Bush and 1984
 

I know many of the more democratic and liberal individuals see traces of Orwell's 1984 all around us, with the war on terrorism and the Patriot Act mirroring similarities in the book, as well as the consolidation of media stifling their ability to maintain objectivity.

This is to the Repubs and others who don't see the increasing similarities between "1984" and 2004. Why? Honest question, so please respond thoughtfully.

I think most people SEE the similarities, they just choose to ignore them, tell themselves it's not a big deal, or they think the ends justify the means. I'm interested to see what kind of response this question gets...

I would suggest a visit to Iran, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Sudan, China, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Algeria etc etc etc for more pertinent examples of oppressive state-controlled societies. The US has a loooong ways to go to catch up to these types of totalitarian states.

Agreed, Gopher. Ignorance is bliss in this case. The media's objectivity, while the loss more evident in the US, is actually being lost world wide. I've had to stop watching the BBC news (used to be my reliable source). I get my info from German news and grass roots places now, which unfortunatally have far less regulations. It's getting to the point that partisan is the rule...not the exception.
Powerclown, I also agree to a point. Someone has to set an example to the rest of the world that there is a way to exist, as a media, that is non-partisan. I know that we aren't the worst, but we can do a lot better. We are still okay, but we are headed in the wrong direction. Who would like to be sliding towards a totalitarean rule?

I agree those states are more oppressive societies, but that doesn't mean just b/c we are slightly better that all is well. i personally feel we are heading in the wrong direction, moving closer, albeit, we still have a ways to go, to those more oppressed societies versus the other direction with more freedom. I know a lot of people feel this way. I want to get the opinions of those that don't see this or are at least not concerned about it b/c to me, a vote for Bush would partially imply that this is an issue that does not matter to that person, or it is a matter in which they are willing to give up some freedoms to be safe, which is a very scary thought to me.

Anyone who calls a plan to start the deforestation of national forests through logging "Healthy Forests" is using Orwell's 1984 as an instruction manual.

'Nuff said.

Ooh, good idea Shakran.

Healthy Forest: Save the forest by killing the trees
No Child Left Behind: Improve education by forcing extra expenses on the state
Clear Skies and Clean Water Initiative: Improve air quality by allowing NOx, SOx and other noxious emmissions to double, and mercury to triple

Any others?

I would not discount anyone's opinion as to the extent of totalitarianism in the US. The historical phenomenon known as America is so vast, there is something for everyone to be thankful for, as well as upset about. All valid concerns. I like to keep my eye on the rest of the world for a bit of perspectice, if only for myself.

only problem with that, powerclown, is that it might cause you to downplay or overlook patterns specific to the states because you would define what you are looking for in irrelevant terms. the states is becoming a kind of soft totalitarian system at the cultural level. if you are looking at that, and thinking in terms of direct domination, you will write off what is in front of you.

Tralls, maybe I'm confused whether you are referring to individual rights, or something broader, in your reference to Bush & 1984 here.

Im not sure I follow you roachboy. Direct domination in terms of the subjugation of it's own citizens within or foreign countries without? I also don't understand the seeming oxymoron "soft totalitarianism'. This is like 'jumbo shrimp', or 'dry ice' or 'honest crook'.

Like I said, there's a lot wrong with America and there's a lot right with it too. In terms of the 1984 analogy, ie., how the state deals with the individual, its my opinion that America falls more on the 'pro-individual rights' end of the spectrum than the 'anti-individual rights' end.

no, it's more like there are any number of ways to dominate a population--direct, often violent and/or arbitrary use of state force is but one. here you have a different kind of system, one that works through co-ordination of opinion, say, in order to lull folk into giving away basic freedoms wtihout even realizing it. in a way, it is like colonialism, which was ineffecient by 1960--too much money spent on direct control--indirect is more cost-effective.
what better way to get people to submit than to give them to understand they are choosing to do it?

I would argue that Orwell had been discredited by our postmodern sensibilities. He envisioned a top-down repression where the government controls by force and paranoia. It's quite the opposite. The population is beholden to it's pleasures, not controlled by threat of pain.

No reason to fight or die, or read, or believe. Nothing is true, nothing is false... you can do whatever you want to do, but why not just relax on the couch and watch scripted beautiful people do it instead? Just take your soma and let us entertain you till you stop breathing.

For a more insightful picture into where we've been and where we are going, I recommend Alduous Huxley's Brave New World. Orwell put together some great works of fiction, but his vision of the future has given way to something different but no less troubling.

I think people either ignore such similarities or simply lean on the defense that the world could not possibly progress to such a point in 4 years and thus are content to let Bush play his game for another term. I believe Ben Franklin had a fairly famous quote that insinuates that we, in our current state, are not worthy of liberty because we are giving up freedom in favor of safety.

I would argue that right now, we shouldn't be fearing 1984, but the progression toward it.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
-Mr. C-Note

Thirty second sound bites have their place. God knows I've used them myself.

But to use them to explain policies like logging and clean air ignores the fact that there are other issues involved, specifically our economy, renewability, etc.

While I understand the "1984" comparison, right now it strikes me more as paranoia than reality.

Not to say that we don't need to be vigilant, but we definitely aren't even close.

It's true I'm a little slow, but I'm not making the connection between Bush and 1984-style subjugation of the individual: his wants, needs, emotions. Maybe I need to re-read the book, but I thought it was about the domination of the individual in particular, and not other aspects of society such as commercial forestry or, say, the extinction of the passenger pigeon. Attributing all the evils of society (and it seems we are concentrating on EVERY one of them here...), perceived and real, to George W. Bush is giving the guy waaaay too much credit in my opinion. It does seem like borderline paranoia in this respect.

I guess one could argue the de-merits of such things as the Patriot Act, et al., but I agree with irate that its pretty much open season as far as what you want to do with your time in America. RB, I'm curious as to what basic freedoms individuals in America are being forced to unwittingly give up?

Lebell, do you realize that the title's of Bush's policies are quick soundbites themselves?
Clear Skies and Clean Water Initiatives very clearly are not meant to assist the environment. If Bush was honest about them he would call them Helping Pre-Clean Air Act Coal Furnaces Thrive Initiative and Harvesting Americas Forests for Profit Initiative. That's why it's so fucked up and Orwellian.

I think my descriptions are perfectly applicable. Current policy is too shortsighted. What we should be following is the Great Law of the Iroquois nation. It states: "In our every deliberation we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations." Too often we put very short term economic needs of some people above long term environmental health and sustainability for our nation. It is a disservice to the seven generations of Americans that will follow us.

almost every modern media and gov. includes bits of 1984
"collateral damage" is newspeak for "maimed and killed civllians"

would the support for war still be the same if the headlines were
"US Bomb mauled 5 children"
i dont think so, "collateral damage" sonds much nicer.
just like the examples by Superbelt...

The "Healthy Forest" analogy is akin to the Orwellian concept of
"doublethink"; "war is peace", "ignorance is strength", "freedom is slavery",
and the purpose of doublethink is "reality control".
<a href="http://www.cod.edu/1984/doublethink.htm">College of Dupage - Orwell Symposium</a>
It is not Bush specifically who deserves the "credit". What we are experiencing is the tip of the iceberg of a much larger agenda choreographed by this man (who, just like Bush, is a cog in a larger wheel):

host, with due respect, Bush's agenda might seem evil to some on a geo-political scale; you might think the guy is bent on world domination, but what has this got to do with personal freedoms experienced by the individual in America? If you are referring to the War, ok, Rove & Co. do their best to sell the war to the public, that's their job, and people either buy it or they don't, but what has this to do with individual freedoms? For example, do you know how difficult it is in Russia to travel from Moscow to Siberia, as a unescorted private citizen? You need a extensive portfolio of documents and bureaucratic clearances that takes weeks if not months to clear. You need to plan ahead. The same goes for China and Iran. In America, you get in your car (or plane) and go wherever the hell you want. This is only one example. Whats all the fuss about individual freedoms being trod upon in America? Are we talking about racial inequality??

Where else in the world is a society more open or free?? :confused:

Ask me, an Arab individual, born in America, when he tries to get on a plane these days. 90% of the time I have my ID called into the police department and once even had the police talk to me personally there to verify I wasn't a terrorist! I understand your point powerclown, but you are looking at it on a relative basis and it should be looked at on a fundemental basis. You can't compare freedom, it is an absolute. There aren't degrees of freedom. You either are or aren't. We are slowly losing our personal freedoms and the end result could be similar to the world like "1984" where the people didn't even realize the outcome until it was too late. You can't stop an avalanche once it has gained full steam and this avalanche is starting to gather some speed.

It's not just a republican thing....Kerry's unofficial motto seems to be "Treason is Patriotic". Doublespeak GOOD.

When has Kerry ever, EVER endorsed any form of treason?

I wont deny that Democrats need to take a look in the mirror and quit acting so Republican, but again, comparisons keep being made on a relative basis. Bush talks in "doublespeak", but so does Kerry. America is stifling freedom but China does it worse. this type of behavior should not be occuring at all. As one of the moderators sigs say "The lesser of two evils is still evil."

Isn't bush the fellow afraid of "protect civil liberties" shirts?

Endorsed? Never. Committed? Paris, by meeting with the NVA and conducting "talks" with them, then returning to the US and advocating their terms for a US surrender in Vietnam.

Except that he was never charged for treason even though he was in the sights of the Nixon White House. Simply stating something is true doesn't make it so.

I doubt Bush saw the shirts, and I doubt fear was the motivation to keep the people in question out. It was a "meeting of the faithful", and "heathen disruptors" were not welocme. The women should have known that when they lied to obtain tickets (theft by deception).

We don't know WHAT he was charged with, since he has refused to release the pertinent military documents from 1972. And the fact that somebody was not charged with something doesn't mean that they didn't do it.

If the "traitor" argument is so reasonable then why haven't we heard these charges outside of far right circles? Why wasn't anything done 30 years ago? If Kerry had been convicted of treason then, you can goddamn guarantee that it would be common knowledge.

Probably for the same reason they didn't make a big deal out of it when the Senior senator from Massachucetts killed that girl, and his family helped him destroy the evidence of the crime, or why nobody made a big deal out of it when the senator from West Virginia admitted that not only was he a member of the KKK, but he was a RECRUITER for it, or why Jane Fonda isn't still in prison.

Wow....that about says it all. I won't lower myself by responding.

right media is a distortion box, daswig--best to extract yourself from it while there is still hope that your sense of perspective might not be permanently damaged. it seems that the "lesson" you wish to impart is that opposing a war, on any grounds, is necessarily treason--no better example of the kind of thing this thread addresses could be found.
why rely on a state to dominate when you can get proxies to do the enforcement for it?
its cheaper, its easier, its more effective.
particularly if you couple that with endlessly repeated, absolutely empty phrases about how free you are.

Nope. But giving propaganda aid to the enemy IS treason. See Lord Haw-Haw and Tokyo Rose for examples. That's what Kerry did. He met with the NVA leadership when he had no authority to do so, and while he was still a member of hte US military. He made statements before the Fulbright Commission which were not only fraudulent, but were used by the enemy as psychological torture material against POWs who belonged to the same military he did. He took the NVA's "talking points", and brought them back to the US, and then pushed for their adoption. That, my friend, is a TEXTBOOK case of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

As I said not that many posts ago, just because you say it's true doesn't make it so. I'm glad that most American conservatives are not the sort who see every political opponent as some Stalinesque or traitorous bogeyman. Obviously, neither party is going to endorse someone who parroted NVA "talking points." We need to temper the passions of this fiery election season with a little common sense.

Noted liberal John McCain condemned the attacks on John Kerry's war record. That should speak for itself. Can't we leave the most vicious political rhetoric off of this board?

Forgive me if I am wrong but wasn't 1984 about control people through language and thought control? I if remember right the people were controlled mostly by the news that they were allowed to get from the state.

Now I won't deny that we have a lot of thought control going on today like undocumented not illegal and so forth. But as I recall a lot of this "newspeak" was started by the people most of you are advocating that us poor brain washed conservatives listen to.

It was the liberals in the media and politics that decided that someone is differently-abled not handicapped.

It seems to me that it all depends on your point of view. If you go for Bush then Kerry = 1984. If you go for Kerry then Bush = 1984.

This is one of reasons I am a big advocate of the 2nd amendment to the constitution. As long as the people have the right to keep an bear arms 1984 will never happen in the country.

I support Bush but I don't agree with everything he has done. The Patriot Act for on scares me some. However I know that I have a better chance with Bush of being able to stand up and have to tools available to do so than I do with Kerry.

So why haven't the hundreds of returning servicemen and women from Iraq, who have expressed lack of support for the war, been charged with treason?

Why were the thousands of returning veterans from Vietnam who opposed the war not charged with treason?

Why does the White House / AG not charge Michael Moore with treason?

Why does the White House / AG not charge the editors of the New York Times with treason?


I think you're just a little bit biased here. [/sarcasm]


Mr Mephisto

Violent coercion isn't the only means for controlling a populace. Propaganda and selective rewards can go a long way. The 2nd amendment won't help anyone if they don't think that they have anything to protect themselves against. Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia...why should I get upset about that?

Because not supporting the war itself isn't enough. Now take that National Guardsman who tried to pass information that was largely in the public domain (and available at most libraries) to Al Queda. He WAS charged, and IIRC those charges are currently pending trial. Kerry did more than just "oppose the war". He met with the enemy, exchanged views on how the war could be ended with a NVA victory, and then came home and actively worked to spread NVA propaganda to destroy morale on the home front. Are you familiar with a long-dead Congressman named Vallandigham? How about what Abraham Lincoln said about people like Vallandigham and Kerry? In case you don't remember the quote, here it is: "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." Google it. He actually said that, and carried through on it.

Probably because Moore didn't actually meet with the enemy. Now, Sean Penn may well be another matter. I DO think that Moore is walking VERY close to the line on what is and isn't protected by the First Amendment. Is he over it? I don't know, but given what happened to Eugene Debs, he may well be.

Well, Tralls, I think we've solved the mystery of this thread. As an Arab American, you are indeed under closer scrutiny these days. It is both unfortunate as well as understandable, after the occurence of 9/11 - which was perpetrated by radical fundamentalist arabs, who are to ordinary arabs what the nazis were to ordinary germans. One way to look at it would be that such scrutiny has become imperative, as a matter of national security and for the protection of the American people, whatever nationality they may be. This is the price to be paid for such an open society as America. For reference, you might contrast America's reaction to terrorism with Russia's, where Putin has effectively consolidated every aspect of the country's autonomy under his authority.