March 14, 2005
Orwell and Huxley: Prophets still.
In the middle of the last century a pair of writers wrote monumental novels about government’s worst potential. The author’s were George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. Their novels respectively were “1984” and “Brave New World”. These two books were required reading in elementary and high school social studies classes in a large number of schools around the country in the early 1960’s. At the time, given the conclusion of WWII and the Cold War with Russia already underway with its dictatorial type of government, the books were viewed as indictments of authoritarian regimes.
Decades later, they are being viewed in a new context as an indictment of how democracy can achieve the same ends as authoritarian regimes. I highly recommend these two novels to readers here who are concerned about American and international politics and ask why our own democracy is working against us so often. Pick up these two short novels and read them in light of our contemporary governments and their actions. George Orwell predicted what is happening to language and history at the hands of those who control government in America. Our cost of living adjustments are being called tax increases and wage increases. Patriotism is being defined as not turning a critical eye or mouth on what our government and its dictators do or say. Abortion is called murder while state sponsored executions are called 'saving lives'. And anyone receiving tax sponsored payments from the government are touted as lazy, indolent, and lacking in character.
When soldiers of Viet Nam are called traitors for speaking out against that war some 30 years later, a kind of revisionist history takes place that negates the fact that the majority of Americans at the time were critical of that war, including a very large number of representatives in government. When the American Indian is no longer referred to as the original Americans, when the government refuses to acknowledge or honor 100's of treaties with them and history books begin to reflect a kind of Noblesse Oblige treatment of American Indians by our government, when we treat ANWR the same way we treated Indian treaties, when schools refuse to teach America's open arm policy toward Nazi's after WWII if they had some knowledge or expertise our leaders wanted, the kind of revisionist history that Orwell warned about is in fact, coming to pass.
This history revision and language distortion which Orwell termed NewSpeak and DoubleSpeak has become commonplace in America. It is a form of brainwashing of the voters to make them pliant to the will of the dictates of those controlling government. Listen to Ann Coulter call those on the left traitors or the Vice President stating critics of Bush are giving 'aid and comfort to the enemy' as just a couple of examples of how language is being redefined toward political ends as we live and breathe.
One of the greatest attempts at Newspeak and Doublespeak is taking place out of our President's mouth. On the one hand he states Social Security is in crisis. Factually untrue (it will be in crisis sometime after 2042 or earlier if private savings accounts are implemented), but let that slide for a moment. On the other hand he preaches private accounts as a solution. Also, factually untrue. Private accounts add not one cent to the needed revenues of the Social Security system to help it over the hump years after 2042 or later when revenues will fall short of meeting outlays. Bush says the crisis results from the lack of revenues after 2042 - yet his solution adds not a dime to the revenues needed to address the shortfall.
Private Accounts constitutes an entirely different program than the Social Security program Pres. Bush says he wants to save. Yet, his private accounts plan actually will divert revenues needed after 2042 to keep Social Security solvent. Therein lies the DoubleSpeak. Private Accounts is doublespeak for phasing out the Social Security program entirely by bankrupting it sooner than 2042 by diverting current revenues going into the SS away from the SS plan.
Webster's dictionary defines doublespeak with these words: evasive, ambiguous, high-flown language intended to deceive or confuse. In his bestselling book Doublespeak, William Lutz notes that doublespeak is not an accident or a "slip of the tongue." Instead, it is a deliberate, calculated misuse of language. Lutz provides several defining attributes of doublespeak:
- * misleads
- * distorts reality
- * pretends to communicate
- * makes the bad seem good
- * avoids or shifts responsibility
- * makes the negative appear positive
- * creates a false verbal map of the world
- * limits, conceals, corrupts, and prevents thought
- * makes the unpleasant appear attractive or tolerable
- * creates incongruity between reality and what is said or not said
"The whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought." 1984
Hence, Private Accounts is also Newspeak in that it seeks to eliminate not only the word "social" from its replacement program, but, the very concept of "social" in terms of government programs. There is nothing social about each person saving for themselves. And there is nothing social about breadwinners dying or disabled and leaving their loved ones to fall into poverty since the Social Security Insurance plan will have been eliminated.
This is the aim of the GOP and President Bush. But, what of Medicare? Didn't the GOP and Bush pass expansive new Medicare legislation? Good question. But a better question is: if a political party wanted to end Medicare without losing the voting public's support, how could that party achieve both ends? The answer becomes almost immediately evident. Increase the size, scope, and cost of Medicare to the extent that it becomes a repulsive program to voters by virtue of the huge deficits it creates. Voila! The GOP and Bush have accomplished this very efficiently. The Pres. said the legislation would cost 350 billion initially. After it passed, the Congressional Budget Office determined the cost would be closer to 450 billion. Now, after implementation, the costs appear to be headed toward 3/4 of trillion dollars.
When the time comes to raise taxes to deal with all this debt and deficits, taxpayers will look back and say the Rx program and even Medicare itself is responsible and agree then, that the program is unaffordable. And all the while, if the GOP and Bush had allowed the government to acquire competitive bids from the pharmaceutical companies for the program's prescriptions, which was forbidden in the bill, the Medicare Rx program would never have ended up approaching the 3/4 trillion dollar cost it is currently on track toward. When the legislation passed, the majority of Americans thought it was good thing. Now a few are learning it was not, as implemented. And when the tax comes due to pay for it, likely most Americans will view it as a bad program by virtue of its unsustainability.
These are just some examples. A great many more are evident. The Bankruptcy reform which experts now say won't reduce bankruptcy filings nor interest rates. What it will do is increase credit card and bank profitability (like they are hurting now, right?) and at the same time move many thousands of Americans each year out of the middle class, into barely subsistence living as a result of medical expenses, lost jobs, or divorce or disability. It is reform. But it is not reform that will help the majority of Americans. It will harm large numbers of Americans over time however. It would be different if the current 30% interest rates charged legally by credit card companies would be lowered drastically, or the total number of bankruptcies would be cut in half. But, neither will be the case, so the benefit to Americans will not follow.
Huxley's "Brave New World" has many parallels with what is happening today in the implementation of technology to order society and alleviate fears. It is beyond the scope of this article to delve into it here, though. A national ID falls right into such a parallel as does the religious right's efforts to deny women their right to choose via government.
Posted by David R. Remer at March 14, 2005 03:32 AMHuxley’s “Brave New World” has many parallels with what is happening today in the implementation of technology to order society and alleviate fears. It is beyond the scope of this article to delve into it here, though. A national ID falls right into such a parallel as does the religious right’s efforts to deny women their right to choose via government.
Now *that’s* revisionist history, my friends. The “right to choose” was not even invented in Huxley’s time. Taking a historical book and making it support your current political goals is just another form of maudlin partisanship and cheapens the greatness of these two dystopias. (Oh, btw, you leave out the third great dystopia of the post-war era: Atlas Shrugged).
Posted by: Chops at March 14, 2005 08:06 AMChops, it is interesting that you select the one paragraph I did not discuss in detail to make such grandiose remarks as you made.
However, since you apparently did not read it, or utterly failed to see the parallel, in BNW females have their limbs removed, hooked up to machines, and turned into reproductive machines for the benefit of the state and the welfare of the people.
Currently, the religious right seeks to use government to deny women the right to choose when they will be mothers for the benefit of the state and the welfare of the people.
The parallel is stark.
Posted by: David R Remer at March 14, 2005 08:25 AMChops, you should read about Alice Rosenbaum’s personal life. She was a high-handed authoritarian personality reminiscent of our current President. It worked against her despite her compelling literary style. But, then there were many great writers on economics and capitalism of that day, of which Ms. Rosenbaum’s was noted but, hardly prophetic. Fact is, America became great as a mixed economy of social programs and government regulation of capitalism, a far cry from what Ms. Rosenbaum touted and would not have achived such greatness alone. Had America followed Ms. Rosenbaum’s path, the great middle class that made great corporations would never have existed.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 14, 2005 08:38 AMOooh, you’re cool. You know Ayn Rand’s birth name.
Government dismembering women for the “welfare of the people” sounds to me more like government funding the dismemberment of unborn and partially-born babies than it does of the government prohibiting said activity.
You can respond to this and have the last word; I won’t respond back. Watchblog has enough pointless threads on abortion and I don’t mean to detract from your intelligent post with an intellect-stultifying rehash of the abortion debate.
Posted by: Chops at March 14, 2005 09:18 AMSo instead, I’ll gripe about the meat of your post ;-)
When the American Indian is no longer referred to as the original Americans, when the government refuses to acknowledge or honor 100’s of treaties with them and history books begin to reflect a kind of Noblesse Oblige treatment of American Indians by our government.
Huh? Are you trying to suggest that the treatment and perception of American Indians has worsened during the last fifty years? The Federal government just opened the Museum of the American Indian in DC. My friends who have gone say it’s good, but spends too much time criticizing white people.
Posted by: Chops at March 14, 2005 09:26 AMChops, I agree about the Museum. I have heard great praise from many different circles about it.
I was addressing our children’s history books in school. Very few American children will ever visit the Amer. Indian Museum in D.C.
Article PostScript: The Washington Post has an article this morning that says:
Barely a third of the public approves of the way President Bush is dealing with Social Security and a majority says the more they hear about Bush’s plan to reform the giant retirement system, the less they like it, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.Posted by: David R. Remer at March 14, 2005 10:29 AM
I am embarrassed to admit that I have not read either of these books, thought I am somewhat familiar with the content of both books. I have remedied the situation by ordering both from Amazon.com today. I have long been troubled about the track our Republic is taking, and the believe by some in the electorate that ignorance is bliss and freedom should be limited…
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 14, 2005 12:09 PMDavid, nice article.
I’m embarrassed to say that I didn’t read 1984 until I was a freshman in college. I asked that it be assigned in high school, but my teacher said it was ‘too advanced’ for most of the students. A pretty sad commentary on our school system in the mid 90’s.
At any rate, when I was reading it 1995 I remember being amazed, but also feeling that the concepts were largely of a bygone era. That a government like that could never rise again, because people would see it coming a mile away, and that even if they didn’t, that world communication systems were so good that people in other countries would warn people if their government took a wrong turn. What failed to occur to me then was the possibility that a country could be manipulated to WANT this government. That all those outside warnings could be recast as attacks. While we clearly don’t live in the world of 1984 now, it amazes me to see how subtle the changes can be: In the build up to the Iraq war, it was like watching a scene reenacted: Iraq became the enemy; Iraq was the enemy; Iraq had always been the enemy. I sat there, and I knew that this wasn’t the case; I knew that Iraq had been our friend at one point, but there it was, right on the T.V., right in the papers, coming out of people on the streets mouths. This isn’t the same as 1984, but the way in which people fully internalized this message, that there was no discussion of history, we talked about them using chemical weapons, but not that we sold them some of those weapons, and then looked the other way when they used them; was bizarrely similar to me.
Any way, just my personal 1984 moment. I’d also like to maybe add a couple books: ‘We’, the book from which 1984 and Brave New World jumped off from, and ‘The Handmaids Tale’, a more contemporary novel in this vein.
Mr. Martin. That was an impressive act on your part. If only 40 million more would would follow suit, our future might be a much brighter scenario. You won’t be disappointed. The parallels are abundant.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 14, 2005 01:54 PMJustin, thank you for your astute observations. My original draft included some of what you discussed in regard to the Iraq War, but, was passed over due to the growing length of the article. I very much appreciate your bringing that aspect of revisionist history Orwell so clearly detailed to the coverage of the stages to invading and occupying Iraq.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 14, 2005 01:57 PMJustin, we read both of those books in our 9th grade civics class in 1963 or 1964. It was a special high school in Detroit, but, some of my friends also got it in world history or civics courses in the 10th and 11th grades in regular high schools. You are absolutely right about the education statement.
Even with lower standards, schools should at the very least be requiring “Animal Farm” in civics, history, or Political Science in college. It is an easy and short read with tremendous punch regarding the propensities of human nature in positions of power.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 14, 2005 02:04 PMDavid,
Martin beat me to it but I am going to the library this afternoon and pick it up. I have to read this. Excellent article too. Due to the fact that you are humble about everything and won’t admit it, you are a genius regardless of what you think.
David, great piece.
The Doublespeak and Newspeak you outline in your article is the reason why I recently suggested in the Blue column that Left-thinking people need to work hard in order to buy a national TV station. Because the stations that currently exist are no longer acting like proffesional newsgatherers with a duty to inform the public at a time when politicians on the Right are engaging in so much conscious distortion and devious manipulation. Indeed, I feel that they are rendering so many words and ideas meaningless that something must be done - and done soon - to expose and to decipher what these men who are currently in charge of all spheres of our government are ACTUALLY doing and saying - and in a way that even the most dullwitted of American’s could fully comprehend.
Justin’s reply to you I think is very telling, also. He said they didn’t read those books in his highschool because they were “too advanced for most students” during the 1990’s. I graduated from a public highschool in 1980. I first read both Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ and Orwell’s ‘1984’ when I was a sophomore in highschool (and btw, both paperbacks were given to the class free of charge - I still have both of them). Obviously they weren’t considered too advanced for a tenth graders intelligence in the late 1970’s - but of course the following decade was when the Right first began to let the public schools go into decline - as just another way to “starve the beast”.
The fact that reading and comprehension skills could fall so far in such a short amount of time might go a long way to explaining why FoxNews is so popular - and perhaps why what “they report, you decide” is to be so gullible as to go along with any sort of GOP distortion or lie imaginable.
Adrienne, thanks for input and comments, especially the kudos.
I am still very unsure as to whether the dumbing down of the American K-12 education systems nationally was be design or not. There is certainly a lot of evidence to draw upon in support of that notion, especially when the religious right now insists Creationism be taught side by side with scientifically established evolution. Hell, even good Christian Farmers know the benefits of breeding in positive attributes to their livestock and breeding out the negative ones.
But, it remains to be seen if there has been an overall drop in quality of teachers, quality of teaching, quality of curriculum, and if cultural interference or generational culture is interfering with the educational process. I certainly hope research is being done on these questions, but, I have yet to see any published results comparing the educational experience of the 60’s and 70’s in K-12 compared to the 80’s and 90’s for example.
I suspect you might be right on this, but, in the absence of hard data, it is difficult to say for sure.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 14, 2005 03:14 PMBefore someone pens the completed thought of David’s process (that is, that Bush = Big Brother) let’s remember that revisionist history goes both ways. How many Democrats do you hear mentioning Iraqi noncompliance with Security Council Resolutions in the context of a heated WMD debate? No - it’s all about the WMDs (in Syria now, probably) that “don’t exist” and “never existed” (after 1998 that is). Read any biography on Saddam and his regime, and you’ll think differently about WMDs.
The same goes for Social Security. I can take David’s comments about the program being fine until 2042, and call that doublespeak. In fact, the making of an argument that intentionally omits any information that could be used to construct a rebuttal could be construed as doublespeak. Salespeople are required to excel at this. (Last night, I watched “The Assasination of Richard Nixon” - perfect example of a salesman who stinks because he divulges too much information). Doing this isn’t necessarily a crime against humanity. But it is if you’re an analyst. Analysts are more respected than salespeople.
David said that “One of the greatest attempts at Newspeak and Doublespeak is taking place out of our President’s mouth”. I would challenge that anyone wanting to make an authentic attempt against doublespeak and vocabulary reduction ought to attack it in their own houses first. For that reason, my first article on Watchblog was about the mixed motives in Iraq with Mattis - the contradiction between “winning hearts and minds of the Iraqi people” and “shooting the bastards”. Chops, Sebastian and myself all crossed the aisle for the discussion on Iraqi detainees, even though the feature article was from the very-liberal New Yorker. (Seeing the information reinforced from the Army investigation and the Red Cross report helped convince some of us).
It is my personal vendetta to challenge the use of religious rhetoric, first by myself and then by my peers. I’d like to see more people on both sides of the aisle here willing to do the same.
Posted by: Gandhi at March 14, 2005 05:28 PMGandhi said: “The same goes for Social Security. I can take David’s comments about the program being fine until 2042, and call that doublespeak. In fact, the making of an argument that intentionally omits any information that could be used to construct a rebuttal could be construed as doublespeak.”
That is pure bullshit, Gandhi. Fact, The Head of the Soc. Sec. Administration, a Bush appointee, states that their independent actuarial, Goss, has determined that 2042 is the date at around which the surplus is spent, and either benefits need to be cut or additional revenues raised.
That is fact, my friend. That is the only reliable fact from a reliable authority on this topic. A lot of ignorant people who wish it were not so, may argue it isn’t, but, they haven’t hired independent actuarials to assess the demographics, revenues and expenditures, hence any other arguments absent such study which insists it is both otherwise and the truth, is by definition, DOUBLESPEAK. Hence, my comment CANNOT BE DEFINED as doublespeak because it reiterates the only informed fact available from a reliable source.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 14, 2005 06:19 PMDavid - bullshit yourself! The problem with SS is not in 2042; it’s right now. As I have said before - and this is consistent with a correct financial understanding of bankruptcy - SS will be backrupt in 2042. It’s starting to run a deficit right about now (or some say 2018-ish). Therein lies YOUR doublespeak.
We’ve had enough discussion before about Social Security, so I’m not going to beat a dead horse. Anyone can go back and read the archived posts.
Posted by: Gandhi at March 14, 2005 06:39 PMGandhi, again, it is the people in the know who work at the pleasure of President Bush who have said the surplus runs out in 2042 and the same folks indicate that around 2020, it was revised a few weeks ago, is when we start tapping the surplus. Currently, according to these same people in the know, we are still producing more revenue into the system than is being paid out.
Those be the facts. The crisis does not occur until 2042 when either benefits will have to be cut to 73% of the promise made to beneficiaries, or FICA taxes will have to be raised significantly.
Yes, it is advisable that small measures be taken today to avoid the crisis. The longer we wait to take corrective measures, the larger the measures will be to correct the situation. Bush’s appointee was on Washington Journal just this morning stating these very same facts. No doublespeak here.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 14, 2005 06:49 PM“But, it remains to be seen if there has been an overall drop in quality of teachers, quality of teaching, quality of curriculum, and if cultural interference or generational culture is interfering with the educational process.”
Well, I can only relate what my sister has been telling me. She’s been a school teacher for many years now, and she claims that the low salary that the average teacher receives has for many years been driving the most smart and talented of them out of the profession fairly quickly, and says she would have been long gone herself if she was a regular teacher.
She teaches special education classes - dealing with emotionally disturbed kids and others with special disabilities like deafness, or those with MS or cerebral palsy - but now with a lot of her classes she has become a co-teacher because of what they call “full inclusion” - meaning even kids with severe problems must be taught alongside everyone else in all public schools. She believes that the quality of education is now much worse for the kids without disabilities because of the way the classes have to be taught so that every student in the class will “get” the idea.
I think it is safe to say that the quality of American public school education has indeed gone sharply down - American test scores are the proof - hence everyone’s inital eagerness and enthusiasm for No Child to be Left Behind (even though that has got to be the worst program to ever be implemented in the history of public education).
Not sure what you were getting at about cultural interference or generational culture - care to elaborate a little?
Posted by: Adrienne at March 14, 2005 07:18 PMDavid said:
…around 2020, it was revised a few weeks ago, is when we start tapping the surplus
That’s EXACTLY what I was referring to with vocabulary reduction and word twisting. What’s a surplus? It’s when you’re running a profit. A deficit is when you’re running a loss. Just as the deficit shouldn’t be confused with the national debt, so neither should a surplus be confused with an asset. An asset generates a surplus.
In 2020 the assets of SS will be exceeded by its liabilties. We don’t start “tapping the surplus” in 2020. There will not be a surplus in 2020. There will be a deficit, and the system will be selling off its assets (bonds) to stay alive. In 2042 it will no longer exist as anything more than a system for direct wealth redistribution. David, I KNOW you’re smart enough to use the correct terms!
Posted by: Gandhi at March 15, 2005 01:10 AMHere again, Gandhi, you make words fit your intent instead of observing their actual definitions. As you will know, workers today provide the funding for the beneficiaries today. It has always been so with SS. Hence, a surplus is revenues into the system in excess of those being paid out at a given point in time.
One online dictionary defines surplus as “That which remains when use or need is satisfied, or when a limit is reached; excess; overplus.”
As you also know, the SS system is not a profit oriented commercial enterprise, hence your definition of surplus as profit is inappropriate. The word according to the dictionaries, has contextual meanings, and your use as profit does not apply to context of my use of the word.
Gandhi, you really don’t understand. Revenues into the SS system include the interest on the surplus accrued at the treasury rate. The system has a surplus and will continue to have a surplus over benefits paid until 2042. You really must visit the SSA site and read the facts. A little eduacation can go a long way, especially in a public forum. In 2020, the amount of real time payroll contributions will cease to equal benefit payments. At that point, the surplus revenues now accruing from both payroll deduction revenue and employer contributions and treasury rate interest on that surplus will be used depleted slowly from 2020 to about 2042, when the surplus will then be consumed: and in 2042, the SS program, given no changes whatever between now and then, will begin to result in deficit spending or reduction in benefits paid. After 2042 for some as yet undetermined period of time, the revenues coming in will only equal 73% of the benefits to be paid out. If we do nothing until 2042, we will face the choice of cutting benefits 27% so payments equal revenues, or raise the FICA premiums to equal the difference.
Rather than argue from a position of ignoring the facts, why not just visit the SSA site and verify that all of the information I just provided you is factual according to the SSA? It makes no sense to continue to argue from a position of ignoring the facts as opposed to simply verifying the source for yourself. Unless of course, you are one of those who does not wish to be confused by the facts.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 15, 2005 01:44 AMDavid -
I’ve already been to the SS site; I’ve read plenty of analysis from both sides (including the government’s) on how it works. You haven’t presented any new information about SS in your above post. All you’ve done is phrase it differently.
As I said earlier, it’s all in how the situation is framed. I’m using the word “surplus” over a shorter period of time - say, annual change - which is the way it is supposed to be used in speech. You’re using the word in an absolute sense. In this case it almost doesn’t matter how the word is defined; what matters is how it is used. Both of our uses may be gramatically permissible, but I’d say my use of the word is the more common one, and thus more correct.
Each of us thinks the other doesn’t understand, and we’re not backing down, so obviously we’re not going to make any more progress in the discussion until new information is added. I suggest we shift the discussion to something else. I won’t rebutt any further points you make that don’t offer new information (with reference to Watchblog archives from last month).
Posted by: Gandhi at March 15, 2005 12:39 PMGandhi said: “You haven’t presented any new information about SS in your above post. “
Yes, it is the same information as on the SSA sight which is run and managed by a Bush appointee. Thank you.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 15, 2005 04:52 PMJones -
Did you mean to have your name link to a site called ‘f**kfrance.com’?
1984 was written in 1948, not about 1948, and it is not about the rise of, but the existence and mindset of a totalitarian government and the culture that supports it. The book is a universal warning, and to dismiss it as a relic of some bygone era is to ignore the warning. While some of the symbolism is specific to the port war period (as it would be given that this is when it was written) I think the very existence of a site called f**kfrance.com, and the fact that you would wear it so proudly bares a striking similarity to the irrational and violent ‘two minutes hate’. Maybe the comparison isn’t so far off after all.
