4 ms·
Orwell is great. This article is questionable. > To the surprise of absolutely no one, George Orwell is everywhere these days. His seven-decade-old dystopian c
by cgriswald 10y ago
Orwell is great. This article is questionable.
> To the surprise of absolutely no one, George Orwell is everywhere these days. His seven-decade-old dystopian classic, 1984, recently made waves by topping a bunch of bestseller lists. Orwell’s earlier (and arguably greater) allegory, Animal Farm, is also getting its due. That both novels are suddenly on the radar of people who probably haven’t given Orwell a second thought in years is hardly surprising at a time when war refugees are painted as national security threats, white nationalists hold positions of power in the White House and an American president is openly involved in an abusive relationship with the English language.
It isn't surprising. What is surprising is to see anyone lay this at the feet of Trump.
So here is what actually happened: In the wake of 9/11, Bush started legitimizing a strong surveillance state (that to some degree has been with us since WW II). With few exceptions, primarily from 'crazy libertarians' and some liberals, both liberals and conservatives went along with it. Of course, this didn't stop liberals from using it as justification to try to get Republicans out of office later on.
Obama was elected. Since Obama was "their guy", liberals grew mostly silent on the subject (although with a lot more exceptions than before) and conservatives suddenly changed their tune, at least in public: surveillance is bad (but Snowden is still a traitor).
Those liberals who were cool with whatever Obama was doing believed in the myth of "the right people". Meaning, governance isn't a question of political power, sound policies, principled problem solving or anything along those lines. It's just a question of having "the right people" in charge. So whatever powers "the right people" say they need to do their job, since they are "the right people" it must be true and we should give them those powers to Get Things Done. (Note: there are conservative factions that believe this as well.)
Now, those very same liberals are in a panic because (surprise, surprise) Trump (i.e., the wrong person) is in charge and has all those powers that were previously given to "the right people". Of course, the problem isn't the granting of those powers. It's just that the wrong person was voted in by an ignorant public.
So now, in a panic, largely induced by a media which finds itself incapable of straight truth or depth, they flock to buy 1984 so they can 'legitimately' talk and write about this book they've never previously read in order to make tenuous comparisons to Trump's brand new presidency. And they, like conservatives during the Obama years, will cry out against the very same surveillance state that was no problem at all when their guy was in charge.
- skylan_q 10y agoExcellent analysis. Completely agree. I have never seen a piece complaining about the usage in "insurgent" vs. "rebel" when the news speaks of foreign affairs, but that is a perfect example of newspeak. Instead, we speak of newspeak because the new president doesn't like "politically correct" speech. What?
- dang 10y agoEdit: ok, you don't like that Orwell article?—we got others. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13672556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13672556. > Orwell is great. This article is questionable. Probably true, but it's an excuse to talk about Orwell and most commenters here are doing a great job of that. How about we keep it up and not take the bait? That would be breaking new ground on the internet.
- jdoliner 10y agoPersonally, I think the parent comment has done the best job of talking about Orwell and how he applies to our present situation of any in the thread. I don't see anything particularly ground breaking about us all heaping praise on Orwell, it seems like we all love his writing.
- dang 10y agoWhat would be ground-breaking is bait resistance. A community that could respond to the substantive parts of a story and resist getting sucked in by the baity parts would be a new thing (where by 'new' I just mean I don't know of one).
- toss1941 10y agoThe problem is the story's substance starts with poisoning the well by making the accusation that the state of fear described in 1984 and Orwell's other writing is due to Trump and the 'white nationalists' he has in his cabinet. Then, it gives sparse details about the specific connections between Orwell's writings and Trump, but because of the initial poison the reader is supposed to infer meaning that simply doesn't exist. That's why I called it a propaganda piece, because that's all it is. Orwell is fantastic, but Orwell in my estimation would be rolling in his grave upon hearing that the biggest hypocrites about 'government transparency' and 'fair free speech' in the world are using him to attack their political opponents.