I hate it when either side of the political discourse spectrum trots out the dreaded "Nazi" charge. But you know - there's an old saying - "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck."
It seems however that one of our major political parties, by virtue of resurrecting the practice of "loyalty oaths" among their faithful, just may be deserving of the dreaded "N" label:
It's easy to forget, but loyalty oaths were not uncommon in Republican circles during the Bush/Cheney era.
In August 2004, however, then-Vice President Cheney spoke at an event in Albuquerque, but locals were only allowed to get a ticket to attend if they first signed a loyalty oath swearing they "endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States [sic]."
A couple of months later, at a Bush event in Florida, a Republican asked those in attendance to stand, raise their right hands, and recite a Pledge of Allegiance ... to George W. Bush. As part of the oath, attendees were told to say: "Because I care, I promise to work hard to re-elect, re-elect George W. Bush as president of the United States."
I'm trying to imagine what Republicans would say in 2012 if Democrats pushed voters to stand, raise their right hands, and pledge their allegiance to President Obama.
While the U.S. history of loyalty oaths dates back to the post Civil War Reconstruction era, they gained notoriety during the Joseph McCarthy communist witch hunts in the 1950's.
Their most prolific fame, however, came during the decade run-up to World War II in Germany when Hitler came in to power and required loyalty oaths to himself and the German Empire.
So inevitably I get back to the inductive reasoning of the "duck test" and I ask myself - is there a similarity between the modern day GOP's loyalty oaths and Hitler's loyalty oaths? Based on an apples to apples comparison of all of the available evidence - I would have to most definitely answer in the affirmative.