproves of sex before marriage." (NO WONDER world war 2 happened! Sexual frustration! :P).
Examples of using Step 6 / first person:
"I believe there should be limits on free speech."
==> "We, the German people, believe there should be limits on free speech." (bad; look where it got them).
"I believe we should trust and support our president unconditionally."
==> "We, the German people, believe we should trust our president unconditionally" (bad, look where it got them).
"I believe we should reduce military spending."
==> "We, the German people, believe we should reduce military spending." (good; it would have saved a lot of lives).
"I think that our government should be more open and transparent."
==> "The German people think that their government should be more open and transparent. (good; especially considering a lot of them didn't know about the death camps).
"I believe our country is the best country in the world."
==> "We, the German people, believe our country is the best country in the world." (bad, see the definition of fascism and WWII).
"I unquestionably support the Democratic party."
==> "We, the German people, unquestionably support the Nazi party." (bad).
"I don't think a dictatorship could ever happen in this country."
==> "We, the German people, don't think a dictatorship could ever happen in this country." (hahahahaha.)
Beware, though, for there are some confusing loopholes when it comes to doublespeak:
“The Democrats are pro-choice, while the Republicans are pro-life.”
==> “The Nazis are pro-choice, while the Allied forces are pro-life.” (paradox-- misleading).
The second clause replaces “anti-abortion” with “pro-life,” which is misleading, because the Republicans support the death penalty, which is decidedly anti-life. “Pro-choice” is also misleading, since again, it encompasses a realm outside of the discussion of abortion. Instead, the phrase should be reworded as follows in order to remove political doublespeak:
“The Democrats support abortion, while the Republicans oppose abortion.”
==>“The Nazis support abortion, while the Allied forces oppose abortion.” (good; see below).
Here, we have to weigh this against history. The Nazis were decidedly anti-abortion as referenced by the arrests of those who had miscarriages that were suspected of being abortions. Abortions were illegal unless in the case where the woman's life is in danger, and in 1943, Nazi Germany, the penalty was raised to death for giving abortions. On the other hand, the Allied forces didn't completely support abortion, either, but certainly not to the extent of levying the death penalty on women. One should then side with the most true statement, which would be that the Nazis placed very harsh, specific limits on abortion, which would imply that it would be good if the reverse was true. Thus, supporting abortion would be anti-Nazi, and thus it is relatively safe for a country to be pro-abortion.
Here's one of my favorites:
“I think it is a good thing to be 'anti-patriotic' at times”
==> “We, the people of Germany, think it is a good thing to be 'anti-patriotic' at times.” (good).
Man, can you imagine how many lives would have been saved if the Germans had simply questioned their government more often? They could have actually called Hitler on his bullshit and prevented the breaches of civil rights and later genocide of the Jews. Instead, they simply trusted those in power and assumed that nothing bad could ever happen to them. C'est la vie.
Anyway, I think the Hitler Test is an overall a good approach to preventing evil things from happening to the country when it comes to political decisions. Primarily, it's intended to keep people from reflexively responding to certain programs/policies through swaying to popular opinion and the opinions of news outlets. As a whole, it's supposed to get people to think more about the decisions they make and the ideals they back.
Maybe then we wouldn't have to deal with today's miscarriages of political process that mirror the antecedents of Germany's rise to power.
By the way, if Mitt Romney or any of the other psychotic Republicans is elected President next year, I'm leaving the country.
==> "By the way, if Hitler or any of the other psychotic Nazis is elected President next year, we, the German people are leaving the country."
Needless to say, the formula works surprisingly well.
