Ted Kennedy, 1932-2009

posted at 7:32 am on August 26, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Ted Kennedy lost his battle with brain cancer last night and died at the age of 77.  Kennedy, whose life was marked with tragedies and losses as well as self-inflicted scandals but also with legislative victories and power, had been ill for the last year, and had missed most of the 2009 session of Congress as a result:

Edward M. Kennedy, one of the most powerful and influential senators in American history and one of three brothers whose political triumphs and personal tragedies captivated the nation for decades, died late Tuesday at his home in Hyannis Port, Mass., at age 77. He had been battling brain cancer.

His family announced his death in a brief statement released early Wednesday. “We’ve lost the irreplaceable center of our family and joyous light in our lives, but the inspiration of his faith, optimism, and perseverance will live on in our hearts forever,” the statement said. “We thank everyone who gave him care and support over this last year, and everyone who stood with him for so many years in his tireless march for progress toward justice, fairness and opportunity for all.” …

Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, was the last male survivor of a privileged and charismatic family that in the 1960s dominated American politics and attracted worldwide attention. His sister Eunice Kennedy Shriver, founder of the Special Olympics, died two weeks ago, also in Hyannis Port. One sibling, former U.S. ambassador to Ireland Jean Kennedy Smith, is still alive.

As heir through tragedy to his accomplished older brothers — President John F. Kennedy and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy (D-N.Y.), both of whom were assassinated — Edward Kennedy became the patriarch of his clan and a towering figure in the U.S. Senate to a degree neither of his siblings had been.

That last is a little unfair to John and Robert, who were both assassinated before their parents had died.  Had they survived, John and and then Robert would almost certainly have assumed that role.  Both deaths were American tragedies, but they were deeply personal tragedies for all of the Kennedys, and Ted had that role thrust upon him to a large extent through two assassins’ bullets.

As Michelle says, we will have plenty of time to analyze Kennedy’s life and work, but today is a day to give comfort to Kennedy’s family.  They will be in my prayers.

Update: Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, issued this statement:

“It is with great sadness that Elaine and I note the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy, one of the giants of American political life, a longtime Senate colleague, and a friend.

“No one could have known the man without admiring the passion and vigor he poured into a truly momentous life. We send our deepest expressions of sympathy to Vicki, his children, and the entire Kennedy family.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 16 17 18

You need about 44 more accomplishments to break even.

kanda on August 26, 2009 at 3:24 PM

I think your list of accomplishments is silly. If I knew you better, I’m sure I could give you a list bigger that 45 accomplishments about you.

Politicians are small potatoes in God’s eyes.

shick on August 27, 2009 at 5:24 PM

I don’t have time to find my history of WWII but I can find you something to read at the wiki site

kanda on August 26, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Notice how the Wiki source is vague when it speaks of associations with the right but isn’t when it speaks of the left.

shick on August 27, 2009 at 5:32 PM

Any reference or comparison to Hitler is a disgrace upon the memory of those who perished around the world because of him. Making a reference to him however well intentioned is simply inappropriate.

Those of you ranting and raving in these threads condemning Kennedy and the left remind me of the last leader of the Nazi party and I don’t say that lightly. You folks are scaring me now. I am a conservative but I am not like some of you. I understand now.

kanda on August 26, 2009 at 5:29 PM

In light of your first statement, I wonder if you consider your second a disgrace and inappropriate.

shick on August 27, 2009 at 5:39 PM

President Obama will deliver the eulogy at Sen. Ted Kennedy’s funeral Saturday at a Boston church.

I wonder if Erckle will mention his good fortune in the eulogy saturday. Teddy would probably have endorsed Hillary if he hadn’t had the brain tumor.

cavman on August 27, 2009 at 5:43 PM

kanda on August 26, 2009 at 8:59 PM

One word sums the problem with your understanding of history: anachronism.

shick on August 27, 2009 at 5:56 PM

Is the show over yet?

CEA_Agent on August 27, 2009 at 6:23 PM

The Hate in these comments is sickening. You people have no soul.

Erock on August 27, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Spare us. You are glad he’s dead. It gives you the opportunity to troll for a fight over something other than that despicable piece of rat $hit, Ochimpy.

csdeven on August 27, 2009 at 7:01 PM

I think I’m going to be physically ill after reading the HuffPo garbage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-lafsky/the-footnote-speaks-what_b_270298.html

Jeff from WI on August 27, 2009 at 4:49 PM

From the comments……

Just because individuals hold him in high esteem for his many years of public service doesn’t mean they are unaware of his flaws

Flaws. A life time devoted to obfuscation of the facts surrounding the murder of a human being are considered “flaws” by the left. I tell you….to be a liberal means you are psychologically damaged from birth.

csdeven on August 27, 2009 at 7:08 PM

CBS is now claiming he went to every military funeral.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/08/ted-kennedy-cbs-needs-to-do-some-fact-checking.html

CPL 310 on August 27, 2009 at 7:20 PM

Hi Folks I see some of you missed me. That’s real nice thank you. Have any of you done any research or are you simply feeding off one another?

kanda on August 27, 2009 at 9:27 PM

kanda on August 27, 2009 at 9:27 PM

I linked some research papers (Dollayo on August 27, 2009 at 4:49 AM) written by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)that support my position. I think you should read some of them, even if you don’t agree with him, his points are valid and you might learn something new.

Dollayo on August 27, 2009 at 9:57 PM

Have any of you done any research or are you simply feeding off one another?

kanda on August 27, 2009 at 9:27 PM

Sure as hell ain’t nobody feeding off of your gray matter.

Maquis on August 27, 2009 at 10:41 PM

I linked some research papers (Dollayo on August 27, 2009 at 4:49 AM) written by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)that support my position. I think you should read some of them, even if you don’t agree with him, his points are valid and you might learn something new.

Dollayo on August 27, 2009 at 9:57 PM

I congratulate you for putting in the effort. You hit the nail on the head. We have a right to disagree. You have shown integrity and have at least made an effort to do research. You are the only one here besides me who has. We may disagree on where Fascism lies on the political spectrum as many scholars do but I respect your honest and civil effort to get your point across. We both do agree Fascism is hazardous to the health of humans. That is what is important.

kanda on August 28, 2009 at 7:12 AM

Sure as hell ain’t nobody feeding off of your gray matter.

Maquis on August 27, 2009 at 10:41 PM

You seem to have a penchant for insults but you do not add much substance to the discussion. You are typical of someone with a closed mind. I am not phased or discouraged by that. It is a challenge for me to attempt to persuade you to see my position even if you don’t agree with it. I tend to respect everyones opinion as long as they respect mine. That does not mean we agree it means we treat each other with respect. When I decide there is not hope of respect then I let it go. I have the ability to stand toe to toe with you and simply expose you for what you are. I do it by example and let the reader decide based on their observance of our writing. That is the wonderful thing about freedom of speech. We can speak our mind wwithout fear of some lofty conceited person who can’t stand another who has a different view being right. That have to resort to ridicule. They have to ablility you debate ib a civil manner. I just expose them for what they are and leave. Have a nice day.

kanda on August 28, 2009 at 7:24 AM

Kanda,

Simply claiming you have done research to support your position, when the arguments you make are absolutely comical, is not sufficient.

For instance, as I stated earlier, there are corporations and private property in Socialist countries. Therefore, the existence of corporations is common to right and left.

Claiming that b/c Hitler worked with Corporations (he also worked with unions btw) means Fascism is a right-wing phenonemena is wishful thinking. Instead, what he actually did, CONTROL corporations (i.e., the means of production) proves just teh opposite.

Or, more to the point, look at the Nazi Party platform and the policies it enacted. Most were left of center to far left of center.

Did they also do some things that other types of gov’t have done, such as allow private property? Yes. That hardly is evidence of it being on the right.

People in the U.S.S.R. owned private property. Does that make the U.S.S.R. a right-wing gov’t?

Your analysis is completely flawed. The idea that “corporations” are right wing is flawed. All of the socialist countries of Europe have corporations.

there are Corporations operating in Cuba right now.

The idea that the existence of corporations makes Fascism right-wing is nuts and unsuported by any “argument” you have made.

Instead, you must look at the policies and philosophy of the Nazi’s – something you have utterly failed to do or to point to any that support your argument. Thus, again, despite your claim to “have researched this” your utter lack of any actual evidence or analysis to support your theory means you have no argument. Simply stating “look, they had corporations” is not an argument, nor is it persuasive, nor does it even make sense.

Monkeytoe on August 28, 2009 at 9:07 AM

Put another way –

What would be the extreme end result of the left and the right’s gov’t philosophies?

On the left, it is total gov’t control of everything.

On the right, it would be no gov’t at all.

Fascism wanted gov’t control over everything – not the end of gov’t and more individual liberty. Thus, to claim it is a creature of the right totally ignores the Nazi’s actual policies and philosophy. It is missing the forest for the trees.

Monkeytoe on August 28, 2009 at 9:10 AM

Instead, you must look at the policies and philosophy of the Nazi’s – something you have utterly failed to do or to point to any that support your argument. Thus, again, despite your claim to “have researched this” your utter lack of any actual evidence or analysis to support your theory means you have no argument. Simply stating “look, they had corporations” is not an argument, nor is it persuasive, nor does it even make sense.

Monkeytoe on August 28, 2009 at 9:07 AM

This is where we disagree. I have looked at those action taken by the Nazis once in power. Based on that I have decided that those who place Facism as extreme right wing are correct. You may not agree and I understand that. I have no issue with you hold that position. I don’t agree with you position but I respect it. Because we disagree is not an issue. There are other tings we agree on and some we probably will disagree on. As long as our disagreement does not become personal and descend to the level of name calling and insults I have no issue. You are entitled to you opinion and beliefs as am I. Some people are not as well armed with intellect and interpersonal skills as you are. They just go on ot insult and ridicule or attack people on a personal level for not agreeing with them. That is their problem. I understand that level of immaturity to a point. When it gets out of hand I simply ignore them. They are like spoiled children when the audience stops responding they find something else to distract them. I appreciate your taking the time to provide your information. It has not changed my opinion but it is interesting and informative.

kanda on August 28, 2009 at 9:30 AM

What actions by the Nazis, once in power, do you consider right wing (aside from “working with corporations”)?

I don’t believe I have seen you mention them, but I can’t claim to have read all of the comments.

Monkeytoe on August 28, 2009 at 9:33 AM

Fascism wanted gov’t control over everything – not the end of gov’t and more individual liberty. Thus, to claim it is a creature of the right totally ignores the Nazi’s actual policies and philosophy. It is missing the forest for the trees.

Monkeytoe on August 28, 2009 at 9:10 AM

Please do not distort what I have written. I never said anything about Fascism being a creature of anything. What I said is that Nazi Fascism under Hitler is Extreme right wing on the political spectrum. That is my opinion.

When you compare Italian Fascism to Nazi fascism as it was
implemented under Mussolini and Hitler there are several important differences between their implementation in practice. Think 1933-1945 for Germany. I believe both of those implementations were right wing. Truthfully I never gave more that a cursory look at Spain when it was Fascist because I did it from a perspective a WWII and Spain was not a major player in my opinion. Hitler obviously was an admirer od Spains Fascism as he did copy some of the ideas when it came to getting support of the people or controling them depending on your perspective. In so far as it goes he implemented policies that fit with right wing philosophy to a large degree. This is especially true on the economic front at least early on while building the German war machine. If you look at his actions rather than what he said in his peaches you would possible alter your perspective a little but it is not so important that I would feel offended if you did not agree one iota.

The issue isn’t did he control segments of the German Society. We know he did in major and horrible ways. He also did other things that are clearly on the opposite side of the political spectrum. The point I attempted to get across is that I may view Hitler at 30 percent left 70 percentr right wing in how he implemented his policy. That causes me to state Nazi fascism was extreme right wing. I beleive that is was predominently extreme right wing. Thats is my whole point.You may believe exactly the opposite for the same reasons. Most of those close minded folks who replied with condemnation toward me never took the time to read my posts they just fired from the hip with their scatterguns. I tend to ignore the propaganda of either side when I research things. I tend to rely on historians for historical events. I have found that most (not All but most) people who write a thesis tend to write it to conicide with their professors. More often than not that is going to be written to support the liberal view for a better grade. I think that those are not reliable sources of information I tend to not rely on those heavily although I do read them. That is why I typically ask people to do their own research. When someone does their own reasearch and has an opinion that differs from mine I am okay with that. It is not a threat to me. I accept it for what it is.

Too many people especially in the blogospgere get so caught up in being right at all costs ( in terms of being correct not politically.) That happens on both side of the argument sometimes. Think about it. I have no dog in this hunt. I only have my opinion and it is different than there. Beyond that I don’t care nor do I form an opinion about them other than they disagree with me. Sometimes people argue it’s left no its right when in reality they both agree it was wrong. Seeking common ground is something I look for. Usually there is some. When it is found then work can be done to move forward to achieve perspective andunderstanding.

In this forum some simply hate Ted Kennedy. No matter what the facts are and because of their total hatred of their political adversay (who the see as an enemy) they disregard everything good he did in life. That is so phoney and filled with partisan politics it is sickening. Some of the hatred in this forum is so transparently so. Sure he did not get Mary Jo Kopecni out of his car. Who are we to judge why. Only god can judge him on that. He had to live his life with the stigma of a young womans death for the rest of his life. That could not have been an easy burden to bear no matter how callus one is. Yes he did get off easy because of his connections on that. I blame the corrupt system for that more than I blame him. Yes he got drunk and did foolish things including a waitress sandwich. That makes the case for banning alhohol and drugs. He divorced his wife that is terrible for a Catholic but he must answer to god for that. I don’t hate him for those things. I feel he made mistakes and others paid a dear price for his mistakes. He did do a lot of good for people. No I ecpect to be accused of defending him when in reality is I only atated the obvious undeniable facts as I know them regarding Ted Kennedy. I may not agree politicaly with how he did things or even what he did but many people recognize him in a positive light for it. When people make any sort of kind or neutral commemnt in this forum some others condemn them for it. That is what Hiler and his cohorts did to people before he gained power in Germany. In essence he shut them up when they did not agree with him. This is what happens at some of the liberal blogs and also is happening here at Hot Air. I for one will fight to eliminate it here. I look for like minded people to join me. If we don’t tolerate the abuse I think neither will Hot air. From there we can have productive dialog during this critial political time in our history. We need to unite this republican party not divide it. We do that by being civil, having our say, and letting the facts guide our decisions and actions. It is a terrible thing to be shouted down because of having a point of view that differed from a few vocal malcontents. I won’t take that anymore. when they troll me in other forums I just copy what they wrote and send it to Hot Air with a complaint. They will be gone eventually.

kanda on August 28, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Kanda,

In that long post all you did was reiterate that you believe that german fascism was right wing. YOu did not cite a single policy to support this assertion – which is what I asked you to do. Either you can’t – which means you know you are wrong or you won’t, which means that you don’t know what you are talking about.

I hate to be rude, but I am asking a simple question – support your thesis by citing examples of policies that Hitler/Nazis introduced that you consider right wing. Dont’ just tell me that you think Hitler/Nazis were right wing – you’ve said that ad nauseum. That is not an argument, it is a statement of belief. I’m asking you to support your belief with something you consider evidence to support it. You have not done so despite writing a quite lengthy comment.

Monkeytoe on August 28, 2009 at 11:39 AM

In this forum some simply hate Ted Kennedy. No matter what the facts are and because of their total hatred of their political adversay (who the see as an enemy) they disregard everything good he did in life.

Two points.

1 – please tell me what he did that was “good”. He certainly was not a good person in his personal life. He was born rich and privileged, cheated at harvard, cheated on his wives, abused and harassed women, was an alcoholic, and killed a woman. And, I’m not sure I would agree that he did anything “good” in his Senate career. Indeed, he was quite vile and nasty at times as a senator. And simply being a Senator is not something that is laudible in and of itself. Being a Senator is a position of power and privilege, it is not a sacrifice.

2 – a lot of what you read here that is anti-kennedy is based on the horrific white-washing diefying that is going on in the press. Were the press a little less enthusiastic in pretending this guy was a saint’s saint, maybe the anger here would not be so strong.

Monkeytoe on August 28, 2009 at 11:44 AM

What actions by the Nazis, once in power, do you consider right wing (aside from “working with corporations”)?

I don’t believe I have seen you mention them, but I can’t claim to have read all of the comments.

Monkeytoe on August 28, 2009 at 9:33 AM

If you put in perspective the worldview of the times you have to consider how Hitler came to power. If was after WWI and the situation in Germany was very bad. Hitler Joined the German Workers party in 1919 when it consisted of about 25-30 members. He Became outspoken and eventually rose within the GWP. Hitler was able to gain contol of the GWP in 1920 and morphed it into NSGWP. The term National Socialism was used to distingush Hitlers brand of fascism from Mussolini’s italian fascism. There was a political struggel struggle through out Europe against the onslaught of communism. Hitler was able to gain contol of the GWP and morphed it into NSGWP. The term National Socialism was used to distingush Hitlers brand of fascism from Mussolini’s italian fascism. Hitler was anti communist and anti socialist. The communists were truly on the left as you know. Hitlerv was their exact opposite politically. If I had to choose an equivelant word to express National Socialism it would simply be nationalism. Thats what he was. He was a German Nationalist at a time Germany was dealing with the reality of the Treaty of Versailles which ended WWI. Once in control of the GWP Hitler renamed it NSGWP and a year later came up with his storm troopers. Their purpose was to disrupt the meetings of liberal democrats, socialists, Communists, trade unionists; and to persecute Jews. Notice what groups the Nazi’s were against. Mainly gorups traditionally consider to the left politically. That is an action the nazis took. That is not to say it was a right wing action necessarily but it you think about it he was clearly anti-left wing. That is and example of what you can learm from the historical record.

In 1923 Hitler and his storm troopers marched on a beer hall in Munich trying to overthrow the government. This got Hitler a 5 year prison sentence and the Nazi party was banned. This is where , wrote Mein Kempf with Rudolph Hess. He was released from prison less tham a year later. In 1926 Hitler was made Fuhrer. This is the period when the SS came into being. Hitler went about rebuilding the Nazi party and by 1929 when the great depression hit the Nazis were ready.
With the effects of depresion many German capitalist began to donate to the Nazi party. They did not necessarity agree with Nazi politics but there needed some hope and change.

The Nazi’s grew rapidly. They recuited former Civil servants workers etc who lost their jobs during the depression. Workers flocked from the socialist and comunist party to the Nazi party. In 1930 the Nazis polled 18 percent of the vote to become the second largest party in Germany. By taking advantage of the Depression the Nazi’s where gaining political power. In the 1932 elections the party becaime the larges political party with 230 seats out of 670 . this led to the Reichstag being resolved and new elections held. The social democrats and communists united and won 221 seats combined but the Nazis remained the largest single party with 196 seats. Hitler was made Chancellor in Jan 1933 and the Building of the Nazi Germany began in earnest.

What we know so far is Hitler Hates those on the lsft and Capitalists support the Nazi’s as opposed to the alternatives. Hitler is Chancellor of Germany. We know hitler dramatically changed the party at this point. The Nozis had charity fund drives for the poor. They had Hitler youth. To suppress the influence of the Social democrats and communist parties the Reichstag fire trial was used. Hitler eliminated all working-class and liberal democratic opposition to the Nazi party. By 1935 Germany was no longer a democratic state it had a centralized state.

Unemplyoment was Germanys biggest issue by the time the Nazi’s came to power. Hitler had to choose between a National Socialist propaganda and an alliance with the industrialists of the country and the general staff of the Reichswehr. This led to the night of the long knives and Hitler sided with the industrialists and capitalists.

So we learn Hitler turned against socialism and held tightly to Captialsim to save Germany and the Nazi Party.

This is all intersting stuff and I recommend you do read up on it to find out the rest of the details of how he accomplished the recovery from the depression and how this all led to WWII and his ultimate defeat.

kanda on August 28, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Kanda,

Have you looked at the 25 points of the NAZI party yet? I find that once the Jew hate points are removed, you certainly do see a socialist agenda. IMO, it matters less what we say 70 years later. What matters is how they defined their goals. Liberals are the new NAZI’s just waiting for the chance to burn the Reichstag. Whether they morph in the way you say the NAZI’s did is to be seen. But for now, exchange the Jew hate for conservative hate and you have the democrats 25 points of belief.

csdeven on August 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM

Two points.

1 – please tell me what he did that was “good”. He certainly was not a good person in his personal life. He was born rich and privileged, cheated at harvard, cheated on his wives, abused and harassed women, was an alcoholic, and killed a woman. And, I’m not sure I would agree that he did anything “good” in his Senate career. Indeed, he was quite vile and nasty at times as a senator. And simply being a Senator is not something that is laudible in and of itself. Being a Senator is a position of power and privilege, it is not a sacrifice.

2 – a lot of what you read here that is anti-kennedy is based on the horrific white-washing diefying that is going on in the press. Were the press a little less enthusiastic in pretending this guy was a saint’s saint, maybe the anger here would not be so strong.

Monkeytoe on August 28, 2009 at 11:44 AM

I agree with both of your points. You present them in a rational way with logic and thoughtfullness. I am not and have never been a Kennedy supporter. I have always been on the opposite end of the political spectrum. I never said he was “good” I said he did some good things in his lifetime and they deserve equal recongnition along with the bad. On a personal level based on what I have heard and read both here and in the press at the time he was less than honorable, maybe quite dishonorable in fact. That’s all. I must admit that when it comes to John Kerry I cannot come up with even one “good” thing to say about him. I don’t like him but I don’t hate him either. I do think he did some very unforgivable things as it related to Vietnam.

kanda on August 28, 2009 at 12:12 PM

kanda on August 28, 2009 at 12:02 PM

I was the first to disagree with you about whether Hitler was left or right. Since that comment of mine I have learned much from reading these comments. I am still convinced that Hitler leans on the same side of modern U.S. liberals BUT to the extreme. I will not call him leftist for the moment because what we learned from a previous commenter, the definition of left and right was different in Europe.

Labels and names become useless when they are redefined.

When we look at any modern politician, we must look at their past, their associations, their words and their actions.

I echo what Monkeytoe has already said, even from your last post, you still have not discussed Hitler’s policies.

Is McCain a conservative? In the classical sense, no. When compared to the majority of his peers on the Hill, I sadly concede that he fits in.
Is Obama a liberal? In the classical sense, no. When compared to the majority of his peers on the Hill, again, I sadly concede that he fits in.

You still insist on people reading up when you yourself will not look up Hitler’s policies. csdeven pointed out the 25 points of the Nazi party. You haven’t responded to them.

shick on August 28, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Kanda,

Have you looked at the 25 points of the NAZI party yet? I find that once the Jew hate points are removed, you certainly do see a socialist agenda. IMO, it matters less what we say 70 years later. What matters is how they defined their goals. Liberals are the new NAZI’s just waiting for the chance to burn the Reichstag. Whether they morph in the way you say the NAZI’s did is to be seen. But for now, exchange the Jew hate for conservative hate and you have the democrats 25 points of belief.

csdeven on August 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM

It helps if you put things in perspective. They are easily available on the internet. Here they are for those who have no idea what they were. Remember these were written in 1920 while Germany was reeling form the aftermath of it’s defeat in WWI. The Communists were activly trying to turn Germany communist. In that istorical context look at them. Once you see them look at what policies the Nazi’s implemented in 1933-1945 while in power. Many of these deal with Nationalism. I contend that is a right wing tendency. Ofhter deal with the Purity of the German race particularly as it relates to the Jewish race. That is major position of fascism. When he talks about titizens Hitler neams of pur German heritage at the peril of all other races, nations, or creeds. Where it refers to colonies it is nationalism again but this time telling us that this expansion would be by force ( militarism) if necessary. Notice he talks about living decently and earning a livelihood. It it can’t be done for all German heritage the foreigners would be exprelled (nationalism) The clue is the earning part. A gain the right leaning tendency. Egual rights and duties are Right leaning. Some of these are left leaning as well. That is the inherant beauty of the Nazi philosphy. Thet told everyone what they wanted to hear. Remember this is 1920 at the low point of German existance. Later when the depression came and Hitler actually implemented policy most of this was thrown under the bus. Problably because like Obama now things look a lot different once you are in power. To take this one item and make a case that the Nazis implemented policies based on it is hogwash. Some they did but many many policies implemented were 180 degrees out of phse with the 25 points. Once Hitlor became enamored with Mussolini he changed and move to the right in a drastic way like night and day.
Read them and learn but do not be fooled into thinking this was a fact. It was a proposal at best. This was refined in Mein Kempf and that itself was revised again. The Nazi’s were in transition for a long time after this was written.

The 25 Points of Hitler’s Nazi Party

1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.

2. We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.

4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.

5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.

6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen.

We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.

7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.

8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.

9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.

20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.

23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:

(a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens.

(b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.

(c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich.

Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.

The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:

COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.

kanda on August 28, 2009 at 12:40 PM

I was the first to disagree with you about whether Hitler was left or right. Since that comment of mine I have learned much from reading these comments. I am still convinced that Hitler leans on the same side of modern U.S. liberals BUT to the extreme. I will not call him leftist for the moment because what we learned from a previous commenter, the definition of left and right was different in Europe.

Labels and names become useless when they are redefined.

When we look at any modern politician, we must look at their past, their associations, their words and their actions.

I echo what Monkeytoe has already said, even from your last post, you still have not discussed Hitler’s policies.

Is McCain a conservative? In the classical sense, no. When compared to the majority of his peers on the Hill, I sadly concede that he fits in.
Is Obama a liberal? In the classical sense, no. When compared to the majority of his peers on the Hill, again, I sadly concede that he fits in.

You still insist on people reading up when you yourself will not look up Hitler’s policies. csdeven pointed out the 25 points of the Nazi party. You haven’t responded to them.

shick on August 28, 2009 at 12:40 PM

You make some very good points. I find that through open discussion we all learn things we did not know before. That is the hindsight of history. If you keep an open mind to other peoples perspective oftentime you learn new thing that bolster your own argument. There is no disgrace in being wrong there is no particlar honor in being right. What is important is to recognize that knowlege is power. Armed with the knowledge of what Hitler did to the world even without considering his politics we instinctively know it was wrong. So we do in fact start out from common ground as we discuss the intricies of the mind of a very very sick man but any civilized standard. These discussions are important. More important that whether of not Kennedy was a good or bad guy when we put in in context next to our national direction. The reason I want people to research Nazi political philosophy is to put our own times in perspective. See the similarities and differences between Germany in 1933 and today. What happened in 1936 that is similar to today in the US. Are we heading down that road or is it simply a coincidence that similar events seem to be occuring in the economy. Think the leftist view is to let the corporations fail they are evil but wait Obama is investing trillions to save them Same with the banks. Now defato the government control a large industry Autos. The financial sector in banking. Firing the CEO of GM to me was a lightbulb to the possibilities if we believe the lie the government does not want to control it we now know the truth. In the end if the US does move toward fascism it really does not matter if the philosophy is let or right leaning we will all be slaves to it. I hope to ignite the curiosity in rational people to look at it. Can our repilic be saved. That is my ultimate question to all of you.

kanda on August 28, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Sorry…

Can our republic be saved? That is my ultimate question to all of you

kanda on August 28, 2009 at 12:56 PM

shick on August 28, 2009 at 12:40 PM

To your point about european perspective. I have done quite a bit of research using european history particularly English, French, and German History. Europe often times has a different perspective than America. For example while I believe the US won WWII the Europeans and Soviets have a different view on that. From the nationalistic point of view I know the war would have likely been lost by the allies. Our entry did win the war or allow it to be won. Millions of dead lie in graves all cross Europe to prove that the long struggle against the Nazis was waged primarily by those in Europe. Without our help and our power they would have lost. The reality is we won WWII together all of us on the allied side. I still say the US won the war.

kanda on August 28, 2009 at 1:10 PM

You finally responded within the same minute as my comment. Thank you.

I see two basic tennets from these 25 points. Socialism and pseudo-liberty.

What part of them did Hitler throw under the bus when he became enamored with Mussolini?

Thank you for your efforts. I still strongly disagree with you. I don’t think you have defended your point. But you have encouraged me to read more than I once would have on this topic.

shick on August 28, 2009 at 1:10 PM

This period of History isn’t my area of study. I have spent more time on church history.

shick on August 28, 2009 at 1:14 PM

Can our republic be saved? That is my ultimate question to all of you

kanda on August 28, 2009 at 12:56 PM

I think the great experiment may have come to its end.

While many things change man stays steadfast in holding onto his master, sin. There is only one who has remained steady. We should hold to the steadfast rock when wind and wave come pounding.

shick on August 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM

You finally responded within the same minute as my comment. Thank you.

I see two basic tennets from these 25 points. Socialism and pseudo-liberty.

What part of them did Hitler throw under the bus when he became enamored with Mussolini?

Thank you for your efforts. I still strongly disagree with you. I don’t think you have defended your point. But you have encouraged me to read more than I once would have on this topic.

shick on August 28, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Okay lets give your perspective the benefit of the doubt. pseudo Liberty. that was in fact what German Citizens experienced if they were of pure German Blood. Everyone else was simply tollerated all the way up to an including exterminted. The Nazi pseudo liberty as you term is is counter to the left as no has any liberty under communism as an example. People confuse the suppression of the non germans to be totalitarian when in fact it was faascist in that it hated all races except for pure german blood.
Had itler succeeded in purging Germany of every non german it wiuld be more apparent today. Fortunately for the rest of us Nazi’s were defeated in Europe.

Most of the socialist points were let go as Hitler moved to the right and embraced the industrialists to build Germany into a superpower for its day. You may have to dig deep into his policies to see the detail. I did that years ago and even I was shocked. I once held a similar perspective to your own until I looked into it. The Nazi’s did embrach the corporations much like both parties in the USA are beholding to corporatism today to a large degree. Yes our left has learned the secret of the right and probably takes in more corporate money than the right does.

It is a matter of degree and to a large extent how we look at Hitler that determines where we place him on the political spectrum. I do not oppose your view. I simply disagree with your perspective. Thats fine and I accept it.

kanda on August 28, 2009 at 1:43 PM

I think the great experiment may have come to its end.

While many things change man stays steadfast in holding onto his master, sin. There is only one who has remained steady. We should hold to the steadfast rock when wind and wave come pounding.

shick on August 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM

To your first point a hope you are wrong. Your second point will be our comfort if your first point is correct.

kanda on August 28, 2009 at 1:45 PM

This period of History isn’t my area of study. I have spent more time on church history.

shick on August 28, 2009 at 1:14 PM

If human history keeps trending as it is I may call on your expertise for salvation.

kanda on August 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Sure as hell ain’t nobody feeding off of your gray matter.

Maquis on August 27, 2009 at 10:41 PM

You seem to have a penchant for insults but you do not add much substance to the discussion. You are typical of someone with a closed mind. I am not phased or discouraged by that. It is a challenge for me to attempt to persuade you to see my position even if you don’t agree with it. I tend to respect everyones opinion as long as they respect mine. That does not mean we agree it means we treat each other with respect. When I decide there is not hope of respect then I let it go. I have the ability to stand toe to toe with you and simply expose you for what you are. I do it by example and let the reader decide based on their observance of our writing. That is the wonderful thing about freedom of speech. We can speak our mind wwithout fear of some lofty conceited person who can’t stand another who has a different view being right. That have to resort to ridicule. They have to ablility you debate ib a civil manner. I just expose them for what they are and leave. Have a nice day.

kanda on August 28, 2009 at 7:24 AM

Quite a lofty comeback. Until one bothers to read what my admittedly snarky comment was responding to:

Hi Folks I see some of you missed me. That’s real nice thank you. Have any of you done any research or are you simply feeding off one another?

kanda on August 27, 2009 at 9:27 PM

That was my only negative barb, therefore your assertion of a penchant for insults is quite disingenuous. You also accuse me of having a closed mind, but fail to see the irony in the fact that as of my posting you had failed to respond to my own or a great number of others attempts to engage you on the facts, and that you continued to repeat your mantra without cease or modification. You taunt and insult and pretend it’s others that are guilty of these crimes of ego which you demonstrate mastery every time you put hand to keyboard.

But the supreme irony is that I was responding to your overwhelming smugness and condescension, which you here attempt to smack down with a heaping dose of, smugness and condescension.

You’ve exposed no one, you’ve enlightened only your sense of self-superiority.

HA is a vigorous community with many different opinions and it is one of the most tolerant and inquisitive sites in the blogosphere. You portray yourself as a sage and a seer, a seeker of wisdom and a sharer of same, a corrector of error, but you accord little respect to the intelligence and soul of those you meet here with your air of sainted betterness.

Maquis on August 28, 2009 at 3:20 PM

So you wrote

Sure as hell ain’t nobody feeding off of your gray matter.

Maquis on August 27, 2009 at 10:41 PM

to which I directly replied

You seem to have a penchant for insults but you do not add much substance to the discussion. You are typical of someone with a closed mind. I am not phased or discouraged by that. It is a challenge for me to attempt to persuade you to see my position even if you don’t agree with it. I tend to respect everyones opinion as long as they respect mine. That does not mean we agree it means we treat each other with respect. When I decide there is not hope of respect then I let it go. I have the ability to stand toe to toe with you and simply expose you for what you are. I do it by example and let the reader decide based on their observance of our writing. That is the wonderful thing about freedom of speech. We can speak our mind wwithout fear of some lofty conceited person who can’t stand another who has a different view being right. That have to resort to ridicule. They have to ablility you debate ib a civil manner. I just expose them for what they are and leave. Have a nice day.

kanda on August 28, 2009 at 7:24 AM

And then you wrote

That was my only negative barb, therefore your assertion of a penchant for insults is quite disingenuous. You also accuse me of having a closed mind, but fail to see the irony in the fact that as of my posting you had failed to respond to my own or a great number of others attempts to engage you on the facts, and that you continued to repeat your mantra without cease or modification. You taunt and insult and pretend it’s others that are guilty of these crimes of ego which you demonstrate mastery every time you put hand to keyboard.

But the supreme irony is that I was responding to your overwhelming smugness and condescension, which you here attempt to smack down with a heaping dose of, smugness and condescension.

You’ve exposed no one, you’ve enlightened only your sense of self-superiority.

HA is a vigorous community with many different opinions and it is one of the most tolerant and inquisitive sites in the blogosphere. You portray yourself as a sage and a seer, a seeker of wisdom and a sharer of same, a corrector of error, but you accord little respect to the intelligence and soul of those you meet here with your air of sainted betterness.

Maquis on August 28, 2009 at 3:20 PM

As if somehow because that was your only negative post that you sonehow get a pass. I think it is very condencending and rude of you to address me as if I was somehone obligated to you for some response or anyresponse. There is no obligation. You can however rest assured that even in your hour of transgression I forgive you. Because as you have shown you were originally replying to my post

Hi Folks I see some of you missed me. That’s real nice thank you. Have any of you done any research or are you simply feeding off one another?

kanda on August 27, 2009 at 9:27 PM

That makes it all justified so you reply to a sarchasm and humor with a personal attack. That does show your character. Thanks for playing. You lose.

kanda on August 28, 2009 at 3:48 PM

kanda on August 28, 2009 at 3:48 PM

So, your hateful barbs are humor, mine are attacks. Got it.

Your condescension and arrogance know no bounds.

Maquis on August 28, 2009 at 4:02 PM

So, your hateful barbs are humor, mine are attacks. Got it.

Your condescension and arrogance know no bounds.

Maquis on August 28, 2009 at 4:02 PM

Relax. Chill out. At least you have made a new acquaintance even if you don’t accept it as such. My arrogance is actually extreme confidence I learned in the Marines. I am very proud of it it fact. My condescending demeaner I learned from the folks here. When you see me post it like that without any comment on topics under discussion you know I have written off the aadversary as not work my time. Keep that in mind. I appeciate you recognizing both. I sincerely hope you have a good day.

kanda on August 28, 2009 at 4:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 16 17 18