The New Republic

We should never forget how Charlie Chaplain and countless others made fun of Adolph Hitler before the war. Someone as silly as the goose-stepping Fuhrer presumably couldn't be a serious danger to the world. Blogger Daniel Drezner, who often has sensible things to say, made an utter fool of himself a few days ago. He wrote a piece concerning the "underwhelming" Ahmadinejad. Sadly, a lot of so-called underwhelming people have done enormous damage throughout the ages.

- thomsondavid

September 25, 2006 at 11:37am

I don't know, I'm not sure anyone knows, the degree of menace posed by Chavez and Ahmadinejad. And it's hard to say whether Kerry would have been even more bumbling than Bush/Rice have been in their handling of the persian: note that Bush/Rice have pursued the very same idiotic strategy of EU-centric "multilateralism" that Kerry presumably favored, one that has entailed over two years of utterly pointless "kick me please" errands by the EU-3 to Tehran. Years have been lost from these farcical errands that have only emboldened the persians and given them even more freedom to maneuver, more options, more power. The problem with our politics generally is that neither party's elite is willing to confront some very nasty dilemmas we now face: first, that containment of oil-rich, aggressive nations does not work in an era of spiraling oil demand; and second, that neither the UNSC nor the Atlantic alliance brings us much in the way of practical benefit in our relations with the rising powers of Asia (Eurasia, in Russia's case). We are desperate for a new class of foreign-policy strategists who are focused on Asia, who get the logic and economics of oil and capital flows, who are not hobbled by the euro-centrism held over from the last century.

- teplukhin

September 25, 2006 at 1:32pm

"I'm not sure anyone knows, the degree of menace posed by Chavez and Ahmadinejad." Forgive me, but I must do a bit of nit-picking. I feel compelled to slightly rephrase the above sentence to read: I'm not sure anyone knows, the degree of menace currently posed by Chavez and Ahmadinejad---and in the future. The previously mentioned Hitler was something of a joke for a number of years. Then one day, everybody stopped laughing.

- thomsondavid

September 25, 2006 at 4:06pm

The one time I remember Charlie Chaplin making fun of Hitler was in the film THE GREAT DICTATOR, which certainly exploited the comical aspects of Hitler's nerd-made-good grandiosity, but at no time underestimated just how much damage a man like that could do. I think Chaplin's approach to Hitler was rather like Mel Brooks'; that mockery was the best revenge.

- norval13

September 25, 2006 at 4:54pm

Don't expect me to answer this question about Ahmadinejad. I find him oily and repulsive. I would never vote for him, whatever his policy. (It was difficult to vote for Lyndon Johnson, actually.) But I do know that his system of thought is only the starting point. Is he a Hitler by temperament, by force of personality, by Machiavellian talents? Is he potentially a Prince, or, like Saddam or Franco, a petty despot who will weaken as he ages? Is he a Lenin, a Stalin? I don't mean members of what we call the intelligence community. There ought to be people who can tell us that. Greenberg's assessment of A's appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations was based on the substance of what he said, not on his ability to implement. I agree that we need a new cadre of foreign policy experts who are not Euro-centric. And though I love MP's intellectual approach, we also need people who can judge character.

- Nancy Kirk

September 25, 2006 at 5:11pm

My own $0.02 is that he blathers because 1) he's a poorly-educated, ill-mannered party hack, another Khrushchev; and 2) like Khrushchev he judges that the "correlation of forces" favors his side. In other words, he's a thug with a strong hand who wants to enjoy it while he can. Not at all the same thing as an ideologue or Great Dictator bent on implementing a grand vision of lebensraum or Greater co-Prosperity Sphere. My guess is that he's making it all up as he goes along, and (correctly) sees jokers like Jack Straw and other westerners as so hopelessly inept that he can push a little farther, jerk our chains a little harder, than he might otherwise have believed.

- teplukhin

September 25, 2006 at 5:24pm

Another reason not to suspect he's another Hitler: the man's clearly enjoying himself. Having the time of his life, in fact. Always grinning as attested by those crinkly smily lines around his eyes. He makes me think of the Danny DeVito character in One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest. As dictators go, he's a pretty joyful one. Again, he's not any less repulsive and noxious for this, and he's clearly belligerent, but the point is that he's unlikely to provoke us directly. Hitler was not a coward, would never run from a fight. I just can't see a happy little clown like Ahmadinejad poring over a maps or drawing up battle plans.

- teplukhin

September 25, 2006 at 5:40pm

That's pretty reassuring. Here's to your judgment. I can't see past his repulsive aspect. I don't even notice Chavez. It's risible to me that people say he wants to be the next Castro. Okay.

- Nancy Kirk

September 25, 2006 at 5:40pm

Hey, what do I know? All I can say is that the man seems to be quit from vastly different cloth than Khomeini was; he's as different from a Khomeini as Khrushchev was from Stalin, or Gaddafi from Saddam. Which is to say he'll probably continue to use proxies rather than challenge us or Israel directly. So the Hitler analogies aren't very useful. As to Chavez, I can't bear to look at him, either. He's too ugly and stupid, too lacking in self-respect and poise, to be another Castro. As much as I hate the latter, he's got style. "A man, all in all", and we shall not see his like again. Chavez is a teller of fart jokes-- not unlike a certain resident of Pennsylvania Avenue.

- teplukhin

September 25, 2006 at 6:22pm

>>>...he blathers because 1) he's a poorly-educated, ill-mannered party hack, another Khrushchev; and 2) like Khrushchev he judges that the "correlation of forces" favors his side.<<

- sabaka

September 25, 2006 at 9:22pm

Conflate all muslim extremist groups together if you will Marty, but the Ahmedinejad-Chavez axis of populism/terrorism? What are you talking about? There's plenty of epithets you can apply to Chavez -- all deserved -- but is he in any way a terrorist? And I don't really see Ahmedinejad as much of a populist either, but that's not quite as far-fetched. What is far-fetched is the idea of them being allied together. Chavez doesn't like Israel, he has oil in his country, he's not a democratic leader, but thats about as much as he has in common with Ahmedinejad. Maybe this your equal opportunity attempt to label everyone terrorists/extremists/jihadists/islamofascists not just Muslims or Arabs.

- newbian23

September 26, 2006 at 7:59am

I'm really not seeing the parallels here with Hitler, other than he is a national representative, and can be caricatured. At least in your argument. There may indeed be substantive parallels, but they aren't presented.

- MasonMcD

September 26, 2006 at 10:25am

It might be helpful to draw analogies, not with 20th Century despots, but personas of legend. Consider Sulayman and Saladdin, not the individuals themselves, but the symbolic power these names hold in Muslim imagination. Now consider that Ahmadinejad (and Khamenei) seek to promote and exploit a kind of fusion of Sunni and Shia rage against Europe and America to extend Iran's influence across Arabia and beyond. Finally, consider that Hitler and Stalin (and Mao, etc.) became as much collective personas of their times and places, as individuals whose personal characters fit the mold. This is how individuals may acquire iconic power in the minds and imaginations of potential followers, and at the same time elude the minds and imaginations of those who are at risk of falling asleep in thrall of such imaginary power, wielded by a mere smear little man who couldn't harm a fly, but would willingly and gladly wield such power...for an arbitrary peace and involuntary order. We in the West are way over-Hellenized in our rationality. We discount and ridicule what we regard as fanciful, childish monisms. To our peril.

- Tgossard

September 26, 2006 at 10:27am

I'm not a Jungian, and I've grown especially weary of discussions of "archetypes for our times" even while I remain intrigued by Jung's psychology. But one does not have to be a Jungian or a mystic to understand symbols. I have been giving a lot of thought lately to the symbolic power of Emperor (or Caliph), and its generative power in thought and imagination of East and West. One thing both traditional Islam and Christianity are most troubled by is secularism. Judaism, it seems to me, is most troubled, not surprisingly, by the idea and ideal of spiritual/religious hierarchy. What we in the West fail to take into account is that secularism has its own implied hierarchy, or hierarchies, that seeks to balance or harmonize contradictory forces. Secularism, it seems to me, is its own spiritual milieu, one that simultaneously seeks to diminish the power of traditional religious (and other irrational) formalisms. It might be helpful to think about what ways secularism projects its own shadow in the major social and political struggles and conflicts we find ourselves in.

- Tgossard

September 26, 2006 at 10:53am

I once met the dictator of Belarus, from which my grandparents fled, at an open CFR meeting. His aspect of ruthlessness scared me. But he seemingly has no ambition to go further than Belarus. I was once in a room with delegates to the UN from Bosnia and Serbia. I was glad neither was armed. That's what I'm looking for from the CFR members who attended Ahmadinejad's performance. I accept that he may not strike all of us as repulsive, but does he have the ambition, the ruthlessness, the brutality to go beyond his immediate sphere. Is he a Nasser to bring us closer to the area and more up to date. Or even a Mossadegh? Don't tell me he's intelligent and articulate. Just about all public leaders can speak in front of a crowd. Did he electrify anyone in that room? Then his distortions are worth combating. I agree that the concept of the King is powerful in myth. Remember that the King is also a sacrificial object, if the harvest doesn't come in. Somehow, I don't see A submitting to that. I see him somewhere, plotting, in exile. Does he have the eyes of a Lenin?

- Nancy Kirk

September 26, 2006 at 4:51pm