Dissident Politics: Mental gymnastics: Comparing modern people to historical figures

In writing a response to a complex set of comments this morning, a mini-epiphany hit like a ½ ton of bricks, assuming it isn't some kind of self-delusion. "Reputable" comparisons I recall between historical figures and modern day people always or almost always include comparison-weakening caveats that go something like this:

It's important to note that these are controversial comparisons made by critics. Supporters of the criticized modern person would strongly reject any parallels to bad, e.g., Nazi or fascist, historical figures or policies, e.g., genocide, mass murder, etc. The situations are very different historically and contextually.

There it is -- very different historically, contextually and controversially. You can't reliably compare a modern monster to a historical monster because history, context and/or controversy. All monsters have to be monstrous in the same ways, with the same quantity and degree of damage or evil and little or no controversy? Right?

Hm. Maybe not right. In my opinion, that deflects from a factor that is at least as important. Is there something else that is fundamental and informative in addition to history, context and controversy? From what I can tell, at least some controversy always attaches when bad people are accused of doing bad things, e.g., DJT says he is not a crook and liar. They all deny their badness, or justify it as not bad because it's necessary, or even morally right on its own.

Is that caveated "reasoning" always mostly true or incomplete and thus often misleading? Consider this tussle I had with Perplexity this morning, where I asked about a comparison between (i) Heinrich Himmler, head of the Nazi SS and the mass-murdering inventor of the Nazi holocaust, and (ii) callous, modern day MAGA freak Steven Miller, inventor of less ghastly things. Here is a follow-up question to what struck me as an unsatisfactory initial analysis[1] that Perplexity made in its comparison of Himmler with Miller, which I did not ask for but got anyway:

Follow-up Q: In your answer comparing Miller to Himmler, you say that "the situations are also very different historically and contextually", but doesn't a better, reasonable comparison include consideration of their callousness and authoritarian mindset [as much or more] than history and context?

A: You raise an important point about comparing historical figures based on their personal characteristics and mindsets rather than just historical context. When examining the similarities between Stephen Miller and Heinrich Himmler, there are indeed some concerning parallels in their authoritarian tendencies and apparent lack of empathy [apparent lack of empathy??, how about obvious lack]:

Both Miller and Himmler have demonstrated a willingness to propose and implement harsh policies targeting vulnerable groups. Miller has been a key architect of restrictive immigration policies, including family separations at the border. Himmler, of course, was instrumental in carrying out the Holocaust and other Nazi atrocities.

They share an apparent callousness toward human suffering resulting from their policies. Miller has shown little concern for the welfare of immigrants and refugees affected by his proposals. Himmler was notoriously ruthless in pursuing Nazi racial ideology.

Both exhibit authoritarian mindsets, favoring centralized power and control. Miller advocates for expanded executive authority on immigration, while Himmler helped build the Nazi police state.

They demonstrate an "us vs. them" mentality, portraying certain groups as threats to be controlled or removed [a common authoritarian justification for bad to horrendous behavior]. Miller focuses on immigrants, while Himmler targeted Jews and other Nazi-defined "undesirables".

Both rose to positions of significant influence at relatively young ages by aligning themselves with authoritarian leaders (Trump for Miller, Hitler for Himmler).

Q: Here's the mental gymnastics question of the day, what is more important in making comparisons between different people in politics or history, alive and/or dead?:

1. Context, history and policy or behavior differences

2. Mental similarities, including considering degree of extremism, and degree of authoritarianism, i.e., likely intended behavior in view of constraints by relevant context, e.g., level of personal and political power, and degree of public, political and/or institutional support and opposition, social context

3. Both carry about the same degree of importance, both are necessary to reasonable, less misleading comparisons

Footnote:

1. My initial, pre-epiphany question asked for a photo comparison of Himmler and Miller, who I thought looked a lot alike. The Perplexity "history and context" response knocked me off that thought because it prompted my mini-epiphany. But, Perplexity did cough up a photo of chief Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, who Perplexity apparently "decided" offered a better physical comparison: