Deputy Prime Minister (and Finance
Minister) Taro Aso has turned Godwin’s Law on its head with his latest gaffe about
Nazis (Nazis?!?) generating
widespread incredulity and opprobrium in equal parts. I have some thoughts on
that and its implications, but I’m keeping them under wraps since I’m currently
using them in my professional capacity. I’ll know if I can post them here in a
few days. In the meantime, let me cover an angle that is for the most part
being missed in the debate: Both Aso and Prime Minister Abe are known for
making statements around history issues (Nazis?!?)
that they must later take back; is there a difference?
Yes, there is.
Abe’s comments typically come as part of a
dialogue, sometimes friendly but more often not, when he is drawn into a
discussion over the finer points of a given issue, exerts himself in trying to
explain himself, and winds up tripping a land mine. (Prime Minister Junichiro
Kozumi avoided this largely by barking out the same stock answer no matter how
hard the interrogator tried to bait him.) Aso, by contrast, appears to have a
demon in his head who whispers things—like, oh, “Nazis”, say it again, “Nazis”, once more, the crowd’ll love it, NOW—whispers
that only Aso can hear, whispers that Aso…cannot resist. I can’t think of
another explanation; his comments, as rambling and disjointed as they were on
that occasion, had been conveying the twofold message that discussions around
constitutional amendment should be conducted calmly and deliberately (there’s a
legitimate argument against this but let’s leave it out for the time being) and
that bad regimes could emerge even under the best of constitutions if we’re not
careful (Weimar and Nazis?...now that’s a reasonable argument), when, after meandering
around some generational babble and talking about Yasukuni and working himself
up again about the need for calm and deliberation, he suddenly re-injected the
Nazis into his argument (this time, like a bad Hitler joke, as a counter-historical
example to emulate).
One, with clear forewarnings that the recipient
can apply to good use with discipline and practice; the other, unforeseen brainfarts
that can only be eliminated by way of a vow of total silence.
No comments:
Post a Comment