"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s the one who proposed this national security force. I’m just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism. That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did. When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”
- U.S. Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)
Frankly, it sounds more than a little crazy. It's down right nutty.
There is nothing wrong with opponents of the president-elect arguing their differences. Democracy, of course, is built on the notion that ideas ought to be debated and whatever policy proposals made by the new administration are fair game.
But Broun is continuing down that dangerous path the Sarah Palin walked: questioning the loyalty of the president-elect to the most basic of America principles. How did that turn out for Palin (besides getting trounced at the polls)? Newsweek reports in their current edition:
"I'm worried," Gregory Craig said to a NEWSWEEK reporter in mid-October. He was concerned that the frenzied atmosphere at the Palin rallies would encourage someone to do something violent toward Obama. He was not the only one in the Obama campaign thinking the unthinkable. The campaign was provided with reports from the Secret Service showing a sharp and very disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and early October. Michelle was shaken by the vituperative crowds and the hot rhetoric from the GOP candidates.
People like Broun and Palin need to know that their words have consequences. The fire they play with clearly has a cost in the form increased death threats against the president-elect. Do they really think their own partisan goals are worth the risks to our nation? You can debate the issues forcefully without endangering the fabric of our democracy.
