If Hitler were alive today what Political Party would he represent?

So back to the original question from the title in the OP. Which party Dem or Repub would a
live Hitler today hang his sword with? Since Hitler was the world's biggest anti Semite by murdering some 6 million Jews, wouldn't you agree that a modern day Hitler would fit it rather nicely with all those anti Semite democrats pictured in the OP meme?
 
martin said:
200.gif
Above is a sentence that epitomizes the deep ignorance of so many Trump supporters. The example has come up before, to no effect been explained before, so I'll let it go it that.
Click to expand...



Do Democrats often aver that "their slave owning ancestors of the Democrat party weren't' really Democrats; they were conservatives", or words to that effect?


Yes, this is a common argument made by many Democrats, liberals, and defenders of the modern Democratic Party.


It forms a core part of the "party switch" or "Southern Strategy" narrative: that the Democratic Party of the 19th and early 20th centuries (especially its Southern wing) was the vehicle for conservatives and reactionaries who supported slavery, secession, the Confederacy, Jim Crow, and segregation. These figures are portrayed as ideological "conservatives" who eventually migrated to the Republican Party, while the Democrats evolved into the progressive, civil rights-oriented party of today.


Key Elements of the Claim​


  • Slave owners and Southern Democrats as "conservatives": Pro-slavery forces (e.g., under Andrew Jackson, Jefferson Davis, or later segregationists/Dixiecrats) are described as defending tradition, states' rights, limited federal power (on issues other than slavery enforcement), agrarian society, and the existing social hierarchy—hallmarks of conservatism in that era. Northern Democrats were more varied, but the party as a whole was the pro-slavery vehicle before the Civil War.
  • The "switch": Post-Civil Rights Act (1964) and Voting Rights Act (1965), Southern white conservatives allegedly abandoned the Democrats for the GOP due to Nixon/Reagan's Southern Strategy appealing to racial resentments (coded as "states' rights," law and order, etc.). Liberals cite declining Southern Democratic support, the shift of Black voters to Democrats, and figures like Strom Thurmond switching parties as evidence.
  • Modern implication: Today's Republicans/conservatives inherit the mantle of racism and reaction, while Democrats disavow their historical baggage by saying "those weren't our kind of Democrats—they were the conservatives."

This framing appears frequently in Reddit threads (e.g., r/AskALiberal), opinion pieces, social media, history popularizations, and responses to PragerU-style videos or "Democrats founded the KKK/slavery" talking points.


Historical Context and Nuance​


  • Factual baseline: Before the Civil War, slave owners were overwhelmingly Democrats. The Republican Party was founded (1854) explicitly as an anti-slavery-expansion party; it passed the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery (with strong Northern Democratic opposition in some cases). Southern Democrats led secession and the Confederacy. Post-war, the Democratic Party in the South was the party of Redemption, Jim Crow, and resistance to civil rights for decades.
  • Party evolution was real but gradual and incomplete: Ideological realignment happened over decades (New Deal coalition pulling in Northern liberals/minorities; civil rights fracturing the Solid South; suburbanization, economics, and culture wars accelerating shifts). Many segregationist Democrats (e.g., Robert Byrd, Al Gore Sr.) stayed Democrats. The South didn't flip overnight in 1964—Republican gains there were slower and driven by many factors (economics, religion, national security, anti-communism). Northern Democrats had their own racists and machine politicians.
  • "Conservative" label: Applying modern left-right spectra retroactively is tricky. 19th-century Southern Democrats were often Jeffersonian small-government agrarians on many issues (opposed to national banks, high tariffs, strong federal power—except when enforcing fugitive slave laws). They were reactionary on race and hierarchy. Lincoln's Republicans were the radicals/centralizers of their time. Labels like "liberal" and "conservative" shifted dramatically.

The argument is deployed rhetorically to deflect "Democrats are the party of slavery" critiques. It's not universal among Democrats—some historians emphasize continuity, contingency, and that both parties have complex records—but it is a standard, oft-repeated talking point in partisan discourse. The underlying history is more about regionalism, economics, and culture than a clean ideological swap.



 
LibLover said:
So back to the original question from the title in the OP. Which party Dem or Repub would a
live Hitler today hang his sword with? Since Hitler was the world's biggest anti Semite by murdering some 6 million Jews, wouldn't you agree that a modern day Hitler would fit it rather nicely with all those anti Semite democrats pictured in the OP meme?
Click to expand...


Response to the hypothetical question.


Neither major U.S. party today, in any straightforward way. Hitler was a product of early 20th-century European conditions—post-WWI economic collapse, revanchist nationalism, ethnic grievances, street-level paramilitarism, and a specific Central European context of competing ideologies. Transplanting him literally into 2020s America doesn't map cleanly onto the modern Democratic or Republican parties.


Core of Nazi ideology (National Socialism)​


  • Extreme ethnonationalism and racial hierarchy: Aryan supremacy, antisemitism as a central obsession (culminating in the Holocaust), eugenics, Lebensraum (expansionist conquest).
  • Authoritarian statism: Total state control over economy and society ("Gleichschaltung"), suppression of dissent, cult of personality, one-party rule. Rejection of both liberal democracy and Marxist internationalism.
  • Economic syncretism: Corporatist/mixed economy with heavy intervention, autarky, public works, rearmament, and anti-capitalist/anti-communist rhetoric. Not free-market classical liberalism nor full Soviet-style collectivization.
  • Anti-liberalism: Hatred of Weimar-style democracy, individualism, "rootless" cosmopolitanism, and (in practice) much of what we'd call progressive social experimentation on cultural issues.
  • Militarism and revanchism: Glorification of war, veteran grievance culture, irredentism.


He positioned the Nazis as a "third way" against both capitalism and Bolshevism, while borrowing tactics and appeals from the left (mass mobilization, socialism in the name) and right (nationalism, tradition, hierarchy).


Mapping to today​


  • Democrats/progressives: Modern left emphasis on identity politics, DEI frameworks, critiques of "whiteness"/Western civilization, expansive state economic intervention, speech codes, and campus/authoritarian tendencies in some circles could superficially echo collectivism or grievance politics. Antisemitism exists on the contemporary left (e.g., certain pro-Palestinian activism crossing into conspiracy or Holocaust minimization), and some forum posters highlight that. However, core progressive tenets—globalism, multiculturalism, open borders, feminism/LGBTQ+ priorities, opposition to traditional hierarchy or militarism—clash violently with Hitler's worldview. He would view much of this as degenerate, Jewish-influenced Bolshevism 2.0.
  • Republicans/conservatives: Appeals to national sovereignty, border control, skepticism of global institutions, traditional values, law-and-order, and (in some populist strains) anti-elite rhetoric might align with Hitler's nationalism. Strong support for Israel among many conservatives and focus on merit/individualism would be alien or repulsive to him. Free-market elements in mainstream conservatism contradict Nazi economic controls. Authoritarian personality cults or "strongman" nostalgia appear in fringes everywhere, but mainstream GOP remains electoral and constitutionalist.

Hitler was pragmatic about alliances but ideologically syncretic and opportunistic. In today's fragmented media/internet environment, he'd likely build a custom movement exploiting whichever grievances were hottest—economic anxiety, cultural backlash, ethnic tensions—using advanced propaganda tools.


He thrived on polarization and crisis, not fitting neatly into a two-party duopoly. Historical analogies often serve present-day score-settling more than analysis.


The forum post you linked frames it as Democrats = modern antisemites, tying into partisan memes. Antisemitism is a real problem across spectra (far-right neo-Nazis/white nationalists obviously, but also segments of the left and Islamist-influenced circles).


Polling and incidents show it's not the exclusive domain of one party. Reducing Hitler to "he'd pick Team Blue because of X meme" flattens history.


He'd represent fascist/Nazi-style authoitarian ethnonationalism, which has echoes in various populist/authoritarian movements worldwide—but the U.S. parties are broad coalitions, not ideological monoliths matching 1930s Germany.


Hypotheticals like this reveal more about the asker's priors than they illuminate the past.


grok.com

Hitler: Nazi Ideology vs Modern Parties | Shared Grok Conversation

Respond to the hypothetical question: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/if-hitler-were-alive
grok.com grok.com
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Again, Grok is wrong.

The overarching principle Hitler advocated for was Volksmeingeschaft. There is no direct, single word translation for this concept in English. The closest thing to it is "Band of Brothers." What Hitler wanted was a Germany for only German people. A tight knit community that was bound by a common culture, language, set of experiences, etc. Everything foreign to that was to be eliminated.

The Nazi government would be an all-encompassing state that ensured this happened and was maintained. Heavy handed radical Leftist Socialism would extend to all aspects of life.

Hitler got this concept from the similar Frontmeingeschaft. This was his experience coming out of WW 1 where veterans became a tight knit group of persons who had shared similar experiences in war and had bonded. Hitler wanted to extend that to the entirety of Germany.

Communism represented a threat to that idea in that it was international in scope and sought a One World Government as its final goal. Groups and organizations, like Jews, Gypsys, even labor unions, all represented issues and problems with attaining that goal so they too had to be eliminated.

The Nazis in practice worked towards that end. Hitler Youth was nearly universal to start indoctrination into a shared German culture that was insular from childhood. Building things like Prora, the huge resort on the Baltic is a good example. It was to be a state run vacation experience for the working class who would spend their vacation bonding tightly into German only culture.

It was very much Everything for the State, nothing for the individual. Nazi Socialism was on the radical Left.
Click to expand...
Nice exposition, wrong last sentence conclusion. Everything for the State is radical Right, the side of that French chamber occupied by the
"State's" (the Monarchists) delegates. Those inspired by the revolution in America sat on the Left.
 
Last edited:
You have to remember, I use a three-axis model (x,y,z axis) for labeling political activities and parties.

The three are degree of economic, political, and personal freedom.

At the extreme 'Right" or at zero on each axis, you have, respectively, barter, anarchy, and the individual. That is, no organized economy, no government, and the individual rules supreme. At 10, the 'Left' end of the scales, you get command economy, absolute dictatorship, and the state. Or, an economy controlled by the state or even a single dictator that runs everything, a dictatorship of one person in charge, and the individual means nothing the state or society is everything.

These are the two extremes. Every sort of society and government / political body falls somewhere between the two on each axis. The closer the combination of the three points is to 10, the further Left that government is. The Right being a government that moves more towards zero.

Realistically, any sort of society or government system will fall between about 4 and 10, with most being between 6 and 10.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You have to remember, I use a three-axis model (x,y,z axis) for labeling political activities and parties.

The three are degree of economic, political, and personal freedom.

At the extreme 'Right" or at zero on each axis, you have, respectively, barter, anarchy, and the individual. That is, no organized economy, no government, and the individual rules supreme. At 10, the 'Left' end of the scales, you get command economy, absolute dictatorship, and the state. Or, an economy controlled by the state or even a single dictator that runs everything, a dictatorship of one person in charge, and the individual means nothing the state or society is everything.

These are the two extremes. Every sort of society and government / political body falls somewhere between the two on each axis. The closer the combination of the three points is to 10, the further Left that government is. The Right being a government that moves more towards zero.

Realistically, any sort of society or government system will fall between about 4 and 10, with most being between 6 and 10.
Click to expand...
An example of living in your own world.
 
Diogenes said:
Response to the hypothetical question.


Neither major U.S. party today, in any straightforward way. Hitler was a product of early 20th-century European conditions—post-WWI economic collapse, revanchist nationalism, ethnic grievances, street-level paramilitarism, and a specific Central European context of competing ideologies. Transplanting him literally into 2020s America doesn't map cleanly onto the modern Democratic or Republican parties.


Core of Nazi ideology (National Socialism)​


  • Extreme ethnonationalism and racial hierarchy: Aryan supremacy, antisemitism as a central obsession (culminating in the Holocaust), eugenics, Lebensraum (expansionist conquest).
  • Authoritarian statism: Total state control over economy and society ("Gleichschaltung"), suppression of dissent, cult of personality, one-party rule. Rejection of both liberal democracy and Marxist internationalism.
  • Economic syncretism: Corporatist/mixed economy with heavy intervention, autarky, public works, rearmament, and anti-capitalist/anti-communist rhetoric. Not free-market classical liberalism nor full Soviet-style collectivization.
  • Anti-liberalism: Hatred of Weimar-style democracy, individualism, "rootless" cosmopolitanism, and (in practice) much of what we'd call progressive social experimentation on cultural issues.
  • Militarism and revanchism: Glorification of war, veteran grievance culture, irredentism.


He positioned the Nazis as a "third way" against both capitalism and Bolshevism, while borrowing tactics and appeals from the left (mass mobilization, socialism in the name) and right (nationalism, tradition, hierarchy).


Mapping to today​


  • Democrats/progressives: Modern left emphasis on identity politics, DEI frameworks, critiques of "whiteness"/Western civilization, expansive state economic intervention, speech codes, and campus/authoritarian tendencies in some circles could superficially echo collectivism or grievance politics. Antisemitism exists on the contemporary left (e.g., certain pro-Palestinian activism crossing into conspiracy or Holocaust minimization), and some forum posters highlight that. However, core progressive tenets—globalism, multiculturalism, open borders, feminism/LGBTQ+ priorities, opposition to traditional hierarchy or militarism—clash violently with Hitler's worldview. He would view much of this as degenerate, Jewish-influenced Bolshevism 2.0.
  • Republicans/conservatives: Appeals to national sovereignty, border control, skepticism of global institutions, traditional values, law-and-order, and (in some populist strains) anti-elite rhetoric might align with Hitler's nationalism. Strong support for Israel among many conservatives and focus on merit/individualism would be alien or repulsive to him. Free-market elements in mainstream conservatism contradict Nazi economic controls. Authoritarian personality cults or "strongman" nostalgia appear in fringes everywhere, but mainstream GOP remains electoral and constitutionalist.

Hitler was pragmatic about alliances but ideologically syncretic and opportunistic. In today's fragmented media/internet environment, he'd likely build a custom movement exploiting whichever grievances were hottest—economic anxiety, cultural backlash, ethnic tensions—using advanced propaganda tools.


He thrived on polarization and crisis, not fitting neatly into a two-party duopoly. Historical analogies often serve present-day score-settling more than analysis.


The forum post you linked frames it as Democrats = modern antisemites, tying into partisan memes. Antisemitism is a real problem across spectra (far-right neo-Nazis/white nationalists obviously, but also segments of the left and Islamist-influenced circles).


Polling and incidents show it's not the exclusive domain of one party. Reducing Hitler to "he'd pick Team Blue because of X meme" flattens history.


He'd represent fascist/Nazi-style authoitarian ethnonationalism, which has echoes in various populist/authoritarian movements worldwide—but the U.S. parties are broad coalitions, not ideological monoliths matching 1930s Germany.


Hypotheticals like this reveal more about the asker's priors than they illuminate the past.


grok.com

Hitler: Nazi Ideology vs Modern Parties | Shared Grok Conversation

Respond to the hypothetical question: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/if-hitler-were-alive
grok.com grok.com
Click to expand...

I appreciate the defining of what Hitler stood for, and your part on National Socialism gives most every point made to be totally aligned with today's Democrat party. But no one here seems to be able or willing to admit that perhaps the biggest threat and the biggest ideological agenda of Hitler was his anti Semite rage to kill every Jew. So again, doesn't it seem reasonable to associate the Jew hating and Jew killer Hitler with those jew hating dems in the OP meme?
 
LibLover said:
The meme below clearly shows what political party (Democrat) that Hitler would
surely represent. One reason I'm posting this is to show the obvious nonsense that
came from democrat leaders and democrats or leftists at this forum who for years
have been calling Trump and we on the political right...Nazis, but because of Hitler's
Nazism sweeping all across the dem party (as seen in the meme), we notice that the
Nazi dems have stopped calling we Republicans/Conservatives..... NAZIs. Wonder why?
LOL!

<stupid meme deletet>
Click to expand...
Well, as you and @Teflon Don well - know - because you're liars - is that the Nazi's are very well represented by the Republican party. It's just a fact.

Shit - you invite them to your conventions - Trump has meals with Fuentes and Kanye.

Nice try, tho.
 
Teflon Don said:
I know you socialists never want to own your own folks like Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler but it is what it is
Click to expand...
IN 2026 REPUBLICANS TEXT EACH OTHER ABOUT LOVING HITLER . AT CPAC - NAZIS ROAM AROUND FREELY, SPREADING HATE.

Everyone knows you're bullshit is bullshit. bitch.
 
LibLover said:
I appreciate the defining of what Hitler stood for, and your part on National Socialism gives most every point made to be totally aligned with today's Democrat party. But no one here seems to be able or willing to admit that perhaps the biggest threat and the biggest ideological agenda of Hitler was his anti Semite rage to kill every Jew. So again, doesn't it seem reasonable to associate the Jew hating and Jew killer Hitler with those jew hating dems in the OP meme?
Click to expand...


No, that's not a reasonable primary association.


Hitler's antisemitism was indeed his most fanatical, non-negotiable obsession—the core of his worldview, driving the Holocaust and shaping Nazi policy from the Nuremberg Laws to the Final Solution.

It wasn't just prejudice; it was a pseudoscientific racial conspiracy theory portraying Jews as a existential, world-controlling threat to be eradicated.

However, reducing him to "the Jew-hater" and mapping that directly onto one modern U.S. party ignores the full ideology and historical context:

Antisemitism's distribution today​


Antisemitism is a persistent evil with sources across the political spectrum:

  • Far-right: Explicit neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and Holocaust deniers directly inherit Hitler's racial antisemitism. Groups like Atomwaffen or certain 4chan/alt-right fringes openly idolize him. Traditional antisemitic tropes (global control, disloyalty) appear here.
  • Left/progressive circles: Post-Oct. 7, 2023, there's been a documented surge in antisemitic incidents tied to anti-Zionism that frequently crosses into tropes (e.g., "Zionist Occupied Government," blood libels recycled as "genocide" rhetoric, targeting Jewish institutions unrelated to Israel). Campus protests, certain activist groups (SJP, some DSA elements), and politicians using inflammatory language have been criticized by ADL, FBI data, and Jewish organizations. Some "anti-colonial" framing echoes older leftist antisemitism (e.g., Soviet-era).
  • Broader reality: Most American Jews remain Democrats (historically ~70%+), and both parties have Jewish leaders, donors, and pro-Israel factions (though with differences in approach). Mainstream Democrats condemn antisemitism; the issue is tolerance for fringes or failure to police it (e.g., Squad rhetoric, university responses). Republicans face their own fringes. Polls (ADL, Pew) show rising incidents overall, with left-associated sources prominent in recent years alongside Islamist influences—not a clean "Dems = Nazis" picture.

​

Why the Hitler analogy fails here​


  • Hitler's solution was genocidal extermination within a totalitarian ethnostate, combined with militarist expansion, suppression of all opposition (left and right), and rejection of liberal democracy. Modern "Jew-hating Dems" (per memes) are typically critics of Israeli policy, supporters of Palestinian causes, or users of selective identity politics—not advocates for gas chambers or Aryan supremacy. Equating policy disagreement or fringe bigotry with Hitler trivializes the Holocaust.
  • Party evolution: U.S. parties are coalitions, not fixed ideologies. Democrats have shifted left on cultural/economic issues; antisemitism on the left is often tied to intersectionality or foreign policy, not Nazi-style racial pseudoscience. Republicans emphasize national identity and alliances with Israel. Neither matches National Socialism's full package (one-party dictatorship, cult of Führer, total war economy, eugenics program).
  • Cherry-picking one trait (antisemitism) to claim alignment ignores clashes: Hitler despised Marxism, internationalism, multiculturalism experiments, and much of what modern progressivism prioritizes. He was a product of specific interwar German resentments (Versailles, hyperinflation, cultural decay fears).


The meme-driven framing in the thread is classic partisan gotcha—highlighting real left-wing failures on antisemitism while downplaying that explicit Hitler admirers and Nazi symbols overwhelmingly come from the far-right.

Both threats matter: stochastic extremism from fringes endangers Jews (Pittsburgh synagogue, Jersey City, etc., plus campus harassment). But "Hitler = today's Democrats" is ahistorical hyperbole, just as "Republicans = fascists" is. Actual Nazis today self-identify with the original movement's aesthetics and race science, not mainstream liberalism.

Focus on condemning antisemitism unequivocally, wherever it appears—left, right, or Islamist—without forcing 1930s figures into 2020s U.S. partisan boxes. History shows authoritarians exploit grievances; the antidote is classical liberal norms, not team-scorekeeping.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Again, Grok is wrong.

The overarching principle Hitler advocated for was Volksmeingeschaft. There is no direct, single word translation for this concept in English. The closest thing to it is "Band of Brothers." What Hitler wanted was a Germany for only German people. A tight knit community that was bound by a common culture, language, set of experiences, etc. Everything foreign to that was to be eliminated.

The Nazi government would be an all-encompassing state that ensured this happened and was maintained. Heavy handed radical Leftist Socialism would extend to all aspects of life.

Hitler got this concept from the similar Frontmeingeschaft. This was his experience coming out of WW 1 where veterans became a tight knit group of persons who had shared similar experiences in war and had bonded. Hitler wanted to extend that to the entirety of Germany.

Communism represented a threat to that idea in that it was international in scope and sought a One World Government as its final goal. Groups and organizations, like Jews, Gypsys, even labor unions, all represented issues and problems with attaining that goal so they too had to be eliminated.

The Nazis in practice worked towards that end. Hitler Youth was nearly universal to start indoctrination into a shared German culture that was insular from childhood. Building things like Prora, the huge resort on the Baltic is a good example. It was to be a state run vacation experience for the working class who would spend their vacation bonding tightly into German only culture.

It was very much Everything for the State, nothing for the individual. Nazi Socialism was on the radical Left.
Click to expand...
And yet, in 2026, it's the Republican party that worships Hitler and preaches his edicts. Hmmm....
 
LibLover said:
The meme below clearly shows what political party (Democrat) that Hitler would
surely represent. One reason I'm posting this is to show the obvious nonsense that
came from democrat leaders and democrats or leftists at this forum who for years
have been calling Trump and we on the political right...Nazis, but because of Hitler's
Nazism sweeping all across the dem party (as seen in the meme), we notice that the
Nazi dems have stopped calling we Republicans/Conservatives..... NAZIs. Wonder why?
LOL!

View attachment 88062
Click to expand...
Oh, we gonna do hitler memes?
How about this one?

1782934818689.png
 
LibLover said:
The meme below clearly shows what political party (Democrat) that Hitler would
surely represent. One reason I'm posting this is to show the obvious nonsense that
came from democrat leaders and democrats or leftists at this forum who for years
have been calling Trump and we on the political right...Nazis, but because of Hitler's
Nazism sweeping all across the dem party (as seen in the meme), we notice that the
Nazi dems have stopped calling we Republicans/Conservatives..... NAZIs. Wonder why?
LOL!

View attachment 88062
Click to expand...
His loyal followers (that's you, BTW):

1782934986694.png

His buddy Elmo:

1782935026747.png
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Then prove my model wrong. Go for it. I dare you. Slap up some of those idiot models that randomly label political parties with no quantified rhyme or reason.
Click to expand...
Read the post above, referencing the 1789 chamber of the French National Assembly in Paris that is the basis for our Left/Right division.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Then prove my model wrong. Go for it. I dare you. Slap up some of those idiot models that randomly label political parties with no quantified rhyme or reason.
Click to expand...
Maybe this will help; explains it better than I did. From Google AI:

"The terms "left" and "right" originated during the French Revolution in 1789. In the National Assembly, delegates physically divided by ideology: those who supported the King and traditional social hierarchies sat to the president's right, while anti-royalists and revolutionaries who favored radical social change sat to the left."

The "radical social change" would be democratic institutions like those recently established in America - the Revolution's inspiration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top