An astute observer once said that when you bring up the Nazis or Hitler in an argument, you've lost the argument. If you have to go so over the top as to compare somebody to Der Fuhrer, or if you have to compare their political positions to Nazi programs, you've exhausted all other avenues. Might as well be still and sit down if that's the only rhetorical bullet you have left.
Stipulation: Unless you're talking about modern Nazis. Then you can go there.
But if you're having a debate with a modern, sane, even if frothing political opponent who might disagree with a policy position, it is always best not to bring up Herr Hitler or the Nazis, or Goebbels, or the brownshirts, or imply that your opponent is anything like the fascists who nearly brought down civilization in the 1930s and 1940s. Should you do it anyway, you should fail Debate 101.
Also, perhaps Section 2, sub-paragraph VII to the Hitler Rule: Don't compare modern policies in free Western democratic societies to policies of the Third Reich. If your arguments are that weak, you should study on them more.
One of the Kennedys, of the Massachusetts Kennedys, discovered that again this past weekend. Even family members with the same famous name called him on it.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.--he who started life with a head start, given that name--has been a leader of the anti-vax movement in the United States. He has been involved in that kind of mischief since even before anyone coined the term "covid-19." As CNN reports: "Now Kennedy is one of the leaders of a movement that is encouraging Americans to risk their own health and even that of others, since those who are vaccinated can help reduce the risk of severe disease and help to limit the scope of the pandemic, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Kennedy, by virtue of his family name and the anti-vaxxer organization he leads--the innocuously named Children's Health Defense Fund--as well as his high profile on social media, is now one of the largest sources of vaccine disinformation in the United States."
No matter that most of the scientists in the world say that covid-19 vaccines are safe and serious adverse reactions are exceedingly rare. No matter that a person might be 50 times more likely to die from covid if not vaccinated. A lawyer with a famous name (and kind of a famous face) knows better, and will tell you so. As he did Sunday.
He claimed that the current American administration's policies on vaccines were worse than the Nazis' persecution of Jews, saying, in front of the Lincoln Memorial no less: "Even in Hitler's Germany, you could, you could cross the Alps into Switzerland. You could hide in an attic, like Anne Frank did. I visited, in 1962, East Germany with my father and met people who had climbed the wall and escaped, so it was possible. Many died, true, but it was possible."
His history is every bit as good as his medical training. Anne Frank hid in an attic in the Netherlands, not Germany. But his point was made: Suggesting, perhaps even mandating vaccines for some people or professionals, is akin to what the Nazis did.
It quickly comes to mind that the Nazis were in the business of killing people, by the millions, and those in these modern times who came up with vaccines and policies to encourage them are in the business of saving people, by the millions.
Perhaps somebody explained that to RFKJR. Because early in the week he had to apologize. Much like the rioters of Jan. 6, he was awfully loud and courageous when people were cheering him on, but once before a judge--either an actual one, or facing down the court of public opinion--these kinds of people usually wilt. And shuffle their feet meekly.
An apology is an apology, and should be accepted if given sincerely. But it's hard to consider an apology a sincere act of contrition if it comes with ifs, ans, and buts. Here is what Kennedy tweeted Tuesday:
"I apologize for my reference to Anne Frank, especially to families that suffered the Holocaust horrors. My intention was to use examples of past barbarism to show the perils from new technologies of control. To the extent my remarks caused hurt, I am truly and deeply sorry."
To the extent my remarks caused hurt. That's another way to avoid taking the blame directly. It's along the lines of "If anybody was offended," or "If my words were misunderstood," etc. The art of the simple and direct apology seems to have been lost to us, like civility in general. Maybe it should be taught in schools, since apparently it is no longer taught in the home.
An apology isn't an explanation. Or shouldn't be.
But if Mr. Kennedy would now like to apologize for all the harm he's caused by his misinformation campaign about vaccines, too, we might call it even.