Many Levels of Niemoller's Poem

 

Martin Niemoller

 First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for the Catholics
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Catholic*
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.


I learned about Niemoller's poem at an early age, knowing nothing about the author, only that is described the rise of the Nazis.  At the time, my interpretation was the simplest one -- freedom is indivisible.  None can be free unless all are free.

But over time, I began to understand more about the significance of the progression, and to see other layers of meaning.

One was when Jonah Goldberg came out with his ridiculous book, Liberal Fascism, claiming that Hitler was really a left-winger.  Niemoller's poem can come as a shorthand refutation as Hitler's victims parade from left to right -- Communists, then Socialist, then trade unionists, then Jews (broadly liberal), then (possibly) Catholics (generally conservative).  

Another is as a rejection of the morality that JD Vance called ordo amoris or Jonathan Haidt (at his worst) calls well-balanced values with a proper sense of group loyalty, i.e., the idea that everyone should be divided into an in-group of people who morally matter and an out-group of un-people who don't morally matter.  Admittedly, both Vance and Haidt appear to draw the boundary nationality -- since Hitler's early victims were fellow German citizens, Niemoller should have cared.  But really, neither Vance nor Haidt offer any really good reason why one should draw the line at citizenship.  If Niemoller originally drew the line more narrowly, neither man's reasoning offer a good reason why he should have drawn it more broadly.  Niemoller practiced ordo amoris.  He had well-balanced values, including a proper sense of group loyalty.  When people outside his in-group were targeted, he showed a commendable indifference.  When he was targeted other people stuck to their in-groups just as much as he did.  Too late, he learned the error of his ways.

Another insight came, of all places, from the Roman historian Gaius Sallustius Crispus.  He described a thwarted rebellion against Rome and Cicero (then serving as consul) proposed to execute the conspirators without trials.  Caesar warned against such an action:

These thirty began their administration by putting to death, even without a trial, all who were notoriously wicked, or publicly detestable; acts at which the people rejoiced, and extolled their justice. But afterward, when their lawless power gradually increased, they proceeded, at their pleasure, to kill the good and the bad indiscriminately, and to strike terror into all; and thus the state, overpowered and enslaved, paid a heavy penalty for its imprudent exultation.

Within our own memory, too, when the victorious Sylla ordered Damasippus,14 and others of similar character, who had risen by distressing their country, to be put to death, who did not commend the proceeding? All exclaimed that wicked and factious men, who had troubled the state with their seditious practices, had justly forfeited their lives. Yet this proceeding was the commencement of great bloodshed. For whenever any one coveted the mansion or villa, or even the plate or apparel of another, he exerted his influence to have him numbered among the proscribed. Thus they, to whom the death of Damasippus had been a subject of joy, were soon after dragged to death themselves; nor was there any cessation of slaughter, until Sylla had glutted all his partisans with riches.

Such excesses, indeed, I do not fear from Marcus Tullius [Cicero], or in these times. But in a large state there arise many men of various dispositions. At some other period, and under another consul, who, like the present, may have an army at his command, some false accusation may be credited as true; and when, with our example for a precedent, the consul shall have drawn the sword on the authority of the senate, who shall stay its progress, or moderate its fury?**

"First they came for the Communists. . ."  Those haunting words echoed with new meaning.   The early victims of the Nazis were not sympathetic people, especially to a conservative like Niemoller.***

Another point of significance here is that the Nazis targeted the organized opposition first.  Communists, Socialists, and unions are all organized structures with institutional power.  Jews and Catholics, by contrast, are much more diffuse groups.  And in that sense, "There was no one left to speak out for me," is not purely hyperbolic.  There were people, of course, who could have spoken out for him, but there were no organized institutions left to oppose the Nazis.  

In general, I would say, do not be too quick to quote Niemoller.  Stick to the face-eating leopards. But I am beginning to find that poem apt in the case of ICE.  More to come.

__________________________________________

*The inclusion of Catholics is debated. Certainly many Catholics continued to practice their faith openly in Nazi Germany, but the transnational nature of Catholicism made it the natural enemy of Nazi hypernationalism.
**Classical historians generally sided against Caesar and suspected that is solicitude for the conspirators may have been because of complicity. Modern readers would applaud him more if he had advocated for due process. Instead of calling for trial, Caesar was actually calling for non-capital punishment, still without trial. It should be noted that when Caesar became dictator, he practiced what he preached. He did not execute any of his political rivals.
***Indeed, Niemoller's own comments appear to confirm this interpretation, "We thought: Communists, those opponents of religion, those enemies of Christians—should I be my brother's keeper?"