This is what really appalls me. The total and complete ignorance of the people making these statements and claims. Germany and Italy were fascist states.
Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology[1][2][3][4] and a corporatist economic ideology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

The operative word here is corporatist.

Yet these people refuse to accept this. These states for this very reason hated socialism and communism. And the communists and socialist were the first to be rounded up and executed. So for the right to accuse the Democrats and Obama of being Nazis is more than absurd. Especially since a corporatist agenda is what those on the right support.

C

Limbaugh doesn't know the difference between a Nazi and a neanderthal although his thought processes and rantings for his wolf pack seem to blend the worst of both.

I think you give Rush too much credit by saying his knowledge of history is this poor. I doubt even he is this ignorant. He is deliberately spreading misinformation in order to confuse the debate and enrage his listeners who, given the opportunity, would gladly trade their current medical situation for a better one. They just aren't prepared to believe a better one is possible. Their continued fear and ignorance is the goal of Rush's history lessons, because the Republicans are clearly on the wrong side on this one and really can't afford a defeat of this magnitude. If healthcare reform passes and people find themselves in a much better situation medically and financially as a result, they're not going to exactly be happy with the people who have been lying to them for the past 40+ years about this issue.

It's not that Rush and Beck are ignorant of history. It's that they don't care. This is so obvious, it's actually looks foolish to even write that in an article.

Their audience doesn't care about facts, so why should they?

Their audience doesn't care about history, so why should they?

Their audience doesn't care about them being consistent from day to day, or even statement to statement, so why should they?

Even thinking for one second that facts, history, et al, play any role whatsoever in the rush/beck entertainment package pretty much proves you don't understand what it is they do.

The problem is that, yes, the radio shock show debate is pathetic, but the debate here is only slightly better.

National socialism had indeed an element of "socialism." That involved economic policies that were in many way similar to the New Deal. (Nazis also ate Broccoli and were big on outdoor sports like mountaineering. Is that an indictment against Broccoli and outdoor sports? Maybe, but thinking harder would be appropriate.)

From the early thirties, elites in all industrial societies adopted a mix of socialism and nationalism that focused on promoting national industry and binding the interests of workers to the 'national interest' by imposing certain limits on markets. The U.S. called it the New Deal and only gave up on it in the 70s. Nazism was part, and indeed an innovator and leader of this general political-economic trend as was Stalin's Russia, despite the huge differences between them.

The language of emoting instead of analyzing wasn't invented by the right. Liberals are good at it, although the Right does add a certain edginess that is hard to match.

The practice of National Socialism didn't have anything to do with actual socialism, but it has lots to do with modern Republicanism. Here's William Shirer, referring to an early Nazi platform from 1920:

"These (socialist) demands had been put in at the insistence of (party founders) Drexler and Feder, who apparently really believed in the 'socialism' of National Socialism. They were the ideas which Hitler was to find embarrassing when the big industrialists and landlords began to pour money into the party coffers, and of course nothing was done about them." (Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, p. 68)

Just as the "socialism" part of Hitler's platform just was so much demagoguery, so too was the "compassionate" part of Bush's conservatism, which makes for yet another comparison which can be drawn between the GOP and the Nazi Party, to go along with everything else from their affinity for lapel pins, preference for big business over the little guy, use of the yellow press to catapult propaganda, political intimidation, armed mobs, racism, extracting free air travel during political campaigns, starting wars of aggression on false pretenses, unusually high numbers of closeted homosexual leaders, and their choice of business partners--namely Prescott Bush.

And while there is doubt about party complicity in either incident, 9/11 and the Reichstag fire were both capitalized upon by the Republicans and the Nazis in much the same way. Seventy years after the fact, most historians lean toward the idea that the Reichstag fire was a Nazi false flag operation. I wonder what they'll be saying about 9/11 in 2071?

Today the Republican Party is inseparable from its right-wing authoritarian followers, which comprise 23% of all adult Americans and can be identified in almost any political poll out there today (recall that in 2007, 77% of Americans felt that the U.S. was ready for a black President--guess who didn't?). But the study of right-wing authoritarianism first began in the aftermath of World War II, when it suddenly became important to understand why the Nazis and Fascists were as successful as they were. Republican RWAs and Nazi RWAs are the same personality profiles: poor reasoning skills, militarism, jingoism, acceptance of conflicting ideological positions, easily influenced by authorities they trust, hostile to social out-groups, hostile to attacks on their worldview, and motivated primarily by fear.

I'd say what it really comes down to is the choice of black or blue to complete the look.

Beck, Limbaugh et al don't care how inaccurate they are about history. They are not engaged in a debate. Their primary goal is to keep their listeners listening, keep the ratings up with their demographic, and sell advertisements. Their secondary goal is to give their listeners a way to believe they are on the side of "right" and that they are the "good guys" standing up to the "bad guys."

All of their efforts are dishonest and in so many ways they are abusing the people that listen and believe them; but they don't care. They and their corporate sponsors are making money and showing that they have power in the political arena. This is what they want and throwing around terms like socialist, nazi, etc helps them achieve these goals.

The response has to be directly to the listeners of these guys--finding a way to bypass Beck et al has to be a goal, as does going directly after the corporate sponsors as the petitions towards the sponsors of beck's program have been doing.

"...the demagoguery of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck is that their understanding of history is so puerile..."

Me thinks you are being too generous with the label of puerile...in fact, I'm willing to bet Rush "bwarg-bwarg-blah-blah" Limbaugh, and Glenn "boo-f'ing-hoo-I-need-a-tissue!" Beck have no idea what that word means.
Label them as to what they are: Idiots and fools, whom only idiots and fools would pay them any mind.

What's scary -- not for me, I'm old, but for my kids, who are young -- is that given the right economic conditions (and no matter what anyone says, we are not out of the woods yet by a long shot) this lizard-brain virus will spread. Germany before Hitler was a well-educated citizenry with plenty of liberal institutions; the Jews were fully integrated into society with lots and lots of interfaith marriages (per Richard Evans' excellent book). It was economic meltdown that gave Hitler, who was at first seen as a joke -- the way we see Beck and RL as jokes -- his grip on the German psyche.

Nazis were socialists? "Peoples' Republics" are of the people, too. I suppose.

Here's a little bit of history for you...literary history, but history nonetheless. Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here (1935)

The features of this night among the Rotarians were nothing funny, at least not obviously funny, for they were the patriotic addresses of Brigadier General Herbert Y. Edgeways, U.S.A. (ret.), who dealt angrily with the topic "Peace through Defense--Millions for Arms but Not One Cent for Tribute," and of Mrs. Adelaide Tarr Gimmitch--she who was no more renowned for her gallant anti-suffrage campaigning way back in 1919 than she was for having, during the Great War, kept the American soldiers entirely out of French cafés by the clever trick of sending them ten thousand sets of dominoes.

Nor could any social-minded patriot sneeze at her recent somewhat unappreciated effort to maintain the purity of the American Home by barring from the motion-picture industry all persons, actors or directors or cameramen, who had: (a) ever been divorced; (b) been born in any foreign country--except Great Britain, since Mrs. Gimmitch thought very highly of Queen Mary, or (c) declined to take an oath to revere the Flag, the Constitution, the Bible, and all other peculiarly American institutions.

Read the whole thing courtesy of Project Gutenberg, Australia. http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0301001h.html

Just as with present-day Republicans, the right-wing Germans of the 1920's were just scamming the people.
The "National" in National Socialist was meant to separate the Nazis from those other, internationalist Socialists and Communists and that the Nazi party was only concerned about Germany and Germans. The subtext was that, if one was a Socialist or Communist, one couldn't be a "true" German" Not unlike the Republicans attempt to make "liberal" and Democrat" into smear words. The "Socialist" in National Socialist Party was put there to con the wokers, who would be needed as cannon-fodder either in the streets battling opponents or actually in the army, into believing that the Nazis cared about them.
There have always been an incredibly large number of citizens of this country who were/are very, very, very stupid and proud of it; the members of the "Know-Nothing" Party in the 1830/40s wore that designation with pride. We, unfortunately, have had the bad luck to live during the second coming of the "Know-Nothing" party. The original party burnt itself out after about a decade. We can only hope the offspring doesn't hang around longer than that.

Hitler named his party the "National Socialist Party" as a marketing ploy. It was a cheap trick that didn't fool many people with the notable exception of today's wingnuts.

Whats the difference "Limbaugh and Beck" are CORRECT in their assestmnents...Let's NOT re-write history now!

1.) HITLER NATIONALIZED THE BANKS

SO DOES THE MODERN DAY BIG BROTHER DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS

2.) HITLER NATIONALIZED INDUSTRY AND MEANS then taxed small merchant shops to subsidize the Germany Oligarthy and Captains of Industry

Democrats redistribute taxes to subsidize "major Global Green Corporations" such as.. General electric, Dupont, Hollywood and the UAW ,,,,that amongst other Corporate bodys all @t small business/mid class expense it's called "trickle up economics"

3.) HITLER NATIONALIZED HEALTHCARE w/ Beuarcratic Governing Bodys

Modern day democrats wish to do the same and Nazionalize healthcare and FORCE those who can afford their own or recieve benefits as part of salary/compensation through employer..Onto Nazionalized plan to give their Corporate employer a break on costs to pay their workers for healthcare and force the bill onto yep you guessed it .."the tax payer"

....the simularities are errie...