And I agree with his message and wish we had more Congressmen like Grayson. While I definitely don't want to see President Obama using this sort of rhetoric, this is the exact sort of thing the House of Reps was made for. And best of all, rather than fall for the phony outrage by those who thought they had a monopoly on strong rhetoric, he keeps dishing out more.
But he made one mistake: He evoked Hitler. Why? After all the stupid Hitler moustaches on Obama and Nazi comparisons, why would anyone think it's ok to bring up the Holocaust in this debate?
And for posterity's sake, here's the line:
I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't acted sooner to end this Holocaust in America.It's a nice line, but I really don't see how we can continue to attack conservatives who use this sort of rhetoric if we defend it on our own side.
Rationalizing Nazi Attacks
And it's obvious that liberals know better. I mean, they criticize the hell out of Republicans when they do it. Yet when I said at Carpetbaggers that Grayson shouldn't have used the word "holocaust," it was suggested that my comment might be "contributing to a holocaust of our own making," while another commenter suggested that because I didn't like Grayson's use of this one word, my family might die for lack of healthcare. Yeah, I think this rhetoric might be getting a touch out of hand.
And sure, the word meant something before the Holocaust happened. And many of these folks are trying to hang their hat on that argument. One person actually wrote "Sadly, "holocaust" is reserved for the jews, in the popular mind..." Yes, how unfortunate that those damn Jews stole a perfectly fine word for their own purposes. But, as Wikipedia kindly points out, the term often referred to the slaughter of Jews before the Nazis did it to them. And originally, it was a burnt sacrifice.
But who are they kidding? Grayson meant it in the Nazi sense. This isn't an unfortunate confusion, like the dumb schlubs who used the word "niggardly" around the wrong people. Grayson was purposefully evoking the intentional extermination of up to seventeen million people and comparing it with the Republican's corrupt negligence towards those unfortunate enough to not have insurance. And while that's a horrible thing, it ain't Hitler horrible.
Oh, and a late entry to this game insists that Grayson's usage was only meant to mock pro-lifers who use similar language, and he wasn't making a Nazi reference at all. In this view, Grayson was using the holocaust as a "dog whistle" which he was blowing in Republican ears, and we're supposed to all know that he wasn't really making a Nazi comparison because of one phrase he said a few sentences earlier, as well as the fact that everyone knows they use that phrase alot. And no, I don't really see how evoking the Holocaust as a form of mockery is any better than the original idea.
Extremists Think Alike
And check out these comparisons:
So Grayson should not have used the word "holocaust." Instead, he should have referred to "The Republican's Final Solution to the Health Care Crisis."Conservative speaker:
“Adolf Hitler issued six million end of life orders–he called his program the final solution. I kind of wonder what we’re going to call ours.”And note, the liberal actually referred to it as "The Final Solution," while the conservative merely ponders the idea. I wonder how many of these libs jumped up to defend this guy, as opposed to the number who denounced him for his vicious rhetoric. Because, to be clear, evoking the Holocaust against your opponent is not only a cheap smear of your opponent; it's also a cheap smear of the Holocaust. That's why it's considered off-limits.
The Upside to Grayson's Holocaust
The holocaust was real with a real meaning. Roping it into the health care debate cheapens what it was all about.