Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
John Ray, one of the STACLU contributors, has for the last couple weeks been hot on proving that Barack Obama is a fascist in the tradition of Adolf Hitler. Seriously. And you're gonna love his arguments. Like in this post, where he declares that by calling for America to be more unified, Obama is clearly the "heir to fascism." Seriously:
In fact, with his constant inspirational calls for national unity, Obama is eerily reminiscent of the Fascists. If he spoke German he might well be inclined to adopt as his slogan Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer -- as Hitler did ("One nation, one government, one leader").
Oh, of course. Because only a fascist would call for Americans to focus on our common goals and interests and set aside the petty infighting. It's not like such calls aren't an ever-present part of the political rhetoric of both parties. In fact, I seem to recall George W. Bush talking about his desire to be "a uniter" during the 2000 campaign. Somehow I doubt Ray was comparing him to Hitler as a result.
But wait, not only does Obama's call for unity show that he's a fascist, so does his talk moderation and seeking a "middle way":
And presenting oneself as the man of the "middle way" -- which Obama does -- is also of course classic Fascism.
Of course it is, John. And everyone who ever invoked such a vague thing is obviously the next Mussolini.
Ray then finds an example of someone gushing far too fervently about Obama's ability to inspire and quotes them:
Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair.The other great leaders I've heard guide us toward a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence.
Yes, that's silly and over the top of course, the kind of emotional word salad that is far too common today. And of course, this is more proof that Obama is the "heir to fascism" because - gasp! - someone once gushed about Hitler's ability to inspire too:
Hitler's speeches had a similar effect. As Elie Wiesel noted:"The fact is that Hitler was beloved by his people -- not the military, at least not in the beginning, but by the average Germans who pledged to him an affection, a tenderness and a fidelity that bordered on the irrational. It was idolatry on a national scale. One had to see the crowds who acclaimed him. And the women who were attracted to him. And the young who in his presence went into ecstasy."
Oh my god! Obama calls for unity, Hitler called for unity! Obama is a charismatic speaker, Hitler was a charismatic speaker! Still not convinced? Oh ye of too much logic. He's saved the best for last: Obama calls for change....and so did Hitler!
And as far as Obama's "change" religion is concerned, see the quote at the head of this post and also note the following policy description:A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists" -- again the words of Adolf Hitler, from the "Philosophy and Organization" chapter of Mein Kampf
And Hitler also described his movement as having a 'revolutionary creative will' which had 'no fixed aim, no permanency, only eternal change'
As convincing as Ray's arguments are, he missed so many other obvious similarities. Barack Obama is a bipedal mammal; so was Hitler. Hitler was a painter; Obama has paintings in his house. Hitler demanded that his followers raise their arms out straight in a salute to his rule; Obama has arms. We rest our case.
Comments
("One nation, one government, one leader").
That actually sounds a lot like GW to me.
Posted by: dd | February 18, 2008 10:29 AM
He missed the most important similarity - Hitler wasn't a prime example of Aryan manhood that he so loved, and neither is Obama!
Posted by: IanR | February 18, 2008 10:31 AM
If Hitler could speak Latin, he might have said "E pluribus unum." And we know how that other fascist, Abraham Lincoln, plagiarized all his speeches from Hitler.
Posted by: mark | February 18, 2008 10:55 AM
So, does that make Queen Latifah a fascist too?
I knew there was something disquieting about her ever since "Bringing Down the House."
Posted by: Joe V | February 18, 2008 11:22 AM
Evidently the stupidity disease has really started to run rampant in the States, it has turned into a plague with not much of cure in the offing. These people are below room temp IQ's they are all on the minus side of zero.
Posted by: Ex Partiate | February 18, 2008 12:42 PM
If you can make any sense out of Ray more power to you.
He joined various Nazi groups in Australia (in addition to having joined various Communist groups) for what he says are research purposes. In the article he wrote about this he spends the whole time saying that Nazis are right-wing and what not and that he didn't find it hard to fit in because of his conservatism. This is kind of odds with his praise for J. Goldberg arguing that liberals are fascists.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | February 18, 2008 1:50 PM
Crap like this is nothing more than a sign of massive desperation. In the absence of something to say that actually has, I dunno, CONTENT, the crazies come out and start spewing as much crap as possible hoping something will stick, that enough of the public will seize upon to make an issue of, and that THEY will be the oh-so-smart one credited with thinking of it first.
Posted by: Patrick | February 18, 2008 2:27 PM
He even translated it wrong. "Volk" means "the people" and is not synonymous with the word nation. "Reich" means "kingdom" or "empire" and certainly does not refer to the goverment.
Posted by: Cass | February 18, 2008 3:01 PM
Inpirational speaking is a gift. It can be used for good or evil. Just because someone is charasmatic it does not make him evil. This article is way off. Obama is so general it is hard to pin him down enough to put an ideology on him. That is not necessarily a bad thing.
I respect him for being wise enought to see a shift that has and will continue to come among young people. I respect him for identifying issues that do matter. I am not sure if his solutions will fix these problems. I love the inspiration. Kids I used to teach that did not care do care now. But I would caution them to really take a look at all that he stands for. We know what McCain stands for: A dying generation that refuses to listen!
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 18, 2008 3:12 PM
These are just the talking points from Jonah Goldberg's 'Liberal Facism'. http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/
I was wondering when the rest of the wingnuts would start using them.
Posted by: Dexceus | February 18, 2008 3:25 PM
King of Ireland:
Absolutely. If only the other half of the country could take that kind of nuanced look. I was talking to someone on a flight home once about this, and what I told her was that better or worse, what Bush has done at the very least was bring politics for its own sake back into public discourse in a way that makes people think it actually matters.
I mean, look at the voter turnout in the Democrat and Republican primaries. We haven't seen turnout like this in a veeeeeery long time and especially telling are the demographics that are turning out that we NEVER see, especially for primaries.
I'd say, better or worse, Obama has made whole swaths of the country care about their leadership again, made them believe that it matters to care. That's a pretty hard thing to do given how cynical people can be about politics these days.
Fact is, Obama's policy positions are pretty boring, are only significantly different from Hillary's in one or two places, and are pretty solidly Democrat platforms. His voting record suggests he's more moderate than his platform suggests, but most of all I think he's a realist who recognizes that he can't simply sweep into office and completely change our government in 100 days. Some of his policies are decidedly libertarian in their bent, which you wouldn't expect from someone accused of being "even further left than Hillary."
Honestly though, I'm not terribly interested in policies. So long as they're relatively reasonable, what matters is the personality and worldview of the candidate, for the very simple reason that any policy plan is going to shatter into a million pieces the second a new President enters office. That's the real world. What the person does after that is what matters more to me than what they say they'll do on the campaign trail.
Obama seems to me to be very shrewd, far more so than is apparent from his inspirational campaign. Look at how carefully every DAY of his campaign has been orchestrated: it's been probably the most perfect presidential campaign ever run. He's stayed humbled, grounded, with a shocking attention to detail, to schedules, to presenting an image of momentum through very detailed releases of endorsements, grass-roots organization, and he actually delivers by winning states.
The man went from being a nobody a year ago to being one of the most well-known names in the WORLD and to boot, has given Hillary a real run for her money - is even BEATING her at this point. If that doesn't say something about his executive ability, I don't know what can.
Hillary, on the other hand, appears to be throwing a temper tantrum everytime she doesn't get her way. Couple that with the ridiculous drama going on in her campaign finance and management and you wonder what kind of president she'd be.
Posted by: Patrick | February 18, 2008 4:46 PM
You know a person is suffering from A.O.D.S. (Anti-Obama Derangement Syndrome) when that individual views the Illinois senator's "inspirational calls for national unity" as a negative.
Posted by: daniel rotter | February 19, 2008 12:06 AM
What's she got against House?
I'd vote for him for President anyday.
If I could vote.
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | February 19, 2008 12:55 AM
Evidently the stupidity disease has really started to run rampant in the States, it has turned into a plague with not much of cure in the offing. These people are below room temp IQ's they are all on the minus side of zero.
Well, then, the stupidity must be catching in Australia. As Hume's Ghost indicated above, John Ray is (unfortunately) one of ours. Incidentally, Ken Ham's one of ours, too. (Ray Comfort isn't--don't let the accent fool you.)
Posted by: AV | February 19, 2008 6:02 AM
I'm thinking number of countries invaded might be a stronger metric of Hitler-ness than number of shared rhetorical techniques used in campaign speeches.
Posted by: Jason Failes | February 19, 2008 9:46 AM
"I'm thinking number of countries invaded might be a stronger metric of Hitler-ness than number of shared rhetorical techniques used in campaign speeches."
Good point!
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 19, 2008 12:38 PM
Hah! Spot on!
Posted by: John S | February 19, 2008 7:47 PM
These inane slurs are nothing compared with what will be pulled out of the Repub bag of tricks when it comes to the actual election run-up, regardless of which candidate is running for the Dems. Prepare yourself for the dirtiest election yet.
Posted by: Ian | February 20, 2008 9:11 AM
Ah. But is he a vegetarian? And does he like alsatians?
Posted by: Sili | February 20, 2008 3:25 PM
Hitler wasn't Chinese.... and neither is Obama! Am I getting the hand of this yet?
Posted by: MH | March 5, 2008 7:30 AM
Hey Ed!
You forgot to mention that I have a picture of Pinochet up on my blog!
Posted by: John Ray | March 5, 2008 8:16 AM
Nevermind that many countries constitute one nation with one federal government which has one leader.
Good thing there are no Olympics in the US in the near future, or else that would be one more thing in which Obama somehow parallels Hitler.
What if he grows a fussy little moustache next?
As for this:
"They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair."
Boy, it sure sucks when someone can unite people in the face of despair and shake them out of their apathy. Perhaps it would be best if we all hated each other and were too uncaring to want to change anything?
Posted by: Melanie | March 5, 2008 9:34 PM
Very funny.
Posted by: Timo | March 9, 2008 5:54 PM
"Very Funny." That's your smug argument.
I posted here and was moderated. I'll try once more.
The TEXT of my comment has been posted elsewhere, available to Google (who my Korean Ph.D. in Chemistry and Law degree lover works for).
Just link to it on the Jon Ray blog. I was quite critical of sir Jon, since he lives on a small Island in the middle of nowhere, whereas I live on the island of Manhattan, Upper West Side in fact.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4138458&postID=6531335319828414024
Posted by: NikFromNYC | March 14, 2008 4:03 AM
Ed: Now that it is evident that Obama is seeking complete control over the banking industry, the auto industry, and even the internet, do you want to rethink your position? Obama's power grab is the largest power grab EVER by ANY U.S. president. I thank God that I voted against him and for the other guy; however, I hate that I will have to suffer the ill effects of living in the new United States, which is becoming a totalitarian regime.
Posted by: Effra | April 5, 2009 3:47 PM