She says repeatedly that Nazism is not genetic but is potentially rooted in the earliest upbringing. When she talks about "young D," "the only born Nazi in the room," she says a lot about his upbringing and nothing whatsoever about his heritage. That's what "born" means to Dorothy Thompson.
The word "born" is clearly an awkward choice--perhaps it worked better in the idiom of 1941--but you're not doing any good by ignoring context and stubbornly insisting on a literal dictionary reading.
Actually, there is not a single mention of genes or "genetic" in that article. What are you referring to?
Your interpretation of the word "born" is bizarre. She is repeatedly describing someone's Nazism to be directly caused by biological breeding and processes (such as feeding, physical training, or Neanderthal brains).
Hang on, what are you actually arguing for? I thought blaming politics on genetics was what you were upset about in the first place.
Are you actually saying it's immoral to say that the circumstances of a person's upbringing can affect their adult behavior? Because that goes way beyond just misinterpreting the article.
The distinction made, throughout the article and all the descriptions it gives, is between those who would be a Nazi were it profitable to do so, and those who would be a Nazi wholeheartedly. The former are Nazis by circumstance, while the latter are those termed as "born Nazis". It does not refer to one's birth or heritage, but the enthusiasm with which one would join a despicable movement.
There certainly is, since that phrase is almost always used figuratively, to mean "that really suits them." You seem to have decided to choose this instance as the one time it absolutely couldn't be figurative. Focusing on one word is poor rhetoric.
The word "born" is clearly an awkward choice--perhaps it worked better in the idiom of 1941--but you're not doing any good by ignoring context and stubbornly insisting on a literal dictionary reading.