I kept waiting for somebody else to relieve me of this burden, but I guess I should do the posting. This is something that happened on Fresh Air, I believe during the High Holy Days. I haven't seen any response from the ADL on this subject, nor has any major news media outlet picked it up (I did send it on to an editorial writer at one of the big papers, but I don't expect this to be big on their priority list)
What am I talking about ? Well, I'm talking about Grover Norquist juxtaposing the Holocaust and the Estate tax. He says he's not comparing the two, but I'll let you come to your own conclusions on the matter:
NORQUIST: The argument that some who play to the politics of hate and envy and class division will say is, "Well, that's only 2 percent -- or, as people get richer, 5 percent, in the near future -- of Americans likely to have to pay [the estate tax]." I mean, that's the morality of the Holocaust: "Oh, it's only a small percentage. It's not you; it's somebody else." And [in] this country, people who may not make earning a lot of money the centerpiece of their lives -- they may have other things to focus on -- they just say it's not just. If you've paid taxes on your income, government should leave you alone, not tax you again.
GROSS: Excuse me one second. Did you just compare the estate tax with the Holocaust?
NORQUIST: No, the morality that says it's okay to do something to a group because they're a small percentage of the population is the morality that says that the Holocaust is okay because they didn't target everybody. "It's just a small percentage, what are you worried about? It's not you. It's not you. It's them." And arguing that it's okay to loot some group because it's them, or kill some group because it's them -- and because it's a small number -- has no place in a democratic society that treats people equally. The government's going to do something to or for us; it should treat us all equally. And the argument that Bill Clinton used when he wanted to raise taxes in 1993 is "I'm only going to tax the top 2 percent, so this doesn't affect the rest of you. I'm only going to get some of these guys, not you, others."
The challenge there, when people use that rhetoric -- in addition to the fact that I think it's immoral to separate the society -- but when South Africa divided society by race, that was wrong. When East Germany divided them by income and class, that was wrong. East Germany was not an improvement over South Africa. Dividing people so when you can mug them one at a time is a bad thing to do. Whether you do on racial grounds, religious grounds, whether you work on Saturdays or not grounds, economic grounds.
GROSS: So you see taxes as being, the way they are now, a terrible discrimination against the wealthy, comparable to the kind of discrimination of, say, the Holocaust?
NORQUIST: Well, when you pick, when you use different rhetoric, or different points for different purposes, and I would argue that those who say "Don't let this bother you, I'm only doing it -- the government is only doing it -- to a small part of the population," that is very wrong. And it's immoral. They should treat everybody the same. They shouldn't be shooting anyone. And they shouldn't be taking half of anybody's income or wealth when they die.
This is from an article in the New Democrats Online. Counterpunch also remarks on it, but other than that, it's mainly in blogspace. Here's the reference to Fresh Air as well. Any journalists want to explain to me why this isn't newsworthy ?
Grover Norquist is more than just a wonk -- he's got the ear of the GOP. See here, here, and here. This is the man who authored the Contract With America, and who's said "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."
I'm no journalist, but my guess is that this isn't newsworthy because of the "Grover Who?" factor.
The President of Americans for Tax Reform just isn't a sufficiently public figure to go after. It's not like the ATR members are going to toss him away in disgust (nor will the NRA or the American Conservative Union, the two boards he brags about serving on).
I suspect that if an elected or appointed official had said such things, it would have been much, much bigger news. This is just another nutbag saying offensive things (though, I admit, comparing the Estate Tax to the Holocaust sure does move one high on the "nutbag" scale all by itself).
Have you sent this to the ADL? They are very good about leaving no stone unturned and, nutbag or not, his statements should be condemned more harshly than Terry Gross seemed willing to do . . . .
Norquist is a VIP of the right. Has more influence on government policy than O'Reilly does.
Comment #3 :: link :: October 15, 2003 9:00 AMNo, that isn't what I mean. I'm not arguing that Norquist isn't influential - I'm pointing out that he isn't a public official.
Whether he has influence or not, he doesn't hold some position you can reasonably expect him to lose as the result of press pressure. He is a "behind-the-scenes" guy. When Lott makes a gaff, you can skewer him and try to get him hurt at the polls. But Norquist is largely immune to such treatment, so I suspect he is not an attractive candidate for reporting.
Even more depressing, his despicable comments have been far surpassed by even more amazing and recent anti-semitism noted above.
On that topic, what is going on? Why this crazy and highly public surge of anti-semitism?
I think people ignore him because he's named "Grover" and they assume he must be purple and cute.
Comment #5 :: link :: October 20, 2003 9:00 AM :: homepage
