Orwell at the RNC
The last night of the Republican Convention was probably the most vivid exercise of George Orwell's theory of Doublethink, in the modern political era. As Orwell wrote,
If one is to rule, and to continue ruling, one must be able to dislocate the sense of reality. For the secret of rulership is to combine a belief in one's own infallibility with the power to learn from past mistakes.
As the hall monitors from The War Party handed out the Peace signs, the lines from Orwell's 1984
sprang to mind.His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully-constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them; to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it.
In 2004 when Karl Rove was able to get George Bush reelected, a certain cynicism descended over the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. The belief that Americans could be sold any lie if was packaged correctly. "War is Peace". "Surveillance is Freedom".
And now the ultimate Orwellian con job, "Keep our party in power so we can change Washington." I know that John McCain and his handlers must think the American people just fell off the turnip truck to buy lines like this.
"I promise you, if you're sick and tired of the way Washington operates, you only need to be patient for a couple of more months," he told supporters in O'Fallon, Mo., on Sunday. "Change is coming! Change is coming! Change is coming!"
For a man who voted with Bush 95% of the time and can only point to one election reform bill passed 7 years ago as a reform credential, this "maverick" label is a total myth. The next nine weeks will be a case study at Schools of Communication like mine in the Republican Party use of Orwell's principles of mass persuasion.
Walter Lippmann wrote in 1922 that elites can "manufacture consent" because the average American is like a "deaf spectator in the back row" at a sporting event: "He does not know what is happening, why it is happening, what ought to happen."
Is the average American still so easily manipulated?
Advertisement
September 5, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you understand people very well, shooter242.
Anyone savvy enough to recognize condescension is bound to ascribe its effects to his gullible neighbor (or brother-in-law) too dumb to know when the object of the condescension's being treated as a rube.
And no one -- least of all that sophisticate -- has a lot of sympathy for a bumpkin.
September 5, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
shooter,
I think I can say with confidence that those "average" Americans who believe what they hear from Hannity and Limbaugh, from Anne Coulter, from the Swift Boat gang, Hugh Hewitt, Bill O'Reilly, Ollie North to name a few, are the most easily manipulated people on the planet.
September 6, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
September 5, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sure was doublethink. I kept looking closely at the taut faces of Romney, Giuliani, Ridge, as the hatefest crescendoed, wondering if their ears were ringing, or if they had completely succumbed to their love for Big Brother. The only thing that heartens me today, besides the persistent strong showing of Obama in the polls, is that more and more, the media pundits seem to be coming out of their daze and reporting the news.
September 5, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taplin: The belief that Americans could be sold any lie if was packaged correctly. "War is Peace". "Surveillance is Freedom".
I would think it unwise for the Obama campaign to pursue this line of attack too vigorously. Their candidate has promised to launch an attack in a sovereign country if the conditions are right. He also has his own surveillance skeleton in his closet, viz. his FISA vote.
Doublethink and doublespeak goes double when practiced by an authoritarian running under the Democratic banner.
September 5, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Country First
September 5, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post.
How come some people say MC Cain voted with Bush 95% and the Obama campaign says 90%?
September 5, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It depends on what time period you are referring to.
If you are referring to 2007 it was 90%.
If you are referring to 2008 to date t was 95%. Most of the time the Obama campaign refers to the legislative year 2007 for the 90% figure which is more representative.
September 5, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
In his novels, essays, and collected journalism, George Orwell does indeed consistently explain the principle mechanisms of Party propaganda -- which include all the standard manifestations of Newspeak: i.e., Doublethink, Duckspeaking, Thoughtcrime, Crimestop, et cetera. Alfred Korzybski did much the same in his masterpiece on general semantics: Science and Sanity (1933). Republican campaign strategists know all about Orwell's critique and Korzybski's principles; they just don't have any use for the ethics of truth-telling that accompany them.
Unfortunately for declining and looted crypto-fascist America, the Republicans pre-emptively innoculate themselves against exposure by stridently laying down generic outraged claims of "unfair persecution" by nameless "pointy headed intellectuals" who dare to "look down their noses" at exploited Americans who prefer not to think much about how the Republican Party manipulates them into voting against their own economic interests.
America really does consist of two contradictory mental landscapes. One wants to learn and grow and move into a scientific, secular future. The other wants only to have the forces of AUTHORITY issue them their daily marching orders, extended working schedules and declinig ration allotments. The upcoming election in November will not change things very much; but if the Democrats get lucky, the Republicans will so overindulge in their thuggish Orwellian techniques that the sheer ugliness of them will repel the Proles into voting Democratic even while not understanding why they should.
September 5, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
... and one more thing ...
As Republicans practice Orwellian spin: "explaining" the truth to people constitutes "looking down your nose" at them. The very act of explaining, you see, implies that someone needs something explained to them and that someone else has the education and capacity to do the teaching. The someone who needs the explaining doesn't like to admit this and so resents it. Hence, the standard Republican attacks on education, teachers, and even learning itself. Republicans naturally and cynically insist on the finest educations for themselves and their own offspring, naturally. They just don't want their intended victims to enjoy any those same intellectual advantages. Not Doublethink in this instance. Just cynical, top-down class warfare.
Democrats need to learn how to teach the truth to their exploited fellow-citizens without making the teaching process too obvious. The sub-educated victims most in need of understanding normally do not want the trouble that understanding requires. They really only wish to know whom they should obey. The trick for the Democrats consists in just showing the Republicans in all their frightening ugliness (i.e., Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay) -- with a few key sound-bytes accompanying the lurid pictures so that the proper associations sink in below the level of conscious thought.
A television picture of John McCain trying vainly to remember how many houses his rich mistress -- I mean wife -- owns will do nicely. A picture of Sarah Palin carelessly tossing her Down Syndrome baby from one of her relatives to another while she snarls her pit-bull-with-lipstick routine -- that will do nicely, too. Stuff like that. Democrats don't have to explain this sort of truth about Republicans. They just have to show it. The ugly lesson will teach itself with no teacher to blame for the teaching.
September 5, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, JT (and MM).
I've said this before: George Orwell wrote 1984 as a cautionary tale. But the Republicans read it as a how-to book.
I read 1984 in my (public) high school English class. I wonder whether younger folks (I'm 46) even know that such a book exists.
-- ARG
September 5, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans also read 'The Prince' by Nicolo Machiavelli as a DIY guide, as well...Sarah Palin's career is clearly guided by Machiavelli.
'Men are so simple and yield so readily to the desires of the moment that he who will trick will always find another who will suffer to be tricked.'
September 5, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you look at the psychology of selling, the Republicans were clearing using the technique of the presumptive close. That may work for the base, if, in their mind, the status quo is Roe V Wade and no prayer in schools and no Ayatollahs in the Cabinet. So maybe THAT is the change that they are expecting McCain to deliver. After all, he brought in a pentecostal Christian VP who is big on Jews for Jesus.
Of course, when you and I see the speech, we feel cognitive dissonance, because the change we seek is an end to: military adventurism, concealed futures markets, domestic spying, state secrets, no accountability, fear, lies, and misrepresentation. We think change means all of that goes away. But maybe that is NOT the idea of Change that McCain is thinking of. Maybe he is thinking of the Wrecking Crew dismantling the government and selling off its assets. Maybe the Pentagon will be entirely outsourced to Blackwater.
September 5, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or "change" means "more of the same."
September 5, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think they intend more of the same when it comes to fear mongering and deception towards the public, military aggression as a substitute to diplomacy, and ideological indifference to science, research, and scholarship, but on other fronts, such as dismantling the government, elevating fascists to the Supreme Court, and installing a Theocracy in the government, I suspect they intend real change.
September 5, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, exactly. What the Republicans mean when they say "change" is that they are going to CONTINUE and COMPLETE the change they've already begun -- from a democracy to a fascist state.
-- ARG
September 6, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only good Republican is one who isn't in office.
I think that will be my next demonstration sign.
September 5, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a pity for us all that so many people direct this fiery indignation at those who point out the manipulation, rather than those actually doing the manipulation.
September 6, 2008 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain says "I will always put my Country first"
Palin and her Husband are aligned with an Alaskan Secession Movement
McCain chooses Palin.
The Republican party in a nutshell.
September 6, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have called this phenomeon "believing things that aren't true." The most recent of a long list of GOP-generated canards is being peddled as we speak:
"Gov. Palin is TOO a qualified VP candidate, and qualified to be President, too, if it comes to that!"
Think about that. Doesn't this finally jump the shark?
I can barely strain my imagination to imagine such a thing, and yet this potential scenario is what we are being asked to accept: After two hundred and thirty-odd years, THIS is to be the first female to be placed in close constitutional proximity to the Oval Office? I literally did not know who she was 2 weeks ago, and we are now being asked to seriously consider such a possibility?
It's nearly too much. I can't process it, Thank God. I don't think this was one of the signs of the End-times in Revelations, but surely it WOULD have been, if the guy who wrote Revelations could have imagined a world where we're on the verge of committing such an outrage.
September 6, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The RNC convention was stunning in its doublespeak.
I fear the American electorate likes it that way, I don't have much faith in them considering the past couple of presidential elections.
McCain = Bipartisanship, but no mention of Bush 41 and Bill Clinton banding together to help tsunami victims.
Bush = Uniter not a Divider
McCain hates war but the entire theme of the RNC Convention was war.
They highlighted the Iraq war and 9/11 - but not one mention of the tsunami - I mean didn't over 250,000 people die?
That's not a catastrophe worth mentioning, if catastrophe was the driving message?
September 6, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonathan and I are two minds with a single thought! Let's start numbering each of the elements of the Republican Propaganda campaign for what it is. I started a reader's post today (9/7) with items #1, 2, and 3. How can we turn this list into a recurring thread on the Propaganda theme? Jonathan's items should be added to this Propaganda list until it becomes the doublethink or Propaganda list!
Wake up America, it's 1984 (or is it 1938?) all over again...
September 7, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I consider myself moderately conservative on most issues but never beyond the possibility of changing my views in light of convincing argument. I think most in the broad center think in similar terms. But here, I see little reason or actual discussion. What a disappointment! I'd have thought to find it among liberals.
Instead, I see ad hominem attacks on Bush et al and republicans and conservatives in general. That won't win over anyone in the middle, or those somewhat right or left of center.
When I wasn't looking, did discussion of merit devolve into repetitious assertion of opinion to create fact. Did it happen while I was eating my Cherios? Ditto for repetition of poorly supported statements, talking points or conspiracy theories cut & pasted from elsewhere in whole or in part. The Orwell quotes and passages were especially impressive.
On the other hand, if it is not the aim to convert unconverted or leaning Hobbits in the center, I suppose one can continue to WOW others of like mind with literary reference, novel turns of phrase and impressive and creative use of the occasional adjective. What a worthwhile goal!
I'll watch for actual facts in actual discussions devoid of vitriol and half truth. Maybe something will turn up.
Cheers!
September 7, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"People don't like it when they are condescended to in this way."....Palin condescends with her snarly "community organizer" reference. It's fine when rightwingers mock the left but not fine when the rightwing is called out for supporting the unqualified and less than competent (i.e. Palin). But even more condescending is the way in which the GOP always LIES to the American public..."I am not a crook"..."Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction"...."Saddam Hussein worked WITH Bin Ladin"....."I said 'thanks but no thanks' to the 'Bridge to Nowhere'". And isn't it just a little condescending to Americans for "Weathervane" McCain to flip his positions 180 degrees in his Faustian selling of his soul to the Devil (i.e.-ultra right wing)? And we can't even talk about "Senator Ethical's" most bipartisan act of all- participation in the "Keating Five". Yes- we want change- change from all the LYING that the Republicans have done and continue to do. Frankly, it is unforgivably condescending to the American people for anyone to claim that this self-styled pit bull hockey mom is qualified to be President.
September 9, 2008 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink