1984 Echo
In hearing recent speeches by George Bush, including this morning's address concerning the necessity of warrantless domestic surveillance, I am uncomfortably reminded of George Orwell's novel, 1984. Indeed, one could read passages of the novel as a sort of Neoconservative playbook. Unfortunately for the Neocons, it seems that radical Islamic fundamentalists are following the same game plan. I'm not sure if we are supposed to be Oceania or Eurasia or Eastasia in this unfolding perpetual war, but the increasing arrogance of the Bush Administration has set us on a path toward repression of civil liberties and a culture in which those who refuse to wear the ideological blinders of the far right are shouted down as unpatriotic, unintelligent, or even subversive.
The most resonant and persistent claim of the Neoconservative policy makers, parroted by President Bush in speech after speech, is that we are at war, and that it is not a 'traditional war.' (We could have guessed this by the fact that Congress has made no declaration of war.) Indeed, it is a "new" kind of war, and as such it has no objective measure of victory or defeat, and this is extremely useful for those who wish to tug on the strings of fear in American hearts. When the population becomes too independent in thought or too divergent from Neoconservative policy, we are reminded to once again be afraid. It is what French author Bruno Tertrais labeled "War Without End," which is the title of the English version of his book-length essay, La Guerre sans fin: L'Amerique dans l'engrenage (Editions du Seuil, Paris, 2004, English translation 2005, The New Press). Penned in 2003, Tertrais' monograph was a cautionary note from a genuine friend of America, suggesting that the optimistic hubris of the Iraq war's early days was likely to be frustrated as the conflict and occupation continued. Of course, we now can see the writing as insightful and nearly prophetic.
And so, we are at war - a special type of war that is defined far more by the administration's rhetoric than by military reality. As of this writing, there have been 2260 U.S. military deaths in Iraq, with a few more every day or every other day. Progress against the insurgency remains poorly defined, and Bush's assertion that we are "creating an inclusive democracy which will ease tensions" is certainly more marketing for U.S. consumption than it is a statement of fact. Iraq remains three distinct states ethnically and politically, and even the most optimistic analysts with a grasp of reality predict significant problems in bringing a functioning Iraqi government to fruition.
In truth, none of that matters in the Orwellian playbook. In fact, the only requirement is that there be some sort of war. The reality of its progress and the identity of the enemy are incidental. Consider the following from Chapter 9 of 1984:
Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist.
Of course, the above is an extreme version, but it is not difficult to see a much milder version of the above happening. "Don't forget, be afraid! They could hit us again!" If you are forced to live in a mentality appropriate to a state of war, you are willing to sacrifice independence, freedom, and comfort in order to support the cause of war. The above quote is also interesting in that "fanatic" is the word that truncates to "fan" in reference to enthusiasts for large-scale sporting events. Perhaps this is why the Bush Administration has been so successful in promoting the Iraq war. It is cast as the ultimate spectator sport - a high-stakes "us vs. them" clash, and we are encouraged to back our team all the way to victory. Ironically, it is a victory that cannot happen, or at least cannot be achieved in any absolute terms.
I'm not suggesting that there is no nobility in sacrifice. The individual sacrifice of members of the military and their families is indeed inspiring. Unfortunately, the conflict in which they give so selflessly is flawed in its conception. There are other forms of sacrifice that are more urgently needed. Clearly, the citizens of the United States could stand to give up some of our habits that damage the environment and consume an inordinate proportion of the world's resources. We could certainly stand to conserve energy and reduce our reliance on foreign oil and gas, but these positive expressions of sacrifice are grounded in economic realities, and perhaps even genuine altruism. Giving up the 4th Amendment for an illusory sense of security is another matter entirely. Isn't that freedom, that way of life, what our military should ultimately be defending? I do not see Iraqis or even Al Qaeda attempting to change U.S. freedoms or our basic constitutional rights. Our own government is at work on that front.
The demonization of the "enemy" has a long tradition in warfare. I would like to think that killing fellow human beings is not a natural act, and as such it requires a certain amount of conditioning or extraordinary circumstances. Historically, war is an extraordinary circumstance. This is not to say that war is a rarity, per se, but that it is not the default lifestyle of humanity. It is only now, with this "new war" that we are facing a perpetual state of war with no predictable end state. For this to be so, the enemy must be ever-present, inhuman in his desire for our destruction, and incapable of reasoning or negotiation. Again, Orwell provides the perfect description in Chapter 3 of 1984:
The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.
Paradoxically, in 1984, the enemy abruptly is changed, and the former enemy suddenly becomes an ally. All that matters is that Authority designates an enemy to be loathed and feared. If a nation or group is designated as the enemy, past agreements, alliances, or treatys with that nation cannot have been valid. This seems ridiculous on the surface, and yet, if an individual is designated as a suspected terrorist, he or she can be detained, questioned (and let us not even go into the matter of interrogation techniques), denied legal counsel, and imprisoned indefinitely. How great a leap is it from the complete disregard for individual rights and legal due process to the arbitrary labeling of any nation or group as the enemy, regardless of past alliance, cooperation, or congruity of outlook? And, conversely, how simple is it to designate a nation or group as our ally, in spite of their spawning terrorists, tolerating militant fundamentalism or even allowing the transfer of funding and weapons to those who would harm us? There must be a more objective measure than the word of a president or the tired repetition of a demonstrably bankrupt political ideology.
Where does this lead us? The prediction is beyond bleak, at least according to Orwell. We are a long way from the society of joyless automatons who bend all effort to war, and who do so merely to waste surplus productivity that they may remain sufficiently deprived to ever develop any measure of comfort, and breathing space in which independent thought might evolve. But there is a disquieting echo in current events of Orwell's concern. He was predicting the ultimate stalemate of the Cold War, which we thankfully have avoided, but "war without end" is certainly possible. In fact, the "War on Terror" would have been far more to the liking of the rulers of Oceania. In this scenario, Big Brother can designate an ever-shifting enemy. If the enemy happens to be defeated in one arena, a successor can readily be found. The system is completely flexible and scalable, bending to the fear-producing needs of Authority, convincing the populace to surrender freedoms in the hope of security. It is the perfect Orwellian enemy, and taken to its extreme, it leads to the perfect Orwellian society:
There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always -- do not forget this, Winston -- always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever. (Chapter 3, 1984)
Proceeding even a short distance down that path should be, for any American who loves freedom, intolerable.
-PMÓS
The most resonant and persistent claim of the Neoconservative policy makers, parroted by President Bush in speech after speech, is that we are at war, and that it is not a 'traditional war.' (We could have guessed this by the fact that Congress has made no declaration of war.) Indeed, it is a "new" kind of war, and as such it has no objective measure of victory or defeat, and this is extremely useful for those who wish to tug on the strings of fear in American hearts. When the population becomes too independent in thought or too divergent from Neoconservative policy, we are reminded to once again be afraid. It is what French author Bruno Tertrais labeled "War Without End," which is the title of the English version of his book-length essay, La Guerre sans fin: L'Amerique dans l'engrenage (Editions du Seuil, Paris, 2004, English translation 2005, The New Press). Penned in 2003, Tertrais' monograph was a cautionary note from a genuine friend of America, suggesting that the optimistic hubris of the Iraq war's early days was likely to be frustrated as the conflict and occupation continued. Of course, we now can see the writing as insightful and nearly prophetic.
And so, we are at war - a special type of war that is defined far more by the administration's rhetoric than by military reality. As of this writing, there have been 2260 U.S. military deaths in Iraq, with a few more every day or every other day. Progress against the insurgency remains poorly defined, and Bush's assertion that we are "creating an inclusive democracy which will ease tensions" is certainly more marketing for U.S. consumption than it is a statement of fact. Iraq remains three distinct states ethnically and politically, and even the most optimistic analysts with a grasp of reality predict significant problems in bringing a functioning Iraqi government to fruition.
In truth, none of that matters in the Orwellian playbook. In fact, the only requirement is that there be some sort of war. The reality of its progress and the identity of the enemy are incidental. Consider the following from Chapter 9 of 1984:
Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist.
Of course, the above is an extreme version, but it is not difficult to see a much milder version of the above happening. "Don't forget, be afraid! They could hit us again!" If you are forced to live in a mentality appropriate to a state of war, you are willing to sacrifice independence, freedom, and comfort in order to support the cause of war. The above quote is also interesting in that "fanatic" is the word that truncates to "fan" in reference to enthusiasts for large-scale sporting events. Perhaps this is why the Bush Administration has been so successful in promoting the Iraq war. It is cast as the ultimate spectator sport - a high-stakes "us vs. them" clash, and we are encouraged to back our team all the way to victory. Ironically, it is a victory that cannot happen, or at least cannot be achieved in any absolute terms.
I'm not suggesting that there is no nobility in sacrifice. The individual sacrifice of members of the military and their families is indeed inspiring. Unfortunately, the conflict in which they give so selflessly is flawed in its conception. There are other forms of sacrifice that are more urgently needed. Clearly, the citizens of the United States could stand to give up some of our habits that damage the environment and consume an inordinate proportion of the world's resources. We could certainly stand to conserve energy and reduce our reliance on foreign oil and gas, but these positive expressions of sacrifice are grounded in economic realities, and perhaps even genuine altruism. Giving up the 4th Amendment for an illusory sense of security is another matter entirely. Isn't that freedom, that way of life, what our military should ultimately be defending? I do not see Iraqis or even Al Qaeda attempting to change U.S. freedoms or our basic constitutional rights. Our own government is at work on that front.
The demonization of the "enemy" has a long tradition in warfare. I would like to think that killing fellow human beings is not a natural act, and as such it requires a certain amount of conditioning or extraordinary circumstances. Historically, war is an extraordinary circumstance. This is not to say that war is a rarity, per se, but that it is not the default lifestyle of humanity. It is only now, with this "new war" that we are facing a perpetual state of war with no predictable end state. For this to be so, the enemy must be ever-present, inhuman in his desire for our destruction, and incapable of reasoning or negotiation. Again, Orwell provides the perfect description in Chapter 3 of 1984:
The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.
Paradoxically, in 1984, the enemy abruptly is changed, and the former enemy suddenly becomes an ally. All that matters is that Authority designates an enemy to be loathed and feared. If a nation or group is designated as the enemy, past agreements, alliances, or treatys with that nation cannot have been valid. This seems ridiculous on the surface, and yet, if an individual is designated as a suspected terrorist, he or she can be detained, questioned (and let us not even go into the matter of interrogation techniques), denied legal counsel, and imprisoned indefinitely. How great a leap is it from the complete disregard for individual rights and legal due process to the arbitrary labeling of any nation or group as the enemy, regardless of past alliance, cooperation, or congruity of outlook? And, conversely, how simple is it to designate a nation or group as our ally, in spite of their spawning terrorists, tolerating militant fundamentalism or even allowing the transfer of funding and weapons to those who would harm us? There must be a more objective measure than the word of a president or the tired repetition of a demonstrably bankrupt political ideology.
Where does this lead us? The prediction is beyond bleak, at least according to Orwell. We are a long way from the society of joyless automatons who bend all effort to war, and who do so merely to waste surplus productivity that they may remain sufficiently deprived to ever develop any measure of comfort, and breathing space in which independent thought might evolve. But there is a disquieting echo in current events of Orwell's concern. He was predicting the ultimate stalemate of the Cold War, which we thankfully have avoided, but "war without end" is certainly possible. In fact, the "War on Terror" would have been far more to the liking of the rulers of Oceania. In this scenario, Big Brother can designate an ever-shifting enemy. If the enemy happens to be defeated in one arena, a successor can readily be found. The system is completely flexible and scalable, bending to the fear-producing needs of Authority, convincing the populace to surrender freedoms in the hope of security. It is the perfect Orwellian enemy, and taken to its extreme, it leads to the perfect Orwellian society:
There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always -- do not forget this, Winston -- always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever. (Chapter 3, 1984)
Proceeding even a short distance down that path should be, for any American who loves freedom, intolerable.
-PMÓS
posted by Patrick O'Shea | 9:49 AM
4 Comments:
Dia dhuit, a Phádraig. Bhí mé ag an "Weekend in Winona" le Gaeltacht Minnesota an bhlían seo caite. Ba (bhí?) an ghríangraphadóir ciún mé. :-)
You make a powerful argument about 1984. It's scary how things that used to be terrifying to Americans ("1984" back in the 1930's) are now seen as "normal" and nothing to get excited about. It's "the way things are". *shudder*
It's a lot like the book "What's the Matter with Kansas." It's scary to think we humans can be so easily duped by greed and the promise or perception of power.
Go raibh míle maith agat!
Fear for its own sake cannot create a just or sustainable society. One cannot be unconcerned about security, but fear, in this case, is used as an anaesthetic.
-PMÓS
If fear cannot create a sustainable society, what's next for the Administration? A new enemy every year? Won't the populace tire of that? Or will they believe whatever the media spouts?
It seems that with media outlets becoming more and more concentrated in ownership, there's little variety in the information that Americans experience. (I say 'experience' because few people seek out independent news sources actively; Americans tend to get news somewhat passively. About the only decision is whether to go liberal [NYTimes] or conservative [Fox], or which station has the cutest weather person.)
It's eye-opening to me to observe the reporting on the same national/international events on the local 10 o'clock news compared with, say, the BBC News on PBS. Even though the BBC is a (virtual?) monopoly in the UK, it has a far more thorough and balanced reporting than the 30-second snippets on American news programs. Maybe it's the fact that for-profit American news organizations are cutting reporting to the bone to keep profits up.
(It was disturbing to find out Monday of the news of McClatchy buying Knight-Ridder, which would mean a single owner for both Twin Cities' newspapers, although McClatchy has since announced that it will sell the Pioneer Press.)
I learned more about what really happened during Katrina from the BBC than I did from US-sourced news reports.
So are the US media co-conspirators with the Administration? Do we hear only what they want us to hear? How hard is it for the common Joe and Mary to get balanced news? Are we kept so busy that we "choose" only what's most convenient? Are we the metaphorical frog in the slowly heating water? This is exactly why "1984" seems relatively uneventful now, but seemed draconian in the 1930's--the book was very different from daily life 100 years ago, but things described in the book have crept into our lives, little by little, unnoticed by most.
Aside: Good thing this is a blog comment and not a paper in one of your classes; I fear my lack of organization of thought would have provided you with material for a new blog entry critical of students' lack of focus. :-)
Don't usually quote myself, but:
>> Are we kept so busy that we "choose" only what's most convenient?
Ironically someone said much the same thing as he quoted Carl Sandburg poetry in this article. The article also ties in well with your blog entry on fear.
Post a Comment
<< Home