ZGram - 9/6/2003 - "How would YOU choose?"

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny:  Now more than ever!

September 6, 2003

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Is this ever an essay of mixed messages!  Thought-provoking, 
nonetheless!  Lots of intriguing information you don't ever see on 
CNN!

The Hitler Test

by Butler Shaffer
by Butler Shaffer
In previous years, and on the first day of class, I have given my new 
students a ballot, indicating that "it is time to elect the leader of 
a great nation," and offering them two candidates, A and B.

Candidate A is identified as "a well-known critic of government, this 
man has been involved in tax protest movements, and has openly 
advocated secession, armed rebellion against the existing national 
government, and even the overthrow of that government. He is a known 
member of a militia group that was involved in a shoot-out with law 
enforcement authorities. He opposes gun control efforts of the 
present national government, as well as restrictions on open 
immigration into this country. He is a businessman who has earned his 
fortune from such businesses as alcohol, tobacco, retailing, and 
smuggling."

Candidate B is described thusly: "A decorated army war veteran, this 
man is an avowed nonsmoker and dedicated public health advocate. His 
public health interests include the fostering of medical research and 
his dedication to eliminating cancer. He opposes the use of animals 
in conducting such research. He has supported restrictions on the use 
of asbestos, pesticides, and radiation, and favors 
government-determined occupational health and safety standards, as 
well as the promotion of such foods as whole-grain bread and 
soybeans. He is an advocate of government gun-control measures. An 
ardent opponent of tobacco, he has supported increased restrictions 
on both the use of and advertising for tobacco products. Such 
advertising restrictions include: [1] not allowing tobacco use to be 
portrayed as harmless or a sign of masculinity; [2] not allowing such 
advertising to be directed to women; [3] not drawing attention to the 
low nicotine content of tobacco products; and, [4] limitations as to 
where such advertisements may be made. This man is a champion of 
environmental and conservationist programs, and believes in the 
importance of sending troops into foreign countries in order to 
maintain order therein."

The students are asked to vote, anonymously, for either of these two 
candidates. I employ this exercise only every other year, at most, so 
that students will not have been told to expect it. Over the years, 
the voting results have given candidate B about 75% of the vote, 
while candidate A gets the remaining 25%. After completing the 
exercise and tabulating the results, I inform the students that 
candidate A is a composite of the American "founding fathers" (e.g., 
Sam Adams, John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, etc.). 
Candidate B, on the other hand, is Adolf Hitler, whose advocacy for 
the programs named can be found in such works as Robert Proctor's The 
Nazi War on Cancer.

In one of my classes a few years ago, we were discussing the 
Schechter case, in which the United States Supreme Court struck down 
the cornerstone legislation of the "New Deal," the National 
Industrial Recovery Act. I was explaining to the students how this 
legislation had transformed American commerce and industry into a 
system of business created but government-enforced cartels. I also 
pointed out to them how popular fascist/socialist programs were 
throughout much of the world at that time. There was Stalin in the 
Soviet Union, Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, Franco in Spain, 
and Roosevelt in the United States.

I then informed my class how Winston Churchill had, in 1938, praised 
Hitler, as had such luminaries as Ghandi, Gertrude Stein (who 
nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize), and Henry Ford (who was 
pleased to work with the German leader). One of my students could 
take it no more. "How can you say that so many people could support 
such an evil man as Adolf Hitler?," she pleaded. "You tell me," I 
responded, "just two weeks ago 78% of you in this class voted for 
him!" Some twenty seconds of pure silence settled into the classroom 
before we moved on to the next case.

A couple days ago, I decided to introduce a new group of students to 
this exercise. After they voted - again, anonymously - I tabulated 
their votes and discovered that, once again, Hitler had prevailed, 
but by a much narrower margin than in earlier years. In my two 
classes, Hitler won by a 45-41 combined total of votes (nor did he 
require the Supreme Court to validate his victory). His support, in 
other words, had fallen from previous averages of 75% to about 52.3%.

One of my students wrote on his/her ballot "leaving ballot blank, or 
writing in a socialist candidate if one exist." At the following 
class meeting, I read this notation aloud and told the class that a 
"socialist candidate" did exist: candidate B, in the person of Adolf 
Hitler. The word "Nazi" was derived from the formal name of Hitler's 
party: the National Socialist German Workers' Party. That so many of 
Hitler's policies have become the essence of modern "political 
correctness," as well as "mainstream" Republocratic platforms, is a 
sad reflection on just how far the American culture has deteriorated 
in recent decades.

Still, there may be some basis for optimism in this latest response 
from these students, who had never had a class with me before. When 
close to half of these young people were more comfortable siding with 
the kind of men whose thinking was reflected in the Declaration of 
Independence, there may be healthy signs that support for the 
Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft/Ridge form of fascist state is starting to wane.

Additional evidence of a diminishing enthusiasm for leviathan can be 
seen in the resolutions passed by over one hundred city/town councils 
- plus one state legislature - stating their opposition to, or even 
refusal to abide by, the Patriot Act! The lobotomized voices that 
insist upon passive submission to authority  may find themselves 
screeching to a rapidly depleting audience. They, and their statist 
overlords, may be able to count on the continuing complicity of a 
round-heeled Congress, but many thoughtful men and women may be 
peeling the "love it or leave it" bumper-stickers off their minds and 
cars.

Having had a brief taste of the brown-shirted culture of the present 
administration, perhaps enough Americans are rediscovering the 
significance of their own history. As the media lapdogs continue to 
recite their scripts and slobber on cue, it may prove to be the case 
that the "spirit of '76," with its love of liberty and distrust of 
governments, is still sufficiently engrained in the fabric of our 
society.

August 22, 2003


Butler Shaffer [send him e-mail] teaches at the Southwestern 
University School of Law.