Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
In my many years as a journalistic blowhard, I have often become annoyed with some politician, or activist, or fellow windbag whose latest pronouncement seemed to me to betray a latent totalitarian spirit. And I've often momentarily been tempted to liken such amateur despots to Adolf Hitler.
But I've generally resisted that temptation (I hope I always have, but it's been a long career). Upon further reflection the comparison has always seemed unfair — and not least to Hitler.
Adolf Hitler was a complicated and incalculably consequential person. He was a man of conviction, hardworking and tough-minded, a patriot and a riveting public speaker. He believed in a cause larger than himself and got things done. He was shy around women, loved dogs and alpine landscapes, hated tobacco. He was all gangbusters for infrastructure spending. He often ignored the advice of subordinates and the complaints of critics. He was methodical, relentless, audacious in pursuit of his goals, which he stated plainly and followed through on. People underestimated him for a long time.
In short, Hitler's story is multifaceted enough that almost anyone or any series of actions could in theory inspire a comparison to some secondary characteristic of the Nazis' rise and fall, without the comparison having anything to do with the fact that above all Hitler and his movement were utterly and unspeakably evil.
But in fact no one ever makes that kind of innocent comparison.
No one has ever watched a fellow nuzzling a German shepherd and exclaimed: "Why, you remind me of Adolf Hitler the way you dote on that animal."
