I'm sure by now most of us of have heard the comparisons between our President George W. Bush and the timeless figure of evil and fascism, Adolph Hitler. While arguments outlining the realities of Bush's Hitler-like, fascist control hover around the pages of alternative Web sites around the world, counterpoints deeming such comparisons as absurd wrap the folds of mainstream American publications.
In the June 1 edition of The New York Times Magazine, James Traub wrote a column suggesting that the comparisons between Bush and Hitler were "grotesque." Traub said the comparison threatened to trivialize the worst event in modern history. He asked valid questions in the column... Do we even remember what Hitler really did? Do we remember how he suspended constitutional rights and banned all opposing political parties in the name of terrorism? Then he asked if Bush could truly be compared to a man guilty of such radical measures.
As we are aware, our president has not executed this level of direct action. However, my question is - while Hitler's actions were riddled with gross displays of human indifference - was it those sickening actions that made Hitler so fear provoking? Or does Hitler have a stomach-wrenching reputation because of his ability to control and guide an entire country into following his appalling beliefs?
Yes, it may be a stretch to compare the epic human turmoil created by Hitler to the antagonistic manners of George W. Bush. However, comparing the two leaders' levels of control and influence is not.
Bush has managed to create a level of nationalism not seen since WWII. He has been successful at rallying a country of people into supporting a questionable series of wars with no end in sight. He was triumphant at passing both legislation providing him the capability to wage war without the authority of Congress and legislation that limits our constitutional rights (the Patriot Act). And all this with the blessing of much of American population.
But how did he do it?
In 1933, to maintain control and to guide his agenda, Hitler utilized iron fist policies, such as the suspension of opposing political parties. Likewise, to ensure his influence, he created an overwhelming image of dominance - Nazism. We live in a time where the relics of such direct authoritarian rules linger with outrage in the psyches of societies around the world. Although Bush doesn't have to use the messy methods of Hitler to maintain his influence, the premise of creating an image of power remains as important to maintain control as it did in 1933.
What's more, President Bush has an instrument of constructing control far more effective then the Nazi propaganda machine. Penetrating almost every home in America is the resource of mass media, and what better tool than media to manipulate both an image and, above all, public perception to that image.
On May 16, The New York Times reported that the White House employs an army of hotshot producers and cameramen who come directly from network television and master the art of image creation for the president. With a limitless budget, the White House's star staff has masterminded such events as the president's Top Gun-like landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier. The image producing team controls and choreographs every facet of a scene from the clothing of the bystanders to the lighting.
Like the masters of image that have crafted boy wonders like the Backstreet Boys, they are in the heat of crafting a supreme, all-powerful, dominant, yet trustful president, who has engrossed America with the same authority that a certain leader engrossed Germany in 1933.
Although their motivations, and actions may differ, Hitler and Bush's power strategies and control over a population remain the same. It seems Bush has a noose around America's neck and we're willfully following him wherever he tugs.
The question is: where will we be "voluntarily" pulled next?
Matthew Garcia is a senior journalism major. Reach the reporter at matthew.garcia3@asu.edu.