Conservative TV Host Ponders What 'Good Guy' Hitler Could Have Done With All That Nationalism
No such thing as a good guy with a Hitler anything.
Right-wing loons have been on a real tear lately trying to normalize “Christian Nationalism,” in hopes that it will eventually stop sounding like a deeply horrifying and unconstitutional concept. So far, they have not had much luck, except in terms of making it more comfortable for those who believe in it to come out of the Christian Nationalist closet.
In a recent episode of his show on the Victory Channel (seriously, how do these people have so many damn channels?) highlighted by Right Wing Watch, Pastor Greg Stephens asked people to consider what a “good guy” could do with Hitler’s nationalism.
“Yes, he wanted pride in Germany again, they had been decimated by the previous war,” Stephens said. “I mean, their inflation rate was astronomical, the Weimar Republic.”
“Now, that’s what a bad leader can do, but imagine what a good leader could do with nationalism or even Christian nationalism,” he added. “I mean, If Hitler can do that, a bad guy, imagine what a good guy could do?”
A good guy would also do bad things with nationalism, because nationalism in and of itself leads to people doing bad things whether they are “good people” or “bad people.”
There’s no “good version” of nationalism. Hitler would not have been Hitler without nationalism, which itself creates the conditions necessary for totalitarianism to thrive. Nationalism requires that people not only focus on the positive, but that they ignore or justify the negative (and in Hitler’s case, the horrific) in hopes of preserving their continued good time.
Because no human being is perfect, nationalism “but with a good guy” would still almost definitely lead to that good guy doing some really not good things — because no one is 100 percent good or 100 percent right all of the time and anyone who thinks they are is freaking dangerous (except for me because I am a beautiful saint who is right about everything always). That is why we have checks and balances instead of a general “good person” test.
In our own case, it is the reason people were so enthusiastic about human and civil rights violations during the Bush era. People didn’t just justify lines being crossed, it almost made their nationalism that much stronger. Nationalism is how we ended up with the Iraq War, with the PATRIOT Act, with Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, with tiny flag pins being a major point of contention, with hate crimes against Muslims, and a whole bunch of other things that people now realize were very bad and horrible ideas.
I get why people crave nationalism, and I think this is something we have to contend with if we intend to fight it. It’s hard to really enjoy a war if people feel free to point out that Saddam could not possibly have had any weapons of mass destruction or show you videos of American soldiers torturing people in horrific ways. It’s hard to enjoy certain religious beliefs if people are standing around holding fossils and pointing out that there is no way the earth is 6,000 years old.
The reason that some of those in power want it is because it simply makes it easier for them to get away with doing bad shit. If people are afraid to criticize the government for fear of looking unpatriotic, they’re going to get away with a lot more than they might otherwise.
This is why Trump whips his people up into a frenzy, why he encourages so much line crossing when it comes to basic social norms, why he pushes so many absurd theories and beliefs — because if you want to control people, if you want them to let you get away with anything, that’s exactly how you do it.
PREVIOUSLY:
>> I get why people crave nationalism <<
Do you, Robyn? Do you really? Insufficient nationalism is what gave us tan suits. Do you want us to return to the days of TAN SUITS, Robyn? Do you?
These fucking people, I swear to Christ.
Now they are actually saying the quiet parts out loud.
What the *fuck* did we fight WWII for?