Ah, what more to say about Hitler that hasn’t already been said?
There is that old maxim, that once you’ve invoked Hitler in an argument, you’ve already lost. Then there are those who just keep on digging.
Exhibit A: Ken Livingstone. I still don’t know what point he was trying to make, but given that Naz Shah had correctly apologised for anti-semitic actions, his gallant* riding to her defence was perplexing** and then annoying as he made it all about him. 20 times he repeated his bizarre Hitler analogy over the weekend and while I’ve since read some commentary from an Israeli scholar explaining his point, the fact that it didn’t lend itself to being easily understood by the wider public and was invoked unnecessarily and he persisted in flogging his horse before crucial local elections showed that this was about Ken and ego and not much else.
Exhibit B: Boris Johnson, over-egging the Brexit pudding. He appears to think that the EU is like Hitler. But not. But totally like Hitler. (?!) Of course, when questioned about these views, which by the way are a direct contradiction of what he’s said about the EU in the past, and are also patently not true, he doubled down. *sigh* (curiously, the big threat from the Brexit camp is the neverendum – that we’ll have another referendum if this one is lost narrowly. Conceding defeat…?)
And finally, on the topic of digging in – it turns out that Labour party members have been undeterred by months of ad-hominem and hysterical attacks on Corbyn (so much so that legitimate critiques are lost) and being told repeatedly that they’re deluded and/or stupid. They still support Corbyn. Two-thirds of members would vote him in again as leader. It’s almost funny to watch the dismayed headlines, the headscratching at the various opinion tables.
I personally think Corbyn could do better – too many easy wins are lost. However, the party as a whole needs to make up its mind, does it want to spend the next few years infighting and then losing the next election, or being an Opposition and fighting like hell to win?
*patronising patriarchal move, much? The woman was handling her own business.
**Listen, if someone does something racist, I reserve the right to look at them askance, even if they’re not a fully paid up cross burning KKK member. Same with anti-semitism. Naz Shah apologised; but if some people looked at her askance, it’s not without reason. It’s up to her to continue to prove that those comments are no longer her views. But her friends riding in to announce how she’s not an anti-semite? That’s as dismissive as people doing the same to other racists. If you’re the group affected, you may understand this intellectually, but it still feels dismissive, like you’re being told how to feel about this. In summary: If you’re not a duck, don’t quack. If you’re a dog and you quack from time to time, it’s entirely reasonable for the cats in the area to be a bit wary (and confused).