Hitler, Obama Both Fond of Slogans

"Forward!"<a href="http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/archives/barchpic/search/_1335899215/?search[form][SIGNATUR]=Bild+146-1990-048-29A">German Federal Archive</a>

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

Hitler does not have a patent on adverbs.

It all started right after Team Obama debuted their new campaign’s slogan: “Forward“—the long-awaited sequel to 2008’s “Hope and Change.” And in those seven letters, members of the conservative commentariat detected a whiff of totalitarianism.

On Tuesday, ThinkProgress editor Alex Seitz-Wald threw together a primer on the bizarre, petty, and not entirely unexpected freak-out. For example, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard criticized the president for having signed off on a word so closely linked to Chairman Mao’s mass-murder-tastic Great Leap Forward. (“[P]erhaps President Obama might rethink this slightly creepy slogan,” Kristol pondered earnestly.) Breitbart.com‘s Joel Pollak (this guy) wrote about how the seven-letter slogan is further proof that Obama’s political heritage belongs to a long line of Communist tyrants. Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit took Forwardgate as his cue to yet again draw the Obama-Hitler connection.

There you have it: The 44th President of the United States and his campaign staff like to use words. Communists and fascists throughout history were also known to have used words.

It’s the same kind of bulletproof logic you’d get from Dave Chappelle’s “Conspiracy Brother” in Undercover Brother.

Here are some other conclusions that follow the same line of reasoning that begot the Forward backlash. You can apply the formula to anyone, really.

Obama:

The White House/FlickrThe White House/FlickrYou know who else liked dogs, don’t you?

German Federal ArchiveGerman Federal ArchiveSupermodels:

You know who else really loved horsies?

Biggie:

WikimediaWikimediaYou know who else knew where Brooklyn at?

I think we’re done here.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest