Senator Byrd Mentions Hitler, GOP and ADL Pitch Fit

All too often, people get caught in in emotions when discussing politics and make comparisons between their opponents and the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler. The problem in doing so is the emotion that the pure evil that descended on Germany in 1933 is so strong that reason can't break through. A prime example occurred earlier this week when Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) made passing reference to Hitler'political behavior in a debate about changing filibuster rules in the Senate. The firestorm of righteous indignation from the Republican Party and the Anti-Defamation League got in the way of a simple fact; using totalitarian tactics doesn't make one a totalitarian - but it isn't much of a recommendation either.

Senator Byrd is a difficult avian to pin down. A moderate Democrat of great longevity (first elected to the Senate in 1958), he is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan and responsible for bringing far more federal spending to West Virginia than most outside the state can quite believe. However, he is also the most zealous defender of the legislative branch's privileges and especially the Senate's rights. He carries with him a copy of the constitution at all times and in all places, but that is largely to prove his dedication to the principles of the founders -- he has the thing memorized.

And so when the GOP decided to try tinkering with Senate rules, they managed to ruffled the Senator's feathers (this will be the last pun based on his surname). In trying to lower the number of Senators needed to break a filibuster (a tactic that allows a Senator to talk a bill to death) from 60 to 55 (just the number of GOP seats in the Senate), the GOP is tampering with Senator Byrd's beloved Senatorial traditions, and changing the rules to suit themselves. It is one thing to change laws, it is quite another to change them because one cannot get one's way under existing rules. When FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court by having Congress create a few extra seats so he could then get his New Deal legislation blessed by the justices, he went too far. Had Senator Byrd made this comparison, he would have made his point but far less forcefully.

But Senator Byrd chose to say this, "Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law in his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal." Now, the facts are in his favor. That is precisely what Hitler did. He was elected, his party took office constitutionally, and then, he had the Reichstag burned and emergency powers enabled him to do what he wanted under the cloak of legality, fuhrerprinzip it was called.

Are the Republicans engaging in a similar tactic? Yes. Does that make them Nazis? Of course not. At the same time, whenever there is a fair comparison in tactics between those in power and past totalitarian evils, it should call into question the entire enterprise. Would the country truly be better off if the filibuster were to be changed or abolished?

There is a case to be made that the filibuster is obsolete, undemocratic, and plain silly. By all means, let the Senate Republicans make it. At the same time, the motivation is clearly to put a few judges on the bench whom the Senate Democrats dislike sufficiently to prevent the constitutional "advice and consent" needed. Changing the rules so one can win the game is cheating; ask any four-year-old.


© Copyright 2005 by The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.
Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home