05.10.2020 Views

When This Blows Over

The Founding Fathers share an unsafe space with a large crowd of passionate and hysterical keyboard warriors. * "Skate Around" & "Zoom" > click page, look down ** "Full Screen" & "Page Overview" > click page, look up

The Founding Fathers share an unsafe space with a large crowd of passionate and hysterical keyboard warriors.

* "Skate Around" & "Zoom" > click page, look down
** "Full Screen" & "Page Overview" > click page, look up

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Danielle Allen Special to The Washington Post

Like any number of us raised in the late 20th century,

I have spent my life perplexed about exactly how Hitler

could have come to power in Germany. Watching Donald Trump's rise,

I now understand. Leave aside whether a direct comparison of Trump to

Hitler is accurate. That is not my point. My point rather is about how a

demagogic opportunist can exploit a divided country.

To understand the rise of Hitler and the spread of Nazism, I have

generally relied on the German-Jewish émigré philosopher Hannah

Arendt and her arguments about the banality of evil. Somehow people

can understand themselves as "just doing their job," yet act as cogs in

the wheel of a murderous machine. Arendt also offered a second answer

in a small but powerful book called "Men in Dark Times." In this book,

she described all those who thought that Hitler's rise was a terrible thing

but chose "internal exile," or staying invisible and out of the way as their

strategy for coping with the situation. They knew evil was evil, but they

too facilitated it, by departing from the battlefield out of a sense of

hopelessness.

One can see both of these phenomena unfolding now. The first shows

itself, for instance, when journalists cover every crude and cruel thing

that comes out of Trump's mouth and thereby help acculturate all of us

to what we are hearing. Are they not just doing their jobs, they will ask,

in covering the Republican front-runner? Have we not already been

acculturated by 30 years of popular culture to offensive and inciting

comments? Yes, both of these things are true. But that doesn't mean

journalists ought to be Trump's megaphone. Perhaps we should just shut

the lights out on offensiveness; turn off the mic when someone tries to

shout down others; re-establish standards for what counts as a

worthwhile contribution to the public debate. That will seem counter to

journalistic norms, yes, but why not let Trump pay for his own ads when

he wants to broadcast foul and incendiary ideas? He'll still have plenty

of access to freedom of expression. It is time to draw a bright line.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!