Reductio ad Hitlerum

Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, (Latin for "reduction to" and "argument to" and dog Latin for "Hitler" respectively) is an ad hominem or ad misericordiam argument whereby an opponent's view is compared to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party. It is a fallacy of irrelevance, in which a conclusion is suggested based solely on something's or someone's origin rather than its current meaning. The suggested logic is one of guilt by association.

Its name is a variation on reductio ad absurdum, and was coined by an academic ethicist, Leo Strauss, in 1953. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card,^[1] by analogy to playing the race card. The tactic is often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent.^[1] While an ad Hitlerum is often used to directly compare a statement to a view held by Hitler, it can be used informally to compare any thing to any other thing. The term ad Hitlerum can be used to describe most association fallacies.

Fallacious nature of the argument

Reductio ad Hitlerum is no more than guilt by association, a form of association fallacy.^[1][2] The fallacy claims that a policy leads to—or is the same as—one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich, and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable. For example: "Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarianism is wrong [because the things Hitler did were wrong, or because it could lead to results ideologically or morally aligned with Hitler]." Used broadly enough, ad Hitlerum can encompass more than one questionable cause fallacy type, by both inverting cause and effect and by linking an alleged cause to wholly unrelated consequences. Hitler was fond of dogs and children, but to argue that affection for dogs and children is wrong on this basis is not logically sound.

Various criminals, controversial religious and political figures, regimes, and atrocities other than those caused by Hitler, the Nazis and the Holocaust can be used for the same purposes. For example, a reductio ad Stalinum could assert that atheism is a dangerous philosophy because Stalin was an atheist for most of his life.^[3]

The fallacious nature of reductio ad Hitlerum is easily illustrated by identifying X as something that Adolf Hitler or his supporters did promote but which is not considered unethical, such as painting, enjoying classical music, or owning dogs.

History of the term

The phrase reductio ad Hitlerum is first known to have appeared in University of Chicago professor Leo Strauss's 1953^[4] book, Natural Right and History, Chapter II:

In following this movement towards its end we shall inevitably reach a point beyond which the scene is darkened by the shadow of Hitler. Unfortunately, it does not go without saying that in our examination we must avoid the fallacy that in the last decades has frequently been used as a substitute for the reductio ad absurdum: the reductio ad Hitlerum. A view is not refuted by the fact that it happens to have been shared by Hitler.

The phrase was derived from the legitimate logical argument called reductio ad absurdum. The argumentum variant takes its form from the names of many classic fallacies, such as argumentum ad hominem. The ad Nazium variant may be further derived, humorously, from argumentum ad nauseam.

In 2000 traditionalist Catholic Thomas Fleming described its use against traditional values:

Leo Strauss called it the reductio ad Hitlerum. If Hitler liked neoclassical art, that means that classicism in every form is Nazi; if Hitler wanted to strengthen the German family, that makes the traditional family (and its defenders) Nazi; if Hitler spoke of the "nation" or the "folk," then any invocation of nationality, ethnicity, or even folkishness is Nazi ...^[5]

Real-world use

• Professor Michael André Bernstein alleged Reductio ad Hitlerum in a full-page advertisement placed in The New York Times in 1991, by the Lubavitch community, following the Crown Heights Riot, under the heading "This Year Kristallnacht Took Place on August 19th Right Here in Crown Heights." Henry Schwarzschild, who had witnessed Kristallnacht, wrote to the New York Times that "however ugly were the anti-Semitic slogans and the assaultive behavior of people in the streets [during the Crown Heights riots]... one thing that clearly did not take place was a Kristallnacht."^[6]

• In 2004 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chairman, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, was quoted in Jyllandposten saying of global warming-skeptic Bjørn Lomborg “What is the difference between Lomborg’s view of humanity and Hitler’s?”, and “If you were to accept Lomborg’s way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing.” Lomborg had followed the consensus practice of economists in applying a discount to present costs for future benefits, and comparing the range of out-comes with other world problems alongside climate change.^[7]

• In the 2008 documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein alleged that acceptance of the philosophy of materialism underlying Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory was integral to the platform of Nazism - a point he illustrated by the juxtaposition of images of evolutionary biologists and Nazis.^[8][9][10]

• Use of Reductio ad Hitlerum has been alleged in criticisms of United States Presidents Ronald Reagan,^[11] George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush,^[12] and Barack Obama, and against 2008 Presidential candidate John McCain.^{[13][14][15][16]} For example, a Penn State trustee compared Reagan's rhetoric when addressing a Young Americans for Freedom chapter to Adolf Hitler indoctrinating the Hitler Youth.^[11] Moreover, American radio commentator Rush Limbaugh compared "the Democratic Party of today" and U.S. President Barack Obama to Nazis.^[17] Glenn Beck is often criticized for his frequent use of Reductio ad Hitlerum; including a very controversial statement comparing the victims of the 2011 Norway attacks to members of the Hitler Youth.^{[18][19][20][21][22][23]}

• In a September 2011 Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) article, barrister and former Solicitor-General of Australia, David Bennett QC, addressed international agreement-making by writing that: "A non-binding promise by Australia or the US is worth more than a binding undertaking by Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia."^[24] Its Reductio ad Hitlerum character was alleged in a subsequent Letter to the Editor.^[25] Also in September 2011, Australian Liberal Party Senator Ian Macdonald compared Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy with Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.^[26] Also in September 2011, Australia's fifth richest man, Clive Palmer, compared the Australian Government's immigration policy to the Nazis' actions.^[27]

• In 2011, Stephen Schwarzman, the chairman of the Blackstone Group, compared the American Jobs Act to Hitler's invasion of Poland.^[28]

• In 2011, Hank Williams, Jr. compared the golf game between President Barack Obama and John Boehner to one between Benjamin Netanyahu and Adolf Hitler. That comment lost him his position with the National Football League.

See also

• Godwin's law
• Hannibal ad portas (Hannibal [is] at [the] gate) – previous invocation of historical threat
• List of fallacies
• Feminazi

References

External links

• 11 People Who Have Unfairly Been Compared To Hitler - slideshow by The Huffington Post
• "Is it ever OK to call someone a Nazi?". BBC Online (BBC News). 14 July 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10618638. 
• Toying with Hitler and History - slideshow by Der Spiegel