Bill Maher slammed Larry David for his “insulting” Hitler comparison after a friendly dinner with Trump, proving once again the left has no sense of historical perspective when it comes to their political enemies.
At a Glance
- Bill Maher criticized Larry David for invoking Hitler in a New York Times op-ed that mocked Maher’s dinner with Donald Trump
- Maher called the Hitler comparison “insulting to six million dead Jews” and argued it diminishes the Holocaust’s historical significance
- David’s satirical essay titled “My Dinner With Adolf” paralleled Maher’s description of Trump as “gracious and measured” in person
- Despite the controversy, Maher maintains he and David are still friends and open to reconciliation
- The New York Times defended David’s piece as satire about “seeing people for who they really are”
The Left’s Hitler Obsession Strikes Again
When Bill Maher had dinner with Donald Trump recently, little did he know his longtime friend Larry David would respond by essentially comparing the former president to Adolf Hitler. In a satirical New York Times op-ed titled “My Dinner With Adolf,” David mocked Maher’s description of Trump as “gracious and measured” in person by imagining a similarly pleasant dinner with history’s most notorious dictator. The piece was an obvious jab at Maher’s willingness to engage Trump civilly, and boy did it trigger a righteous response from the normally left-leaning HBO host.
Maher didn’t hold back his criticism of David’s op-ed during his latest show, calling out the comedian’s cheap shot for what it was – a disgraceful trivialization of genuine historical atrocity. This is exactly what conservatives have been saying for years: the left’s reflexive comparison of political opponents to Hitler doesn’t just weaken legitimate political debate, it insults the memory of Holocaust victims and survivors by diminishing the unique horror of what actually happened under the Nazi regime.
Playing the Hitler Card: The Death of Rational Discourse
Instead of addressing substantive policy differences with Trump or questioning Maher’s decision to meet with him, David immediately reached for the nuclear option in political discourse – the Nazi comparison. Maher correctly pointed out that this lazy rhetorical move is intellectually bankrupt. “Look, I don’t want to get in — too much into that, but I think the minute you play the Hitler card. You’ve lost the argument,” Maher stated bluntly. He’s absolutely right. When you’ve run out of legitimate criticism, comparing someone to Hitler has become the go-to move for the intellectually lazy left.
“To use the Hitler thing, first of all, I just think it’s kind of insulting to six million dead Jews. That should kind of be in its own place in history. And I know people can say, well, we’re just comparing it in this way. Well, it’s an argument you kind of lost just to start it.” – Bill Maher.
The fact that the New York Times would publish such a piece speaks volumes about the state of our mainstream media. Imagine if a conservative publication ran a satire comparing Biden to Stalin or Mao – the outrage would be deafening. But apparently, when it’s directed at Trump, historical hyperbole is perfectly acceptable “satire.” The Times’ deputy opinion editor Patrick Healy even defended the piece, claiming it “is not equating Trump with Hitler” but rather is “about seeing people for who they really are.” Sure, and I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Friendship in the Age of Political Derangement
Perhaps the most telling aspect of this whole debacle is what it reveals about how Trump Derangement Syndrome can poison even long-standing friendships. Maher acknowledged the strain David’s piece put on their relationship, saying, “Oh, yes, of course. I mean, this wasn’t, you know, my favorite moment of our friendship.” That’s putting it mildly. Imagine having a decades-long friendship and throwing it under the bus because your buddy had dinner with a politician you don’t like. That’s the kind of rabid intolerance the progressive left has normalized.
“Sometimes the best way to make an opinion argument isn’t in a traditional essay. Americans are inundated with news; it can sometimes take a satirical provocation to break through, even at the risk of causing offense.” – Patrick Healy.
To his credit, Maher has shown a willingness to engage with those across the political spectrum, rather than retreating to ideological safe spaces like most liberal commentators. He’s admitted to finding common ground with Trump on issues like moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem – a move Biden hasn’t reversed, by the way. This kind of political open-mindedness used to be praised as a virtue in American society, not condemned as a betrayal. But in today’s increasingly polarized climate, simply talking to “the enemy” is enough to get you excommunicated from the progressive church. Thank goodness at least one liberal still understands the value of actual dialogue.
