As Orwell knew, taking over the culture starts with corrupting the language.
By Victor
Davis Hanson
Imagine if,
during the campaign of 2008, someone had written the following: “If Barack
Obama is elected president, then each year from now on the federal budget will
be a trillion dollars in the red. He will pile up in two terms more debt than
all previous presidents combined. Interest rates will stay at near zero; 7.6
percent unemployment will be proof of progress in creating jobs. Record use of
food stamps, unemployment, and disability insurance will be hallmarks of
recovery. The government will take over health care, and the costs will
skyrocket. During Obama’s second term, ammunition will vanish from America’s
store shelves in panic buying. Gay marriage will become uncontroversial. Women
will be eligible for infantry combat. The only question about amnesty for
illegal aliens will be when, not if, it is enacted. States will begin
legalizing marijuana.” Obviously, such a conspiracist would have been dismissed
as an unhinged nut.
You may object that Obama
himself has hardly been responsible for all these radical
transformations. True, but he helped to create, in brilliant fashion, a
“hope and change,” quasi-revolutionary climate — the political cover, if
you will, for the media, the universities, federal judges, state
legislatures, and Congress to reinvent American popular culture and
tradition in a manner rarely if ever seen in the past.
How, then, did the Obama team do that?
LANGUAGE
First were the necessary changes in language. In the Obama age, as in Orwell’s 1984, the natural meanings of words had to change. See the third book of Thucydides’ history for the details.
Running
up serial trillion-dollar deficits was not profligacy, but rather
making “investments” for “the children.” Irresponsible borrowing became
“stimulus.” Indeed, “trillion” — not a frequently used part of most
people’s vocabulary before 2009 — suddenly replaced “billion” as a
familiar fiscal numerical adjective. A takeover of health care that
would spike premiums and ration services, devices, and procedures was
aptly named the “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”
“Assault
weapons” superseded “semi-automatic rifles,” even as “semi-automatic”
and “automatic” were no longer distinct adjectives. The obvious purpose
of rapid-fire weapons was to kill innocent children, not to protect your
household from intruders, to shoot fast-moving game, or to practice a
sport at a shooting range, much less to remind the government, in Second
Amendment fashion, that the populace was autonomous and vigilant.
“Illegal
alien” disappeared in favor of the inexact “undocumented immigrant” or
“undocumented worker,” even though most illegal aliens never had proper
documents of any sort, and sizable minorities of them were not working.
The key was to convince the American public that millions of people had
inadvertently wandered over the poorly demarcated border, all in search
of work. They sort of lost track of both their bearings and their legal
documents in the process. “Comprehensive immigration reform” superseded
“amnesty,” as if the new proposed reforms focused mostly on hordes of
brilliant Ph.D.s from the Czech Republic, queuing up to acquire legal
authorization to work in Silicon Valley — rather than some 11 million or
so Latin Americans who entered the country unlawfully, mostly without
capital, English, or a high-school diploma.
“Homosexual” became a
derogatory substitute for the proper term “gay,” and male homosexuality
was redefined almost as an asexual act — a fun or “gay” Platonic
experience rather than one connected with any particular sort of sexual
congress.
“Global warming” begat “climate change,” which
eventually begat “climate chaos,” once tornadoes, hurricanes, and
tsunamis had to be enlisted in the good fight — given that there was no
proof of rising temperatures in the last decade, and even the specter of
melting polar ice caps, rising seas, and drowning polar bears had not
proved enough to scare the public into banning coal and enacting
cap-and-trade.
OBFUSCATION
After the language changed, obfuscation followed, designed to wear down the opposition through a bewildering array of incomprehensible regulations that led to an attention overload and confusion of theories with facts. Nancy Pelosi astutely gauged the pulse of an exhausted public that wanted the drawn-out debate over Obamacare just to be done with and go away, when she promised that we could find out what was in the vast, 2,400-page Obamacare bill as soon as it was made law. Likewise, the new “comprehensive immigration reform” bill is reputed to be over 1,500 pages. As many will read that monstrosity as have read the Obamacare document. The “hockey stick” and tree rings from “11,000 years ago” proved global warming in a way that no one could quite fathom until private correspondence was leaked to the public giving the proper academic context. No one quite knows what the advent of gay marriage will entail, once the idea of marriage as the exclusivity of a single man, joined with a single woman, to promote procreation has ended. But the theoretical possibilities of bold new unions, both sincere and cynical, are now as endless as they are taboo to discuss publicly.
SILENCING DEBATE
After language changed and facts were buried beneath bureaucratic
avalanches, debate became almost un-American, either silenced or
relegated to caricature. Legitimate worries about rising
health-insurance premiums and restricted care translated into being
against the “young” and “vulnerable.” Object to infringements on the
Second Amendment, and Vice President Joe Biden (who, as so often in the
mudslinging, was wheeled out to demonize opponents) will charge that one
must suffer from some near-sexual fetish to want an “assault weapon” in
one’s hands, a thrill like “driving a Ferrari.” (Most Americans,
apparently unlike Biden, have no idea of what driving a Ferrari is
like.) Biden instead advised the illegal act of blasting a shotgun into
the air to scare off intruders. Concerns about the dangers of a
nationwide gun registry were tantamount to membership in “the
black-helicopter crowd.”
In the debate over illegal immigration, one paradigm was the DREAM
Act. The new gospel was that 11 million illegal aliens were denied their
futures as neurosurgeons and aeronautical engineers simply by lack of
access to the appropriate university. No one was allowed to talk of an
“un-DREAM Act” — to point out that for all the hard-working, crime-free,
and long-residing illegal aliens, there must be at least some who were
on public assistance, had criminal records, and or entered the country
only recently in hopes of receiving amnesty. All illegal aliens were
desirable newcomers; none were undesirable. Breaking the law, and
cutting in front of others who did not, was noble, whereas drawing
attention to those who did was ignoble. The illegal-alien debate was
framed as involving those who wished to allow José López to finish his
M.D., against racists who could not tolerate the idea that people from
south of the border were outpacing them to the pinnacles of American
success.
To ponder whether females could meet, without
adjustments, the brutal physical requirements of Special Forces training
was tantamount to being anti-woman. There could be no real debate over
gay marriage. America was instead to have happily evolved from the
Neanderthal 1990s, when homophobia had made such moral improvement
impossible. That earlier public had been obsessed with illegitimate and
improper concerns that particular types of sexual congress might lead to
new worries over the spread of HIV or the recent transformation of
hepatitis into a common sexually transmitted disease.
Anecdote,
the age-old enemy of logic, now reigns supreme and trumps induction —
as if the exception is always proof of the rule, as if the public will
always forsake reason for emotion. Forget the statistics on Obamacare —
my Uncle Joe was denied coverage after he lost his job. The economy is
getting better, because my friend Will was offered a job today. Why
enforce federal immigration law, when there is no nicer window washer
than Herlinda, who comes to my house every Tuesday? It hailed in June
here; therefore the world must be experiencing climate change. I would
never shoot an AR-15, and therefore there is no need for anyone else to.
My nephew is gay, and he’s a great guy; therefore gay marriage is great
too. Sally yesterday lifted heavier weights than did three guys in the
gym: Presto, female soldiers can do anything that male soldiers can.
DEMONIZATION
Finally, to
make the once controversial the new convention, demonization and character
assassination were essential. Opposing trillion-dollar deficits meant that you
were a fat cat who didn’t build your own business and didn’t know when you had
made enough money, a suspect 1-percenter who did not pay “your fair share,” and
who junketed to Las Vegas or lopped off patients’ limbs for profit. To oppose
Obamacare meant that you wished the vulnerable like Sandra Fluke to have to
choose between eating and having access to exorbitantly priced condoms. Or
perhaps you wished those with lymphoma to go without medical treatment.
Wariness
about Congress’s rush-to-judgment haste to infringe on the Second
Amendment was proof that you were callous toward the parents of the
Sandy Hook victims, with veritable blood on your hands in a repeat of
the Gabby Giffords tragedy. Gun owners were now to be divided into the
good Joe Biden and John Kerry types who, outfitted in proper L. L. Bean
attire, each year ceremoniously fired off a few rounds at skeet from
their Italian shotguns — and the overweight and sunburned clingers who,
in places like southern Illinois and rural Pennsylvania, slaughtered
deer for the hell of it with sinister black machine guns, when they
weren’t indulging in militia play-acting in bandoliers and camouflage.
America may have had the most liberal immigration policy, both legal
and illegal, in the world, which inordinately favored illegal entrants
from Latin America. But nonetheless the desire to enforce federal
legislation was tantamount to being a “nativist” and “racist” who, as
“an old angry white guy” could not “get over” “the new demography” —
incorrect behavior by “enemies” that warranted a vow from the president
to “punish” them. Those who opposed gay marriage but were willing to
accept civil unions were “homophobes” who had set out to demonize the
children and grandchildren of us all.
* * *
What are we to make of this creeping brave new world?
The
scary part, at least for now, is not the ends so much as the means used
to achieve them. The reason that Orwell, a man of the Left, made his
farm animals and lost urban souls the victims of tyrannical left-wing
megalomaniacs was his sense that the far Left, much more so than the far
Right, could insidiously distort reality and destroy free expression.
The right-wing dictator is typically an identifiable thug who
transparently stifles free speech to benefit a small coterie of
aristocrats and insiders. In contrast, the left-wing dictator is always a
misunderstood reformer who was forced by counterrevolutionaries to
break a few eggs in order to make the collective omelet. Think of the
reaction to drones, renditions, and Guantanamo under Bush compared to
that under Obama. After all, there are no Pinochet T-shirts on campus to
rival the romantic depiction of Che — a psychopath in service to a
Cuban autocracy that came to power killing far more than did Pinochet in
Chile. We are long conditioned to airbrush the word “socialism” out of
Hitler’s “National Socialism” and must only with care remark that the
collectivist Mao was the greatest mass murderer in the history of
civilization. Our popular culture is currently engaged in canonizing
bombers and murderers from the 1960s campuses, but not the equally
violent anti-abortion activists who likewise sometimes took the law into
their own hands in service to their own purported sense of the greater
good.
We are in revolutionary times, but of the French rather than
the American sort. The popular effort is not to preserve liberty from
an all-encompassing government, but rather to have an all-powerful state
impose an egalitarianism of result — and increasingly by any means
necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment