Time to repeal Godwin’s Law

Image via Wikipedia

Last weekend, amidst the passage of historic health care legislation and an equally historic blizzard–historic because both represented new Washington precedents–Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, took to the floor to denounce today’s Republican Party in starkly moralistic terms. You can, and you should, read the whole speech here, but for now, consider this excerpt:

Far from appealing to the better angels of our nature, too many colleagues are embarked on a desperate, no-holds-barred mission of propaganda, falsehood, obstruction and fear.

History cautions us of the excesses to which these malignant, vindictive passions can ultimately lead. Tumbrels have rolled through taunting crowds. Broken glass has sparkled in darkened streets. Strange fruit has hung from Southern trees. Even this great institution of government that we share has cowered before a tail-gunner waving secret lists. Those malignant movements rightly earned what Lord Acton called “the undying penalty which history has the power to inflict upon wrong.”

As you might imagine, the audacity of Whitehouse’s analogizing has provoked a good deal of controversy and chest-beating, particularly among those whom it targets. Is it intellecutally honest to compare the behavior of Republican Senators, however deceitful and destructive their behavior may be, with the great crimes of history? Is it morally accurate to claim that the “malignant, vindictive passions” now shaking our body politic descend from the passions that gave rise to everything democracy deplores, from fascism to McCarthyism?

These are bold claims that allege great crimes. The fact that a United States Senator is making them ought to be news, regardless of whether or not you agree. Yet the reaction of the right has been to dismiss the allegations out of hand. You see, by invoking the Nazis, Whitehouse violated something called Godwin’s Law, a cherished rule among some on the Internet which prohibits an interlocutor from referring to the Nazis when making an argument. Wikipedia sums up the law thusly: “”As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” The Law is then used to stymie debate, as the person who made the Nazi analogy is considered to have “lost” the argument. (Right-wing blogger Alex Knepper makes this point here.)

I’ve never really understood Godwin’s Law. Of course, poor logic should be discouraged–and improper analogies certainly qualify as such. But simply drawing a comparison to Nazism ought not to make a speaker and his or her argument illegitimate. In practice, Godwin’s Law has the effect of ruling serious discussions about fascism and morality off-limits. For once you’ve compared your opponent to a Nazi, then Godwin’s Law states that you’ve lost. But what if your opponent really is evincing a kind of fascism, no matter how latent? Must you refrain from drawing the comparison? I would hope not.

We ought to applaud Whitehouse for daring to go where so many fear to tread, and beginning a frank moral discussion about the state of our political parties. Of course, George W. Bush did immense damage to the cause of moral debate; he used terms like “fascism” and “evil” as cudgels to beat his opponents with, nothing more. Whitehouse’s speech is encouraging; liberals have not reacted to the Bush presidency by neglecting the moral contours of our politics. Let’s hope they never do–and that they neglect Godwin instead.