George Bush's America: 1984 or Brave New World?
Timothy Sexton
February 13, 2007
Critical thought informed by analysis of historical precedent presents the greatest threat to any endeavor aimed at the enforcement of an authoritarian government. The very fact that so many Americans have warned against the excesses of the Bush administration for so long is proof that a situation analogous to that presented in George Orwell's 1984 need not be considered a natural state of affairs. The fact that America has moved considerably closer to resembling that situation presented in George Orwell's iconic dystopian novel is a testament to the power of the politics of fear, distraction and confusion that has attained the status of high art as practiced by the Bush administration.
George W. Bush's first eight months in power remains a blur to most people due not to the stark comparison of his administration after the attacks of 9/11, but rather because until that fateful day Bush had no vision upon which to build a Presidential legacy. The day those hijacked planes hit their targets-or crashed for whatever reason into a field in Pennsylvania-Bush was finally presented with an opportunity to shape his Presidency. In essence, that legacy will be boiled down to four simple words: the war on terror. Every action, every decision, and every political policy since September 11, 2001 has been made in response to the terrorist attacks. From the very beginning it seems that Bush-or rather whoever that one person working in the Bush administration is that actually reads novels-tore a page right out of Orwell's book. The country of Oceania in 1984 is involved in a perpetual war. The enemy isn't important; what is important is the continued belief in the existence of a dangerous opponent who threatens their security and way of life. George W. Bush isn't the first President to create a nebulous enemy designed to instill that fear in Americans. He is the first, however, to create an enemy without a country or even an army. The fight against "communism" really meant the Soviet Union; the war on terror is clearly meant to embrace Islamic terrorists specifically, but is just vague enough to have no real parameters. What the architects of this war that was declared against an abstract noun learned from the Cold War-apparently the only thing they learned from the Cold War-is that choosing an enemy with a solid, identifiable geographic home is too limiting. The war on terror is open-ended enough to never be won or lost; it is perpetual.
The effect of creating an enemy which can never be defeated is to instill a sense of fear in the populace. Security has been the byword for the Bush administration since 9/11. The immediate sense of fear engendered following those terrorist attacks has been consistently and thoroughly manipulated ever since to create a country that often seems to be verging on paranoia; paranoia about a threat that killed less than one-seventh the number of Americans who die from the flu each and every year. When fear for your life and your way of life is on the line, history shows that people everywhere are more willing to trade some of their civil rights in exchange for security. Big Brother is not only tolerated by the residents of Oceania, he is loved and embraced. Why? Because soldiers stand over them with guns threatening to kill them if they don't show loyalty and love? Not at all. The love is genuine in most cases; at least as genuine as it can be when all knowledge to the contrary is controlled and squelched. Love for Big Brother is real because Big Brother provides at least the illusion of security from the illusion of threat. The situation in America today is remarkably similar.
Millions of Americans either watched passively or simply ignored their lawmakers as they legally reduced their civil rights in a piece of legislation known as the Patriot Act. That name itself is a perfect example of just how similar George W. Bush's administration is to that of Big Brother's. One of the most infamous aspects of life under Big Brother is the method by which language is paradoxically and even oxymoronically used. By referring to the legislation as the Patriot Act, Bush accomplished two things: he made it seem a necessarily patriotic set of laws and he forced those who might consider voting against it into a position where they would have to forever be tainted as the candidate who voted against legislation so good for America the word "patriot" was even used to describe it. Naming a piece of legislation that effectively reduces many of the rights defined in the Bill of Rights the "Patriot Act" is really no more egregious than slogans found in 1984 like "War is Peace" or calling the government agency that disseminates propaganda the "Ministry of Truth".
Supporters of Pres. Bush and his policies often counter that at this point in the war on terror security does hold a higher priority than the loss of certain minor civil liberties. After all, they point out, the security measures taken by Bush and approved by his rubber stamp Congress have been aimed at suspicions over terrorism; the average American has no reason to fear that his rights are being violated. (One might well wonder if these people would so eagerly accept restriction of rights if those singled out for profiling resembled the perpetrators of the second worst act of terrorism in US history, those GI-looking boys who blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City rather than bearded Muslim-looking men).
This is a valid criticism of the idea of comparing Bush to the world of 1984. The only problem is that the argument that Bush isn't Big Brother, watching over everyone's every move, simply moves the location of the comparison to another novel. Those who willingly accept the violations of the rights of others because it doesn't affect them in no way removes the overly authoritarian taint of Bush's America, it merely shifts the comparison to those residents in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World who are busy ignoring the realities of the system because they are eagerly conforming to the politics of distraction and the pursuit of leisure. Those Americans who voted George W. Bush back into office bear as much blame as Bush himself-not to mention those members of the Supreme Court who brashly ignored the will of the majority of Americans by appointing Bush President in the first place-for the offenses and crimes he has since committed. In this case, those who would ignore the reality that America under Bush resembles Orwell's Oceania are only placing themselves in the position of denying that America is currently closer to Huxley's view of the future than Orwell's.
For those who would continue to deny that Bush practices Orwellian manipulation of the truth, the most glaring example of the level that Bush will sink to occurred toward the end of 2006. For over three years everyone in the Bush administration has used the phrase "stay the course" to describe the White House "plan" for Iraq. In October of 2006 Pres. Bush actually appeared to believe his own words when he told a reporter that "We've never been stay the course". Anyone hearing their President make that remark can be forgiven for checking the calendar to make sure this isn't really 1984.
George W. Bush's first eight months in power remains a blur to most people due not to the stark comparison of his administration after the attacks of 9/11, but rather because until that fateful day Bush had no vision upon which to build a Presidential legacy. The day those hijacked planes hit their targets-or crashed for whatever reason into a field in Pennsylvania-Bush was finally presented with an opportunity to shape his Presidency. In essence, that legacy will be boiled down to four simple words: the war on terror. Every action, every decision, and every political policy since September 11, 2001 has been made in response to the terrorist attacks. From the very beginning it seems that Bush-or rather whoever that one person working in the Bush administration is that actually reads novels-tore a page right out of Orwell's book. The country of Oceania in 1984 is involved in a perpetual war. The enemy isn't important; what is important is the continued belief in the existence of a dangerous opponent who threatens their security and way of life. George W. Bush isn't the first President to create a nebulous enemy designed to instill that fear in Americans. He is the first, however, to create an enemy without a country or even an army. The fight against "communism" really meant the Soviet Union; the war on terror is clearly meant to embrace Islamic terrorists specifically, but is just vague enough to have no real parameters. What the architects of this war that was declared against an abstract noun learned from the Cold War-apparently the only thing they learned from the Cold War-is that choosing an enemy with a solid, identifiable geographic home is too limiting. The war on terror is open-ended enough to never be won or lost; it is perpetual.
The effect of creating an enemy which can never be defeated is to instill a sense of fear in the populace. Security has been the byword for the Bush administration since 9/11. The immediate sense of fear engendered following those terrorist attacks has been consistently and thoroughly manipulated ever since to create a country that often seems to be verging on paranoia; paranoia about a threat that killed less than one-seventh the number of Americans who die from the flu each and every year. When fear for your life and your way of life is on the line, history shows that people everywhere are more willing to trade some of their civil rights in exchange for security. Big Brother is not only tolerated by the residents of Oceania, he is loved and embraced. Why? Because soldiers stand over them with guns threatening to kill them if they don't show loyalty and love? Not at all. The love is genuine in most cases; at least as genuine as it can be when all knowledge to the contrary is controlled and squelched. Love for Big Brother is real because Big Brother provides at least the illusion of security from the illusion of threat. The situation in America today is remarkably similar.
Millions of Americans either watched passively or simply ignored their lawmakers as they legally reduced their civil rights in a piece of legislation known as the Patriot Act. That name itself is a perfect example of just how similar George W. Bush's administration is to that of Big Brother's. One of the most infamous aspects of life under Big Brother is the method by which language is paradoxically and even oxymoronically used. By referring to the legislation as the Patriot Act, Bush accomplished two things: he made it seem a necessarily patriotic set of laws and he forced those who might consider voting against it into a position where they would have to forever be tainted as the candidate who voted against legislation so good for America the word "patriot" was even used to describe it. Naming a piece of legislation that effectively reduces many of the rights defined in the Bill of Rights the "Patriot Act" is really no more egregious than slogans found in 1984 like "War is Peace" or calling the government agency that disseminates propaganda the "Ministry of Truth".
Supporters of Pres. Bush and his policies often counter that at this point in the war on terror security does hold a higher priority than the loss of certain minor civil liberties. After all, they point out, the security measures taken by Bush and approved by his rubber stamp Congress have been aimed at suspicions over terrorism; the average American has no reason to fear that his rights are being violated. (One might well wonder if these people would so eagerly accept restriction of rights if those singled out for profiling resembled the perpetrators of the second worst act of terrorism in US history, those GI-looking boys who blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City rather than bearded Muslim-looking men).
This is a valid criticism of the idea of comparing Bush to the world of 1984. The only problem is that the argument that Bush isn't Big Brother, watching over everyone's every move, simply moves the location of the comparison to another novel. Those who willingly accept the violations of the rights of others because it doesn't affect them in no way removes the overly authoritarian taint of Bush's America, it merely shifts the comparison to those residents in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World who are busy ignoring the realities of the system because they are eagerly conforming to the politics of distraction and the pursuit of leisure. Those Americans who voted George W. Bush back into office bear as much blame as Bush himself-not to mention those members of the Supreme Court who brashly ignored the will of the majority of Americans by appointing Bush President in the first place-for the offenses and crimes he has since committed. In this case, those who would ignore the reality that America under Bush resembles Orwell's Oceania are only placing themselves in the position of denying that America is currently closer to Huxley's view of the future than Orwell's.
For those who would continue to deny that Bush practices Orwellian manipulation of the truth, the most glaring example of the level that Bush will sink to occurred toward the end of 2006. For over three years everyone in the Bush administration has used the phrase "stay the course" to describe the White House "plan" for Iraq. In October of 2006 Pres. Bush actually appeared to believe his own words when he told a reporter that "We've never been stay the course". Anyone hearing their President make that remark can be forgiven for checking the calendar to make sure this isn't really 1984.
Print
Email
